The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has its Second Reading in the House of Lords this afternoon, and we will be tweeting it!
Follow this thread for immediate summary and opinion on the Bill.
Read our short briefing here: drive.google.com/file/d/164hFw-…
Follow this thread for immediate summary and opinion on the Bill.
Read our short briefing here: drive.google.com/file/d/164hFw-…
Waiting for Second Reading to come up. Looking at today's business it's likely to be another 30 or so at least.
That's minutes. 30 minutes.
The debate hasn't even started yet, and already I'm missing words in my excitement!
The debate hasn't even started yet, and already I'm missing words in my excitement!
It's starting!
The minister is Baroness Williams of Trafford. She's starting out with the domestic security aspects. This is about protecting people, she says. Focusing on the assaults on key service workers.
The Minister is ad lib-ing some of it, as she has mislaid her speech. Now on protecting vitims and witnesses and that the Lords should strengthen this.
One of the things which is clear is how huge a Bill this is.
Minster: "the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right"
The Minister does not believe this Bill takes anything away from protest. We disagree, as do many others.
The Minister cites police who agree with her. We note that in the Commons Committee police disagreed with much of Part 3.
The Minister cites police who agree with her. We note that in the Commons Committee police disagreed with much of Part 3.
The Minster says that this will not damage the nomadic lifestyle of some communities, but is about a small group who behave badly and that "no noble Lord would want to condone such behaviour".
This paints a misleading and inaccurate picture.
This paints a misleading and inaccurate picture.
Minster: "the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right"
The Minister does not believe this Bill takes anything away from protest. We disagree, as do many others.
The Minister cites police who agree with her. We note that in the Commons Committee police disagreed with much of Part 3.
The Minister cites police who agree with her. We note that in the Commons Committee police disagreed with much of Part 3.
Lords Falconer now, starting with the mammoth nature of the Bill. Also objecting to how much this Bill gives power to the executive to decide.
Lord Falconer: the govt has got the balance wrong on the balance on protests. To put conditions on noise is disproportionate.
Lord Falconer: the govt goes too far on Part 4, much further than the manifesto commitment, and it is an attack on the community.
We argee with Lord Falconer. Here's a briefing from Friends Familes and Travellers which sets out the rationale. linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a…
Lord Falconer has set out 11 things which are wrong with the Bill.
Lord Paddick now. "I'm not sure adding provisions is the right thing".
Lord Paddick: "there are some worthy measures which deserve our attention, but they are few and far between"
Says that most of the Bill is bad, especially the parts taking away free speech and the right to free assembly.
Says that most of the Bill is bad, especially the parts taking away free speech and the right to free assembly.
Lord Paddick raising how the lines of responsibility will be blurred with this Bill.
We agree - it's a pattern with this Bill, with does something similar in Part 3. The Secretary of State will be given the power to change the definition of "serious disruption".
We agree - it's a pattern with this Bill, with does something similar in Part 3. The Secretary of State will be given the power to change the definition of "serious disruption".
Lord Paddick: "police imposing conditions on protests will undermine the whole basis of policing by consent"
Lord Paddick clear that Parts 3 and 4 unacceptable.
Baroness Stowell believes that the methods used by some protesters call for the police to have new powers.
Baroness Stowell concerned that some protest is "troubling" and "promotes division".
We disagree.
We disagree.
Baroness Stowell believes that blocking roads was a new development in the last few years, not used before. She also suggested that it is a sign of the social norms breaking down, and speaks of a decent society.
I am finding it difficult to express how strongly I disagree.
I am finding it difficult to express how strongly I disagree.
Lord Judge raises the concerns of the Lords Constitution Committee, which were valid and measureed and (where applicable to the constitution) broadly supported the JCHR amendments.
Lord Judge raises the point that in Part 3 the Secretary of State will be given the power to change the definition of "serious disruption" in Secondary Legislation, so the Lords will pass something while waiting for a definition.
