New offence for encouraging serious self-harm with perpetrators facing 5 years behind bars
offence to apply regardless of whether target goes on to cause serious self-harm
move will protect vulnerable while not criminalising those who share their recovery journey
Vile trolls who hide behind the anonymity of the internet to encourage others to cause themselves serious harm will face prosecution as part of an overhaul of online safety laws announced today (18 May 2023).
Additions to the Online Safety Bill will make it a crime to encourage someone to cause serious self-harm, regardless of whether or not victims go on to injure themselves and those convicted face up to 5 years in prison. The new offence will add to existing laws which make it illegal to encourage or assist someone to take their own life.
Police or prosecutors will only have to prove communication was intended to encourage or assist serious self-harm amounting to grievous bodily harm (GBH) – this could include serious injuries such as broken bones or permanent physical scarring.
The offence will apply even where the perpetrator does not know the person they are targeting – putting an end to abhorrent trolling that risks serious self-harm or life-changing injuries.
Encouraging someone to starve themselves or not take prescribed medication will also be covered.
Research from the Mental Health Foundation shows that more than a quarter of women between 16-24 have reported self-harm at some point in their life and since 1993 the levels of self-harm among women have tripled. Today’s announcement is the latest step in our work to provide greater protections for women and girls who are more likely to self-harm.
Research also shows more than two-thirds of UK adults are concerned about seeing content that promotes or advocates self-harm while online.
Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk KC, said: “There is no place in our society for those who set out to deliberately encourage the serious self-harm of others. Our new law will send a clear message to these cowardly trolls that their behaviour is not acceptable.
“Building on the existing measures in the Online Safety Bill our changes will make it easier to convict these vile individuals and make the internet a better and safer place for everyone.”
The new offence will be created following a recommendation from the Law Commission in 2021 and balances the need to protect vulnerable people while not criminalising those who document their own self-harm as part of their recovery journey.
Justice Minister, Edward Argar MP, said: “No parent should ever worry about their children seeing content online or elsewhere encouraging them to hurt themselves.Our reforms will punish those who use encourage vulnerable people to inflict serious injuries on themselves and make sure they face the prospect of time behind bars.“
This new offence builds on measures already in the Online Safety Bill, which will better regulate social media and ensure that social media companies like Tiktok, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and others are held legally responsible for the content on their sites.
Experts say government’s Strikes Bill will make Britain an international “outlier” on union laws
Unions will be forced to “undermine” their own strikes, lawyers say
Leading employment lawyers have warned that government’s new Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike.
In a joint statement, the legal specialists say the new legislation will make Britain “an outlier” on strike laws compared to other European and Western democracies.
Those adding their names to the statement include:
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Highlighting the new sweeping powers the Bill will give to ministers, the lawyers say:
“The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike.”
Highlighting how Britain risks becoming an international outlier on strike laws, the lawyers say:
“The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016.
“It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.”
Highlighting the strain the Bill will put on industrial relations, the lawyers say:
“Trade unions will be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
“The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.”
The TUC has accused the government of ducking scrutiny over the Bill.
If passed, the Strikes Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
The Bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.
But consultations on how these regulations will work in specific services have not been completed, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.
The TUC says the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”.
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol said: “This Bill would risk leaving Britain an international outlier in its restrictive laws on trade unions.
“When combined with existing legislation, these proposals constitute a further departure from established norms and international treaty obligations.
“Rather than bringing Britain into line with other European countries, it deviates significantly from the legal traditions of our neighbours where the right to strike is often given explicit constitutional protection.”
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Glasgow said: “These minimum service requirements will do nothing to help workers and employers reach agreement.
“But they might well prolong and inflame disputes.”
Commenting on the lawyers’ letter, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This is a damning assessment of the government’s Strikes Bill. Make no mistake – these new laws are a naked power grab that will allow ministers to severely restrict the right to strike.
“This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
“Compulsory work notices during strikes will place a huge strain on employer and union relations and will do nothing to help resolve disputes.
“If this nasty legislation gets on to the statute book, the TUC will fight it all the way – including through the courts.
