Today, Member of Parliament for the Cities of London, Nickie Aiken, gave the following speech at the Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. You can read a transcript of her speech below.
There is much to welcome in this far-reaching Bill, with tougher sentences for violent crime, for child murderers and for sex offenders, with greater efforts to remove knives and weapons from our streets, and with the inclusion of Kay’s law to provide greater protection for those who find the bravery to speak up against violence and sexual offences in their own homes.
I could go on, but in the time I have, I will focus on an issue that greatly affects my constituency—namely, the right to protest outside this place, in the heart of my constituency.
The recent history of legislating on protests outside Parliament makes for interesting reading. Labour Members who question the Bill’s impact on the freedom to engage in democratic protest may wish to cast their minds back to sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, in which a Labour Government prohibited protest within a kilometre of Parliament without prior agreement with the Metropolitan Police.
Fortunately, the Conservative Government repealed those restrictive sections in 2011.
If this weekend has taught us anything, it is that there is a huge difference between a peaceful vigil where people come together to express shared grief and outrage, and protests that take place day after day for weeks on end and that can occasionally bring unpleasant disruption to those living and working locally.
Central London has seen changes in the way that protests are organised and in their longevity.
They are not always organised by specific groups. They are movements, often with different aims and objectives. Some come to protest peacefully, but others may have the aim of causing disruption and even destruction.
I believe passionately in the right to protest; it is one of the values we hold so dear in this country.
The clauses in the Bill do not restrict the right to lawful protest. What they do is bring static protests into line with the provisions that already exist.
I accept that some of the language in the Bill could benefit from tightening up, and I am sure that that will be done as the Bill progresses.
Much has been highlighted about the democratic and human right to protest, and I agree, but let us not forget the human rights of my constituents who live with over 500 protests or marches a year.
I see a huge spike in my mailbag when Westminster plays host to a major protest, with constituents highlighting that a few cause them distress and loss of amenity.
They do not question the right to protest, but they do not accept becoming prisoners in their own home and the distress that they often feel as a result of a small minority of protesters.
Criminality is what the Bill aims to prevent, and that is surely something that everyone in this place wants to achieve.
You can also watch the speech above.