The Bishop of Gloucester on sentences. She is the chaplain for prisons.
Lord Blunkett asks what the Bill is actually seeking to do, and hopes that some things could be put right. Highlights Parts 3 and 4.
Lord Blunkett: we do need to address the expression of anger in inappropriate ways, but this Bill does't do that.
Lord Blunkett: the means do need to justify the ends. However, this Bill sends us down the rabbit hole of "words mean what I want them to".
Lord Blunkett suggested the Secretary of State was priti annoyed most of the time....
Lord Thomas talking about video links in trials. A reminder of just how vast this Bill is.
Lord Garnier now. Agrees with the Constitution Committee report. Says that this Bill looks like "someone has simply swept a random collection of things together" and that Bills which are too big don't work.
Lord Garnier wishes to shift burden of proof.
Lord Pannick, another legal professional. This debate has many legal experts speaking.
Lord Pannickk highlights an amendment to be tabled by Baroness Hayman on protection for women.
Baroness Armstrong on women with experience of abuse. This is a huge Bill, with many complex clauses.
Baroness Harris: "there are many important parts of the Bill, including the restrictions to protest, which I will be opposing"
In between the speeches in the Lords, let's look at the Bill. The parts we specifically object to are Parts 3 and 4. Part 3 of the Bill would significantly limit the right to protest, an essential part of democracy.
Part 4 of the Bill would in effect criminalise the nomadic lifestyle of Gypsy and Traveller communities and have unintended consequences for homeless people and those wishing to enjoy access to the countryside.
Lord Blencathra is speaking about the delegated powers in the Bill - "some of the delegated powers are quite unacceptable".
Clause 61 contains the 'delegated power' with regards to the definition of serious disruption.
Responsibility for implementing confusing and unclear conditions will lie with police officers – meaning that they will need to make snap decisions on the right to free assembly and freedom of expression. But the Secretary of State can change the definition of serious disruption.
Lord Thomas is up now, speaking on data.
The speakers to this Bill vary about their specific concerns on the Bill. However, they are all clear that there are many concerns.
We're focusing on Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, but if you're interested in Parts 2 and 10, check out this briefing: bills.parliament.uk/publications/4…
Lord Bach now. We are now on speaker 15 (including minister and opposition) of 65.
Lord Bach: "I oppose the proposals on protest - the proposals are vauge and risk undermining the balance between policing and control"
Lord Bach was a Police and Crime Comissioner, and cites his experience that police do not need or want these extra powers.
Lord Oates on protest: the Bill imposes a max 10 year sentence on those who cause serious annoyance.
Lord Oates with a direct challenge to Baroness Stowelll, suggesting she spoke as the Birmingham Alabama clergy spoke to Martin Luther King.
Direct action is about being noisy.
Direct action is about being noisy.
Lord Oates: "protesters are raising their voices loud against us in this house who make promises and fail to deliver"
Lord Oates: "the reason the people on the streets are raising their voices is because we have not acted"
Lord Oates on the urgency of now and the time-honoured form of protest.
Viscount Goschen says we should only legislate where a change is needed. He does not feel the balance is right now.
Viscount Goschen is concerned about unauthorised encampments and suggests they bring distress to communities.
As police have repeatedly said, more sites are needed. This Bill does the opposite of what is needed.
As police have repeatedly said, more sites are needed. This Bill does the opposite of what is needed.
Lord Brown on sentencing.
Baroness Jones points out that this Bill will not help the police.
Baroness Jones on Part 3: it undermines democracy, limits free speech, put too much power in the hands of the Home Secretary, and opens the door to mistakes in policing which the police themselves do not want.
Swiftly on to Baroness Whittaker, who is taking apart Part 4.
Baroness Whittaker on the damage this will do to families. There are only 600 or so families this will impact.
Baroness Whittaker explains how more sites would solve the issue. This is a dog whistle policy.
