[Insert Address]

Dear _________ MP,

My name is _______, I am one of your constituents. I am writing to express my concern over the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 - in particular Part 3 (pages 45 - 55). This Bill has been introduced as of 9 March for second reading on 16 March, reported here. This Bill has been expedited to second reading, in six days compared to the standard minimum two week timeframe for second readings. This has not given sufficient time for public scrutiny and subsequent raising of public concerns.

The petition method for parliamentary decisions itself takes “weeks” by its own admission to approve a petition of this nature. This is a timescale defined by parliament and previous petitions hosted by other sites and organisations have been dismissed as they have not followed the correct protocol via the parliamentary petition website. The public deserves clarity, transparency and time to scrutinise these bills, with the opportunity to raise concerns with ease. This is in direct conflict with the timescale imposed for this Bill and the procedure for the public to raise concerns through parliamentary petitions. I request an inquiry into this process to enable the public to more easily share their concerns with parliamentary decisions.

The Metropolitan police commissioner has stated: “Ever since the first large-scale Extinction Rebellion protest in April last year I have been talking publicly and with the government about the potential for change to powers and to legislation that would enable the police to deal better with protests in general given that the act that we work to – the Public Order Act – is now very old, [dating to] 1986.... But specifically to deal with protests where people are not primarily violent or seriously disorderly but, as in this instance, had an avowed intent to bring policing to its knees and the city to a halt and were prepared to use the methods we all know they did to do that”. The peaceful vigil for Sarah Everard, a woman murdered recently, was ravaged by violent police action in response to peaceful protest and mourning. This Bill seeks to enhance police powers with regards to public protest. What is being done to eradicate the current violent response of the police to peaceful protests? What is being done to ensure additional powers do not increase violent police response to peaceful protests?

To address concerns of freedom to protest, Articles 10 and 11 have been cited by the government: “They must act compatibly with human rights, principally Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association)”, here. Equity and equality movements, like the peaceful protests for racial and gender equality, have already been met with violence from the police. This response exists in contrast to other assemblies, like a march for a football victory, unmolested by police. I am concerned that these “protections” are not sufficient with the specific evidence of police sanctioned violence against peaceful protests, vigils, and assemblies.

Public demonstration and protest are disruptive and uncomfortable by nature; such is the reality of the removal of systematic oppression and the violent structures which uphold them. The enhanced power of the police only serves to further silence those speaking out and taking action against systemic oppression.

The statement: “The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’ and ‘serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest’” is of great concern to the public. Given well documented systemic privileges, additional power should not be given to a single person, or a very small group of people, to define which protests may go ahead on a case by case basis. This policy enhances the opportunity for insidious actors to curtail equality and equity movements, where it is not beneficial to their position.

I would like to see better training, reporting and ongoing development to enable the police to better manage their response to protests which challenge inequitable systems. The statement: “These measures will balance the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. They will achieve this by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests” invokes safety concerns for the public, in particular, already marginalised groups. We are concerned that expanding the anti-protest arsenal of the police will not protect the public, but the interests of systemic institutional racism, misogyny and bigotry.

In light of the above concerns:

1. I ask you to address concerns with regards to adequate time for public scrutiny and the government process that controls it.

2. I ask you to publicly criticise this policy which stands to increase inequality at the specific design of a select group.

3. I ask you to raise my concerns over the proposed Bill, detailed above.

4. I ask you to scrutinise the likely inequitable outcomes from the implementation of this Bill.

5. I ask you to fight for the removal of these inequitable policies within the Bill, and oppose it until they are removed.  

6. I ask you to ensure marginalised people are not further abused by the police when seeking equity.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

I look forward to hearing back from you and having these concerns addressed.

[Insert name]