Public Order Bill: equality impact assessment

Question 1

1.  Name and outline of policy proposal, guidance, or operational activity

Accepted Answer

The government has introduced the Public Order Act 2023 to strengthen the powers to police non-violent protests. The measures will enable police to take a more proactive approach to policing highly disruptive protests.

Measures in the Act:

Criminalise locking-on

This measure criminalises the act of locking-on where such an act causes or is capable of causing serious disruption. The lack of a specific lock-on offence means that sentences do not always reflect the harm caused and police are limited in their ability to pre-emptively prevent those they believe may lock-on. This offence allows for consistent and proportionate sentences as well as increased likelihood of conviction when prosecuting offenders in court. This offence carries a maximum penalty of six-months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Criminalise going equipped to lock-on

It is also an offence to go equipped to lock on. This means that a person commits an offence if they have an object with them with the intention that it may be used to commit the locking-on offence. This offence carries a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.

Criminalise causing serious disruption by tunnelling

This measure criminalises the act of tunnelling – which includes creating a tunnel, participating in creating a tunnel and being present in a tunnel – where such an act is causing or capable of causing serious disruption. The maximum penalties for these offences are imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, to a fine or to both. It is a defence if the person had a reasonable excuse for creating, or participating in the creation of, the tunnel or being present in the tunnel. A reasonable excuse may include, for example, legitimate roadworks. The measures also make it an offence to be equipped for tunnelling with the intention that the equipment may be used in connection with the offences mentioned above. A person who commits this offence may be imprisoned for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences, to a fine or to both.

Criminalise obstruction of major transport works

This measure makes it a criminal offence to obstruct or interfere with the construction of major transport works. A major transport work is defined as works authorised by an Act of Parliament or a Development Consent Order. This measure protects important transport infrastructure projects from small but dedicated groups of protesters such as those who have severely disrupted the construction of HS2. This criminal offence carries a maximum penalty of a 6-month custodial sentence and/or an unlimited fine.

Criminalising interference with key national infrastructure

This measure makes it a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure. Interference is defined as any act which prevents or significantly delays the operation of the infrastructure to any extent of its intended purposes. Infrastructure in scope includes all motorways, A and B roads, railways, harbours, airports, newspaper printing presses, downstream oil and gas infrastructure, onshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure and onshore electricity generation infrastructure. This criminal offence carries a maximum penalty of a 12-month custodial sentence and/or an unlimited fine.

Stop and Search powers

This measure introduces 2 new stop-and-search powers for police to target those bringing equipment for use in committing any of the following offences:

locking-on offences
tunnelling offences
obstruction of major transport works
interference with key national infrastructure
obstruction of a highway involving activity which causes or is capable of causing serious disruption
intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance

The first of these is a suspicion-based power, allowing constables to stop and search individuals where they have reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying equipment made or adapted, or intended to be used in connection with any of the above offences. This would be achieved by widening the existing suspicion-based power in section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The second is the introduction of a suspicion-less stop and search power for equipment related to these offences, similar to the existing suspicion-less stop and search powers in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994. The powers allow the police, once an authorisation is in place, to search without suspicion, and seize anything they reasonably suspect be used to commit any of the offences listed above.

Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs)

This measure introduces a new court order for police to use to deter individuals from engaging in repeated criminal behaviour or inciting others to do so at protests. SDPOs granted on conviction would apply when an individual, aged 18 or over, convicted of a protest related offence has on a previous occasion within the relevant time period:

a. committed another protest-related offence for which the individual was convicted, or

b. committed a protest-related breach of an injunction for which the individual was found in contempt of court

Additionally, a court may impose an SDPO on application by police where the court is satisfied that an individual over the age of 18 on at least two occasions in the relevant period has:

a. been convicted of a protest-related offence, or

b. committed a protest-related breach of an injunction for which the individual was found in contempt of court

These offences/occasions must have occurred within the relevant period i.e. up to 5 years before the order is imposed, and when the person was aged 16 or over.

