Thread by @PoliceBillAll

The last day of Report for the #PolicingBill is well underway. We'll be tweeting here all night.

The first group has been covered. We're now on to the second group, which is about hunting with dogs. It includes issues such as hare coursing.

Part 3 will probably start in a couple of hours. This is a HUGE Bill, and Part 3 is right at the end.

Like @GreenJennyJones, we're settling in for a long night. Unlike Peers, we're at home instead of bobbing up and down to debate with the Minister. Huge thanks to all the Peers who stay to vote on these vital issues.

There's also been some brilliant activity ahead of the Lords votes. Earlier @kathchristie3 shared some of the news coverage and the protests.

https://twitter.com/kathchristie3/status/1483070893131767811?s=20

And @QuakerDissent (hello, that's me!) put up this explanation of the process.

https://twitter.com/QuakerDissent/status/1483042591528693761?s=20

Moved on to drink spiking. 114A. There's a division.

Contents have it -- it's in.

Move on. 114C. This is for a duty of candour on the police force.

Another division!

Contents again. The govt is losing votes so far.

Moved on to a discussion on stalking. After this it's a debate about misogyny.

This is a hugely important issue. But it's being crowbarred into this Bill because the govt keep resisting a strategy on stalking.

We may or may not have a division on stalking. If we don't, then I suspect we'll have one on misogyny.

No division. Now on to misogyny. After this it's Part 3.

If anyone still has time to email a member of the House of Lords, please do. You've got 30-40 minutes before Part 3 (protest) starts.

I suspect that Baroness Newlove will push this to a vote, and it will pass.

Ah, there is an amendment to the amendment.

There's also a #policingbill protest going on outside Parliament: facebook.com/XRebellionUK/v…

Here are our friend from @BritishQuakers being noisy and annoying outside Parliament.

https://twitter.com/PoliticalQuaker/status/1483141266594480129?s=20

@BritishQuakers For everyone at the noisy and annoying protest outside Parliament, here's the thread to follow. We'll be live tweeting everything on Part 3 -- all the way until the small hours of the morning.

https://twitter.com/PoliceBillAll/status/1483107445979426819?s=20

#ProtestIsNotACrime #PolicingBill #PoliceBill

@BritishQuakers One more division, then on to Part 3. In the meantime, I recommend this live stream of what's happening outside. fb.watch/aBu2zedP9l/

@BritishQuakers The House is pretty full tonight, it seems. Compared to usual, at least.

@BritishQuakers THere's at least a 50% chance they decide to break for an hour to get dinner.

@BritishQuakers PART 3 STARTING NOW

@BritishQuakers They're starting with noise. This Bill would restrict noise on protests. Lord Coaker (Lab) talking about how noise is a part of protest. "Has democracy collapsed in the face of noisy protests? No, and never has any govt sought to restrict it."
#ProtestIsNotACrime

@BritishQuakers Lord Coaker: "Just look at the govt amendments on defining noise...if that clarifies it...well, the courts are going to have a field day with that, and that's the clarification."

@BritishQuakers Viscount Colville speaking. His name is down on the noise amendments.

@BritishQuakers Want to hear what's going on in the Lords? Follow this thread, from here, now! #PolicingBill

@BritishQuakers Lord Hailsham (Con) agrees with the govt.

@BritishQuakers Baroness Jones: "these clauses are oppressive, and they need to go".

@BritishQuakers Lord Hain: "this represents the most significant threat against democracy"

@BritishQuakers Lord Deben (Con): "The govt has produced no good reason for this legislation. Some protests are embarrassing, but these amendments go far too far. I need the opportunity to dissent and protest."

@BritishQuakers Bishop of Leeds: "The fact that these amendments were brought when they were is surely an abuse of parliamentary process"

Bishop of Leeds: "If this Bill goes through, we'll need to remove the statues of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela across the road. We can't laud them later when we would have condemned them."

Lord Dubs: "There are so many important changes which started with noisy demos"

Baroness Hoey: "people watching this will think we have lost all common sense"

Lord Cormack (Con): "I took part in the Countryside Alliance demonstrations. Some demonstrations go too far, but noise? No."

Lord Cormack (Con): "a Bill which is injected with a big dose of stupidity is not a very good Bill"

Bishop of Bristol: "there is real hurt and trauma when protests are mishandled. Public spaces belong to the people, and they should be able to have good disagreement in them."