“The Conservatives cannot legislate away worker dissatisfaction.”
The full statement reads:
We the undersigned are specialists in employment law.
Between us we have decades of experience as academics and practitioners in analysing the existing statutory regime for industrial action and the wider industrial relations landscape in Great Britain and internationally.
In our view the Strikes Bill (Minimum Service Levels) Act would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016. The cumulative effects of this legislation would place the UK well outside the mainstream of industrial relations in comparable countries.
The right to strike is guaranteed in international law by a succession of important treaties. These include the Council of Europe’s Social Charter of 1961; and the UN’s International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of 1966. It has also been recognised as a human right by the International Labour Organisation, and by the European Court of Human Rights. Our obligation to respect ILO conventions and the Social Charter was reinforced by the 2020 Trade and Cooperation Treaty with the European Union.
In Great Britain the right to strike is already heavily limited. The statutory regime places significant requirements on trade unions contemplating industrial action including the need to conduct a postal ballot under highly complex rules, the need to clear high thresholds of support (even higher in ‘important public services’), and to give 14 days’ notice of action.
The Strikes Bill as drafted would remove none of these requirements while placing a hugely onerous new set of requirements on unions and union members.
The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike. If a strike takes place in these services, an employer will have the power to issue a work notice effectively to requisition workers during the strike.
Trade unions will then be under a duty to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that workers comply with the work notice. Trade unions will thus be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.
The proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations. It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.
Professor Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Professor Nicola Countouris, Director of the Research Department, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and Professor in Labour Law and European Law, University College London
Professor Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Professor Lydia Hayes, Professor of Labour Rights, University of Liverpool
Dr Ioannis Katsaroumpas, Lecturer in Employment Law, University of Sussex
Professor Aristea Koukiadaki, Professor of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Head of The University of Manchester Law School
Professor Virginia Mantouvalou, Professor of Human Rights and Labour Law, University College London
Dr Ewan McGaughey, Reader in Law, King’s College London
Professor Tonia Novitz, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
A new plan brought in by the UK Conservative Government is yet another attempt to remove genuine asylum seekers from the UK (writes FOYSOL CHOUDHURY MSP).
The scheme will require asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, who may have been in the UK for up to 18 months, to answer the 11-page document that consists of 50 questions, ranging from political persecution to trafficking experiences.
More shockingly, this form must be answered within 20 days to avoid refusal and must be completed in English.
These demands being made of the most vulnerable in society are unreasonable and undermine genuine claims of asylum seekers who are traumatised from experiences of conflict or persecution.
Firstly, the language barrier to filling out highly complex questionnaires will automatically exclude those who do not speak English and may also lead to people paying to use translation tools when they can ill afford to do so.
Secondly, the time frame to complete this is unjustified and will exacerbate inequalities between asylum seekers who do not have the assistance to fill in the form.
Legal experts say that a 20-day timeframe is not enough time to seek and receive any legal advice, which could overwhelm our legal system here in Scotland when the service is already under crippling pressure. Due to the crisis in immigration legal aid, there are simply not enough immigration legal aid representatives to assist all the individuals who must complete their questionnaires within short timeframes or face the grave repercussions of their claim being withdrawn.
This scheme comes at a time when the UK Government is introducing a controversial bill, the Illegal Migration Bill, which means those arriving into the UK by boats are not eligible for asylum claims and could lead to them being deported to a third country, like Rwanda.
Recent rhetoric by Suella Braverman, Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, fuels anti-migration ideology and the tagline “stop the boats” to control the supposed “waves of illegal migrants” create a negative and manipulated image of asylum seekers.
This is echoed by the Prime Minister, who joins in this discourse of hostility towards those fleeing conflict. The UK government are using their ‘fear of the other’ rhetoric to stoke fears and racism to deflect attention from its policy failures and see it as a vote winner for the next general election. They are using people seeking safety for political gain, trying to deflect attention from the cost-of-living crisis, the NHS crisis and their unpopularity in the polls.