The measure gives the court scope to set out any prohibitions and requirements it deems necessary and proportionate. Breaching the terms of an SDPO without reasonable excuse would constitute a criminal offence, carrying a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 6 months’ imprisonment.

Amending the power for chief police officers to delegate authority to set conditions on an upcoming procession or assembly, or prohibit a trespassory assembly

This measure changes the minimum rank of officer that the Commissioners of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces can delegate the power to impose conditions on a procession or assembly before it begins or to prohibit a trespassory assembly. This measure lowers the minimum rank from Assistant Commissioner to Commander.

Prior to this measure, section 15 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the chief officer of police to delegate their powers to an Assistant Chief Constable, or an Assistant Commissioner for the City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces. If conditions or prohibition are legally challenged, then the officer who imposed the conditions may be required to attend court as a witness to give evidence.

This places a significant burden on senior officers in London where the powers are used the most. Assistant Commissioners in these forces rank higher than Assistant Chief Constables outside of London, and consequently have a number of additional responsibilities. To better spread the burden of setting and accounting for protest conditions, this measure amends section 15, by allowing the Commissioners of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces to delegate their power to a senior officer of the rank of Commander or above, which is the equivalent rank to an Assistant Chief Constable outside of London.

Extending the powers to manage public assemblies to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police

This measure extends the powers to manage public assemblies in Part II of the Public Order Act 1986 to the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police. Currently these powers are only available to Home Office forces.

Power for Secretary of State to bring proceedings in relation to protest activity

This provision provides a power for a Secretary of State to bring civil proceedings, in the public interest, in relation to protest activity that is causing, or likely to cause, serious disruption or a serious adverse effect on public safety. A Secretary of State is able to seek as a remedy an injunction to prevent or stop the activity.

The Secretary of State is able to bring proceedings where they reasonably believe one or more individuals are carrying out, or are likely to carry out, activity related to a protest and the activity in question is causing, or is likely to cause serious disruption to:

a. key infrastructure (for example motorways)

b. access to essential goods or services, or

c. where the activities are having, or are likely to have, a serious adverse effect on public safety

Where an injunction is granted, the measure enables the Court to attach a power of arrest to the injunction upon the application of the Secretary of State. This applies if the prohibited conduct involves the use of violence (or the threat thereof) or poses a significant risk of harm to the public including to the activists themselves.

Introducing abortion clinic safe access zones

This Act introduced Safe Access Zones around abortion clinics, where interference with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services within the 150m zone is an offence.

The police have powers to enforce the Safe Access Zones and an offence carries an unlimited fine.

Protection of journalists

This measure establishes a safeguard for journalists by specifying that the police cannot use their powers solely to prevent a person from reporting on or observing protests. The police can still lawfully exercise their powers, for example of arrest or to maintain public order and public safety, for other legitimate purposes.

Background

Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that the government fully supports. The rights of an individual to express their opinion and protest are a cornerstone of our democratic society. However, there are instances where individuals at a protest behave in a way that causes unjustifiable disruption or distress to others.

In recent years, protest tactics have led to disproportionate amounts of disruption. The current legislation the police use to manage protests (the Public Order Act 1986) was enacted over 3 decades ago. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has called on the government to update this ageing legislation to allow the police to safely and effectively manage the highly disruptive protests we see today. The Home Office has therefore engaged with Police Chiefs and commissioned HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to conduct an inspection into the policing of protests to understand what could be done to ensure that the police can safely manage highly disruptive protests whilst preserving citizens’ freedoms of expression and assembly.

The duty of the police in relation to non-violent protests is to take a balanced and impartial approach towards all those involved in or affected by a protest that is consistent with human rights law and other domestic legislation. This includes ensuring lawful activities and normal community life can continue.

However, such non-violent protests can cause lengthy and serious disruption. Actions by a small minority of protestors in 2021 have shown that current legislation is unsuitable for current methods of protesting and policing and new legislation should follow.

