AN attempt to scrap stronger curbs on the right to protest has been rejected, despite concerns of the impact on human rights from the new Policing Bill.
The UK Government has proposed a raft of changes to the justice system in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
These include plans to give police in England and Wales more powers to impose conditions on non-violent protests judged to be too noisy and thereby causing “intimidation or harassment” or “serious unease, alarm or distress” to the public.
Time and noise limits could be imposed as a result of the measures and those convicted could face a fine or jail.
Several protests have been held in response to the measures, with shouts of “kill the bill” heard.
The LibDems failed in a bid to cut the clauses from the bill last night after their amendments were voted down - the first by 354 votes to 273.
Describing the protest laws as "dangerous and draconian", LibDem home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael (below) said the new laws "undermine the proud British tradition of standing up for what we believe in and respecting others’ rights to do the same".
READ MORE: Questions over post-Brexit funds go 'unanswered for two years'
Labour's shadow home office minister Sarah Jones agreed that the bill "went too far" in its reforms to the legislation.
She said: “The point of protest is to capture attention, protests are noisy, sometimes they are annoying, but they are as fundamental to our democracy as our Parliament.”
And the bill also received criticism from former Tory Cabinet minister David Davis who pointed to a letter in The Times from a number of police chiefs airing their concerns.
He said: “And so it hasn’t just been the sort of lefty liberal legal fraternity that have been worried about this.”
But Home Office minister Victoria Atkins (below) said: “The bill does not stop the freedom to demonstrate. It balances that freedom against the rights and liberties of others.”
It is now possible for peers to make changes to the bill when it reaches the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned the need for the changes, finding “no evidence of a gap in the law” needing filled and there were already a “range of powers to deal with noise that impacts on the rights and freedoms of others”.
The bill runs to almost 300 pages and contains laws covering a wide range of issues such as violence prevention, police driving standards and criminal damage to statues.
Elsewhere, a Labour clause aiming to give shop workers more protection from violence and abuse was defeated by 350 votes to 233.
Atkins said the Government is “actively considering” such proposals “if appropriate” when the bill reaches the Lords.
READ MORE: Sarah Everard vigil saw police breach people's 'fundamental rights', MPs say
Tory MPs were among those calling on the Government to give those working in shops greater protections.
Former Tory minister Robert Goodwill MP said: "Shop workers have borne the brunt of much of the abuse regarding mask wearing and social distancing in store, on top of the existing problems associated with verification of age for the purposes of alcoholic drink purchase, drunken abusive behaviour and of course shoplifting.”
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has been given a third reading after MPs voted by 365 votes to 265 in favour of it. It will go to the House of Lords at a later date.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel