Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]]

I can confirm that the Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow. That is not to say that there are not sections of the proposed legislation that we support or are satisfied with, but the Bill as introduced will not achieve what the Government say they want to achieve, will seriously curtail the rights to protest, will criminalise the way of life of Gypsy/Travellers, is likely to have a disproportionate negative impact on ethnic minority communities and women, and will allow the ridiculous and unjust possibility of a tougher jail sentence for someone who topples over a statue than for someone who does the same thing to a living human being.

There is one overarching thing on which I think we can all agree, and it is certainly the view of the Scottish National party: tackling serious crime has to be a priority. But rather than creating policy to elicit macho headlines about tougher sentences and who comes down hardest on crime, the bottom line for us is: what works? What reduces crime? When it comes to reducing reoffending, Scotland’s rates are the lowest they have been since comparable records began, because of our focus on community justice.

The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), knows that this tougher sentencing policy does not work. He once said:

“The evidence is mixed, although harsher sentencing tends to be associated with limited or no general deterrent effect.”

So why make that a central plank of the Bill? That is a question the UK Government have to answer. Why do it if it does not work?

Someone we should always listen to is the chief executive of Community Justice Scotland, Karyn McCluskey. She said:

“Community justice allows people who commit a crime to pay back to the community they harmed whilst addressing any underlying causes of crime such as addiction, homelessness and mental health issues.”

It is not hard justice, it is not soft justice; it is smart justice that genuinely reduces reoffending. I will say it again: Scotland now has the lowest reconviction rates since comparable records began 21 years ago.

I turn to the right to protest, which is a right. I know the Government have a bit of a disdain for international law, but article 11 of the European convention on human rights is the right to freedom of assembly and association. The Bill directly contradicts the rights of citizens to protest where, when and how they choose. If it goes through, there will be very few rights to protest in England and Wales at all, and that is unacceptable in a democracy—especially one that likes to claim to be the bastion of democracy and has a history of telling the rest of the world how to behave.

Let us not forget the rights of the people of Scotland to protest in England. While decisions about our lives are made in London, we, the people of Scotland, reserve the right to peacefully protest at the seat of power. Let me note some of the things that the people of Scotland have protested about in England: the Iraq war, over which Scotland had no choice; the obscenity of nuclear weapons conveniently stationed in Scotland, over which Scotland has no choice; and the wonderful women and their allies in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Allow me to quote Rosie Dickson from WASPI in Scotland, who called this

“truly a step too far for those 1950s-born women who have not only been unfairly denied their pensions by a Westminster Government but now also face having their human right to protest against it, without fear of arrest, removed.”

Of course, we in the Scottish National party intend for London not to be the seat of power for much longer. We intend to win our independence so that all the decisions governing the lives of the people of Scotland are made in Scotland, where the right to protest is respected. When the Government of an independent Scotland get it wrong, as all Governments do from time to time, the people will be perfectly entitled to tell them that. However, even if independence were happening next week, I would leave this Parliament still fighting for the right of every citizen to protest.

These draconian powers are wide reaching, We have heard a comprehensive analysis of most of them from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), so I will focus on just a few. First, we as Members of Parliament are accountable to our constituents, but now our constituents are to be told that they can protest and let us know of their disapproval, only we would prefer silent protests so we are introducing noise as a basis on which the police can intervene and impose any type of condition to stop them. Even if they do make noise, it will not matter. We will not hear them because we are putting in an exclusion zone around Parliament so far-reaching that what they have to say—their legitimate protest—will not fall on deaf ears; they will simply be so far away that it will not be audible. They will effectively be silenced. I want those people to know that I do not want them silenced, even if they are opposed to what I stand for. I want to be a Member of a Parliament that embraces democracy; the Bill is doing the opposite, and it is embarrassing.

Speaking of embarrassing, that word does not cover how the events of Saturday night felt for most of us watching them. I want to say something about what happened at Clapham common in the context of the police using the powers they already have and for us to think about how much worse it will get if the sweeping powers in the Bill are handed over to senior police officers.