In April and October 2019, Extinction Rebellion brought some of London’s busiest areas to a standstill for several days. The policing operation for the two extended protests cost £37 million, more than twice the annual budget of London’s violent crime taskforce. Police officers were extracted from other duties in neighbourhood policing and schools, and other investigations were closed down.^{[footnote 1]}

Nearly 8,000 Metropolitan Police ofﬁcers were deployed during the October protest, and the Metropolitan Police had to draft in considerable support from other police forces. In April 2019, 1,148 activists were arrested, of whom more than 900 were charged, mostly receiving a conditional discharge. A total of 1,828 protesters were arrested in October 2019. In September 2020, another co-ordinated action by Extinction Rebellion blocked the delivery of newspapers. It drew criticism from across the political spectrum.^{[footnote 2]}

During September and October 2021, Insulate Britain protests on the M25 have delayed emergency vehicles, caused traffic jams for hundreds of people, and caused medical appointments to be missed. More recently, protestors from the group Just Stop Oil have targeted oil terminals and vandalised fuel stations, causing damage to infrastructure, forcing the closure of terminals and vital deliveries of fuel to be delayed, while putting themselves and those around them in danger.

The government brought forward the measures in the Public Order Act to improve the police’s ability to proactively manage the most disruptive protests and provide effective criminal justice outcomes that reflect the seriousness of offences committed by protesters.

Question 2

2.  Summary of the evidence considered in demonstrating due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty

Accepted Answer

In considering the impact public order measures will have on those with protected characteristics, we have considered the following sources:

Home Office Arrest data for notifiable offences^{[footnote 3]}
Ministry of Justice Criminal Justice System (CJS) statistics^{[footnote 4]}
HMICFRS’ 2021 inspection report into how effectively the police deal with protests^{[footnote 5]}
HMICFRS’ 2021 inspection report of the Metropolitan Police Service’s policing of a vigil held in commemoration of Sarah Everard^{[footnote 6]}
HMICFRS 2021 Disproportionate use of police powers -A spotlight on stop and search and the use of force^{[footnote 7]}
Netpol’s report on the policing of Black Lives Matter protests in Britain’s towns and cities in 2020^{[footnote 8]}
You Gov survey on measures in the Policing Bill, February 2021^{[footnote 9]}
Home Office 2018 Abortion Clinic Protest Review^{[footnote 10]}
Home Office 2020 Abortion Clinic Protest further assessment

The quantitative data provided by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice is collected at the offence group level only (i.e., “Public Order Offence”). This includes many public order offences which are unaffected by the measures in the Public Order Act 2023 such as riot, violent disorder, and affray among others. Therefore, their application to the measures in the Act is limited.

HMICFRS’ inspection report into the policing of protests provides analysis of arrest and sentencing data for more specific offences relevant to the measures. However, they do not provide a breakdown by protected characteristics.

Statistical evidence

The Home Office publishes an annual statistical bulletin, Police Powers and Procedures, which includes detailed figures on stop and search. The most recent publications are here and contain data for 2021/2022:

Police powers and procedures: Stop and search and arrests, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Update to stop and search and arrests statistics using 2021 Census estimates - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Ethnic group, national identity, language, and religion: Census 2021 in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)

We have also considered data published by the Ministry of Justice on ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System. The most recent publication is here and contains data for 2020:

Ethnicity and the criminal justice system statistics 2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Question 3

3A.  Consideration of limb 1 of the duty: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act

Accepted Answer

Having considered the evidence, we do not anticipate that issues will arise from the provisions in relation to harassment, victimisation or other unlawful conduct under the Equality Act 2010.

Age

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of age.

Indirect – In relation to stop and search, the current available data does suggest a disparity in the use of the current stop and search powers against young people.

Data from Police Powers and Procedures statistics, for England and Wales overall in 2021/22 show that over half (52%) of all stop and search of people were on those aged 24 or under, with 19% of the total under 18. For section 60 searches only, these numbers increased to 72% for those 24 and under 33% for those under 18.^{[footnote 11]}

This evidence relates to the use of stop and search by police to tackle serious violence and drug offences. There is no evidence to suggest that the use of stop and search powers in relation to the public order offences in scope of this Act have a disproportionate impact on people on the grounds of age, if the use of these powers is fair and based on evidence and intelligence and not based on the protected characteristics of those attending a particular protest. The police are subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty and must, therefore also have due regard to eliminating discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010 in exercising their functions.

