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

  • Steve Trevethan
    Thank you for a bravely honest article! Might the “leadership” which took the L. D party into enforced student debts/loans have been confused about the i...
  • David Le Grice
    Weird that this appears to be the first LDV article about this, and the first time anyone in the parliamentary party has spoken up about it (as far as I'm aware...
  • Jack
    Delighted to see conference overwhelmingly reject the EHRC guidance (they don't deserve three quarters of that name - I accept they are a commission). People ar...
  • Geoff Reid
    Somebody had to say it eventual!y. Thank you Tom for inviting us to be honest on this matter....
  • Hywel
    Important point there Paul. For all the angst about 'lack of cut through' that has pretty much been the case for most of the time the LIb Dems existed except f...