First, I want to add my voice to those of the many thousands who are heartbroken for the family and friends of Sarah Everard. The torment that her family must be going through is something that nobody in this House would wish on anyone. I know we all share the despair. I attended an online vigil on Saturday night, but I understood why those women who met in person did so—particularly those who live near to where Sarah was taken. I got it. I know they were breaking regulations, and I would never encourage that, but they were in pain and they wanted to come together to help others also in pain. I do not know any woman who has not got a story to tell. Male violence against women takes such a heavy toll on all of us, and sometimes we need to be with other people.

Given the context of Clapham common on Saturday night, surely sensitivity should have been the watchword. I cannot imagine how frightened some of the women must have been, particularly given the circumstances. They have just had an alarming reminder that the police uniform does not give a cast-iron guarantee of safety and some of them find themselves on the ground, handcuffed, with knees on their back, flowers for Sarah trampled on, legs held down and unable to move at the hands of the police. Sarah Everard was just walking home; those women were just expressing their grief. If the current powers to curb protest can lead to what happened on Saturday night, imagine how much worse it will get if this legislation goes through.

I am deeply concerned about the attacks in the Bill on the way of life of some of our citizens. I am speaking, of course, about the Gypsy/Traveller community, who are among the most persecuted on these islands and among the most misunderstood. This Tory Government want to criminalise their way of life at the same time as the Scottish Government have produced an action plan entitled “Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers”. What a contrast! Why are this Government so intent on cracking down hardest on the most vulnerable in our society?

While we are on the issue of racism in society, let me come to clause 46 on memorials. Is it not interesting that this legislation that comes down hard on anyone damaging a memorial comes about shortly after a group of people in Bristol toppled a statue of someone who made his money from slavery? Would I have toppled the statue? No. But do I think slave owners should have lasting memorials to them? Definitely not. This Bill would increase the maximum jail sentence for someone convicted of this to 10 years: 10 years for damaging an inanimate and, to some, very offensive object, when it is rare to get anything like as much as that for damaging a living, breathing person or animal. It is interesting, isn’t it, that the toppled statue that I believe prompted some of this legislation was toppled as part of a Black Lives Matter demonstration, when black people and their allies finally said, “Enough is enough”? As soon as they organise to have their voices heard, legislation pops up to silence them. I find that very interesting. I have spoken this weekend to people in the Black Lives Matter movement who believe that this endangers their very existence. They are in no doubt that they will be targeted.

I have had a lot of emails about this in the past two days, and there will be many people watching who—believe it or not—do not normally tune into Parliament, so it is worth mentioning that this is Second Reading and the next stage is Committee, where the Bill will be scrutinised line by line, word for word, by Members from each party, where evidence will be considered, and where amendments may be proposed. One of the things we will want to pay particular attention to is clause 36 on data extraction from mobile devices. I know the Scottish Government have been speaking to the UK Government about safeguarding and some progress has been made. This is certainly something we will want to interrogate. We have to be exceptionally careful about the use of people’s personal data.

Let me turn briefly to stop and search. Although this will not impact directly on Scotland, I want to add my voice to those on the Opposition Benches who are saying “Enough is enough.” It is not just politicians who are saying that the impact on black communities is disproportionate and it is not just black communities who are saying it. Newly retired chief executive of the College of Policing, Mike Cunningham, has voiced his concern that existing stop-and-search powers are disproportionate to what he calls an “eye-watering” degree. We should be listening to him and to groups like Liberty, Amnesty and Fair Trials who have called for a review of existing powers rather than an extension.

If it is to be fair, the law must be foreseeable. We must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that any given action may entail. This Bill is peppered with ambiguous wording left to be defined by statutory instruments. For example, there are regular references throughout to “serious disruption” as a reason to criminalise somebody, but there is nothing in the Bill to define “serious disruption”, leaving it effectively to the Home Secretary to decide. I want to know what the Home Secretary’s definition is. I want the right to debate it. The Home Secretary and I interpret things very differently. She thought the Black Lives Matter movement was “dreadful” while I think it is magnificent, so her idea of “serious disruption” will likely be very different from mine. Yet we are signing over to her the right to come up with a definition that will not be debated and we are simply expected to accept that. It is not good enough. The Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow and scrutinising it very carefully when it comes to Committee.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I must warn people that it is looking like speeches will have to be three minutes or a maximum of four minutes.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clause 91 and amendment 117.