Despite the false narrative spread by Westminster of an “invasion” of asylum seekers, the UK accepts fewer asylum seekers than other European countries. Whilst the UK issued 10,492 positive decisions in 2021, seven European countries issued more positive decisions than this. These include Germany (59,850), France (33,875), Italy (21,805), Spain (20,405), Greece (16,575), Austria (12,105) and the Netherlands (12,065).
Furthermore, Westminster is attempting to drive a false narrative that asylum seekers all choose to come to the Global North, and the UK. Suella Braverman has suggested that 100 million displaced people around the world are attempting to enter the UK. Despite this dominant discourse, the reality is very different. Most asylum seekers move to a neighbouring country and currently, 84% remain in the Global South.
Human rights groups and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) claim that the “stop the boats” policy would make the UK an international outlaw under European and UN conventions on protecting asylum seekers.
Fundamentally, seeking asylum is not illegal. The UK was at the forefront of signing the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 1951 Refugee Convention, which are historic developments to protect and uphold basic human rights.
Under the Refugee Convention, asylum seekers are under no obligation to apply to the first safe country they reach; enter a country by regular means; or provide documentation. It is important to note that the UNHCR has condemned this bill and has urged the UK Government and all MPs to consider the humanitarian impacts of pursuing this bill.
What is also concerning, are the claims that right-wing Tory MPs are attempting to amend the bill which would pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Alongside this, Braverman has been advocating for the government to leave the ECHR already, which is worrying to anyone committed to safeguarding fundamental rights. Leaving the convention would put everyone’s rights at risk. It’s a person’s last resort for holding the state to account when it has abused their rights.
Although asylum is a reserved matter for the UK Government, this new plan for applications will have a direct impact on Scotland. Scotland’s Dungavel immigration detention centre will likely see an increase in the number of people detained here, as the process for securing a successful asylum application will become much harder due to these restrictive rules. As this centre is based in Scotland and we will be impacted by the higher number of asylum seekers detained, Holyrood must hold discussions with Westminster to ensure that the UK’s commitment to the UNDHR and the Refugee Convention is upheld.
We must ensure support is provided to asylum seekers to guarantee they face a fair process. The Scottish Refugee Council are working alongside lawyers and experts to propose changes to the current plan.
These suggested amendments to the questionnaire include simplifying the document; providing translations in relevant languages; creating a user-friendly guide for completion of the questionnaire and providing an extension for all unrepresented individuals.
In response to this plan and the Illegal Migration Bill, we need to encourage the Scottish Government to support asylum seekers with the application form and recognise the importance of entering into a discussion with Westminster, so that commitments in international law can be upheld.
To raise my concerns about the new bill, last Thursday I asked Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, what impact the UK Government’s proposed Illegal Migration Bill could have on Scotland’s legal aid services.
The Cabinet Secretary was unable to assess the overall impact this will have but agreed that it is likely to cause a magnitude of issues. I will continue to press these issues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure legal professions are best supported, which will ensure effective assistance is provided to asylum seekers.
The Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill has been passed by the House of Commons
The UK Government made a manifesto commitment to ban imports of hunting trophies of endangered animals and yesterday supported the passage of Henry Smith MP’s Private Member’s Bill which delivers this.
The Government will continue to support the Bill in the Lords helping to protect animals listed by the internationally agreed Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
After the debate, International Biodiversity Minister Trudy Harrison said: “This is a pivotal moment in delivering one of our key manifesto commitments on international conservation and animal welfare.
“Using an internationally agreed list of species, this will play an important part in helping reverse the decline of wildlife across the world. I look forward to it becoming an Act of Parliament.”
Conservative MP for Crawley Henry Smith said: “At the last General Election we stood on a manifesto commitment to ban imports of hunting trophies of endangered animals. The House of Commons passing this legislation today marks an important moment in ensuring that this pledge to support conservation becomes a reality.
“I’m grateful to the Government for supporting my Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill and I look forward to it now progressing through the House of Lords.
“Our country does not want to be part of a trade in the body parts of endangered species. Today the Commons sent this message loud and clear.”
The Bill will ban the import of trophies hunted from around 6,000 species including lions, elephants, rhinos, and polar bears.
It follows the government’s world-leading Ivory Act which came into force last year, introducing a near total ban on the import, export and dealing of items containing elephant ivory in the UK. We will also be setting out measures in due course on whether to extend that ban to other ivory bearing species.
The Government will also support Angela Richardson’s Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill in the Lords, which will provide the ability for government to ban the sale and advertising of activities abroad which involve low standards of welfare for animals.
Scottish Government urged to U-turn and support UK-wide legislation to end the exploitation of animals abroad
The Scottish Government is being urged to support legislation at Westminster which would help end the abuse of wild animals across the world exploited to entertain British holidaymakers.
The Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, which recently had an unopposed second reading in the Commons, would help end many endangered species including elephants, tigers, monkeys and dolphins being cruelly exploited as part of the tourism trade.
Elephant calves are deprived of food, water and sleep and then subjected to torture and beatings to force them to submit to giving rides to tourists and performing tricks. The Bill proposes a ban in the UK of the advertising and sale of practices abroad where animals are exploited, harmed and killed for financial gain.
The Bill requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government is refusing to support the Bill on the grounds it has not been given enough time to consider the draft law.
Unless the Scottish Government changes its approach, and supports the legislation, then either it will proceed through the parliamentary process but exclude cruel holidays advertised and sold from Scotland, or the entire Bill risks being withdrawn.
Chief Executive of the charity, Save the Asian Elephants, Duncan McNairsaid: “Of course we understand there is political complexity between Scotland and Westminster but it would be a tragedy if Scotland jeopardised the entire future of the Bill by withholding support and also failed to legislate north of the border. At present no commitment has been made for either of these.
“There are well over 1,000 UK firms promoting these abhorrent activities abroad, including those based in Scotland, such as Scotland’s largest independent travel agency, Barrhead Travel. If the Scottish Government, despite its strong track record on animal welfare, doesn’t legislate alongside Westminster it risks becoming the UK’s capital for cruelty, as tourists will simply book from here instead.”
In 2016 a Scottish holiday maker was killed after being thrown from an elephant during a trek in Thailand. The elephant was reportedly stabbed by its handler after it failed to respond to commands before rearing up and throwing off and crushing 36-year-old Gareth Crowe.
Prior to that in 2000 Helen Costigan’s sister Andrea Taylor was killed in a violent attack by a traumatised elephant, also in Thailand. Helen has since spoken of the shocking scenes which led to her sister’s death, yet still today 120 UK companies advertise this cruel and dangerous tourist attraction.
Helen Costigansupports the new legislation and says: “New law is long overdue to regulate an often greedy and heartless tourism industry, placing profits far above any concerns for animal welfare or human safety.
“I plead with Scotland’s government to support these measures in memory of Gareth Crowe and my own dear sister Andrea, taken from us so horrifically aged just 20.”
Duncan McNairadded: “This Bill is a significant, long awaited and well-supported piece of legislation which is not only an important step towards protecting numerous animals from hideous cruelty, but can also prevent needless deaths such as Gareth’s and Andrea’s, both killed by animals driven to insanity by the cruelty they’d been subjected to.”
An Electoral Calculus poll carried out last year shows overwhelming support across every single UK Parliamentary constituency, including throughout Scotland, for such a new law. Of those polled, 85% support a new law to ban advertising venues abroad where this type of cruelty occurs. Only 2% are opposed.
The Bill will go to Committee stage in the House of Commons on 8th March.
Constitution Secretary said Bill threatens vital laws
The UK Government should withdraw the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill after MSPs voted to withhold the consent of the Scottish Parliament, according to the Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson.
Speaking during a debate in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Robertson said the Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords, threatens vital regulations in the environment, food standards and employment sectors and must now be withdrawn.
With MSPs refusing to provide legislative consent, Mr Robertson said the reaction of UK Ministers would be a key test of whether or not it plans to continue to ignore or override the views of the Scottish Parliament.
If the Bill is not withdrawn, the Scottish Government has published updated amendments to lessen the impact of the Bill.
Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson said: “The Scottish Government and a number of key organisations across a range of sectors have many concerns about the Bill and we have repeatedly called on the UK Government to withdraw it.
