Thank you for contacting me about protests and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC Bill).
Freedom of Expression
I appreciate your concerns regarding the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and I want to assure you that freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are rights I wholeheartedly support. The measures in the Bill are not about stopping or clamping down on the right to protest but about ensuring the police are able to better manage highly disruptive protests and maintain the balance between the rights of a protestor and the rights of individuals to go about their daily business.
Public Protests
I understand your concerns about the proposed powers in relation to public protests. Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that I wholeheartedly support, and I can reassure you that the Government is clear that the right of an individual to express their opinion and protest is a cornerstone of our democratic society.
Under no circumstances should protests become violent; clearly the rights to peaceful protest do not extend to harassment, intimidating behaviour or serious disruption to public order.
Of course, the responsibility for the maintenance of public order lies with the police. How they deploy their powers and the tactics they use is rightly an operational matter, but we must ensure that they have the right powers to manage protests appropriately.
We need to strike a balance between the rights of a protestor and those of individuals to go about their daily business. Some demonstrations have caused unjustifiable disruption and distress to other citizens for example, during the recent climate protests. The PCSC Bill aims to enhance the police’s ability to manage protests, to allow essential services to continue unabated and to ensure that the day-to-day lives of the overwhelming majority are not disrupted by a selfish minority.
Protestors' Rights: It is the case that when using these powers, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law. Importantly, the police must be able to demonstrate that their use of powers is necessary and proportionate. It is also clear that the police must act compatibly with human rights, in particular Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).
I am aware that much has been said regarding the proposed public nuisance offence. As you may be aware, Clause 59 gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their July 2015 Report on 'Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency'. The report stated that the common law offence of public nuisance should be replaced by a statutory offence covering any conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of a section of the public or obstructs them in the exercise of their rights. You can find the Law Commission report on this issue at the following link - https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/simplification-of-the-criminal-law-pu…
Importantly, the new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance.
Climate Protesters: The right to protest is not unqualified and cannot be at the expense of public safety. Demonstrations on roads disrupts thousands of people's journeys and endangers the lives of road users and police officers. I am aware of the increasing use of superglue by protesters, which can frustrate and delay the police response. I continue to follow this issue closely and support the efforts of the police to clear our roads and make appropriate arrests.
Noise: It is absolutely crucial that the police should have the power to intervene in exceptional cases where the noise generated by a protest is such that it is injurious to others. As proposed by the PCSC Bill, the police's powers to impose conditions on protests, including single person protests, will include the power to impose conditions in situations where noise may cause a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation. Obviously, the majority of protests in England and Wales do not cause serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or a significant impact on the people in the vicinity of the protest so will be unaffected by this legislation. This power will only limit the most extreme cases where the noise from protests is unjustifiable. It is therefore extremely disappointing that Peers voted to remove these provisions from the PCSC Bill that would have ensured the wider public were not unduly affected by the most disruptive and noisy protest activity.
The guerrilla tactics we have seen in recent years employed by some groups cause misery to the public, cost millions in taxpayers’ money and put lives at risk. Using egregious noise not as a method of legitimately expressing themselves, but to antagonise and disrupt others from the enjoyment of their own liberties and rights is something we cannot leave unchecked. It is, therefore, right that the police should have the power to intervene in exceptional cases where the noise generated by a protest is such that it is injurious to others. Let me be clear, we are not silencing protesters or curbing freedom of expression, and the threshold for the use of these powers will be appropriately high. Police will only use it in cases where they deem it necessary and proportionate, and they will need to consider the protesters’ freedoms of expression and assembly when making use of these measures.
Water Cannon: I understand that the Government does not plan to introduce water cannon into policing. I can reassure you that the Home Office works closely with the National Police Chiefs Council on police capability and the measures that can be used in response to public disorder.
The measures in the PCSC Bill are not about stopping or clamping down on right to protest but ensuring the police can better manage highly disruptive protests and maintain the balance I have outlined.
Unauthorised Encampments
The setting up of illegal traveller sites can be a nuisance for local communities and an inappropriate development of open space. I know that many local residents across the country are concerned about anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, and noise related to unauthorised sites.
After two consultations on this issue, I welcome the fact that as part of the landmark Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill, new laws will be introduced to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. The Bill will introduce a new criminal offence where a person resides or intends to reside on any public or private land without permission and has caused, or is likely to cause, significant harm, obstruction, or harassment or distress. In addition, the Bill amends the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to broaden the list of harms that can be considered by the police when directing people away from land; and increase the period in which persons directed away from land must not return from three months to 12 months. Amendments to the 1994 Act will in addition allow police to direct trespassers away from land that forms part of a highway.
I can reassure you that the Government has taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures.
I believe these new measures are a proportionate and necessary increase in powers for the police. The Government has made it clear that only a minority of travellers are causing problems, such as through abusive behaviour and extensive litter and waste at illegal sites. The vast majority of the travelling community are decent law-abiding people and we must ensure that there are legal sites available for travellers. I welcome the fact that as of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41 per cent from January 2010. The Government has also given £200,000 to support projects working with Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities to tackle discrimination, improve integration, healthcare and education.
I am confident that Government action will help to reduce the number of illegal caravan sites across the country, while respecting people’s right to a nomadic way of life.
Welfare Concerns: Home Office guidance states that when enforcing provisions related to unauthorised encampments, the police should ensure that, in accordance with their wider Equalities and Human Rights obligations, proper welfare enquiries are carried out to determine whether there are pressing needs presented by those on unauthorised encampments and that, where necessary, the appropriate agencies (including Local Authorities) are involved as soon as possible.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Craig Whittaker MP
February 2022