UK Politics

The government has suffered a series of defeats over its attempts to crackdown on protests after peers rejected a raft of controversial measures proposed by ministers in response to action taken by Insulate Britain and others.New powers turned down by the House of Lords included allowing police officers to stop and search anyone at a protest “without suspicion” for items used to prevent a person being moved, known as “locking-on”.A move that would allow individuals with a history of causing serious disruption to be banned by the courts from attending certain protests was also dismissed, along with a proposal to make it an offence for a person to disrupt the operation of key national infrastructure, including airports and newspaper printers.In a separate defeat, peers backed restricting the imposition of tougher sentences for blocking a highway to major routes and motorways rather than all roads.The mauling of the Tory administration’s plans sets the stage for a protracted parliamentary tussle known as ping-pong, where legislation passes between the Lords and the Commons until an agreement can be reached.Peers were strongly critical of not only the measures, but also the way they had been introduced at such a late stage of the passage of the bill, after it had already gone through the elected House.Earlier the Lords had also defeated other contentious curbs on demonstrations proposed in the legislation, including powers to impose conditions on protests judged to be too noisy.Stressing the need for the protest measures, home office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford argued they were “vitally important in protecting the country from the highly disruptive tactics employed by a small number of people”.She said: “The rights to freedom of speech and assembly are a cornerstone of our democracy and this government will not shrink from defending them.“But a responsible government, one that stands up for the rule of law, must also defend the rights and freedom of the law-abiding majority.“Their rights cannot and must not be trampled on by a small minority of protesters, who believe they should not be answerable to the law and should be given carte blanche to cause any amount of disruption at any cost.”But Labour frontbencher Lord Rosser pointed out that the “sweeping, significant and further controversial powers” had not been considered by the Commons and branded it an “outrageous way to legislate”.He said: “We cannot support any of these last-minute, rushed and ill-thought-through broad powers… with the exception of approving the increased sentences for wilfully obstructing motorways and major roads.”Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, said: “These are draconian laws that are a wider assault on our democracy.”Independent crossbencher and prominent QC Lord Carlile of Berriew, who previously served as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: “The dilution of without-suspicion stop and search powers is a menacing and dangerous measure.”Liberal Democrat Lord Paddick, who was a deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: “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.”He added: “The anti-protest measures in the original bill were dreadful. These measures and the way they have been introduced are outrageous.”But responding, Lady Williams said: “This House has got a choice. It can stand by the British public who respect and value the right to peaceful protest but recognise that protesters should not have a free rein to trample on the rights of others.“Or it can send a signal to the militants, who believe that their right to protest trumps all other rights and there should be no limit on the amount of disruption they cause whatever the cost to the wider public.“The arguments deployed here tonight are about the middle classes trying to stop working people from going to work and I know where I stand on this.” More

The government is said to be drawing up plans to ditch Covid laws in England from as early as the spring.Prime Minister Boris Johnson is said to be considering a permanent revocation of emergency coronavirus laws he brought in at the start of the pandemic.The Covid legislation, which is set to expire in a few months’ time, includes the legal obligation for someone infected with Covid to self-isolate – with failure to do so punishable with a fine of up to £10,000.Other laws set to run out include the requirement for someone to provide the NHS Test and Trace with their address and a list of the members of their household.The PM – who is scrambling to find ways to repair his tattered reputation – is to refer to recent Omicron variant data before moving to finalise his mooted plans over the coming weeks, with an announcement as early as March, according to The Telegraph and The Guardian.It would be “perverse” for the law to remain in place for longer than two years since the start of the pandemic, a “senior source” told The Guardian.It comes after The Telegraph reported that Mr Johnson’s government could soon lift the plan B restrictions that were introduced in December.The restrictions – which expire on 26 January – include advice for people to work from home where possible, the mandatory wearing of face masks on public transport and in many indoor public places, and the requirement to show Covid immunity passes for entry to certain venues.No 10 is also reportedly planning to axe the requirement for fully-vaccinated travellers to take a Covid test on return to England from 26 January, which was a demand of transport secretary Grant Shapps.Health secretary Sajid Javid had confirmed last week that self-isolation in England will be cut to five days from seven if someone tests negative twice.On 4 January, a record number of daily Covid cases were reported with 218,376 new infections. Since the spike in cases, daily numbers of new Covid cases have continued to fall.On Sunday, Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said that Mr Johnson may scrap some of these restrictions for “party management” reasons rather than because it is the right thing to do, as he continues to resist calls to resign in the face of the ongoing Partygate scandal. He, his wife Carrie, and a number of his staff and civil servants have been accused of breaking their own lockdown rules following reports that parties were held at Downing Street throughout the pandemic.It emerged over the weekend that Mr Johnson’s comeback plan, dubbed Operation Red Meat, involves drafting new measures – including the tasking of the royal navy to police English Channel migrant crossings – in a desperate attempt to dampen the fury of Tory MPs and voters.Senior civil servant Sue Gray is currently investigating the Downing Street party claims, and the release of her report could affect the timings of any announcements over any relaxation of Covid rules.Mr Johnson’s spokesperson said: “In terms of the data, there are some encouraging signs that infections are falling across the country. Obviously we want to see that mirrored in the latest ONS [Office for National Statistics] data as well.“There are also some signs of falls – or at least plateauing – in admissions and occupancy in hospital, which is good to see, but it still remains the case that our NHS is under significant pressure – there are over 16,000 Covid patients in hospital in England alone.” More

Tory peer Michelle Mone is being investigated over alleged links between her and a company that was awarded PPE contracts worth more than £200m via a “VIP lane”.PPE Medpro Limited was awarded an £80.85m contract in May 2020 to supply the NHS with masks, and a £122m contract the following month to supply surgical gowns.It is alleged that Lady Mone had recommended the company to the Cabinet Office in May 2020 – but she has denied any involvement or association with the firm.The House of Lords commissioner for standards has now launched an inquiry after a complaint was made by Labour peer George Foulkes on 6 January.He asked the commissioner to assess whether the entrepreneur had failed to declare an interest in the company, and whether she lobbied the government for the contracts.The complaint was lodged after The Guardian reported that leaked files appear to suggest Lady Mone – who made her millions in the lingerie market – and her husband, Isle of Man-based billionaire financier Douglas Barrowman, were secretly involved with PPE Medpro.In November 2021, the government revealed that Lady Mone had originally referred PPE Medpro to the Cabinet Office on 7 May 2020, five days before PPE Medpro was incorporated with Companies House.She had contacted the office of minister and Tory peer Theodore Agnew, according to details the government released in response to a Freedom of Information request by the Good Law Project. He was tasked with procurement during the pandemic.The Lords standards investigation is likely to scrutinise connections the couple have with the two directors of the company – Anthony Page and Voirrey Coole – who are both based on the Isle of Man too, according to Companies House.Mr Page has worked as a founding director for Mr Barrowman’s financial services firm Knox Group for almost 11 years.The Lords standards commissioner said that the investigation will also focus on whether rules were breached that require peers to publicly register “all relevant interests”, and to refrain from lobbying for a company or an individual in which a peer “has a financial interest”.If Lady Mone is found to have breached the code of conduct, the consequence would be decided by the conduct committee – which could be as severe as having her expelled from the Lords.Her lawyers have insisted that she is “not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity”.Lawyers for her husband have said he “was not personally involved in working for PPEM in relation to PPE contracts”.Lady Mone was appointed a Conservative peer by David Cameron in 2015 after selling an 80 per cent stake in her lingerie company Ultimo. More

Boris Johnson’s plan to put the military in charge of tackling migrant boat crossings will help people smugglers, the former head of the royal navy has warned.Lord West of Spithead said giving the navy command over the operation in the English Channel would backfire by providing a more “efficient conduit” for the work of traffickers.Labour also accused Mr Johnson of trying to “distract” from Partygate after home secretary Priti Patel confirmed on Monday that she had asked the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to put the royal navy in charge of the operation to police migrant boats.Sources told The Independent that initial talks with MoD officials about a new role in the migrant crossing crisis began only around 12 days ago – as Mr Johnson continued to face mounting questions about parties at No 10.Lord West said: “This will not stop the migrant crisis. Picking them up at sea does not solve the problem of not giving them back. We don’t have an agreement with France to give them back yet.”The peer, Britain’s first sea lord between 2002 and 2006, added: “All you’re acting as is a very efficient conduit for people smugglers, with migrants being picked up nice and safely by a royal navy warship.”Defence officials also told The Independent there would be disquiet if the new duties became a long-term responsibility, although it is accepted that there is a need to help on a short-term basis. “People who would want to do that would join Border Force, not the navy”, said one officer.It comes as the Telegraph reported that Ms Patel has been warned privately that in a worst-case scenario as many as 65,000 migrants could cross to the UK this year. A Whitehall source told the newspaper: “It is not an estimate or a forecast. It’s about how things work out on the other side of the Channel. If nothing happened and there was mass migration, what are the sort of numbers that we could look at?”The decision to bring in the military is thought to be among a series of “Operation Red Meat” measures designed to please Tory supporters and attempt to recover from the prime minister’s plummeting poll ratings in the wake of the Partygate scandal.Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary, said: “This looks like Boris Johnson is using the situation to chase headlines to distract from the total mess he is in as a result of rule-breaking parties in No 10.”Senior Conservative Tobias Ellwood, the Commons Defence Committee chairman, also said the plans were “rushed” and warned they could be a “massive distraction” for the navy. “This isn’t what our navy should be doing,” he said.Lord West said tasking the military with tackling small boat crossings would prevent deaths, but not solve the crisis. The Labour peer told BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme: “I don’t think it makes any difference really to the problem of more coming across.“Because if I was a people trafficker, I would say to them all, ‘Get in your little boat and go out there, the royal navy is now in control of all of the shipping that is looking out for you, you will be picked up and then you will be taken to Britain and then you’re pretty well on your way’.”The royal navy taking charge of operations to halt migrant crossings would not mean the sudden appearance of warships or royal marines in the Channel, defence officials said.The Independent understands that the royal navy’s role will not be to carry out “pushbacks” – the highly-controversial act of physically turning small boats around towards France.A team under Rear Admiral Mike Utley, commander of the UK strike force, has been put in charge of “Operation Isotrope” – which will determine the contributions which the military may be able to make amid the rise in migrant boat crossings.Defence officials say it is unlikely that a frigate or a destroyer will be stationed in the Channel. Royal marines or other navy personnel may, technically, be put on Border Force vessels, but military personnel have no powers of arrest, officials pointed out.One fairly immediate option may be to ensure that the navy offers intelligence and technical expertise to Border Force.The royal navy team could also, it is believed, look at a number of disused RAF bases, such as RAF Manston in Kent, or old military installations, such as Fort Blockhouse in Gosport, Hampshire, to see if they could be turned into residential centres for migrants while they are being processed.Meanwhile, Ms Patel claimed that plans to operate pushback tactics in the Channel had been “well tested” and was still the government’s policy, although the measure is facing a series of legal challenges.The home secretary also told the Commons the government was considering “all options” in moving asylum processing centres offshore after The Times reported plans are being drawn up to send migrants to countries such as Ghana and Rwanda for processing and resettlement.Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said using the military to “repel” those who seek sanctuary in the UK and looking to “expel” them offshore is “cruel and inhumane”.A spokesperson for the MoD said that “unacceptable numbers of people continue to make the dangerous Channel crossings and last November’s tragic deaths serve as the strongest reminder of the need to stop them”.The spokesperson added: “The government is exploring every avenue to prevent further crossings and detail of how that can be achieved will be made known in due course.” More

Boris Johnson’s government has been handed a blow in its plan to restrict protests outside parliament after peers backed an amendment protecting large demonstrations in the area.Home secretary Priti Patel’s policing bill, currently making its way through parliament, would crack down on large-scale protests around parliament, Downing Street and Whitehall.Any demonstration which makes “the passage of a vehicle more difficult” would be deemed illegal under the government’s bill – which would also restrict the use of loudspeakers in an even larger area of central London.However, an amendment protecting legal ways to organise large protests around parliament passed in the Lords on Monday evening by 236 votes to 158.The government was also defeated over its plan to impose conditions on protest marches judged to be too “noisy”. Peers backed a Labour-led amendment to the bill protecting the right of protests to remain loud by 261 votes to 166.The issues will now return to the Commons where MPs will now be forced to vote on the specific issues of protests outside parliament and “noisy” demonstrations.Lord Colville, the crossbench peer who tabled the amendment on protests outside parliament, said he hoped MPs would now “recognise that the policing bill needs to be amended so that permission can be given for these protests to go ahead.”Naomi Smith, chief executive of Best for Britain, added: “While it’s not our only objection to this bill, this victory should give hope to everyone who believes that civil rights are not a partisan issue and that no government should be allowed to silence the people they represent.”The defeats came as the drumming of protesters opposed to the bill outside parliament could be heard inside the chamber. “I believe that making a noise is a fundamental part of the freedom to protest properly in a democracy,” said Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker on the victory of the Labour-led amendment.The government faced a series of ‘Kill the Bill’ protests in cities across Britain at the weekend, as those opposing the legislation criticised it as a draconian crackdown on the right to assembly.The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would put protesters at risk of lengthy prison sentences and hefty fines for actions that cause “serious annoyance”, which could be done just by making noise.Peers are preparing to vote on a series of government amendments aimed at cracking down even more widely on protests later on Monday night.The government wants to create new offences for “locking on” – where protesters attach themselves to objects or fellow activists – as well as obstruction of major transport works and wilful obstruction of the highway.The government has also proposed measures that would allow police to stop and search people close by to protests without suspicion. The bill would also bring in “serious disruption prevention orders” allowing police to ban named individuals from taking part in protests.Shami Chakrabarti, Labour peer and former director of Liberty, said the government had effectively drawn up a new bill with the proposals added to the bill in November.