Amendment 117 simply says that the Scottish Government reserve the right to amend the code of conduct governing data extraction if the UK code of conduct is not suitable for our distinct policing service. I cannot imagine why the Government would not just accept that amendment, so I look forward to hearing that they have.

New clause 91 will instruct the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the criminal offences set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Let us face it: after 50 years, it is high time. That argument is gaining traction across party and with good reason. One of my colleagues will be saying more about that later in the debate, so I will simply say that my support for it is wholehearted. Our approach to drug misuse and addiction should be a public health approach, because that is what saves lives.

Mr Speaker, I understand that I have unlimited time, but I can reassure you that I will talk as briefly as I can to allow other speakers to make their contribution. I will look at three areas of the Bill.

I have said before that the curbs on the right to protest are draconian and contrary to international law—it is not just me saying that, of course—and I know colleagues will say more on that shortly, but people out there need to be aware of how the provisions will impact on them. I always use the example of the WASPI women, the Women Against State Pension Inequality. I do that because, whether it is anti-war protesters, the Black Lives Matter movement or those who are desperately worried about the environment, there is always a cohort in here ready to tell us what is wrong with those protesters: how “dangerous” they are and how we need to clamp down on them.

Now, nobody is going to tell me that the Women Against State Pension Inequality are a threat to any of us. The opposite is true. These are older women who should be retired by now, but they have had their retirement stolen from them by the UK Government. So many times we have all gone across the road to join thousands of WASPI women and their supporters from all across the UK, but because of the exclusion zone to be thrown up around Parliament they will be prevented from ever doing that again. We are to hear and see nobody unless they agree with us. That is just one tiny part of the curbs on the right to protest. It is not what we expect from the so-called bastion of democracy.

I want to turn briefly to serious violence reduction orders. Members might ask why, given that they apply only to England and Wales, but here is why. I was quite shocked to hear the Home Office attempt to make a comparison between serious violence reduction orders and the work of the hugely successful Scottish Government-backed Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. The Scottish VRU adopts a public health approach to violence. I urge hon. Members not to be fooled by attempted comparisons. The underlying principle—

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

I know that Mr Speaker is trying to create time for other people, but I will give way briefly.

[Victoria Atkins]

I just want to correct the hon. Lady. In the Bill Committee I was drawing a comparison not with the orders but with the serious violence duty, which I imagine she welcomes because we have looked carefully at the Glasgow model. We would argue that we are going further than the Scottish Government, because we are making the provision a legal duty. I hope she would support that in principle.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The underlying principle of the Violence Reduction Unit is that the causes of violence are deep-rooted and that we need a public health approach. These orders do not take a public health approach. In order to make a lasting improvement, numerous agencies have a role to play, including education, social services, health, justice and the third sector. Rather than creating barriers to education, housing and employment, the multiagency approach in Scotland actively removes them. The focus in Scotland has been on listening to the community, not dividing it. SVROs conform to outdated reactive practices. By the time one is issued, the damage has been done. The Government say they represent a public health approach, but a public health approach emphasises prevention. It is glaringly obvious when we think about it: fewer crimes create fewer victims, and that reduces demand on public services. Crime prevention is the public health model in action and that is not what these orders represent.

Finally, I support the amendments to delete part 4 of the Bill, on Travelling communities. That part of the Bill sickens me to my core. The Conservative hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has been allowed by his party to get away with claiming that Travellers today are

“more likely to be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning…with your lawnmower”.––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 8 June 2021; c. 410.]

In other words, he is saying they are thieves. There can be no hiding from the fact that this is anything other than a full-on attack on the way of life of Gypsy Travellers. The Travelling community in Scotland are deeply concerned, as are all others across the UK.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To help those people who have asked about the noisy protest and the right to protest, that is in group 3, not group 1 or 2.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I will keep my comments to Lords amendments concerning the extraction of information from electronic devices. To be clear, it is not that the Scottish National party does not have views about everything else, and it is certainly not that we do not care; it is because provisions on those other matters are applicable to England and Wales only.