“Firstly, it risks deregulation and threatens the high standards the people of Scotland experienced and benefited from as an EU member state for over 47 years. Secondly, the Bill includes powers for UK Ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of Scottish Ministers or this Parliament.
“This is clearly unacceptable and how the UK Government reacts will be a key test of whether or not they intend to continue to ride roughshod over devolution. Thirdly, the Bill includes a ‘cliff-edge’ sunset provision, which could see thousands of laws wiped overnight.
“I am pleased colleagues across the Scottish Parliament have voted to withhold consent for the Bill and I urge the UK Government to scrap it entirely. If the UK Government are intent on a race to the bottom that will impact standards across the UK, we have published a series of updated amendments to the Bill to mitigate the worst of its impacts.”
New legislation to prevent the chasing and killing of wild mammals for sport has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government’s Hunting with Dogs Bill will close loopholes in existing laws that have allowed the practice of illegal hunting to continue. A new two dog limit for all use of dogs in the course of hunting will be introduced, as well as a ban on the practice of trail hunting.
The Bill also establishes a new licencing scheme to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain limited circumstances. This is to provide farmers and land managers access to appropriate and humane control measures, where necessary.
Environment Minister Mairi McAllan said: “This Bill represents a significant step forward in protecting Scotland’s wildlife from the cruel and senseless practice of illegal hunting,
“I am pleased that the Parliament has agreed on a new law which will close the door on the illegal chasing and killing of mammals once and for all.
“I’d like to thank everyone who responded to our public consultations and interested groups for their valuable input throughout this process.
“I believe that this new legislation has struck the right balance between ensuring Scotland pursues the highest possible animal welfare standards, while recognising the need for farmers, land managers and environmental organisations to undertake legitimate wildlife management.”
The vote was passed by 90 for and 30 against, with no abstentions.
The new legislation was introduced last year, two decades after a failed attempt by the Scottish Parliament to ban hunting with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act, back in 2002.
The new Bill will bring into force a number of measures which significantly curtail mounted hunting activity, including reducing the number of dogs which can be used to hunt a wild mammal to just two, instead of a full pack, and reducing the number of dogs which can be used below ground to just one.
The Bill also includes a preemptive ban on trail hunting. Trail hunting is a sport which was created after hunting was banned in England and Wales following the passing of the Hunting Act in 2004. Its inclusion in the Bill means trail hunting can not be established north of the border.
The League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, has welcomed the new legislation. Director Robbie Marsland said: “As of today, Scotland has the most robust law anywhere in the UK to prevent the cruelty of chasing and killing wild mammals for sport – and this is something to celebrate.
“Despite a persistent campaign from those resolute to keep hunting alive in the Scottish countryside, the Scottish Government has been determined to end the sport of hunting, a sentiment which has today been supported by the Parliament.
“The passing of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill now provides an opportunity to right the wrongs of the last two decades and close the loopholes which allowed hunters to continue with hunting as though the law didn’t exist.
“The inclusion of a ban on trail hunting is a significant victory for Scotland, meaning hunts will not be able to use this so-called sport as a smokescreen for traditional hunting.”
The new Bill also includes a licensing system which will allow for a full pack of hounds to be used in certain circumstances. The detail of the scheme has yet to be developed but animal welfare campaigners have concerns this has the potential to be exploited.
Robbie Marslandadded: “After twenty years of flawed legislation it is critical that this Bill is not simply a way of creating new loopholes for hunters to exploit, and the League is yet to be convinced the licensing scheme won’t do this.
“Despite the best of intentions to ban hunting, the determination and deep rooted defiance among those who wish to chase and kill foxes should not be underestimated. The League will work closely with Nature Scot and other stakeholders to ensure the licensing system is robust, effective and fit for purpose.”
Commenting from Holyrood, Scottish Countryside Alliance Director Jake Swindells said: “Whilst it is frustrating that so much time and resource has been wasted on this Bill, the licensing scheme is, at least, an explicit acceptance by the Scottish Government that the use of packs of dogs in wildlife management is effective and necessary.”
