Protesters able to hide faces because of mask ban loophole
Protesters will still be able to hide their faces on marches because of a loophole in a proposed mask ban.
Police will be given the power to arrest individuals who refuse to remove face coverings at protests under plans laid out in the Crime and Policing Bill.
It has emerged protesters will be able to maintain their face coverings for 'medical reasons', raising concerns that marchers could evade the ban with spurious claims.
In a disability impact assessment of the new bill, officials said the wording of the offence had been 'designed to include an explicit defence where a person is wearing an item for health reasons'.
The government moved to tighten rules on face coverings at protests over concerns they were used to intimidate members of the public and career out illegal activity.
The government's former anti-extremism tsar has warned the exemption is too 'broad' and will be exploited by aggressive protestors to 'get them off the hook'.
Lord Walney, who last month was sacked as the government's independent adviser on political violence and disruption, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'I'm really concerned to see this and I'm sure that it's something MPs and peers, when it comes through the Lords, will want to scrutinise very closely.'
'The strong suspicion is that protesters spread to their activists the magic words that will get them off the hook with the police. Look at the manuals they hand out to their protesters. They are very organised people and when there are caveats this broad it will quickly become the norm for them to take advantage of that.'
Loophole could be 'exploited'
Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, said the loophole would 'inevitably be exploited by bad actors'.
He called on the government to tighten the exemption to a list of 'specific and diagnosed medical conditions' to prevent it being used as a loophole.
Mr Philp told the Sunday Telegraph: 'There are justifiable concerns that this could be a loophole to help aggressive protesters wearing masks circumvent the new clause in the bill that bans face coverings. It will be essential to make sure this exemption only applies to those with a specific and diagnosed medical condition, otherwise it will inevitably be exploited by bad actors.'
'Wearing a mask at a protest can often be intimidating to others or used by those planning aggressive or even illegal behaviour. The police need to be able to see people's faces to identify anyone who commits a criminal offence and to identify people who may be wanted.'
In his landmark report on political violence and disruption delivered last year, Lord Walney recommended a blanket ban on face coverings at protests as well as the use of pyrotechnics.
The report, titled Protecting Our Democracy From Coercion, recommended a crackdown on violent and intimidating forms of protest.
Last month he was sacked when Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, abolished his independent advisory role.
He believes the new Crime and Policing Bill does not give the police and Home Secretary sufficient powers to crack down on repeated mass demonstrations such as the Gaza protests that have been taking place in central London since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Guernsey's French ID day-trip scheme likely to be extended
Guernsey's next government is likely to extend a scheme that allows French day trippers to visit the island using a national ID card rather than a scheme was introduced in 2023 in response to declining tourism numbers from the was cast over its future when the UK introduced an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) system which requires anyone who is not a British or Irish citizen to get the permit, which is linked to a passport, before entering the Guernsey Border Agency (GBA) told the BBC the extension was due to be approved on the condition that Guernsey's membership in the Common Travel Area (CTA) was not at risk. "GBA Officers have been in contact with the UK to discuss the matter from a Bailiwick of Guernsey perspective, and will continue to work with UK counterparts around the introduction of ETAs," it CTA is a free movement agreement between the UK, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey.A final decision is yet to be made on extending the scheme, which will be down to the next committee - due to be voted in following the general election next GBA said that any changes to immigration laws must be approved by the island's lieutenant-governor. Jersey's government extended the scheme there, with ministers saying UK counterparts were not supportive of it home secretary Chris Philp criticised the scheme after politicians in Jersey voted unanimously to extend the day trip scheme there, despite the upcoming introduction of the ETA travel permit in the Channel said it risked opening a "dangerous backdoor" into the Malcic, chair of the Victor Hugo Centre, said the use of passports was still a "fairly modern thing"."Before the First World War people used to travel freely from France to Guernsey and, in fact, there was as much travel and trade with France than there was with the UK," he said."Yes, in modern times you need a passport and you need passport control, but people coming for the day for a good time in Guernsey are not the people who really need to be taken care of."I think the fact that the UK are concerned about this, [shows] that sometimes Guernsey has to act in its own interests."
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp and Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch (Ben Whitley/PA) While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
South Wales Argus
8 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' Shadow home secretary Chris Philp and Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch (Ben Whitley/PA) While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
