The House of Lords has rejected key parts of the UK Government's Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which has sparked 'Kill the Bill' protests in cities around England.
The Government's crackdown on protests comes in the wake of major disruption caused by eco-activists such as by Insulate Britain and others.
The Bill, which is currently in its 'Report' stage, was dissected by Peers in a session that began on Monday January 17 - and ran on late into the night.
New powers turned down by the unelected chamber included allowing police officers to stop and search anyone at a protest “without suspicion” for items used to prevent a person being moved, known as “locking-on”.
Peers also demanded an urgent review of spiking offences, amid concerns over people being drugged on nights out. The Labour amendment to the Bill was backed by 237 votes to 190, majority 47, in the House of Lords.
Under the measure, the review will cover reporting by victims, prosecution rates, the adequacy of sentencing guidelines and police investigations into cases, and instances of reoffending.
Peers also defeated the Government by backing the introduction of a duty of candour on members of the police workforce.
The Labour amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was backed by 252 votes to 179, majority 73, in the House of Lords.
Police officers would be legally required to tell the truth during all forms of public inquiry and criminal investigation, in a similar way to healthcare professionals
Baroness O’Loan, whose independent panel into the 1987 unsolved murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan last year accused the Metropolitan Police of institutional corruption and “lack of candour”, said the amendment would “bring about a change of mindset and culture by requiring openness and transparency about what has happened in an investigation”.
She added: “(It) could lead to a more efficient deployment of resources, which would have a beneficial impact on the public purse, could help very much to contradict allegations of police corruption, and will grow confidence in the leadership of the police service, because there would be a statutory obligation of openness and transparency.”
The amendment was one of the key recommendations of the report by former Bishop of Liverpool the Right Rev James Jones into the experiences of the Hillsborough families.
Peers have defeated the Government in backing an amendment that would make misogyny a hate crime.
The amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, put forward by Conservative peer and former victims’ commissioner Baroness Newlove, was backed by 242 votes to 185, majority 57, in the House of Lords.
The change to the Bill would give the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly.
And the Lords inflicted a heavy defeat on the Government over its proposed curbs on demonstrations.
Peers backed, by 261 votes to 166, majority 95, a Labour-led move that scraps the power to impose conditions on protest marches judged to be too noisy.
A short time later, the Government suffered a further defeat with the upper chamber backing by 238 votes to 171, majority 67, a Liberal Democrat amendment that stripped out the power to impose conditions on protests on noise grounds.
It sets the stage for a parliamentary tussle over the Bill, known as ping-pong, where legislation passes between the Commons and the Lords.
The defeats came as the drumming outside Parliament of protesters opposed to the Bill could be heard inside the chamber.
Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said: “The right to protest in this country has never, ever had to have a condition placed upon it which is about noise.
“I believe that making a noise is a fundamental part of the freedom to protest properly in a democracy.”
Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb branded the Government move to impose noise conditions as “repressive”.
She said: “They are plain nasty and they really have to go.”
Labour former cabinet minister Lord Hain, who was a leading anti-apartheid campaigner, said: “This Bill, in my view, represents the biggest threat to the right to dissent and non-violent protest in my lifetime. It’s deeply reactionary. It’s an authoritarian attack on the fundamental liberties of our citizens.”
Tory peer Lord Deben, chairman of the independent advisory Climate Change Committee, said the Government measures “go far too far”.
He said: “We are a democratic society and if I can’t go outside and make a noise to point out that I think that a whole range of things that the Government or any government does are unacceptable, then my human rights are very seriously impugned.
“Dissent and protest are essential parts of democracy. This goes too far.”
The Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Rev Nick Baines, argued the statues of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela would have to be removed from outside Parliament were the Government provisions to be approved.
He said: “You can’t laud people later as being great, prophetic actors by exercising the right to dissent, at the same as clamping down on that.”
Refugee campaigner and Labour peer Lord Dubs said: “Without noisy demos a lot of changes don’t happen. This is the nature of our democracy and this Government is trying to trample all over it.”
Former Labour MP Baroness Hoey, who sits as a non-affiliated peer, said: “The idea that anyone can go on a demonstration and not make noise is just such a lack of common sense that I really don’t understand how anyone could possibly have put this forward.”
In a further defeat for the Tory frontbench, the Lords rejected a Government move to create a new offence of “locking on”, a tactic used by protesters to make it difficult to remove them, carrying with it a penalty of up to a year in prison. This provision was rejected by 216 votes to 163, majority 53.
A short time later, peers inflicted a further Government defeat in backing a move to restrict the imposition tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways rather than all roads.
The Lords backed Labour’s more limited measure by 216 votes to 160, majority 56.
And a Government measure to create a new offence of obstructing the construction or maintenance of major transport works was defeated by 208 votes to 154, majority 54.
The Lords went on to reject a Government move by 198 votes to 153, majority 45, to make it an offence for a person to interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure, including airports, the road network, railways and newspaper printers.
In a further Government defeat, peers rejected by 205 votes to 141, majority 64, a move to allow police officers to stop and search a person or vehicle if it was suspected an offence was planned, such as causing serious disruption or obstructing major transport works.
A Government proposal to allow police to stop and search anyone at a protest “without suspicion” was rejected by 212 votes to 128, majority 84.
A Government move that would allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests was also rejected by 199 votes to 124, majority 75.
Peers also backed a proposal to repeal the 19th century law which criminalises rough sleeping.
They supported an amendment from Crossbench peer Lord Best to scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to beg as well as sleep rough.
Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford said the Government “firmly agrees no-one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live and sleeping rough”.
Lady Williams added the Government is “fully committed” to reviewing the Act, but said it has been delayed by the pandemic.
She advised peers not to pre-empt the review by supporting the amendment but Lord Best pushed it to a vote.
His proposal was supported by 144 votes to 101, majority 43.
For more stories from where you live, visit InYourArea.