The Hunting with Dogs Bill is expected to receive royal assent in the next few weeks and come into force in the autumn.
The UK government is attempting to rush through Parliament new laws that could undermine workers’ ability to take strike action to defend their pay and conditions.
It allows Ministers to write regulations in any services within six sectors (health, education, fire and rescue, border force, nuclear decommissioning and transport) that will force workers to work during strike action.
Employers will then issue work notices naming who has to work and what they must do.
Workers could be sacked and unions face huge damages if they fail to comply.
First in the firing line will be ambulance, fire and rail workers, with the government seeking to ram through new rules by the summer.
The TUC believes this new law is undemocratic by forcing workers to cross picket lines even if they have voted to strike in a legal ballot.
It is counter-productive: the government’s own analysis has warned that it could lead to more strikes.
And it ignores the steps that workers already take to ensure that life-and-limb cover is in place during industrial action.
Workers could be sacked
Workers could now be sacked for taking strike action that has been agreed in a democratic ballot.
If a person specified in their employer’s work notice continues to take strike action despite being required to work during the strike, they will lose their protection from automatic unfair dismissal.
This currently applies for first 12 weeks of a strike.
This is a gross infringement of individuals’ freedom.
It is also a U-turn on ministers’ initial pledge was to protect individuals from penalties.
The significant risk of dismissal for workers who speak up about their pay and conditions will do nothing to resolve staffing shortages in public services.
Unions might have to pay large damages
The Bill says a union must take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice do not take part in the strike action.
If it doesn’t it could union could face an injunction to stop the strike or have to pay huge damages. These costs come out of members’ subs.
The cap for damages was last year raised to £1 million.
The legislation doesn’t say what a “reasonable step” constitutes leaving trade unions uncertain of their responsibilities.
The TUC also believes that forcing unions to send their members across picket lines is a significant infringement of their freedoms
Probably against international law
Ministers claim they are following similar systems in France, Spain and Italy.
But European unions disagree.
The European Trades Union Congress says: “The UK already has among the most draconian restrictions on the right to strike in Europe, and the UK government’s plans would push it even further away from normal, democratic practice across Europe.”
You can’t legislate away dissatisfaction
Workers taking industrial action today have endured the longest wage squeeze since Napoleonic times.
Workers in the public sector have seen their wages fall much further behind those of other workers: public sector pay rises are currently running at less than half the rate of those in the private sector.
For example, in the NHS nurses are earning £5,000 a year less in real terms than they were in 2010. For midwives and paramedics this rises to over £6,000.
This Bill will do nothing to help those workers, or to resolve current industrial disputes.
And it will do nothing to support those using public services, who are seeing the consequences of a decade of austerity.
LIBERTY: ‘This latest attack on our rights must be resisted.’
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is ‘backing the police’ to clamp down on highly disruptive and dangerous protests, under plans announced today.
Through an amendment tabled to the Public Order Bill, the Government will broaden the legal definition of ‘serious disruption’, giving police greater flexibility and clarity over when to intervene to stop the disruptive minority who use tactics such as blocking roads and slow marching to inflict misery on the public.
While the Government has already given police additional powers to prevent protestors using guerrilla tactics, police chiefs have told the Prime Minister that there is some uncertainty over what reaches the threshold of ‘serious disruption’.
The changes introduced today will give police officers absolute clarity over when they should step in. In practice, this will mean:
police will not need to wait for disruption to take place and can shut protests down before chaos erupts
police will not need to treat a series of protests by the same group as standalone incidents but will be able to consider their total impact
police will be able to consider long-running campaigns designed to cause repeat disruption over a period of days or weeks
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, but this is not absolute. A balance must be struck between the rights of individuals and the rights of the hard-working majority to go about their day-to-day business.
“We cannot have protests conducted by a small minority disrupting the lives of the ordinary public. It’s not acceptable and we’re going to bring it to an end.
“The police asked us for more clarity to crack down on these guerrilla tactics, and we have listened.”
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, Sir Mark Rowley said: “The Met has a long history of policing protests, responding quickly and effectively to incidents involving crime and where serious disruption is caused, often in challenging situations. We have specialist officers trained to deal with a range of tactics, but this is complex, time-consuming work.
