Police Bill: Monday vote explained

Since the last General Election gave the Conservative Party an 80+ seat majority of MPs in the Commons, they have pushed through some bad legislation. When these Bills come to the Lords, it’s our job to look at them line by line and try to improve them by carefully considered amendments. Which mostly the Tory-dominated Commons immediately throw out*.

However, on the rather nasty Policing Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC), which is so huge it should be four different Bills, the Govt gave us Peers the rare chance to remove the worst clauses. That’s because after the Bill had gone thru the Commons, the Govt introduced eighteen pages of new amendments, thus bypassing MPs. Those changes related to protest and would ensure suppression of all reasonable dissent and is quite likely a Government attempt to distract us from the original Bill.

The amendments were a panicked Tory reaction to protests by XR, Insulate Britain, and the Bristol pulling down of Colston’s statue. Labour’s very valid initial opposition to the Police Bill as it went through the Commons was based upon a failure to deal with women’s safety. But in the Lords, when the new amendments appeared, a clear assault on civil liberties, Labour dithered and sat on the fence. It seems that as a Government-in-waiting Labour didn’t want to look as if they were supporting lively protests. However, a campaign by thousands of people encouraged Labour to listen and do the right thing.

The process of business on Monday will be complicated by how the Government reacts and whether we can keep enough non-Tory peers in the House until the important votes come through, but this is an attempt to explain what might happen in this crucial Bill.

It’s usually very hard to amend a Bill, because of that Government majority, but late amendments can be voted down and thrown out. Many peers saw the opportunity to make the already horrendously repressive PCSC Bill slightly better by doing just that, but Labour with its 160+ votes had to join in opposing them.

So they thought long and hard and came up with a cunning plan. In spite of the Bill’s huge size, the Govt was insisting that the Lords finish it all by Monday 17th Jan. There was still a lot to do on the original Bill, plus the late-tabled amendments, all of which would mean a late night sitting** perhaps stretching well into the early hours of the next day.

It’s also important that we don’t lose sight of the original very bad bill by the later addition of the really very bad stuff. This attempt at Government distraction has made things more difficult.

Labour’s plan is to vote on some of the original Bill and the new amendments. Some of us would have liked all the new amendments to be voted down, but time pressure makes that very hard. First, Labour decided to have only eleven votes. They will call votes on issues in the original Bill, like a ban on assemblies and noisy protests, but also on issues not in the original. These are issues that normally we’d all like to see included, ie making misogyny a crime, being able to protest around Parliament, spiking of drinks, or insisting on a duty of candour for police; they are all good things. But votes take time and as we won’t start debating until after 3pm, we have to make choices. The Lords can either eat up time on the ‘issue raising’ work we normally do, or seize our chance to vote down some of the most draconian legislation ever proposed.

So it will be, mid to late evening, when we’ll get to the Government’s protest-suppressing amendments. After a lot of campaigning by the Green Party and campaigning groups, Labour will join those of us who want these voted down, but sadly only on three of them: to be able to protest about new roads and major transport works (eg HS2), to continue to be able to lock on at protests, and to prevent suspicionless stop and search. If the Govt wants to insist on those, they will have to bring them back later in the year in a new Bill.

The Green Party peers will vote to reject Labour’s amendment to limit obstruction of the highway to only the strategic road network (motorways and A roads). We don’t believe that peaceful protests like blocking a road (or a motorway) deserves 51 weeks in prison. Also, Labour will be aware that if the Lords amend the government amendment, then MPs can simply restore the original wording and ignore the suggested compromise.

If we in the Lords amend any of the Government amendments, rather than just vote them down, the Government can take out those changes in the Commons, put the originals back in, and pass them into law.**

Whatever happens in the House of Lords son Monday 17th Jan it will be a bad day for our human rights and civil liberties here in the UK.

*Controversial Bills usually start in the Commons by going through various Stages, then get passed to the Lords, who try to improve them. Improved Bills are then passed back to the Commons, who accept or refuse the improvements, sending the Bill back to the Lords to accept in process called Ping Pong. Mostly, we accept because the Commons is the elected Chamber. Very occasionally we dig our heels in, but it has to be because of something very important, eg legal breaches.

**The Lords is a so-called ‘part time House’ and business often starts mid afternoon. That means to get the Bills through in a reasonable amount of days we often sit well past 10pm. It’s a stupid system, based on the assumption that peers can go to their proper jobs in the morning, have a nice lunch, then do the law-making in the afternoon.

Government by-pass MPs on new policing laws

Pages of new amendments to the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill have been submitted by the government as the legislation is half way through the Lords Committee stage. The new laws target “locking-on” and other forms of nonviolent protest, as well as giving police officers the ability to stop and search without suspicion.

Continue reading “Government by-pass MPs on new policing laws”

Lawless roads and motorists getting off lightly

Today, I’m asking a Minister if breaking the law with a car attracts a lighter sentence than if someone does the same in any other area of their life?

Many years ago a police traffic sergeant told me that the best way to murder someone is to do it with a car. A hit and run carries a fairly minimum sentence and even if caught you can always claim that “accidents happen.”

The reality of this was brought home to me in 2014 when a man travelling at 80-88mph drove straight at the traffic officer who stepped out to flag his vehicle down for speeding. The killer made no attempt to stop as he threw PC Duncan into the air ‘like a rag doll’ and left him with fatal injuries. The starting point for murdering a police officer with a knife, or iron bar is 30 years, this driver received an eight and a half year sentence.

Continue reading “Lawless roads and motorists getting off lightly”

Police must be open as well as honest

Today I ask whether the government will ensure that the police have a ‘duty of candour’.

One of the main recommendations that came out of the recent report on the murder of Daniel Morgan is that the police should have a “duty of candour”. It seems such a simple and inoffensive change to how the police conduct themselves, but it would generate a flow of fresh air and transparency through the suffocating fog of the UK’s policing culture. The Daniel Morgan case is the most documented example of institutional corruption within the police, but is only one of many going back over several decades.

Continue reading “Police must be open as well as honest”

Question to Minister on protecting the right to protest

Today around 3pm I’ll be raising the issue of freedom to protest with questions to the Government in the House of Lords about the Court of Appeal’s striking out an injunction obtained by INEOS in a secret court. The successful appeal was brought by two individuals and Friends of the Earth, representing an enormous victory for the right to protest. It will hopefully pave the way for more successful appeals by peaceful protestors who have had their human rights restricted by the frackers and other environmental vandals. Continue reading “Question to Minister on protecting the right to protest”

Child spies doing police work on: terrorism, gang violence and sexual exploitation

I was shocked to learn this week that the police and other public authorities are legally allowed to use children as spies. I only found out because the Government wants to change the rules, so that rather than authorising a child to spy for only one month at a time, they can be authorised for a whole four months.

I want to state this very clearly, because most people won’t know: children are being used by the State to infiltrate criminal groups and do dangerous police work. Continue reading “Child spies doing police work on: terrorism, gang violence and sexual exploitation”