The Scottish Government have been working with the UK Government to refine the draft code of practice for the data extraction provisions to account for Scotland's interests. The UK Government have confirmed that the draft code of practice would not be finalised until after the Bill attains Royal Assent to ensure that it is fit for purpose. They have also confirmed that the data extraction provisions will not be commenced in Scotland until the code of practice has been finalised. The Scottish Government are therefore content that the arrangements for the code provide sufficient scope for Scottish input.

We are generally content with the Government amendments, which improve the powers by, for example, starting to define an “agreement” to a digital search, but some are concerned that they do not go far enough to protect privacy rights and access to justice. Digital strip searches are now a common tool for the police and, as Big Brother Watch has said, experience tells us that policy changes and guidance are not enough.

What is required is clear statutory change and retraining. I urge the Government to ensure that that is in place before they consider the widespread use of digital strip searches.

In Scotland, we have concerns about amendments 39, 40 and 44. That needs some further discussion with the Scottish Government. In English law, all children are children until the age of 18, but that is not the legal position in Scotland. The age of legal capacity in Scotland is 16. It certainly does not feel right to us for a nearly-18-year-old to have no say in whether their phone is taken from them and its data extracted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I want to speak in particular about the issue of noisy protest, but I should begin by saying that, as the Minister outlined very well, there is a great deal of good in the Bill, covering many different areas.

There are facts on which I think everyone in the House would agree from the off. No one can doubt that in recent years the capacity for effective protest has been dramatically enhanced by technology, and enhanced a second time through the use of social media. No one can doubt, I think, that there are irresponsible and aggressive individuals and organisations who seek to inflict the maximum interruption and difficulty on the lives of others in the causes that they promote. And no one can doubt that the public have a right to go about their business without undue impediment. I do not think that any Member would contest those points.

I thank the Minister for engaging with me on this issue and for his clarifications this evening, both on the number of protests that this measure would be likely to affect and on the possibility of a review over a suitable but, I hope, not too long period, but—in my view at least—the measure should not be on the statute book. No serious case has been made that noise is a genuine problem. The Minister has conceded, and one understands why, that the measure is not likely to be used except in the tiniest minority of cases. We therefore have to ask whether the justification for it is adequate and proportionate. The offence is still vague and poorly defined, which is never a good thing in law. The police, as has been conceded, already have significant legal powers in relation to protests, and I regret to say that, worse, in some quarters they are the subject of a degree of public mistrust, which may be increased by our adding to their discretionary powers. Furthermore, I suspect that the measure will be extremely difficult for the courts to handle and adjudicate, even it proves to be compliant with article 11 of the Human Rights Act. All those are conservative—with a small and a large “c”—concerns that people might have about the operation of the rule of law in this country.

When people in Kyiv are dying for their beliefs and for the rights of freedom of speech and of association, the timing is unfortunate. I understand the motivations, and I understand that this has been lightly and sparingly applied, but an increase in discretion to qualify rights of protest that have been fundamental to our society and democratic traditions for hundreds of years is, I think, highly regrettable.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Let me begin by speaking about Lords amendments 73 to 89, which broadly cover the provisions in part 3, on public order. Part 3 does not technically extend to Scotland, but we are still very keen to lend our voice of complete opposition. As I mentioned on Second Reading, we support amendments that seek to mitigate the worst elements of part 3 because they will have an impact on everyone in these islands. We all have the right to speak up and hold power to account, including anyone travelling from Scotland to protest here, at the seat of power. While decisions are made on behalf of the people of Scotland by this place—and we hope that that may not be the case for much longer—the people of Scotland must retain the right to protest outside it.

In the past, I have made the journey from Scotland to this place to protest against many things, including the Iraq war, and I genuinely look forward every week to seeing who will be outside and what they will be bringing to the demonstration, whether I agree with what they are demonstrating about or not. Who can forget the wonderful WASPI women and the numerous noisy protests they held in the streets around Parliament? Rosie Dickson from WASPI Glasgow has told me how concerned she is that Scottish women born in the 1950s who have been unfairly denied their pensions by a Westminster Government now face

“having their human right to protest against it removed”.

They are being unfairly denied their right to their pensions, and now unfairly denied their right to object to that.