Disability

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of disability.

Indirect – Certain protests, depending on the cause they represent, may be attended by people with a particular protected characteristic. A protest in relation to the rights of disabled people could therefore be attended by a large number of people who are disabled. As with the use of all public order powers, we expect the police to apply the measures in this Act in a fair and proportionate manner that carefully considers the individual’s freedoms of religion, expression and assembly under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the protected characteristics of anyone at the protest. The police must consider these rights and freedoms in light of the prohibition from discrimination also contained in the ECHR (Article 14), in addition to the requirement to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

Gender reassignment

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Indirect – Certain protests, depending on the cause they represent, may be attended by a majority of people who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. As with the use of all public order powers, we expect the police to apply the measures in this Act in a fair and proportionate manner that carefully considers individuals’ freedoms of religion, expression and assembly under the Human Rights Act 1998, in light of the prohibition from discrimination also contained in the ECHR (Article 14), as well as the protected characteristics of anyone at the protest whilst complying with the Equality Act 2010.

Marriage and civil partnership

We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly or indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of marriage and civil partnership.

Pregnancy and maternity

We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are either directly or indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity.

Regarding abortion clinic Safe Access Zones, we recognise that women are indirectly discriminated against by anti-abortion protestors for seeking abortion services due to their sex. We also understand that anti-abortion activities may act as a barrier to women who want to access their legal right to health at a very difficult moment in their lives.

Introducing Safe Access Zones could adversely impact women’s ability to take advantage of genuine offers of welcomed help from anti-abortion activists.

Race

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of race.

Indirect – Protests relating to racial equality may consist of a majority of persons from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds. In relation to stop and search, the current available data does suggest a disparity in the use of the current stop and search powers against individuals from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, particularly Black individuals and young men.

In 2021/22, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people were 2.3 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people. For Black people specifically, this was 4.8 times more likely, and Black people were also 10.7 times more likely than White people to be searched under suspicion-less stop and search powers granted under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.^{[footnote 12]} ^{[footnote 13]} It is important to note that stop and search rates however vary by Police Force Area^{[footnote 14]} due to the differences in there are big differences between police force areas in:

numbers of stop and searches
stop and search rates for each ethnic group
ethnic minority and White populations

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) heavily affects the national disparity rate because of its much more diverse population compared to England and Wales and because it accounts for 40% of all stop and search. Disparity rates for the MPS tend to therefore be lower than the national average; in 2021/22 the disparity rate for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people in the MPS was 1.5 and for black people it was 2.9 (and 6.4 for section 60 searches) compared with white people.

Once the MPS are excluded, the England and Wales disparity rates also reduce – with the disparity rate for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people at 1.6 and 3.0 for black people (9.2 for section 60 searches) compared with white people.

In 2021-22, stop and search removed around 14,900 weapons and firearms from our streets and resulted in almost 67,000 arrests.[^15 ] 99 young people lost their lives to knife crime in England and Wales in the year to March 2022, and 31 of those victims were black, 49 of those victims were white. 16 of those victims were another ethnic minority with 3 victims not having their ethnicity recorded.^{[footnote 16]}

However, this evidence relates to the use of stop and search by police to tackle serious violence and drug offences and there is no evidence to suggest that the use of stop and search powers in relation to the public order offences in this Act have a disproportionate impact on people on the grounds of race.

Religion or belief

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of religion or belief.

Indirect – Certain protests, depending on the cause they represent, may be represented by a majority of people who share the same religion or belief. As with the use of all public order powers, we expect the police to apply the measures in this Act in a fair and proportionate manner that carefully considers the individual’s freedoms of religion, expression and assembly alongside the prohibition from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998 under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the protected characteristics of anyone at the protest. The police are required to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

Sex

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of sex.

