The PCSC Bill has been the source of much controversy, triggering the nationwide ‘Kill the Bill’ protests. The bill has already passed through the House of Commons, and at the time of writing, is currently in its second reading in the House of Lords. This second reading provides opportunity for general debate on all aspects of the bill.
Among other things, the bill seeks to award further powers to the police and other emergency workers, in the name of reducing violence. The bill proposes amendments to sentencing rules, anti-terrorism powers and sexual offences law, however the proposed powers to restrict non-violent protests has attracted negative attention. These proposals are listed below.
Legislative proposals for protests:
● widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests to match existing police powers to impose conditions on processions;
● lower the fault element for offences relating to the breaching of conditions placed on a protest of either kind;
● widen the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests (again, of either kind);
● replace the existing common law offence of public nuisance with a new statutory offence as recommended by the Law Commission in 2015; and
● create new stop, search and seizure powers to prevent serious disruption caused by protests.
How will the PCSC Bill affect protesting?
The bill says that group protests should not be loud enough to cause “serious unease, alarm or distress” to people “in the vicinity”. This is a very broad and subjective test, enabling the police to shut down a wide range of protests. This noise limit puts a serious restriction on the ability to protest, and would render all protests quiet and convenient affairs. This is significant, as protests work on the basis of drawing attention to an issue, often using disruption in order to do this. The noise limit also applies to a single individual, having the ability to seriously impede the right to expression. The creation of a 10 year prison sentence for causing someone ‘serious annoyance’ does not seem to be in the best interests of the public. This seems to be a radical step away from the preservation of liberty. The bill also proposes restricting any activities around Parliament to a "controlled area". Beyond this, the secretary of state would also be given new powers to define at any time what counts as ‘serious disruption’. New conditions can be passed without being voted on in parliament, meaning that this bill opens the door to unbridled limitations on personal freedoms.
Although protest-related proposals in the bill have been made in the name of protecting the public, namely from disturbance and disruption, it cannot be forgotten that protestors and the public are one and the same. The Home Office Policy paper on the bill attempts to depict a dichotomy between the protestor and the ‘handworking majority’, however these are not two distinct groups. It is the case that if there are so many people involved in a protest that it becomes a major disruption, that this is an indicator that the protest might represent a major public interest. HMICFRS concluded that, “with some qualifications, all five proposals would improve police effectiveness without eroding the right to protest”. British values are steeped in ideals of liberty and personal freedoms, with the right to protest being central in these values.
The PCSC Bill poses a very serious threat to perceptions of democratic engagement. It is likely to be received as a further step in a sequence of measures introduced since the onset of the pandemic which arguably erode civil liberties. As such its timing and its breadth are not the best for a liberal conservative government
Among other things, the bill seeks to award further powers to the police and other emergency workers, in the name of reducing violence. The bill proposes amendments to sentencing rules, anti-terrorism powers and sexual offences law, however the proposed powers to restrict non-violent protests has attracted negative attention. These proposals are listed below.
Legislative proposals for protests:
● widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests to match existing police powers to impose conditions on processions;
● lower the fault element for offences relating to the breaching of conditions placed on a protest of either kind;
● widen the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests (again, of either kind);
● replace the existing common law offence of public nuisance with a new statutory offence as recommended by the Law Commission in 2015; and
● create new stop, search and seizure powers to prevent serious disruption caused by protests.
How will the PCSC Bill affect protesting?
The bill says that group protests should not be loud enough to cause “serious unease, alarm or distress” to people “in the vicinity”. This is a very broad and subjective test, enabling the police to shut down a wide range of protests. This noise limit puts a serious restriction on the ability to protest, and would render all protests quiet and convenient affairs. This is significant, as protests work on the basis of drawing attention to an issue, often using disruption in order to do this. The noise limit also applies to a single individual, having the ability to seriously impede the right to expression. The creation of a 10 year prison sentence for causing someone ‘serious annoyance’ does not seem to be in the best interests of the public. This seems to be a radical step away from the preservation of liberty. The bill also proposes restricting any activities around Parliament to a "controlled area". Beyond this, the secretary of state would also be given new powers to define at any time what counts as ‘serious disruption’. New conditions can be passed without being voted on in parliament, meaning that this bill opens the door to unbridled limitations on personal freedoms.
Although protest-related proposals in the bill have been made in the name of protecting the public, namely from disturbance and disruption, it cannot be forgotten that protestors and the public are one and the same. The Home Office Policy paper on the bill attempts to depict a dichotomy between the protestor and the ‘handworking majority’, however these are not two distinct groups. It is the case that if there are so many people involved in a protest that it becomes a major disruption, that this is an indicator that the protest might represent a major public interest. HMICFRS concluded that, “with some qualifications, all five proposals would improve police effectiveness without eroding the right to protest”. British values are steeped in ideals of liberty and personal freedoms, with the right to protest being central in these values.
The PCSC Bill poses a very serious threat to perceptions of democratic engagement. It is likely to be received as a further step in a sequence of measures introduced since the onset of the pandemic which arguably erode civil liberties. As such its timing and its breadth are not the best for a liberal conservative government
AUTHOR
Clemmie Taylor Smith, Researcher, The Decision Problem
Clemmie Taylor Smith, Researcher, The Decision Problem
