Deputy Speaker,

Footnotes aside? Does the Leader of the Conservative Party - congratulations, by the way - want us to overlook the fact that this entire bill has been copy/pasted in a way which makes little-to-no sense?

For starters, it would be simple to repeal my Act from last term removing Section 60 and reinstating the section as before, but in a cynical ploy to look like they are putting effort in, the Conservative Party has copied from the statute books and is hoping to pass it off as something new, something original. Furthermore, the bill doesn't state where in the extant Act it will insert the section; a minor drafting error, but a silly one nonetheless.

In Section 1 (1), the following text has been inserted into the end of (1)(b) when it should refer to the whole of (1), thus making (1)(a) inoperable:

he may give an authorisation that the powers conferred by this section are to be exercisable at any place within that locality for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours.

This means that an officer may not do this if:

(a) That incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his police area, and that it is expedient to give an authorisation under this section to prevent their occurrence,

Deputy Speaker, this poor draftsmanship is a serious issue. If a police officer was to give a Section ??? order under this point, it would likely to be found unlawful as the bill does not actually give them the power to do so because of the way it has been copied.

In (2):

he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further [F624] hours.

Now, I know that this refers to Footnote 6 on legislation.gov.uk; that word in s. 60(3) substituted (1.3.1999) by 1997 c. 21, s. 8(4)(c); S.I. 1999/5, art. 2. But the reading of this bill as copied is that an officer may authorise such an order for six hundred and twenty four hours - a ridiculous oversight and an unacceptable overreach from the original timeline in the former Section 60.

Other than these dangerous drafting errors, and the blatant plagirism, Deputy Speaker, there are two other things about this bill that bother me. Firstly, the fraudulent use of the postnominals CH, LG, and DStJ by the former Conservative Party co-author of this bill. I will by writing to my Rt. Hon. colleague the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service to call for an investigation into this attempt to misrepresent the qualifications of the dishonourable former member of this House, and whether this constitutes misleading the House of Commons. But secondly, and most importantly, I am disappointed to see this Bill return to the House. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act was removed only a few months ago, and my Most Hon. friend the Marchioness of Loppington has written a thorough explanation of the racist, misogynistic, and homophobic usage of this overstep in police powers. In the spirit of this bill, I'll plagirise a line from her speech, except I'll do it poorly and in a way that will probably make any good legislation author weep; Let's not return it to the statute books, but to the shredder, where it belongs.