We support Lords amendments 73, 80 to 82 and 87, which I will speak to. I have concerns about Lords amendment 88, although on balance it is probably better than what was there before. Lords amendment 73 would remove subsections (2) and (3) from clause 55, which, unamended, would allow the police to impose conditions on a protest if they had a reasonable belief that the noise generated by the participants in the protest may result in

“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession”,

or may have a significant and

“relevant impact on persons in the vicinity”.

The attention these noise restrictions have received from the wider public and the media is telling. Everybody knows that protests are noisy—that is how people get their point across. The louder they shout, the more we listen. Every day we are witnessing people protesting against the atrocities in Ukraine. Why on earth would we usher in legislation to curtail that?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Lady will have heard the noisy protests in this Chamber every Wednesday between 12 and 12.30. We are okay, because we are protected by parliamentary privilege, but surely if Conservative Members want to end noisy protests, they should be prepared to practise what they preach.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Some of us do try to keep that under control. We try our very best amid a lack of co-operation.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I was trying to find a way to work that into what I was saying, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.

We know that without demos and protests, a lot of things would not change. The Minister said that things changed through political campaigning and getting elected, but actually things change because people in local communities rise up and tell us what they want us to do. That is how democracy should function.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some very good points on the importance of protests. One of the most significant protests in my constituency of late was when the people of Kenmure Street came together to try to stop their neighbours being removed from their homes by the Home Office. Does she agree that the Government should be trying to protect that kind of protest—the community involved and standing up for what is right for their neighbours—not trying to remove it?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I absolutely do, because if people feel empowered by being part of that democracy, other than getting to vote every four years, that can only be a good thing.

The notion that the police can intervene on any kind of noise threshold—as we have heard, we do not know what the threshold is—puts the fundamental right to protest at risk. This Bill will create a situation where people who are simply trying to have their voices heard will be dragged into the criminal justice system. We are going to need extremely large prisons by the time this Government have finished with all this legislation. The reduced knowledge threshold, where a person ought to have known that restrictions were in force, is an Orwellian nightmare. A protester will have to second-guess how the authorities will judge their behaviour.

The language used in clause 55 is vague at best: “serious unease”, “alarm” and “distress”. A protest may seem more alarming or distressing to one police officer than to another. This hands far too much discretion to the police, and there is a point when too much discretion becomes a burden. That was echoed by former police chiefs and senior officers, who have warned against the political pressure that this Bill will place on frontline officers. If the police do not think these powers are necessary, why do the Government? As we have heard from a number of speakers, the powers already exist for them to deal sufficiently with a protest that could result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. I just do not think the Government have made a good enough argument that the powers are insufficient. For those reasons, we support Lords amendment 73.

We also support Lords amendment 80, which would remove the police’s ability to impose greater conditions on static demonstrations. The Public Order Act 1986 was careful to delineate and differentiate the conditions that can be imposed on static demonstrations and those that can be imposed on a march or moving protest, which is sensible as it reflects the relative ease with which a static demonstration can be policed. Clause 56, which the amendment seeks to remove, will see the distinction removed.

In the words of Big Brother Watch, clause 56 could potentially hand the police

“unfettered discretion to impose any condition they see fit including, for example, restrictions on the words or slogans that can be expressed on placards.”

That is a democratic outrage. This is an attempt by the Government to level the distinction between static and moving protests. As they tend to do, they are levelling down, not levelling up. For that reason, we support Lords amendment 80.

We also lend support to Lords amendment 87, which removes the police’s ability to impose conditions on a one-person protest. What a situation. The might of the Government and their legislative power is bearing down on single protesters, which is ridiculous and disproportionate in equal measure. Worryingly, it has the potential to snare anyone who even stops to engage with that protester as committing a criminal offence. As I said, we are going to need much larger prisons.

Lords amendment 88 would narrow the scope of the offence of wilful obstruction of the highway to include only highways that are part of the strategic road network. We are caught in a trap where, on the one hand, I am glad to see this offence is restricted to the strategic road network but, on the other hand, I am alarmed to see the associated sentence increased from a fine to 51 weeks’ imprisonment—much larger prisons. This amendment is targeted at some very specific protesters whom we have all witnessed taking their protests to the streets and roads, but I feel this severe penalty has the potential to create a chilling effect—I have used that term all too often in the past six months during our consideration of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill, although, from what I am hearing from the other place tonight, there is now not much left of the latter.