“It is clearly understood that everybody has the right to protest. Increasingly however police are getting drawn into complex legal arguments about the balance between that right to protest and the rights of others to go about their daily lives free from serious disruption. The lack of clarity in the legislation and the increasing complexity of the case law is making this more difficult and more contested.
“It is for Parliament to decide the law, and along with other police chiefs, I made the case for a clearer legal framework in relation to protest, obstruction and public nuisance laws. We have not sought any new powers to curtail or constrain protest, but have asked for legal clarity about where the balance of rights should be struck.
“I welcome the government’s proposal to introduce a legal definition of “serious disruption” and “reasonable excuse”. In practical terms, Parliament providing such clarity will create a clearer line for the police to enforce when protests impact upon others who simply wish to go about their lawful business.”
National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Public Order and Public Safety, Chief Constable BJ Harrington, said: ““We welcome the constructive conversations with government over more clearly defining serious disruption.This will support officers in confidently and quickly taking action and making arrests where appropriate.
“Policing is not anti-protest, but there is a difference between protest and criminal activism, and we are committed to responding quickly and effectively to activists who deliberately disrupt people’s lives through dangerous, reckless, and criminal acts.
“Police have a responsibility to appropriately balance the rights of the public who are going about their daily business lawfully and the rights of those protesting.”
The College of Policing have confirmed today that they will produce guidance outlining the additional powers given to officers over the last year.
National Highways is also reviewing its guidance, taking learnings from previous protests to ensure that roads are reopened as quickly as it is safe to do so.
Today’s announcement is the latest step in the UK Government’s continued commitment to tackle the highly disruptive protests that the British public have been increasingly subjected to over the last few years’.
Through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, the Government introduced a statutory offence of public nuisance and created powers for the police to place conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests and increased the sentences for obstructing the highway.
Measures already announced in the Public Order Bill include creating a new criminal offence for interfering with key national infrastructure and for ‘locking-on’.
The Prime Minister also sat down with the Home Secretary and police chiefs in December to give a clear message that the Government expects protesters who disrupt the lives of others to be swiftly removed and arrested.
LIBERTY:PROPOSED NEW POLICE POWERS TO ARREST PROTESTERS BEFORE DISRUPTION BEGINS MUST BE RESISTED
Responding to news that the Government have introduced an amendment to the Public Order Bill that will give police new powers to arrest protesters on the chance that they intend to cause serious disruption, Director of Liberty Martha Spurrier said: “Protest is a fundamental right, not a gift from the State. But our right to protest continues to be attacked by a Government determined to silence people and hide from accountability.
“These new proposals should be seen for what they are: a desperate attempt to shut down any route for ordinary people to make their voices heard. Allowing the police to shut down protests before any disruption has taken place simply on the off-chance that it might sets a dangerous precedent, not to mention making the job of officers policing protests much more complex.
“From championing refugee rights to raising the alarm on the cost-of-living crisis, striking for workers’ rights, and fighting for racial and climate justice, protest today remains a crucial way for people to hold the Government to account. This latest attack on our rights must be resisted.”
Children have more access to screen time than ever before, in particular, access to the internet.
Internet safety has become an increasingly worrying problem amongst parents, however internet expert Allison Troutner from VPNOverview.com has listed the best ways to keep your child safe online.
1. Consider a family ‘tech agreement’
One way to set ground rules with your child is to create a Family Tech Agreement. A family tech agreement answers as many questions as possible about internet and device use so boundaries are clear to all family members. It’s a good way for the whole family to talk about safe and responsible online behaviours.
To create a family agreement, discuss topics like:
What apps, games, or sites does the family use most?
What rules do we want to include in our agreement?
How long should we spend on our devices?
What information is safe to share (or not)?
What do we do if we see something inappropriate?
What email address do we use to sign up for accounts?
Do we know how to use in-app safety features like blocking and reporting?
Who can we talk to if we feel uncomfortable with something online?
Who is safe to talk to?
What happens when someone breaks the agreement?
