House of Lords kill the Bill: what does that mean for you?
The bill would have made noisy and disruptive protesting illegal
Last updated 27th May 2022
A bill that would have made disruptive and noisy protests illegal has been voted against in the House of Lords.
The Government suffered 14 defeats yesterday as the Lords voted against a series of measures in the Conservatives' police and crime bill, with Liberal Democrat Lords saying that the Government must acknowledge this defeat to their "awful" legislation and respond.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a gigantic piece of legislation that covers a variety of new changes on justice and crime in England and Wales.
Home Secretary Priti Patel accused peers of siding with "vandals and thugs" after a string of defeats saw the House of Lords reject controversial measures designed to combat the tactics adopted by groups including Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain.
The bill would have made noisy protests illegal and would have given police the power to stop and search anyone at a protest "without suspicion".
Labour has branded some of the measures as "outrageous".
If passed, the bill would have made 'disruptive' protesting illegal, with noise limits and a police-imposed start and finish time.
Even if just a single person was holding a protest on their own, sharing their views through a loudspeaker while holding a placard, they could have been fined up to £2,500.
The bill would have also made it a crime for protesters to not follow orders that they "ought" to know about, even if an officer had not given them direct orders.
Commenting on the proposed legislation, Lord Vernon Coaker said: "Who passed this? What were they thinking of?
"Protesting is a real part of democracy. I do believe, with this particular measure, it is a fundamental attack on a freedom that the citizens of this country have enjoyed for centuries."
The right to protest and express yourself is enshrined in the Human Rights Act, and The Home Office insists that the proposals do respect human rights.
The right is not absolute and police are able to interfere with protests if they believe that they have a good reason to impose restrictions, be it to prevent crime or protect public safety.
The bill proposed a law that included "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance" being an offence.
The proposals are part of the Government's crackdown on demonstrations in the wake of major disruption caused by eco-activists.
In a separate defeat, peers backed restricting the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways rather than all roads.
The Labour frontbencher Richard Rosser said the “sweeping, significant and further controversial powers” had not been considered by the Commons and called it an “outrageous way to legislate”.
Lord Rosser said: “We cannot support any of these last-minute, rushed and ill-thought-through broad powers … with the exception of approving the increased sentences for wilfully obstructing motorways and major roads.”
The defeats came as drumming outside Parliament by protesters opposed to the Bill could be heard inside the chamber.
Ms Patel accused Labour of blocking measures to stop Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion "bringing our country to a standstill".
"Once again Labour's actions are proving they are not on the side of the law-abiding majority - instead choosing to defend vandals and thugs," she said.
Misogyny is a hate crime
One of last nights 14 defeats came as the House of Lords proposed their own amendments to the bill.
They voted for a new amendment that would make misogyny a hate crime by giving the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly.
The amendment had support from Labour and the Liberal Democrats and it was backed by 242 votes to 185.
However, Home Office Minister Baroness Williams, who voted against the amendment, pointed to a report by the Law Commission last year in her argument.
The report concluded that making misogyny a hate crime would not solve the problem of hostility towards women.
Lords reject police stop and search "without suspicion"
Other measures rejected 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".
A move that would allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests was also dismissed, along with a proposal to make it an offence for a person to disrupt the operation of key national infrastructure, including airports and newspaper printers.
Vagrancy Act 1824, an act that make it a crime to beg and sleep rough, was also scrapped by the peers last night.
May return to House of Commons
Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab has suggested the Government would bring back controversial measures against noisy protests in the wake of a string of defeats in the Lords.
Although the Lords have made amendments to the bill, a game of political ping-pong will now take place between the Lords and the Commons until agreement can be reached.
Some of the measures that have been rejected by the Lords will not be able to be brought back in the next reading of the bill because of the way the Government introduced them.
These measures include making it illegal for protesters to lock themselves to things in protest, much like some of those during Insulate Britain protests.
If the Government want to bring back this measure they would have to do it through a new bill.
What measures were defeated last night?
Peers voted for new amendments in the bill that would:
- Protest Parliament Square as a place to protest
- Make misogyny a hate crime by giving the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly
- Scrap the power to impose conditions on protest marches judged to be too noisy
- Require police officers to tell the truth in public inquiries
- Scrap the Vagrancy Act 1824, which makes it a crime to beg as well as sleep rough
- Restrict the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways (rather than all roads)
- Demand an urgent review into the prevalence of drink-spiking offences
Peers voted against the government's plans to:
- Allow police to stop and search anyone at a protest "without suspicion"
- 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
- Allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests
- 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
- Create a new offence of obstructing the maintenance or construction of major transport works
- Allow police officers to stop and search a person or vehicle if it was suspected an offence was planned, such as obstructing major transport works or causing serious disruption
Current COVID-19 restrictions:
Mask wearing in shops
From Tuesday, face coverings will be mandatory in shops in England. Regardless of vaccination status, those who do not wear a mask in retail establishments - other than those who are exempt for medical purposes - will be asked to leave.
Mask wearing on public transport
While travel across the country remains permitted, face masks will also be made compulsory on public transport in England. This includes buses, trams, trains and taxis. People with medical and respiratory exemptions will not be included in these restrictions.
Students and teachers advised to wear masks
Face coverings are also "strongly advised" to be worn for students in year 7 and above in communal areas unless they are exempt. According to the Department of Education, this is to make sure they can "continue to benefit from classroom teaching".
University students encouraged to wear masks
Department for Education guidance also states that face coverings should be worn by university students and staff in communal spaces and corridors. They have also encouraged that staff and students to do lateral flow tests twice weekly.
Mask wearing in pubs as well?
As of yet, it isn't mandatory to wear a face-covering in pubs and restaurants in England. It comes as Health Minister Edward Argar explained why wearing a mask in a pub or restaurant is difficult. He said people standing at the bar are often there for a short time and will "sip a drink on their way back to a table, where they'll be seated".