Restrictions on protests in the controversial new policing bill breach human rights laws and will increase the risk of peaceful demonstrators in England and Wales being criminalised, MPs and peers have warned. They say the police, crime, sentencing and courts (PCSC) bill, which has provoked widespread protests, contains provisions that are unnecessary and disproportionate and confer unacceptably wide and vague powers to curb demonstrations on the home secretary and police. Parliament’s joint committee on human rights (JCHR) says clauses which allow restrictions to be imposed on protests because of the noise they generate, create powers to limit one-person demonstrations and increase penalties on people who breach conditions placed on protests should all be scrapped. Harriet Harman, the committee’s chair, said: “One of our most fundamental rights is to protest. It is the essence of our democracy. To do that, we need to make ourselves heard. The government proposals to allow police to restrict ‘noisy’ protests are oppressive and wrong. “The government put forward new powers in areas where the police already have access to powers and offences which are perfectly adequate. The government has served up confusion where clarity and precision is essential.” The JCHR report published on Tuesday says increased police powers in the bill to restrict static protests, akin to those they hold with respect to marches, should be limited to amending the start and finish time of assemblies. Furthermore, its members describe the proposal to allow the home secretary, Priti Patel, to define “serious disruption” to communities and organisations, which police could then rely on to curb protests, as “unacceptable”. They say: “If there is a particular clarification of ‘serious disruption’ that the Home Office considers is currently needed, perhaps as a result of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) protests of 2019, it should be made clear now so that it can be considered while the bill is being scrutinised. If no need for particular clarification has yet been identified, then we struggle to see how the powers contained in the PCSC bill can be considered necessary.” Patel has previously criticised protests by XR as well as Black Lives Matter, and pledged to prevent the former bringing “anarchy on our streets”. The JCHR says “current rhetoric focuses on the inconvenience sometimes caused by protest rather than its value to society”, warning that any interference with non-violent protests risks rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, under article 10 and 11 respectively of the European convention on human rights. It says the bill should enshrine an explicit right to protest and set out the obligations of the state accordingly. The parliamentarians express “serious concerns” that a new public nuisance offence contained in the bill could be broader than the common law offence it seeks to replace and fails to give significant weight to the right to protest. They point out that existing laws already deal with public nuisance offences, such as obstructing the highway, and warn the new statutory definition risks deterring demonstrations and “criminalising a vast number of peaceful protesters”. Demonstrations against the bill have been held across England and Wales, including weeks of protests in Bristol where there were clashes between police and protesters who accused officers of being too aggressive. A Home Office spokesperson said the proposals were backed by the police, “are in line with human rights legislation and in no way impinge on the right to protest. “Public order legislation is out of date, and the use of disruptive and dangerous tactics – including obstructing emergency vehicles or blocking the free press - costs millions to the taxpayer and causes misery to businesses and local communities.”