Government loses 14 further votes on Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill

BBC News reports:

The government has suffered a series of defeats in the House of Lords over its plans to clamp down on disruptive and noisy protesters.

Opposition peers voted against a range of measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, with Labour calling some of the plans “outrageous”.

Peers also voted to make misogyny a hate crime in England and Wales in another government defeat.

Baroness (Liz) Barker tweeted:

Lord (Brian) Paddick, our spokesperson on Home Affairs in the House of Lords tweeted:

Sky News quotes Brian as saying:

If the government is determined to bring in these draconian, anti-democratic laws, reminiscent of Cold War eastern bloc police states, they should withdraw them now and introduce them as a separate bill to allow the democratically elected House time to properly consider them.

The anti-protest measures in the original bill were dreadful. These measures and the way they have been introduced are outrageous.

More on this later from our Second Chamber watcher, Mark Valladares.

* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Paul spiller 18th Jan '22 - 2:01pm

    This is why we need the House of Lords. My heartfelt thanks to peers from all parties who stood up to this nonsense.

  • Paul Holmes 18th Jan '22 - 4:09pm

    This is why we need a properly elected revising chamber or Second Chamber.

    Unelected people should not be passing/amending laws in a democracy. Although of course while we are stuck with this medieval hangover we have to make the best of it just as we have to do with FPTP elections.

  • It’s sad that it takes an unelected chamber to save us from a government that has no respect for democracy.
    The government inserted the worst clauses into this draconian Bill after it had cleared the Commons, so Parliament hadn’t had the chance to scrutinise them. At least now they’ll get that chance, if the government reinserts them.
    The right to protest is a fundamental right, which these clauses would have shut down. How can anyone guarantee a protest won’t be ‘noisy’?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Jane Ann Liston
    Ian Sanderson it was James II in 1457 who banned golf (and football) because it took people away from practising archery. James III and then James IV also banne...
  • Brad Barrows
    @Martin I’m surprised you do not see the situation with Kosovo as relevant to the discussion. NATO chose to use force against Serbia - without UN authority -...
  • Mick Scholes
    The facebook page for the Tiverton & Honiton by election is below. Lots if very useful information plus photos of the team in action. BUT, I understand we...
  • Cassie
    @Ian. While US gun control laws are their business, not ours, I wonder if anyone needs a an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle (used in the school massacre – carries ...
  • Suzanne Fletcher
    It is a huge problem persuading women to stand in areas with an adversarial council. In the NE a cross party group (Lib Dem Liberal and Labour) were working fo...