Thread by @PoliceBillAll

The #PolicingBill is starting in the House of Commons now.

Here is the thread - follow below!

The Minister, Kit Malthouse MP, is quickly setting out the @UKHouseofLords amendments for MPs in the @HouseofCommons.

Then the amendments are taken in the order set out in the order paper. Part 3 and part 4 are in the last of three sections. commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/document/54422…

@UKHouseofLords @HouseofCommons Before getting on to the specific amendments, there is a time for the general consideration -- in short, the Minister runs through everything before any actual votes are taken. At the moment, that discussion is focusing mainly on sexual harassment.

@UKHouseofLords @HouseofCommons This is a long Bill, with many amendments, and there is not much time in which to discuss it.

The Minister has made a candid (and accurate) aside: "very often, in this House, we mistake the introduction of legislation for actually doing anything".

Sarah Jones MP is responding for Labour.

As this Alliance is focusing on Parts 3 and 4 of the #PolicingBill, we'll concentrate on those sections. It will be a struggle to fit in during the time allowed.

Caroline Nokes (Conservative) mainly debating with Sella Creasy (Labour).

Misogyny as a hate crime is a vitally important debate which should not have needed to have been squeezed into such a huge and rambling Bill.

Anne McLaughlin (SNP), followed by Maria Miller (Con), and now Stella Creasy's main contribution.

This tweet from Femi nicely sums up what's at stake later in the evening.

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1498343381059227649?s=20&t=WKH8zmVpzKKKcNxENORrSA

And thank you to Steve Baker MP for his plans to support Peers' amendments on noise.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1498364551187902465?s=20&t=WKH8zmVpzKKKcNxENORrSA

Craig Whittaker (Con), Wera Hobhouse (LD), Ruth Edwards (Con). Currently on the Law Commission's concerns around making misogyny a hate crime and whether these sensibly apply to the current amendment.

Caroline Lucas (Green). There is a lot to get through on this Bill, which covers an unreasonable amount of ground.

The first division. This is on misogyny as a hate crime, and whether to accept the amendment from the Lords. It will be a while until we get to Part 3.

We are on 114, 115, and 116.

Division on 116. This has to do with data regarding weapons (specifically knives).

If you're just joining us, then welcome! We expected to be discussing Part 3 by now, but the earlier statements have altered the timetable.

The govt has easily won that division.

Division on 141. This has to do with sexual harassment in relation to accomodation - essentially sex as rent payment. Peers added a strengthening clause.

Govt winning divisions.

MPs are moving to group two amendments. (Part 3 and Part 4 are both in group 3.)

Sarah Champion (Labour) speaking to rather empty benches.

The Minister is wrapping up the second set of amendments.

Division on 107!

The govt has won those amendments in the second group. Due to time pressures, there were no more divisions.

We are on Public Order.

The Minister is speaking about the issues of public order. He suggests that "their Lordships may regret the day that they voted down these measures". #PolicingBill

The issue of balance is raised. The question of "how often would this be used" is also raised.

The Minister states that obviously conditions on protest would not be placed often.

Cries of protest from MPs.

#PolicingBill

Question about what "too noisy" means. The Minister does not have an answer on the level of noise.

Caroline Lucas on the fact that the issues raised can be dealt with already. The House appears to be generally behind her, rather than the Minister.
#PolicingBill

"Rare and exceptional circumstances" is how it is expressed by the Minister.

The Minister is giving way fairly often. MPs are asking significant questions.

The voices in the chamber are clearly in opposition to the Minister.

This may continue for up to another hour or 90 minutes.

Minister speaking now on the highways amendment.

The Minister is repeating the assertion that because we live in a liberal democracy, we can cope with fewer rights to protest.

Time limits are being set.

Sarah Jones is responding.

Labour mentions Part 4, and expresses disappointment that these measures were included in the Bill.

Labour: "at no point have the police asked for these legislative powers -- the balance requested was completely different."

Sarah Jones MP: "These clauses would hinder, rather than help the police. We on this side want these provisions removed from the Bill."
#PolicingBill

Labour points out how the Home Secretary can still change the definitions in this #PolicingBill.

Jesse Norman MP raises conservative concerns to the #PolicingBill.

Anne McLaughlin MP (SNP): "protests are noisy -- the louder you shout, the more we hear"

Anne McLaughlin MP (SNP): "things change because local people stand up and tell us what they want".

Anne McLaughlin MP (SNP): "we're going to need much larger prisons...if the severe provisions in the #PolicingBill go through...much larger prisons."

Robert Jenrick MP (former Minister) speaking on how we must be careful on rights to protest. "Governments can make mistakes."

Time limit on speeches now reduced to three minutes.

Imran Hussain MP: "these measures are petty vengeance against protests, draconian laws to curb our freedoms and restrict our rights"

Olivia Blake: "the idea that one person shouldn't be able to protest is against what our democracy stands for."

Heard on the Vagrancy Act from Layla Moran (LD) and Bob Blackman (Con).

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: "democracy is noisy, that's the point"

Clive Lewis raising the comparison with Russia.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle is making a very loud, impassioned, and frankly hilarious speech. "The Minister is a snowflake, and the cabinet cry into their port at night because they can't handle robust democracy".
#PolicingBill

Joanna Cherry MP (SNP) namechecks Liberty and Big Brother Watch.

Steve Baker defends the rights of protesters, and most of all on noise.

Steve Baker MP to his fellow Conservatives: "just flirt with it...just get in that rebel lobby with us".
#PolicingBill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour): "the point of protest is to give a collective voice...that is loud."
#PolicingBill

Richard Fuller (Conservative): "we forget that anger and frustration find their expression in a democratic society through the ability to make noise"

Richard Fuller MP: "I worry that at this time we need clarity, this #PolicingBill is so vague."

Liz Saville Roberts also drawing comparisons with Russia.

Liz Saville Roberts: "The act of protest is woven through the past and present of Wales."

Brendan Clarke-Smith on examples of harmful protest.

Jeremy Corbyn speaks on both protest and the Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities.

Paula Barker (Labour): "the noise clause is a crackdown on dissent"

Allan Dorrans - the last backbencher to speak. Highlights protest rights.

The Minister is replying. Starts with attacks on Labour and past protest bans they have enacted. Says that the measures in the #PolicingBill are modest and will restore balance.

We are starting the voting. Amendments are being "ayed" and "noed".

Wait for the right one...

73. It's noise. (The noes are louder.) Division on noise.

We want NO. (The question is whether the House agrees with the govt, which disagrees with the Lords.)

This will take a few minutes. We know that there are three Conservatives who have spoken in favour of the Lords amendment on noise: Steve Baker, Jesse Norman, Richard Fuller.

It's hard to tell which side has more people. The chamber looks pretty full.

The Ayes have it. 288 vs 238.

We have lost the noise amendment by 50 votes.

This is obviously disappointing. Hopefully the Lords will push it back again.

They are now voting on 80, which is public assemblies.

News from the #PolicingBill debate: the govt has succeeded in getting the Lords amendment on noise kicked out of the Bill. It now goes back to the original wording, and will return to the Lords.

We are waiting for the results of the division on 80. This is regarding public asemblies. (We would like "no".)

Ayes again. 289 vs 237.

They are now asking whether to add an additional paragraph. Nodded through.

Disvision on 81. This is the amendment on protesting outside Parliament.

Just to clarify - yes, all these changes will go back to the Lords. The Lords can decide to stand firm and keep the same amendments.

The chamber is looking pretty full.

Ayes again. 298 v 236. Again it's the govt majority.

87 now. This is single person protests.

News from the #PolicingBill: the amendment to protest outside of Parliament has also been lost, this time with a slightly larger margin.

While the Lords may hold out and send amendments back, it is unusual. More often the Lords seek a compromise.

Ayes have it. 292 vs 238

So one person protests are back in.

That's it for Part 3. (88, which was regarding highways, was agreed earlier.)

None of the substantial amendments to the #PolicingBill made by the Lords have been accepted by the Commons. This means that the amendments go back to the Lords. It is possible for the Lords to disagree, or to agree, or to seek a compromise.

Thank you all for following along. It's disappointing that the votes were close, but not close enough.

I'm @QuakerDissent and I'll be back when the Lords consider this - whenever that might be! (Follow me if you want to hear more about politics, but also board games...)