Turning to Government amendments 90 to 93, I am disappointed that the only amendments to part 4, on unauthorised encampments, appear to be technical clarifying amendments that do nothing to row back on the measures expanding the criminalisation of trespass and the accompanying police powers. Again, this is an area where existing powers are available to the police. This is more to do with targeting a minority than targeting trespass.

We know this Bill will disproportionately interfere with the right of respect for the private and family life of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups. The new seizure powers in respect of vehicles—vehicles often being the home of Gypsies and Travellers, in particular—are very likely to mean that people will end up facing homelessness. I can only hope that, in mitigation, the Government will focus on providing further support and funding to local authorities across these islands for authorised sites and implementing a national sites strategy. They might want to speak to the Scottish Government about some of their work on this. The Court of Appeal has set out that this community has an enshrined freedom to move from one place to another, and that the state has a positive obligation to protect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ traditional way of life.

What are the Government so afraid of? From the man outside Parliament today adorned in plastic bottles to make a point about the overuse of plastics, to the many who finally found their voice in the last two years through the Black Lives Matter movement, and who are using that voice to make a very simple point that black lives matter every bit as much as white lives. From our Ukrainian brothers and sisters here on these islands who feel so helpless right now and who need to come together to protest against what is happening in their country, to people who simply wish to save the planet. What are the Government so afraid of? Well, I thank and applaud those protesters. This Government want to stop and criminalise them.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I will be brief and speak to two issues: first, in praise and thanks; and secondly, by way of caution.

In praise and thanks, I am delighted that the Government have accepted the amendment moved in the other place by the noble Lord Best and the noble Lord Young repealing the Vagrancy Act 1824.

Almost 200 years ago, as the cities were filling with the dispossessed at the end of the Napoleonic wars, our forebears in this place came together and passed a piece of legislation that today seems anachronistic and wrong. As a result of the votes later tonight, we will consign that legislation to history. Our understanding of rough sleeping and homelessness has transformed unrecognisably over the course of those two centuries. Today, we see it as a crisis of housing, of health, of social justice and of the criminal justice system. We do not see it as a criminal offence for someone to find themselves sleeping rough on the streets, and we should not live in a country where it is a criminal offence.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Throughout the proceedings on this woefully drafted Bill, I have maintained that, although it is largely reserved to England and Wales, part 3 on protest will severely restrict anyone from Scotland, or indeed anyone across these islands, from exercising their fundamental and democratic right to protest. None of us can sit back and allow that to happen. What happens here in the coming days will outlive this Government, so the Scottish National party will vote against the Government motions to disagree with the Lords, who have worked tirelessly to help restore some balance to the Bill. I am seriously concerned about what will happen when the Bill is forced through the Lobby, and I know that that worries some Conservative Back Benchers who have been lobbying Members of the other place to allow the Commons the opportunity to think again on protest measures. We are back here to consider part 3 on protest, and rightly so.

The protest measures in the Bill have been the headline grabbers—the clauses most briefed on, tweeted on, reported and debated—and, most importantly, they are the clauses that people are concerned about, because they are a threat to our long-held right to have our voices heard. My office also receives hundreds of emails on a daily basis asking me to stand up and act against the threat to those rights. People are worried not just because of this Bill in particular—although it is terrifying—but because of the context in which it is being pushed through this place.

This week, we will debate the Elections Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, each carrying its own threat to our fundamental rights. People know how this works: they know that the Government have seemingly unfettered powers to make any law that they want. Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb put it best when she said:

“Because they have a huge majority…they can afford not to care about how the Bills are written or about their content.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1707.]

The Bill is badly written. No well written legislation would require so many amendments—it borders on the ridiculous. When we are forced to create a database for amendments just to keep track, we know that fundamentally something has gone wrong at the front end. However, it is our job to amend, correct and stop badly drafted legislation and, whatever the Minister says, it is the second House’s job to have its say on that.