Indirect – Certain protests, depending on the cause they represent, may be represented by a majority of people who share the same sex. As with the use of all public order powers, we expect the police to apply the measures in this Act in a fair and proportionate manner that carefully considers the individual’s freedoms of religion, expression and assembly alongside the prohibition from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the protected characteristics of anyone at the protest. The police are required to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

Additionally, in relation to stop and search, the current available data suggests a disparity in the use of stop and search powers against males.

Data from Police Powers and Procedures statistics show that, in the year ending March 2022, 66% of stop and searches carried out were on males aged between 15 and 34, whilst this cohort comprises 13% of the overall population^{[footnote 17]}. In contrast, females aged between 15 and 34 accounted for 7% of stop and search, despite accounting for 12% of the overall population.^{[footnote 18]}

This evidence relates to the use of stop and search by police to tackle serious violence and drug offences. There is no evidence to suggest that the use of stop and search powers in relation to the public order offences in scope of this Act will have a disproportionate impact on people on the grounds of sex if the use of these powers is fair and based on evidence and intelligence and not based on the protected characteristics of those attending a particular protest.

In addition, we are aware that women are indirectly discriminated against by anti-abortion protestors for seeking abortion services due to their protected characteristics of sex, pregnancy and maternity. Introducing Safe Access Zones will assist in eliminating this indirect discrimination.

Sexual orientation

Direct – We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any of these measures are directly discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Indirect – Certain protests, depending on the cause they represent, may be represented by a majority of people who share the same sexual orientation. As with the use of all public order powers, we expect the police to apply the measures in this Act in a fair and proportionate manner that carefully considers the individual’s freedoms of religion, expression and assembly alongside the prohibition of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the protected characteristics of anyone at the protest. The police are required to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

Question 4

3B.  Consideration of limb 2: Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it

Accepted Answer

Age

We have not identified ways in which we could advance equality of opportunity on the grounds of age.

Disability

We have not identified ways in which we could advance equality of opportunity on the grounds of disability.

Gender reassignment

We have not identified ways in which we could advance equality of opportunity between people who have undergone gender reassignment and people who have not.

Sex, pregnancy and maternity

For the majority of measures, we have not identified ways in which we could advance equality of opportunity between people on the grounds of sex, between people who are pregnant or have young children and people who have not.

Regarding the abortion clinic Safe Access Zones measure, we recognise that women are indirectly discriminated against by anti-abortion protesters for seeking abortion services. We also understand that anti-abortion activities may act as a barrier to women who want to access their legal right to health at what could be a difficult moment in their lives.

Safe Access Zones provide a remedy which removes the potential barriers mentioned above and may improve some women’s experience of accessing abortion services by allowing them to access services without unwelcome interference. We consider this to assist in remedying these specific disadvantages experienced by women in this context, thereby advancing equality of opportunity.

Race

We intend that the updates to PACE Code A and the extensive data gathered on stop and search will assist in remedying the disadvantages which we understand to be suffered by some groups in the use of these powers.

Religion or belief

For the majority of measures, we have not identified ways in which we could advance equality of opportunity between people who share certain religions or beliefs and people who do not.

In relation to the Safe Access Zones measure, the 2018 review and 2020 further assessment of abortion clinic protests show that the vast majority of those who gather in the vicinity of healthcare clinics do so due to their religious beliefs.

Sexual orientation

We have not identified ways in which we could advance equality of opportunity between people on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Question 5

3C.  Consideration of limb 3: Foster good relations between people with and without protected characteristics

Accepted Answer

The measures help make sure that the police have the necessary powers to effectively manage protests. This legislation provides clear distinctions of what both the police and protestors can and cannot do, and the police are expected to continue to maintain open communication with protestors throughout their protests.

We regularly consult the police on what they are doing operationally to maintain relationships between themselves and protesters. What the police actively do will also help to foster relationships with those with protected characteristics. Police Liaison Teams (PLT) have been used by the police to interact with protesters, the HMICFRS report has found that PLTs had generally developed good relationships across a network of protest groups.