“Under the new measures they would be able to stop and search people without suspicion, not because they feared knife crime or terrorism, but because they fear noise and impact and disruption, which of course is inherent in any peaceful non-violent protest,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.However, Tory MP Robert Buckland, former justice secretary, told Today: “What I see from government is reference to proportionate use of power, and that word is vitally important here … I think this bill does strike the right balance.”A survey by Opinium on behalf of Best for Britain showed 79 per cent of people think peaceful protests should be allowed outside parliament – including 75 per cent of people who voted for the Conservatives at the last election.Meanwhile, the government was also defeated on a so-called ‘Hillsborough Law’ amendment in the Lords. The Labour amendment – which would mean police officers would be legally required to tell the truth during public inquiries and criminal investigations – was backed by 252 votes to 179.Yvette Cooper, shadow home secretary, said: “I urge the government to drop their opposition, respect the wishes of the Hillsborough families and others and support this amendment.”Peers also defeated the government in backing an amendment that would make misogyny a hate crime. The proposed change to the bill would give the courts the power to treat misogyny as an aggravating factor in any crime and increase sentences accordingly. More

Dominic Cummings says evidence will show Boris Johnson “lied to parliament” when he denied knowing about the No 10 garden party, plunging his position deeper into jeopardy.An email sent by “a very senior official” warned the “bring your own booze” event broke Covid rules, the exiled former chief aide claims – blowing apart the prime minister’s defence that he thought it was “a work event”.In an explosive blog post, Mr Cummings wrote: “Not only me but other eyewitnesses who discussed this at the time would swear under oath this is what happened.”The warning came after No 10 denied Mr Johnson was “warned about” a party, or that he told aides objecting to garden gathering that they were “overreacting”.Many MPs believe Mr Johnson cannot survive in office if it is shown that he misled parliament with his repeated denials that parties took place with his knowledge.But, in his post, Mr Cummings said that, after Mr Johnson’s private secretary Martin Reynolds sent the party invitation, “a very senior official replied by email saying the invite broke the rules”.“This email will be seen by Sue Gray (unless there is a foolish coverup which would also probably be a criminal offence),” he has written – of the senior civil servant leading the investigation.Mr Cummings claimed Mr Reynolds told him he would “check with the PM if he’s happy for it to go ahead”, on 20 May 2020.“I am sure he did check with the PM. (I think it very likely another senior official spoke to the PM about it but I am not sure),” the post stated.And it added: “The idea that the PPS [principal private secretary] would be challenged by two of the most senior people in the building, say he’d check with the PM then not – is not credible.”Mr Cummings wrote: “The events of 20 May alone, never mind the string of other events, mean the PM lied to Parliament about parties.“Not only me but other eyewitnesses who discussed this at the time would swear under oath this is what happened.”The fresh allegations came as one senior Tory backbencher warned people are disinclined to let Mr Johnson off the hook for the rash of lockdown-busting parties.“Right now, listening to the public who remember very well all the sacrifices they made, I think people may well be too angry to forgive,” former minister Steve Baker said.Asked for the scale of the anger in his Wycombe constituency, Mr Baker replied: “Absolutely furious.”Conservative MPs are contemplating the growing evidence that voters want Mr Johnson to quit, even before Ms Gray concludes her inquiry later this week or next week.No 10 refused to say whether the prime minister has been interviewed by her, but said the “full” report will be published when it is ready – not just its key findings.The allegation that Mr Johnson was warned that he should scrap the garden party was made first by his close friend Dominic Lawson, in a column for The Sunday Times.Mr Lawson said an official also him that “at least two people” had alerted the prime minister that “this was “a party” and should be immediately cancelled”.“I was told that Johnson’s dismissive response was to say they were “overreacting” and to praise Reynolds as “my loyal Labrador”,” the columnist wrote.But, on Sunday, a No 10 spokesman said: “It is untrue that the prime minister was warned about the event in advance. As he said earlier this week, he believed implicitly that this was a work event.”In his blog, Mr Cummings also said he expected the Gray inquiry would get to the bottom of his earlier allegation that he stopped Mr Johnson visiting the Queen “when he might have been infectious”.“This episode was also witnessed by others who will tell the official inquiry that what I have said is true and the official denials are false,” he has written.And he warned: “There are many other photos of parties after I left yet to appear. I’ll say more when SG’s [Sue Gray’s] report is published.”The former aide also attacked Downing Street briefings about a “drinking culture” in No 10, arguing it was false and “intended to shift blame”. More