I will speak briefly on specific amendments, but I would like to make a general point: all the amendments under discussion clean up ambiguous and badly worded clauses that will, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), said, only force the police into making quasi-political decisions on the spot. Former police chiefs and senior officers have warned against the

“political pressure the Bill will place on frontline officers.”

It has become apparent through these debates that it is not more legislation or laws that the police need or want.

Lords Amendment 73 would remove sections of the Bill that allow the police to intervene and limit processions based on the criterion of noise. We have heard a lot about that today. The Government have got this wrong—they simply have. They have tried to make assurances that powers to act on noise will be used only in the most extreme circumstances, but it is all just too vague. As the shadow Minister said, what kind of law would ask a frontline police officer to assess the thickness of walls in an office or the kind of glazing in a building prior to intervening on a protest? Seriously! It is in the guidance, if Government Members opposite want to check it. Here is a quote from the guidance:

“A noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold”.

It is not just the way a building is constructed that frontline officers might have to contend with, but the duration of the noise and the type of noise. The list goes on. This is ill-conceived and ill-defined. It will load pressure on to already pressurised police forces and simply will not work. And that is before we get to the crux of the matter: our right to protest is our democratic right. It is not for this Government or any successive Governments to take that away.

We continue to oppose the Government’s apparent concession to remove the term “serious unease” for the simple fact that it is nestled in badly drafted sections and has the unintentional—or possibly intentional—effect of lowering the threshold for police intervention. Removing the term would lower the threshold of “serious alarm or distress” to “alarm or distress”. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) eloquently made that point in a previous debate, and I stand by his remarks.

We supported Lords amendment 80, to remove clause 56 on public assemblies, and we continue to support it. This is yet another clause rife with hidden dangers, attempting to replace public order legislation that is operating perfectly well. The Public Order Act was careful to delineate and differentiate the conditions that could be imposed on static demonstrations, as opposed to a march or a moving protest, and that was sensible. That reflected the relative ease by which a static demonstration can be policed.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I am afraid I disagree with it. In Scottish jurisprudence, Scotland has an advantage over England in that it has a well-expressed and commonly used offence of nuisance. Would she support the use of this legislation in controlling nuisance emanating from a protest?

[Anne McLaughlin]

So many of us have already answered that on so many occasions. There already exists legislation and the powers for the police to control demonstrations that are not peaceful and out of control, but we are not talking about that. The proposed legislation allows the police to make decisions according to very spurious guidance. The removal of the distinction regarding statics demonstration could hand the police unfettered discretion to impose further conditions on static protests, such as the words and slogans that can be used on placards. That is ridiculous. Sometimes they are the best bits! I really wish I had the time to read out some of my favourite words and slogans that I have seen recently, but I do not think the Government would be too pleased about that.

Finally, I want to touch on Lords amendment 87, on one-person protests. The amendment removes the ability of the police to impose conditions on a one-person protest. That was rejected in the last round of ping-pong and the Lords have rightly asked for it to be reconsidered. I have twice now heard the Minister talk in derisory terms about the House of Lords because some of them are hereditary and none of them are elected. The SNP is opposed to the House of Lords on that basis, but his party is not and it puts people in there all the time. If that is the system he supports, he cannot really complain when they do the job they are asked to do. Are we really going to see a law passed today that will allow the might of the state to bear down on a single, individual protester? It is ridiculous, disproportionate and nothing short of bullying. And be careful anyone who even stops to chat to a protester, because they could be snared by the clause, too. How many times have we all stopped to chat to the wonderful array of protesters outside this place, whether we agree with them or not? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, doing so could soon see you committing a criminal offence.

We are not impressed with the Government’s amendments to lay reports before the House with regard to changes to the Public Order Act. They are lip service posing as concessions. They are better than nothing, but they are not much better.

I understand that time is short, so I will finish with this: we support the Lords in their amendments and fundamentally disagree with the undemocratic way the Government are throwing their weight around. If the Government are intent on dissuading protest, they are intent on silencing voices. From the huffing and puffing coming from the Minister today it is clear he is no fan of democracy, so I am sure he will not mind if I tell him the Bill is undemocratic, unworkable and unfair.