We have also considered and taken into account that these measures are interpreted and thought of differently by different groups and those with different characteristics at different points in time. For example, in policing the same protest some groups will criticise the police for being too heavy handed while others will say they were not sufficiently robust. The public may also draw comparisons between the policing of different protests and, ergo, this may negatively impact relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. The new legislation offers transparency as to how protests will be policed and what constitutes a protest-related offence, therefore, this should improve relations between those who do and do not share protected characteristics.

We have also considered that the police may need to use the new legislation when those with protected characteristics are at odds with others who have different protected characteristics. HMICFRS’ report found that forces are sometimes caught between 2 opposing viewpoints. One officer noted that:

“Black Lives Matter was a challenge for the force. Similar challenges were faced last year when the Muslim community protested outside schools about what they saw as inappropriate sexual health lessons. The LGBT community opposed this. There were no easy answers. If there was an easy position, there wouldn’t be a protest. All we can do is uphold the values and police impartially. This is who we are and what we do and why. We are not chosen for our views but to protect others. There is no perfect solution, [if] they understand what we are doing and why – that’s the best we can hope for.’^{[footnote 19]}”

The police and government are aware of the issues of managing all protests even-handedly irrespective of the cause they seek to promote. The police continuously make efforts to learn from the management of past protests and listen and learn from criticism from third parties to ensure that their use of powers is fair and proportionate, regardless of the type of protest being managed. The Public Order Act 2023 makes clear what is acceptable and unacceptable protest behaviour and so this transparency should improve good relations between those who do and do not share protected characteristics as it helps to ensure that police action is not viewed as biased but in line with the new legislation.

Age

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of age.

Recent surveys have highlighted that older people are generally more supportive of the Government’s measures to tackle protests. A YouGov survey conducted in February 2022, concluded that 80% of over-65s supported the proposed locking-on offence, while only 32% of those aged 18-24 supported such an offence.^{[footnote 20]}

Evidence also suggests younger people may lack confidence that the police are using stop and search fairly. A study examining children stopped and searched in the Metropolitan Police force area found that the children surveyed, and their parents, felt they were treated with more suspicion than adults and judged on the way they dress.^{[footnote 21]}

Protests by their very nature can raise divisive and challenging issues faced by our society, and how the police’s response to protests will be received will vary across age groups, as the YouGov poll shows. However, it is important that police have the powers necessary to balance the rights of individuals to engage in protest with the need to protect the public from serious disruption, and the measures in this Act better help the police maintain that balance. The Act does not, however, foster good relations between people on the grounds of age.

Disability

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of disability.

Gender reassignment

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Pregnancy and maternity

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity.

Race

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of race.

Religion or belief

Safe Access Zones could reduce or remove the potential for conflict, within 150m from abortion clinics, between those with religious views who want to protest against abortion and those women who want to access abortion services. On the other hand, it could increase the frustration of those who wish to protest or otherwise manifest their religious beliefs.

Some religious groups already feel marginalised in society and argue that this adds to that marginalisation and tension between anti-abortion and pro-choice groups who would be affected by the policy.

We have not identified any specific ways in which the other measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of religion or belief.

Sex

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of sex.

Sexual orientation

We have not identified any specific ways in which the measures in this Act can help foster good relations between people on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Question 6

4.  Summary of foreseeable impacts of policy proposal on people who share protected characteristics

Accepted Answer

Age

Negative impact – The extension of stop and search measures may have a disproportionate impact on younger people.

Disability

We have not identified any foreseeable positive or negative impacts of these measures on people on the grounds of disability.

Gender reassignment

We have not identified any foreseeable positive or negative impacts of these measures on people who have undergone gender reassignment.

Marriage and civil partnership

We have not identified any foreseeable positive or negative impacts of these measures on people who are married or in a civil partnership.

Race

These measures may have an indirect impact on people from different racial backgrounds, as the extension of stop and search powers and the increase in the number of criminal offences may disproportionally impact Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people.