Bishop of Bristol: "good disagreement involves noise, it is not quiet and orderly"

Baroness Cavendish: "These terms are so difficult to define"

Lord Walney highlighting difference between our democracy and the examples given.

Baroness Stowell on why the measures on noise are relevant and how the govt clarifications help.

Lord Brown does not agree with Insulate Britain, but even so does not agree with noise.

Baroness Fox also agrees that the noise clauses don't solve any current problem.

Lord Pannick: "the ability to demonstrate while making a noise is a very important safety valve"

Lord Macdonald: "this wording is going to create an absolute nightmare for the courts"

Lord Hendy: "this is a fundamental part of democracy. More than that, these clauses impinge on the right to picket."

Everyone following the #PolicingBill or the #PoliceBill or even #ProtestIsNotACrime, this is your easy thread to see what the Lords are saying.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: "these clauses don't even seem to work against the groups such as Insulate Britain"

Lord Paddick: "We on the LD benches oppose all the clauses in Part 3. Let me remind you that I was a police officer and that I do not support these measures, and research show clearly that the police do not support them"

Lord Paddick: "there is a danger of the police becoming politicised, and there is a danger of the police being drawn into these decisions at the expense of police time elsewhere"

The Minister is speaking now.

The Minister says that we are very lucky to live in a democracy and of course the police wouldn't restrict the sorts of protests which Peers have mentioned.

There will be a vote soon on some amendments - at the least, 115 on noise. We will then see how many Peers are in the building but not on the floor of the chamber.

The Minister is speaking to her base. She is not attempting to win friends on Part 3. She does not wish to listen to the many Conservatives who expressed their concerns - mostly very gently. She is telling them to get back into line.

The Minister is explaining that of course these measures would not be used on many protests. These measures are simply so that the police might be able to do so. Obviously they wouldn't be so crass as to actually use the power.

Lord Coaker points out that Margaret Thatcher did not introduce a noise amendment, butt somehow this govt finds it necessary. "What has happened?" he cries!

Lord Coaker: "this is a fundamental right the people have had for centuries"

DIVISION on noise.

So, we have about ten minutes until the result.

We want content, aka yes, aka they accept the amendment.

Ok! It will be about 30 seconds...

The suspense...

THE CONTENTS HAVE IT!

By a large margin...

OK, so 132 may be moved...

DIVISION on 132

132 would remove Clause 57. That's the clause which would allow the police to ban or place restrictions on public assemblies. It's a big one.

Just t be clear, we have won on noise! We won on it! Well done everyone!

Now they are voting on removing clause 57 (one of the key clauses, which is about restrictions on public amseblies. If we win this (we want CONTENT) then it will be by a smaller margin.

About a minute to go now...

Cross your fingers, everyone...

WE WON THIS ONE TOO!

WE WON TO REMOVE CLAUSE 57!

The Lords do not wish to have dinner.

Lords are now voting on whether or not to have dinner.

OK, the Lords have decided not to vote on dinner. Instead, the govt has bowed to pressure and they are having a 5 min shuffle break.

I must say, I am clearly staved for laughs right now, because I found the idea of the Lords voting on whether or now to have dinner hilarious.

Send me really funny stuff, please!

What's happening now is that the Lords are having a quick shuffle break. They've decided (quite sensibly) not to break for dinner, but to carry on.

Oh, well that was sneaky. Peers will not thank the govt.

The Minister has gone to dinner anyway. So they won't start again until 9:15.

That was done in an underhand way. Bad form.

So, we're back at 9:15.

When Peers get back, they'll be looking at public nuisance, as well as restrictions outside Parliament.

In the last few minutes, I have also got myself some (more) dinner. I'm usually @QuakerDissent, by the way. It's good to see everyone here. *waves*

@QuakerDissent What happened half an hour ago was that the Minister tried to call a dinner break of an hour.
Lords said "not, let's carry on".
Minister said "how about 5 mins?"
Lords agreed.
Minister's friend then popped up after 5 mins to say "oh, can we wait another 25 mins actually?"

@QuakerDissent So they snuck in 30 minutes. It looked bad from here.

@QuakerDissent THEY ARE BACK!

@QuakerDissent And most Peers have left. The benches are empty.

@QuakerDissent Viscount Colville argues for protests to be allowed in Parliament Square under certain condition. (Bill currently says not ever.)

I suspect this may be allowed by the govt to go through.

Lord Paddick supporting Viscount Colville.

