Name: Anti-protest Police Bill 'that would make a dictator blush' passes Commons vote
Brand: mirror.co.uk
SKU: mirror-co-uk-190
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Anti-protest Police Bill 'that would make a dictator blush' passes Commons vote

preview

The proposed law - which passed a crucial hurdle tonight - would make it illegal to cause "serious annoyance", allow police to impose noise limits on protests and criminalise protesters camping in a fieldVideo UnavailableA crackdown on the right to protest that would "make a dictator blush" tonight passed a crucial hurdle in the House of Commons. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill passed its second reading 359-263 after it was overwhelmingly backed by Tory MPs. There were no Tory rebels and only three Tory MPs did not vote either way: Anne Marie Morris, Desmond Swayne and Charles Walker. It will now go into a committee stage where MPs will try to pick away at the most controversial elements of the proposed law before it is passed in full, and handed over to the Lords. It comes despite outrage about parts of the wide-ranging, 176-clause Bill - especially 10 clauses relating to protests and camping. The Bill would make it illegal to inflict “serious annoyance” on a person without reasonable excuse, with up to 10 years’ jail in theory. Police will be able to tell one-person protests to stop shouting and impose noise limits, start and finish times on gatherings.Read MoreRelated ArticlesRead MoreRelated ArticlesMeasures also include imposing up to 10 years’ jail on people who vandalise statues - up from three months - and creating new offences of obstructing the road or using a loudspeaker at the gates of Parliament. Police and legal figures warn this could pose a threat to democracy, with both pro- and anti-Brexit campaigners in opposition. Even Tory ex-PM - who presided over a "hostile environment" as Home Secretary - said she was worried about "potential unintended consequences", adding: "Freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that might sometimes be." But Tory MPs defeated a Labour amendment, 359 votes to 225, which would have killed the entire Bill and forced the Tories to draw up a new one. Leader Keir Starmer's amendment said he backed several elements of the law - including tougher sentences for child murder, terrorism and dangerous driving - but the parts about protest were so "rushed" it should be killed off completely.MPs have voted through the second reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 359-263. This is the first major Commons hurdle and it will now go in for detailed scrutiny. Note: Failing to vote either way is sometimes a deliberate protest but not always. Mike Hill has quit as an MP today, for example. Conservatives: 358 in favour, 0 against. 3 MPs did not vote either way: Anne Marie Morris, Desmond Swayne and Charles Walker. Labour: 0 in favour, 194 against. 3 MPs did not vote either way: Liam Byrne, Mike Hill, Steve McCabe. SNP: 0 in favour, 47 against. Lib Dems: 0 in favour, 11 against. DUP: All 8 MPs abstained or did not vote. Other: All Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Green and Independent MPs voted against the Bill. Note: This has been corrected after Commons records wrongly said Lloyd Russell-Moyle did not vote. He voted against.Read MoreRelated ArticlesRead MoreRelated ArticlesSir Keir added the Bill was an "abusers' charter" because it has no specific measures to "tackle the epidemic of violence against women". Justice Secretary Robert Buckland tonight insisted the ban on "annoyance" was simply putting long-established legal principles into a new form. He defended the Government's decision to increase sentences for attacking statues and memorials to a maximum of 10-years, more than some sexual violence offences. And he said he was "perplexed and disappointed" that Labour had decided not to support the Bill, which he hoped would "restore faith" in the justice system which had "sadly been in decline" for too long. Search below to see how your MP votedBut Shadow justice secretary slammed the Government for "letting women down" with a decade of "cuts, court closures and failed ideology". "I am thankful that the draconian limits on the power to protest were not in place during the great protests of the 20th century that led to real change," he said. Confirming that Labour would not back the Bill, he added: "Instead of uniting the country around a mission to finally address this violence, they are bringing forward divisive legislation that pits people against one another and takes away our freedoms." DUP MP Gavin Robinson added: "The loose and lazy way this legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. "Protests will be noisy, protests will disrupt and no matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected." The 176-clause Bill would make a mishmash of mostly uncontroversial changes to UK law, from banning sex between sports coaches and 16-year-olds to imposing life sentences on some killer drivers. The Bill will double the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker to two years. It will also enshrine a Police Covenant in law to protect serving and retired officers and their families. It will add religious figures and sports coaches to the “positions of responsibility”, like teachers for example, from which it’s illegal to have sex with 16- and 17-year-olds in their care. And it will allow judges to hand out tougher sentences, including Whole Life Orders for premeditated murder of a child, or maximum sentences for 18 to 20-year-olds behind mass murder or terrorism. It will end the automatic release halfway through sentence of serious violent and sexual offenders, and have new powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public. But it’s the handful of clauses about protest, statues and encampments that are proving the most controversial. Labour former minister Dame Angela Eagle said the "huge portmanteau Bill" had all three of "the good, the bad and the ugly" - including an "appalling assault on the right to protest and free assembly which is causing concern and alarm". Labour MP Clive Lewis said: "It is the tip of an authoritarian iceberg, one that's on a collision course with public defiance. Democracy is being swept away in a calculated programme to leave the public muted and powerless. "The benches opposite are fast moving from becoming a Government to becoming a regime." A joint statement by Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter claimed: “This appears to be a blatant attempt to create an authoritarian police state, where the voices of ordinary people, particularly those most marginalised and disadvantaged, are silenced by state-sanctioned penalties.” Tory former minister Tracey Crouch said the Government does "need to do more to protect women and girls". Making her first appearance physically in the Commons since her last radiotherapy treatment, Ms Crouch said: "It is unfortunate that recent events have overshadowed the good intention of the copious measures in this Bill and I share the view of those in here and outside that we do need to do more to protect women and girls. "Why should we be afraid to walk somewhere or even exercise after dark? But rather than try and kill off this Bill, we should be working cross-party to strengthen it for that end." But Tory MP Sir David Amess moaned protests in Parliament Square were "absolutely ridiculous", adding: "It is very difficult to work because of the noise, with drums, horns and loud speakers. "Policing these so-called events costs a huge amount of money and Parliament being the seat of democracy, our work should not be disrupted." Meanwhile Conservative Huw Merriman hit out after MPs voted through lockdown rules - then criticised police for manhandling women away from a vigil for Sarah Everard's death. He said: "I do not think it reflects well on this House when we create powers for the police and then criticise them for using those powers." Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales. Officers will be able to do this if they believe the noise “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” nearby. The power is not limited in the law to noise levels or start times - a police officer can take “such conditions as appear necessary” to that officer “to prevent disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation.” The Home Office argue this is simply widening powers that already exist for moving marches to cover static protests as well. But civil liberties groups say noise and disruption are a key part of making your voice heard. It will be up to the Home Secretary - currently Priti Patel - to decide the definition of “serious disruption”. Clause 59 will axe the ‘common law’ definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament. It will make it a crime to “intentionally or recklessly” cause public nuisance without a reasonable excuse. Offenders will get up to a year’s jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty, in the worst cases. The government insists this is simply taking the current definition of public nuisance and putting it on a proper footing. “This will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden,” the Home Office said. But there is not a clear list of “reasonable excuses” - the government just say defendants will have to prove that excuse existed in court, on the balance of probabilities. And two words in this clause have attracted a lot of interest. Someone will fall foul of the law if they have caused a person “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.” How will “serious annoyance” be interpreted by police? Clause 57 will hugely expand the “controlled area” outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorised loudspeakers or megaphones are banned. Currently the area only covers the garden and footpaths in the middle of Parliament Square, with other roads around it not under any special anti-protest law. But the Bill will expand this controlled area to several roads around Parliament after a number of demos stopped traffic. These roads are Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, Parliament Square and part of Victoria Embankment. Those who disobey can be fined up to £5,000. A similar move was recommended by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which warned access to parliament must not be obstructed after a wave of threats against MPs. However, opposition has united critics from Richard Tice, leader of Nigel Farage’s anti-lockdown Reform UK party, to Tom Brufatto, former lead organiser of the People’s Vote marches against . In an open letter today they say: “As long as laws are made in Parliament, then British people must have a legal right to protest them in Parliament Square. Democracy is not an 'inconvenience'. Public opposition and dissent are among the hard-won rights that make our democratic and like-minded groups.” Clause 60 has already been dubbed the ‘Steve Bray’ law, after the man who spent years shouting ‘Stop Brexit!’ at Parliament. It will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid “disruption or impact”. This can only be done if they believe the noise that person is making “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.” But once again, Home Secretary Priti Patel will be able to define this “serious disruption”. One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to £2,500. Someone who “incites” the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks. Ardent Remainer AC Grayling tweeted: “It's a great honour to Steve Bray, and an unmistakable sign of the weakness, pettiness, illiberality and unintelligence of this Brexiter 'government', that it seeks to pass a Bill that singles him out. “He has humiliated and stung them and they want to shut him up; he should be knighted.” Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years. Currently judges and magistrates have to base their sentence on the monetary value of the damage. In future they will be able to look at the “emotional and symbolic value” of the damaged statue too, said minister Kit Malthouse. The Tories are doing this in a ‘culture war’ after statues including Winston Churchill’s were attacked or damaged with graffiti. No10 insisted the focus would be on vile things like anti-Semitic graffiti or attacks on gravestones, war memorials, memorials to people who’ve been murdered. But that’s not quite how it was trailed in right-wing newspapers. The issue has prompted anger from , who say the move is a distraction and will in theory mean longer sentences for attacking statues than some attacks on women. Clause 60 will create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”. This could affect protest camps like Extinction Rebellion, as the law will apply even if their “residing” is only temporary, and will apply equally to common land and private land. Protesters can be ordered to leave by police if they are deemed to be causing “significant disruption”, or even if they haven’t caused disruption yet but it is deemed “likely” in future. If they refuse, they can be fined up to £2,500 or jailed for up to three months. Police will also be given more powers to remove unauthorised encampments on roads. A petition signed by more than 130,000 people warned criminalising trespass would be “an extreme, illiberal and unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms”, adding: “For a thousand years, trespass has been a civil offence.” Critics say the law threatens not only protests, but also wild camping, ramblers, new rights of way and Traveller communities.

The proposed law - which passed a crucial hurdle tonight - would make it illegal to cause "serious annoyance", allow police to impose noise limits on protests and criminalise protesters camping in a fieldVideo UnavailableA crackdown on the right to protest that would "make a dictator blush" tonight passed a crucial hurdle in the House of Commons. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill passed its second reading 359-263 after it was overwhelmingly backed by Tory MPs. There were no Tory rebels and only three Tory MPs did not vote either way: Anne Marie Morris, Desmond Swayne and Charles...

Anti-protest Police Bill 'that would make a dictator blush' passes Commons vote

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Anti-protest Police Bill 'that would make a dictator blush' passes Commons vote

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS

Subscribe to the Credder Daily

Five Credder articles in your inbox, daily