The issue is better in Wales. However, overall the problem is pitiful provision.
Baroness Whittaker: this will criminalise families, trapping them on the roads, driving people from their only stopping places.
Now on to Baroness Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee is mainly speaking on data.
Baroness Greengross is focusing on domestic abuse.
This is a significant Bill covering multiple subjects. It should not be one Bill.
This is a significant Bill covering multiple subjects. It should not be one Bill.
Part 4 is not currently being discussed, but I want to just say again that trapping people in a cycle of eviction and criminalisation will not create more places to camp. Allowing police to impound vehicles which are family homes will lead to serious hardship for entire families.
Baroness Greengross highlights both part 3 and part 4. On Part 3 the "Bill in it's present form has yet to get the balance right".
Lord Davies, a former police officer. Speaking first on assaults on police officers.
Lord Davies speaking on Part 3. Believes that some groups have created a need to balance the rights of people to go about their everyday business.
Lord Davies believes the police should have every tool available.
We know that this Bill will undermine policing by consent and will cause confusion on conditions on protests.
We know that this Bill will undermine policing by consent and will cause confusion on conditions on protests.
Lord Rooker now, on sentencing women and the impact on children.
Lord Wlney, who earlier this year started undertaking a review on much of the issues raised in Part 3.
Lord Walney speaking of the primacy of the democratic process, and how the ballot box should not be overthrown by protest.
I wonder what his views are on our current voting system?
I wonder what his views are on our current voting system?
I must emphasise that protest is a part of the democratic process. it is not a subversion of it.
Lord Beith speaking on Part 3: "I'm a person of reasonable firmness, and noise does cause me unease, but it's usually music in restaurants, and that's not something being balanced against human rights"
Lord Sandhurst is making his maiden speech.
He is the research chair of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, so he may have been involved in drafting this legislation.
He is the research chair of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, so he may have been involved in drafting this legislation.
Can I take a moment to direct people to the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights? I recommend reading at least the summary.
Lord Sandhurst thinks that the core provisions are correct.
On Parts 3 and 4, we disagree.
On Parts 3 and 4, we disagree.
Lord Young follows Lord Sandhurst, and mentions that he (Sandhurst) is a member of JUSTICE.
Lord Young supports future amendments by Lord Best and Baroness Bertin.
One mistake that some Peers have made is to place "ordinary people" against "protesters".
Protesters are ordinary. They are protesting because they are too ordinary to have any other route open to them.
To never need to protest is a sign of being extraordinary.
Protesters are ordinary. They are protesting because they are too ordinary to have any other route open to them.
To never need to protest is a sign of being extraordinary.
Baroness Grey-Thompson speaking on just one clause, relating to the position of coaches, and saying that they should be considered like teachers.
Baroness Chakrabarti: this Bill is too large and has made it through the Commons with unseemly haste.
Baroness Chakrabarti: Parts 3 and 4 violate many principles of democracy.
This is a clampdown on peaceful protesters and people who are different.
This is a clampdown on peaceful protesters and people who are different.
Baroness Chakrabarti: non-violent protest is as much a part of democracy as voting. The franchise was won for most ordinary people less than 100 years ago by noisy protests.
Baroness Chakrabarti: Part 4 targets one of the most marginalised communities.
Baroness Chakrabarti: part 4 criminalises the traditional way of life, and this is just as racist as it would be to single out a way of dress or food or prayers.
Bishop of Blackburn: this Bill is about real people and we need to remember this.
Bishop of Blackburn on the problem that if a vehicle is seized under Part 4, that is a family home. That cannot be right.
Baroness Miller calls Part 4 both a dog whistle and a demand to do the impossible.
Baroness Miller: privileged people don't need to protest as the laws are there to protect them.
Baroness Miller: protest is a fundamental act. It is what people should be able to do in reaction to planning decisions or environmental protests.
Baroness Bertin speaking specifically on the new violence prevention duty.