Were these new Stop and Search powers to be disproportionately used, or perceived to be disproportionately used, against Black people then this would risk having a further negative effect on a part of the community where trust and confidence levels are relatively low and this may impact upon relations between those with and without protected characteristics, in this case, between white members of the police and individuals from a Black and Minority Ethnic background.

Religion or belief

Certain protests may be attended by a majority of people who share the same religion or belief. Any use of these powers at such protests could fuel the belief that the police are using their powers in a discriminatory way against people of a certain religion or belief.

We recognise that the introduction of Safe Access Zones indirectly discriminates against those religious groups and have a negative impact on individuals. It would not completely prevent people from exercising their lawful right to express or manifest their religious beliefs, however, it would prevent them from being able to do so in particular locations. Nevertheless, they could argue that not being near to an abortion facility effectively negates the purpose of their protest and that criminalising certain religious activities in Safe Access Zones, especially more passive activities, such as prayer, curtails their religious freedoms. This could even include routine religious activities which are not intended to relate to abortion. All this could create a negative image of those activities more widely. Some religious groups already feel marginalised in society and argue that this adds to that marginalisation.

Sex, pregnancy and maternity

Positive impact – The abortion clinic Safe Access Zone measure would enable pregnant women to access abortion services at a very difficult moment in their lives without unwelcome interference. This has the potential to assist in eliminating harassment based on sex, and also in advancing equality of opportunity by remedying a particular disadvantage suffered by women in this context.

Negative impact – Certain protests may be attended by a majority of people who share the same sex. Any use of these powers at such protests could fuel the belief that the police are using their powers in a discriminatory way against people of the same sex. Additionally, the extension of stop and search measures may have a disproportionate impact on males.

Sexual orientation

Certain protests may be attended by a majority of people who share the same sexual orientation. Any use of these powers at such protests could fuel the belief that the police are using their powers in a discriminatory way against people because of their sexual orientation.

Question 7

5.  In light of the overall policy objective, are there any ways to avoid or mitigate any of the negative impacts that you have identified above?

Accepted Answer

General

We have assessed the way in which police manage protests and how it has a bearing on equality of opportunity. The changes to legislation potentially affect all individuals in England and Wales – regardless of their protected characteristics. We have highlighted how protests linked to particular causes may be attended by a larger proportion than usual of individuals with protected characteristics. These characteristics need to be considered by police when making use of the powers and the way each protest is handled is unique to its circumstances given the need for the police to comply with the Equality Act 2010. The police will then adapt accordingly.

The police make effective use of national guidance and structures to ensure a consistent approach across the country, and within forces, in policing protests. Forces often work collaboratively to manage protests, with strong relationships between protest-intelligence teams and mutual-aid agreements between forces enable the effective transfer of specialist teams and equipment to respond to protests across the country. Forces are also supported in their response to large-scale protests by the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC). The NPCC has also worked closely with the College of Policing to update operational advice for forces responding to protests, whilst the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice is regularly updated to provide guidance to officers on the effective use of their powers in respond to protests.

Both government and the police should consult training and education material (such as the Authorised Professional Practice for the use of powers such as Stop and Search) to ensure powers are used effectively. We will also be updating PACE Code A, which provides statutory guidance to the police on their use of stop and search powers, to reflect these new measures, ensuring police have clear guidance and codes of practice in the exercise of these new powers. We intend that these updates and the above mentioned extensive data gathered on stop and search will assist in remedying the disadvantages which we understand to be suffered by some groups in the use of these powers.

We have discussed these measures with law enforcement stakeholders and believe they have no direct impact on any protected characteristics. As noted in Sections 3A and 3C, there is a possibility that there may be a disproportionate indirect impact on groups sharing protected characteristics, reflecting wider disproportionate impact on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals or those with characteristics reflecting the make-up of cause specific protests.

Race

Forces are required under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with the freedoms or the prohibition from discrimination enshrined under that Act, and we will continue to work with the police to ensure they use these new powers in a fair and proportionate manner that does not discriminate against people because of their race.