Baroness Altmann (Con) talks about these measures being like a hammer to crack a nut.

What happens now is that we'll hear on a few more amendments on nuisance and protests in Parliament Square. Then we'll move to the "new" amendments on HS2 protests, stop and search, banning orders etc.

Lord Rosser also supporting.

Minister is softer in her tones to Viscount Colville. However, she is telling him that he shouldn't worry about it.

It is sounding a little condescending, to be honest.

Minister is responding. There may be a division soon.

The question now is whether there are enough Peers still in the House for us to win the next few amendments.

A dinner break is a chance for Peers to slip away. It reduces the number of Peers left, and that often benefits the government. That's why the govt was so keen on dinner.

I hope Viscount Colville will put those amendments to the vote.

Division!

Lords are voting on whether protests should be allowed outside Parliament.

Result in ten minutes.

This is a chance to see how many Peers are left in the building.

Should be back quite soon now.

Looking at the floor of the chamber, it looks like there are about equal numbers on each side. But Peers can vote from anywhere in the building.

Also, this amendment had Conservative backbench support.

Result: CONTENT WINS!

We've won on protest outside Parliament! Well done everyone, well done Viscount Colville!

I think we're just waiting until we get to the "new" amendments.

We are now on locking on etc.

The Minister is now speaking to all the new amendments - locking on, infrastructure, blocking roads, stop and search, and protest banning orders.

Here's a thread I wrote earlier about what happens next with all of these amendments.

No, here's the thread I wrote earlier about what happens next.

https://twitter.com/QuakerDissent/status/1483042591528693761?s=20

Locking on: amendments 148, 149. These are the ones about holding on to something as a protest, or carrying equipment to lock on. This is things like chaining yourself to trees or gates, or even linking arms.

Lord Rosser confirms that Labour oppose these new powers. These amendments haven't been looked at by the Commons, and have only been looked at by Peers late at night.

On the amendments on blocking a road, Labour plans to amend it to only apply to major motorways. That's amendment 150A.

Suspicionless stop and search: 155, 156, 157, 158. These bad amendments allow police to search for protest equipment without any reason to suspect you.

Lord Rosser makes the point that locking on was a technique used by suffragettes.

Clearly he HAS been on the tour of Parliament.

Serious disruption prevention orders: amendment 159. They are effectively protest banning orders which don’t actually need anyone to have been convicted — just charged. Protest twice and be banned from protest. Breach that, and you have a criminal record and could be imprisoned.

Lord Rosser: "we need to have these votes as soon as possible, to allow as many noble Lords as possible to vote"

Baroness Jones: "if the police protect the powerful while getting more powers to use against others, that's not a democracy but an autocracy"

Baroness Jones: "the govt does not speak for ordinary people"

Lord Carlile (Crossbencher) on stop and search now.

Stop and search is definitely disproportionate.

Baroness Fox: "Any member of the public needs to know whether they are breaking the law or not. Being for law and order means that you know what the law is."

Baroness Fox: "We're getting into a place where people will need to have reasonable excuses for carrying a bike lock"

Baroness Fox: "we need to be careful about picking and choosing which protest is right"

Lord Hogan-Howe is supporting the Govt on this.

Even Lord Hogan-Howe wonders why the police aren't always using their existing powers.

Remember, if Peers vote down the new govt amendments on locking on, stop and search, or protest orders, then MPs can’t put them back in. That’s because those amendments have only ever existed in the Lords — they weren’t in the draft passed by the Commons.

Lord Paddick is speaking right after Lord Hogan-Howe. Both have some experience in the police.

Lord Paddick calls these new amendments "badly throught-through, ill-concieved, acts of desperation"

Liberal Democrats will vote against as many of these as are taken to a division -- especially 159, 155, 151.

Minister is now replying.

Her answer is essentially that she thinks these are reasonable measures.

The Minister is once again implying that locking on is new.

Seriously, there's a statue in Parliament where a suffragette locked on and the statue needed to be cut. It's about 30m from where she stands now.

Division on locking on!

This division is on locking on. It will take about ten minutes.

I suspect that the next amendment, being equiped to lock on, will be contingent on this one passing or not.

I think the Minister may have mis-judged the tone of the House. I suspect that demanding a dinner break didn't help.

Each vote on this #PolicingBill takes 10 minutes, plus another 3-4 of faffing time. That's quite a lot of time.