Lord Best speaking on rough sleeping.
Lord Dubs: "we used to shout on demos, that's how it was in demos"
Lord Dubs: "we are putting the police in an impossible position in this Bill"
Lord Dubs: the police don't need these extra powers. These conditions will inflict a restrict on the right to protest which is not right.
Lord Dubs: there's a lack of information about the conditions, so we need to make them collected and recorded
Lord Dubs: on Part 4, "the govt should not use criminal law to address what is essentially a planning issue"
Lord German: definition of serious disruption is a problem.
Lord German speaking on devolution with regards to Wales.
Lord Moylan welcomes the clarity on protest, comparing it to secondary picketing.
This Bill does not bring clarity. It adds immense confusion.
This Bill does not bring clarity. It adds immense confusion.
We are more than halfway through the Second Reading. Lord Moylan is number 37 of 65.
Baroness Massey is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Their report is here: committees.parliament.uk/publications/6…
The JCHR has concerned about much of the Bill and will be tabling amendments.
Baroness Massey points out that individuals may be criminalised for not knowing the conditions of a protest.
Baroness Massey also highlights the ridiculousness of Part 4 criminalising what should be a planning issue.
Lord Hendy now. He also comes from the legal profession.
Lord Hendy emphasising the inappropriateness of the SoS deciding what serious disruption means.
Lord Hendy says there is a draft of "serious disruption to the community"
Lord Hendy draws the connections between picketing a protest, specifically with regard to serious disruption.
Baroness Coussins speaking now, flagging up interpreters in courts.
It is a huge Bill.
It is a huge Bill.
Baroness Bennet: refering to her time at an XR protest.
Baroness Bennet giving a shout out to the protesters outside DSEI
Baroness Bennet: non-violent direct action has always been something the young, the poor, women need to do in order to be heard.
Baroness Bennet: we would be a far worse country if we did not have have protest.
Baroness Bennet: "earlier Baroness Stowell said that social norms were breaking down - and I say great, I have a short list which could be long list"
Baroness Bennet: to deliberately criminalise Gyspy and Traveller communities is vile, and to destory their homes - I ask the benches opposite if that's really something they can countenance.
Lord Bradley speaking now on sentencing.
Lord Dholakia also speaking on sentencing.
Lord Polak on the rights on the silent minority.
Lord Polak speaking on tackling domestic abuse and how important it is for it to be at the heart of the Bill.
Lord Hope also mentions the power given to the Secretary of State to define key terms.
Lord Hope: any changes to protest must be carefully scrutinised.
Baroness Bryan: who is demanding the curtailments of such our rights? There is no record of the Police Federation being consulted.
Baroness Bryan: making your voice heard can be noisy, but how else can it be heard?
Baroness Bakewell: last year a debate highlighted the disparities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Now the govt has forgotten that debate and is trying to harm them again.
Baroness Bakewell: here is too much blurring of the lines between guidance and legislation.
Baroness Fox: Part 3 should be removed in its entirely, because it will damage our hard-fought-for rights.
Baroness Fox: the police have enough powers, the statute books have plenty of laws against these things.
Baroness Fox: we need to ask why the police are not using the powers they have.
Baroness Fox: the police are already seen by some as using kid gloves, others brute force, and it's dividing people. Why give police more subjective powers?
Baroness Fox: I defend the rights of people to have selfish, noisy protests about anti-democractic things, and we should not turn the Palace of Westminster into a space so safe it is an echo chamber.
Baroness Humphreys: it's significant that many past police officers do not want these powers.
Baroness Humphreys: the responsibility will fall on the shoulders of police.
Baroness Humphreys: there is a fundamental difference between the approach of the Welsh govt and Westminster in Part 4. This is fundamentally a planning issue, not a criminal one.
Baroness D'Souza: Part 3 gives cause for concern. Freedom to protest is a cornerstone of democracy.