When might parents be forced to break the agreement for safety?
This is a starting point: your family may discuss more topics on internet safety for kids depending on the ages of your child or teens and what devices you use.
2. Report any harmful content that you see
Flag or report all harmful content or contact you or your child experiences using social media apps using in-app reporting features. For cybercrimes, cyberbullying, or harmful content, use in-app features like Twitter’s safe mode to report it. Most social media companies have their own safety and privacy policies and will investigate and block content or users. Apps geared towards kids, like Facebook Messenger Kids, have clear guidelines and safety features so that users can block content or contacts and have a safer experience in the app.
3. Balance safety with independence
Technical controls can be a useful way to protect your children online but they can’t solve all your problems. Children need a certain amount of freedom and privacy to develop healthily. They need their own free space to learn by trial and error what works and what doesn’t. So keep balancing, it’s part of it. Having open and honest conversations with your children can be the best way to balance this safety.
4. Keep the computer in a common space
If possible, keep computers and devices in a common space so you can keep an eye on activity. It prevents children from doing things that might be risky. Also, if harmful or inappropriate content appears through messages, you can address it with your child straight away.
5. Password-protect all accounts and devices
From phones to computers to apps, put a password on it. That way, no one without the password can access you or your child’s device. Keep track of passwords by using a password manager.
6. Update your operating systems regularly
All of your devices from mobile phones or tablets to computers and smartwatches receive important updates in response to security issues on a regular basis. Be sure to install them regularly so you have the most up-to-date security fixes and remain safe online. Our recommendation is to set updates to install automatically so your device is less vulnerable to known attacks. Usually, you can find this feature in Settings, then select Automatic Updates, but it varies between devices.
7. Install security or antivirus software programs and a VPN on your computer
Additionally, cybersecurity or antivirus software programs prevent spyware or viruses that may harm your computer if your child visits a malicious site. Using these programs, parents can also set up regular virus checks and deep system scans to make sure there is no harmful activity happening under your nose.
A VPN hides users’ internet activity from snoops and spoofs your location. This protects your kids by making sure hackers or predators can’t detect their actual location. You can install a VPN on your router so that the location is spoofed on all connected devices.
8. Set parental controls
It may seem obvious, but parental controls are crucial to your child’s safety online. Parent controls are built-in features included on devices and apps. With these features, parents customise their child’s online experience. What parental controls are available on each device or app varies, but in general, they limit screen time, restrict content, and enhance user privacy.
Features of parental controls:
Limit screen time.
Turn off in-app purchasing.
Prevent inappropriate or mature content.
Limit website access.
Play, message, or send/receive content with approved contacts only.
Monitor device location through GPS.
Take time to look at what parental controls are available on your child’s commonly used apps. Then, set them to reflect the type of experience you think is best for your child or teen’s online safety.
IET raises concerns Online Safety Bill ‘does not go far enough’
A joint comment from Catherine Allen, co-author of the IET’s Safeguarding the metaverse report and member of the IET’s Digital Policy Panel, and child safety advocate and IET Honorary Fellow, Carol Vorderman M.A.(Cantab) MBE:
“Today’s harrowing verdict in the Molly Russell case has once again highlighted the urgent need for policy makers to take emerging technologies that pose a serious safety risk to individuals, most notably children, seriously. It is vital legislation within the new Online Safety Bill fully protects children from online harms, particularly unregulated content. It currently does not go far enough and this is dangerous.
“We’ve already had a delay in legislation, now it seems aspects of the Bill relating to children will remain untouched. The rapid speed in which online platforms evolve, such as experiential environments accessed via virtual and augmented reality, mean new threats emerge daily. There is currently no provision within the Bill for safeguarding online users in ‘live’ scenarios where they can fully interact with strangers.
“Whether it is social media, a virtual reality headset or a metaverse gaming platform, politicians must avoid trivialising or feeling mystified by new technology platforms. Yes, there are complex factors to consider, like protecting our existing rights to freedom of expression, but that doesn’t mean we can delay addressing underlying problems.
“We must fully safeguard the metaverse, and protect individuals online.”