Reminder everyone! This is your thread of what Peers have been saying on the floor of the House on the #PolicingBill #PoliceBill #protest

This vote is going to be indicative of how many others we'll win. But even IF we lose this, we'd win others. I think. Let's see!

Result on locking on: 163 to 216 -- we win!

LOCKING ON IS NOT PART OF THE BILL!

The Lords are tired...

150A -- this is Labour's amendment to the amendment.

Before Peers vote on whether to come down harshly on protesters blocking roads, they first need to decide whether "roads" should actually be "really big important roads".

They are now voting on the types of roads. If this goes through, then the main amendment will follow.

Just to highlight that the govt has lost EVERY division so far.

I suspect that the Lords will vote for only "really big important roads" to be included in a new offence. Then they will probably let the government have that amendment.

Then they will move on to obstruction of major transport works. That's one which Lord Paddick specifically mentioned earlier.

After that it's interference with key national infrastructure. That could go either way.

Then stop and search. There is one amendment on stop and search with suspicion, four on suspicionless stop and search. I think the latter four would all go together.

Then serious disruption prevention orders -- aka protest banning orders.

Result of the amendment to the amendment on "really big roads": 216 to 160, so yes, it is amended.

The amendment on obstruction of highways has been passed, but with the change that it's only really really big roads.

DIVISION now on obstruction of major transport projects. This is things like HS2.

Just to return to the previous amendments for a moment:
1. locking on has been removed from the Bill altogether
2. obstruction of the highway is still in the Bill, but has been changed to obstruction of really, really big roads only

In about five minutes they will announce the result of interference with major transport projects. This is mainly HS2, but of course it's also the Newbury bypass, it's also any big route the government wants to say is "major".

On what counts as a "really really big road", then it' part of the strategic route network. (I confess I don't know what level of road that is. But it is actually defined somewhere.)

The strategic road network is apparently roads maintained by Highways England.

Result in a moment!

Result of interference with a major transport project: 154 to 208. WE WIN!

Not contents win -- so interference with a major transport project is NOT in the Bill.

Another division!

I'm getting a cup of tea. I think I need one.

Division on amendment 152. Result: 153 to 198! WE WIN! This means interfering with key national infrastructure is NOT in the Bill.

Another division, this time 154. This is stop and search on suspicion.

153 just got nodded through, but that's because it does little without 152. It basically defines what counts as key national infrastructure.

The Lords are essentially removing most of the new amendments from the Bill. This is a very good thing.

Result on 154, stop and search: 141 vs 205

Stop and search is NOT part of the Bill.

Suspicionless stop and search is next.

Tonight, the Govt has lost all votes.

A large number of things have been accepted, because many amendments are accepted by everyone shouting "content". Some of those have been things which were important.

But on everything which was a vote -- the Govt lost.

This may be the penultimate vote in Part 3. It depends on whether amendments 156, 157, and 158 are considered to be contingent on 155.

Result on 155, suspicionless stop and search: 128 vs 212

This means that suspicionless stop and search is NOT
part of the Bill.

STOP AND SEARCH IS OUT OF THE BILL

We have the final part -- serious disruption prevention orders. This is amendment 159.

This is the last of the new amendments put down by the govt.

I suspect this vote will go much the same way as the others.

But, fingers crossed everyone! Let's hope the lords sends a message loud and clear to the govt -- these measures are not acceptable!

What happens after this? Well, the Bill has a Third Reading, where it gets made a bit neater but no significant change is made. (They may need to work out exactly what removing Clause 57 does, for example.) Then it's Ping Pong between the Commons and Lords.

MPs could put back in the part on noise. That's because they saw that section already.

But the new govt amendments which just got voted down -- those are gone now. MPs cannot introduce them.

Result on protest banning orders: 124 vs 199

Protest banning orders are NOT in the Bill!

That is the end of Part 3 on protest. All votes we wished to be won have been won.

Of course many clauses are still in the #PolicingBill, and it is still a terrible piece of draft legislation. But it is less bad than it could have been, and so that is a small victory.

This is not quite the end of the Bill tonight. Lord Best is speaking to an amendment to repeal the Vagrancy Act. It's also important.

So, let's take a moment to be pleased and grateful for all the votes won tonight. It is brilliant.

BUT there is much work still to come! We need to ensure that noise stays out, and that clause 57 stays out when the Bill returns to the Commons. That will be a big task.

We also need to ensure MPs keep in the right to protest outside Parliament itself.

So...see you all back on Twitter in a month or so?