Baroness D'Souza: protest is not an unfetted right. in this Bill, the balance has tipped towards the government.
Baroness D'Souza: which organiser is able to predict noise? Yet the police can stop it because it might be too loud.
Baroness D'Souza: when the restrictions are vague, how could people predict what the police will decide?
Baroness D'Souza: ordinary citizens need to have the right to assembly and protest.
Baroness Sater speaking now on jury service and video links in trials.
Baroness Brinton will be speaking on Part 4 in a moment.
Baroness Brinton: Part 4 is dog whistle legislation of the worst kind. Allowing homes to be seized is remarkable.
Lord Russell now. Supporting the domestic violence amendment.
Bishop of Manchester takes us back to Peterloo. Excellent.
Bishop of Manchester talking about what happens when the balance between people and police is lost.
Bishop of Manchester: commercial noise would not be covered by this, so it's strange law which makes it less possible to protest than to party.
Bishop of Manchester: Gypsy and Traveller groups need to have adequate sites in the right places.
Lord Sikka: this Bill empowers ministers to make laws without us seeing the law.
Lord Sikka: companies can cause disruption to communities by moving production, and the govt says that is good, but if the workers protest, they are criminalised. Is the govt really evenhanded?
Lord Sikka: it is apparently not criminal for companies to market weapons, but it is to protest. It is apparently wrong for companies to be deprived of their profits, but not people of their lives.
Lord Sikka: the Bill would return us to the era of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Lord Trees speaking on pet theft.
Lord Balfe: "free speech is a hollow concept if one is only able to express approved views"
Lord Balfe: if we in the Lords don't make it clear, it will be decided in the Courts of Appeal.
Lord Balfe: the definition of "nuisance" is a very movable feast.
Lord Brooke: I've been on many demonstrations and caused a lot of trouble in my past life.
Lord Brooke speaking on drink driving.
Earl Attlee speaking now, focusing on prison reform.
Baroness Meacher also speaking on prison reform.
Baroness Meacher is speaking on serious violence reduction orders."They are huge issues, not just bubbles on the Christmas tree."
Lord Berkeley wonders who went on a protest most recently, because he went on one last week....
Lord Hogan-Howe rising to speak. It is reasonable to ask for a change in policing to reflect a change in protests.
Lord Hogan-Howe talks about noise, and it's not just about the volume, but about the content.
We disagree with Lord Hogan-Howe on the broad picture he is painting.
Lord Lexden now speaking on past sentences which should never have been passed.
We're on to the closing speeches now. Lord Marks.
Lord Marks: protest is noisy - that's part of dissent, that part of it being heard.
Lord Marks: how are the young people to be heard? Through protest. Would they be disruptive or offensive? Probably.
Lord Marks: we need adequate provision of safe sites.
Lord Marks: there is much to debate in this Bill, and much of it is not good.
Lord Rosser now, speaking on the lack of brevity and the fact that so many powers are delegated.
Lord Rosser: there is much in this Bill we profoundly disagree with.
Lord Rosser on the noise conditions and the way this can be used to rule out protest.
Yes, the "ought to have known" issue.
Lord Rosser: groups will look at this and decide that non-violent protest is too risky for them.
Lord Rosser: seize and removal of a vehicle which is someone's home is the penalty for an offence which is vague.
Lord Rosser: this Bill clamps down on the right to protest.
The Minister is responding now.
The Minister talks about disruptive tactics used by protesters.
Again, making the suggestion that the protesters are different from "ordinary people".
Again, making the suggestion that the protesters are different from "ordinary people".
The Minister is promising that the govt understands that protest is noisy.
The Minister is suggesting that the police have much experience in carefully judging how to apply protest laws.
The Minister tells the House that this is not an anti-Gypsy and Traveller Bill.
Minister talking about sentencing.
We are focusing on Parts 3 and 4. This is, as previously mentioned, a rather huge Bill.
And that's it. Bill has been read a Second Time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