Safeguards exist to ensure that this does not happen, including guidance, PACE codes of practice, use of body worn video and extensive data collection.

PACE Code A will be updated to reflect these new stop and search provisions, to ensure that their use is covered by the appropriate statutory guidance. Data will be collected on the use of these powers and published in due course in the Home Office’s annual statistical bulletin Police Powers and Procedures.

Work is ongoing to develop a minimum standard of scrutiny framework for the police’s overall use of stop and search powers, with the intention of improving opportunities for the police to explain their use of powers to communities and improve public trust in the process. The College of Policing has recently updated its stop and search guidance to ensure fair and proportionate use. This updated guidance – available to all forces – was published in July 2020 and provides best practice examples for forces to use on community engagement and scrutiny.

We regularly review our safeguards and we now collect more data on stop and search than ever before – this data is posted online, enabling PCCs and others to hold forces to account for their use.

HMICFRS also look at force level disparity and usage data, including the rates at which items are found on different racial groups, as part of force assessments.

Religion

Safe Access Zones do not completely prevent people from exercising their lawful right to express and manifest their religious beliefs. In relation to the policing of the Zones, forces are required under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with the freedoms and the prohibition from discrimination enshrined under that Act, and we will continue to work with the police to ensure they use these new powers in a fair and proportionate manner that does not discriminate against people because of their religion or belief.

In relation to SDPOs, there is specific provision that provides that requirements or prohibitions which are imposed on a person by such an order must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid any conflict with the person’s religious beliefs.

Age

Regarding stop and search powers, the police should use these powers to lawfully prevent serious disruption and protect communities. Nobody should be stopped and searched just because of their age, and safeguards exist to ensure that this does not happen, including PACE codes of practice, use of body worn video and extensive data collection. PACE Code A will be updated to reflect these new stop and search provisions, to ensure that their use is covered by the appropriate statutory guidance. Data will be collected on the use of these powers and published in due course in the Home Office’s annual statistical bulletin Police Powers and Procedures.

Question 8

6.  Review date

Accepted Answer

We will continually assess the impact on equalities duties as the position progresses and we will review the impacts routinely once any new amendments have been introduced.

We will also work with Home Office analysts and statisticians to determine whether there is a mechanism to collate, monitor and evaluate any new data relating to the implementation of these legislative amendments.

The measures in the Public Order Act 2023 will be subject to the usual post-legislative review five years after Royal Assent.

Question 9

7.  Declaration

Accepted Answer

I have read the available evidence and I am satisfied that this demonstrates compliance, where relevant, with Section 149 of the Equality Act and that due regard has been made to the need to: eliminate unlawful discrimination; advance equality of opportunity; and foster good relations.

SCS sign off:

Name/title: Mark Williams, Head Policing Powers Unit

Directorate/unit: Policing Policy Directorate, Public Safety Group

Lead contact: Kane O’Leary

Date: 17 August 2023

Date sent to PSED Inbox:

21 August 2023

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England and Wales

1. Name and outline of policy proposal, guidance, or operational activity

Background

2. Summary of the evidence considered in demonstrating due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty

Statistical evidence

3A. Consideration of limb 1 of the duty: Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act

Age

Disability

Gender reassignment

Marriage and civil partnership

Pregnancy and maternity

Race

Religion or belief

Sex

Sexual orientation

3B. Consideration of limb 2: Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it

Age

Disability

Gender reassignment

Sex, pregnancy and maternity

Race

Religion or belief

Sexual orientation

3C. Consideration of limb 3: Foster good relations between people with and without protected characteristics

Age

Disability

Gender reassignment

Pregnancy and maternity

Race

Religion or belief

Sex

Sexual orientation

4. Summary of foreseeable impacts of policy proposal on people who share protected characteristics

Age

Disability

Gender reassignment

Marriage and civil partnership

Race

Religion or belief

Sex, pregnancy and maternity

Sexual orientation

5. In light of the overall policy objective, are there any ways to avoid or mitigate any of the negative impacts that you have identified above?

General

Race

Religion

Age

6. Review date

7. Declaration

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK