MP for North East Bedfordshire Richard Fuller voices concerns Policing Bill could mean protests only legal if 'barely audible'

The MP for North East Bedfordshire has heavily criticised the Policing Bill, arguing that future protests might only be legal if they are "barely audible".

Speaking in the House of Commons, Richard Fuller MP voiced his concerns with the Bill in its present state - saying it may unduly impact marginal groups and expressing fears that it 'does nothing to help' build trust between people with 'profoundly different opinions'.

He said: "At the start of the bill process I was discussing the bill with a friend of mine and I said, 'Don't worry, the government will accept amendments at committee stage'. The government didn't do that. I said, 'Don't worry, if they don't do it at committee stage they will surely accept their lordship's amendments'. And I'm certainly yet to see the government make enough concessions on that.

"And that has led me to worry, at a time when Conservatives should be promoting freedom of speech, that we have created a weapon for our opponents to say we oppose freedom of speech; we shouldn't be doing that.

"I worry, that we give the impression that on this side that we think that demonstrations are OK so long as they are nicely decorous, that they are barely audible, that they are easily to miss, and we forget that anger and frustration are natural human emotions that find their expression in a democratic society through the ability to protest, and yes, make a noise."

Changes to the way protests are policed are being debated in parliament as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Currently, if the police wish to restrict a protest, officers have to show that it could result in: "serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community".

However, under the proposed new rules, police chiefs would be able to put more conditions on static protests, imposing a start and finish time, setting noise limits and applying these rules to a demonstration by just one person.

Under the new Bill, if protestors failed to follow restrictions that they 'ought' to have known about, this would be a crime. The proposal also includes an offence of "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance" - i.e. a campaigner hanging from a bridge.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Fuller continued: "I worry that when opposite members have talked about the concern of large protests that actually these measures will have more effect on those more marginal issues, those smaller groups.

"I think back to the 1980s with the group Act Up, which was protesting at the time to provide aids treatment to people.

"There was never a noisier group, a more active, disruptive group than Act Up in my whole memory, because they were representing a group that was marginalised. They only could make a noise to make their voice heard. And I worry this bill has an undue impact on marginal groups.

"I worry that at a time when we need clarity so much, in the way in which the law is put into people's lives that this bill is so vague people will say well why are we noisy and not them? And how on earth does that help us create a calmer discourse between those who have different opinions.

"I worry that we are asking the police to make too many judgements at a time when the police themselves want clarity and not be put into the mix. So why are we creating something that, in the moment, they have to make a judgement.

"And I worry that in a time when in our society we need trust, trust between different people with profoundly different opinions, the provisions around noise in this bill do nothing to help in that regard."

The MP was praised by journalist for the Independent, Femi Oluwole, who claimed on social media: "Here's Conservative MP Richard Fuller explaining how he was tricked into voting for the Policing Bill at the draft stage, knowing it would violate our right to protest."

The Chronicle asked Mr Fuller whether, as Mr Oluwole suggested, he had been 'tricked' into voting for the Bill, but he said: "No, I don't think it's fair to say I was tricked. The point I was trying to make was about how I expected the process to work.

"I had anticipated that the government would listen to more of the criticisms on demonstration."

Mr Fuller explained that the Bill is currently on its passage through the parliament and has reached the 'ping pong stage', whereby it bounces back and forth between the House of Commons and Lords as amendments are debated.

However, Mr Fuller said: "I think the government will get its way and I think then we will have to look and see what happens - maybe the concerns about what the implications will be are unfounded?

"My first concern was that it [the Bill] wasn't particularly clear - my definition of noise could be different to yours? - and my other concern was about who is making these judgements?

"People often protest about those in power; should we be giving additional responsibility to those in power when it comes to demonstrations?"