The attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny over curbing the right to protest should be resisted
Checks and balances are built into every democracy. On Monday, the House of Lords has the chance to show how much this matters and why. Amendments added to the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill by the government late last year would restrict the right to protest beyond the measures already debated by MPs, and criminalise trespass. The new powers granted to the police by these extra clauses, along with sentences of up to a year for offences such as obstructing “nationally significant infrastructure” including roads and airports, are an assault on civil liberties. Freedom of expression, including the freedom of assembly, is central to a liberal democracy. Governments often need to hear what protesters have to say. For ministers to attack them is particularly worrying at a time when some senior Conservatives are pushing back against environmentalism more broadly, as well as against anti-racist initiatives.
What ministers have cynically done is attempt to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. Priti Patel, the home secretary, added 18 pages to the bill in late November that had not been there when MPs voted for it in July. Unlike the rest of the bill, however, where the Lords can merely send amendments back to the Commons to be reconsidered, because the latest amendments were introduced in the upper house, they will fall if peers vote against them. This presents the second chamber with a rare opportunity to reject some of the most draconian elements of this legislation, and also to endorse the role of parliamentary scrutiny.
