Green Party response to Governmental SOCPA consultation
17 January 2008
Q1. The Government believes peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society, and that the police should have powers to manage public assemblies and processions to respond to the potential for disorder.
Should the powers generally in relation to marches and assemblies be the same?
'The Green Party believes that the right to peaceful assembly, enshrined in the European Declaration of Human Rights, should be interpreted as extending to marches as well as static assemblies. The right to protest in either way should be protected as a positive element of a democracy, and conditions should not be imposed other than those which are needed to avoid interference with other rights - e.g. neither marches nor assemblies should be permitted to incite violence, or to incite racial hatred, or hatred of people on grounds of their beliefs or sexual orientation.
'We see no reason for advance notice for static assemblies, whether close to Parliament or anywhere else, since the main legitimate motive for requiring such notice is to manage the relationship between marchers and traffic.
'The Green Party is concerned about the growing use of antisocial behaviour legislation to control demonstrations and political leafleting activity, including injunctions being sought by private companies to limit the expression of public concern.
'If protest is regarded, as it should be, as a normal part of democratic life, it is not in itself antisocial. In particular, there may be occasions when it is a legitimate use of the right to protest to picket company premises or company meetings using placards, leaflets and speeches to make a point. Provided this is done non-violently it should be seen as a normal use of the right to political expression.
'We are also concerned about the way in which privatisation of public space may affect the right to political expression. For example, there would generally be no legal objection to leafleting supermarket customers about a political issue if this can be done in a public street, but the same action may be held to constitute trespass if the supermarket entrance is inside a covered shopping mall owned by aprivate company.
'Or an assembly in a park could be criminalised because the local authority has contracted management of the park to a private company. We believe that the public should have the same rights in any space to which the public have free access for shopping or recreation, regardless of whether it is managed by local authority or a private company.
'Private security guards should be expected to recognise these rights just as if they were police officers in a public street.'
Q2. Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches should be harmonised?
'In the light of the last answer, we see no reason for imposing additional conditions on assemblies, either close to Parliament or anywhere else. The Green Party would be particularly opposed to any extension of the powers in relation to assemblies which would legitimise censorship of placards, banners or leaflets.
'Currently, police can impose conditions on a march under section 13 of the Public Order Act, 1986, if they think the march will entail serious damage to property, serious disruption to life of community, serious disorder, or coercion by intimidation. These conditions can in theory include limitation of the content or wording of placards etc.
'Rather than tightening the laws on assemblies to match those relating to marches, the powers to control marches should, if anything, be liberalised.'
Protest in the vicinity of Parliament
Q3. Is special provision needed for static demonstrations and marches around Parliament and if so what?
'The present requirements for advance notice of even one-person demonstrations under SOCPA 2005 are unjust, unworkable and a waste of police time.
'They should be repealed.
'Police already have general nationwide powers to deal with obstruction, which can be used to protect persons or vehicles needing access to the Palace of Westminster or other buildings in the vicinity of Parliament.
'Around Parliament the Sessional Orders are in place to ensure access by MPs and by-laws exist to protect the 'World Heritage Site' of Parliament Square. Police should not therefore require any additional powers to preserve access to Parliament or to secure its operation.'
Q4. Are there any other considerations the Government should take into account?
'There might be a legitimate concern about noise levels in Parliament Square or close to government offices in or near Whitehall. However, the current ban on the use of loudspeakers under SOCPA is unacceptable, because without loudspeakers it is impossible for people to hear speeches or for large groups to be addressed by organisers.
'This makes protest ineffective and also impedes organisers from giving instructions to a crowd. Any condition regarding noise levels should be defined in terms of maximum decibels and should be set at a level which does not preclude the use of hand-held loud hailers.'
Encouraging and managing the Right to Protest
Q5. Do you have views on the model that should apply for managing demonstrations around Parliament?
'In the spirit of democratic access, the grass area in Parliament Square should be preserved as an open-access space for leisure, visitors and for assemblies.
'It should not be fenced.
'Nor should it become a sterile traffic island with no safe pedestrian crossings leading to it. Concerns have been expressed about damage to the grass; however, these can be addressed through existing powers to prosecute for 'public nuisance' or criminal damage.
'However, given the regulations about leaving litter, it would be reasonable for organisers of protests to be required to make provision for collecting and removing litter left by those attending.'
Q6. Do you consider that a prior notification scheme should apply to static demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament? Should any scheme only apply to static demonstrations over a certain size? And if so, what size of demonstration?
'In recent decades, almost any crowd of more than a couple of thousand people assembling in Parliament Square has been preceded by a march. In practice, any very large crowd would have to march to the area on foot, and such a march would be covered by the requirement for advance notice of marches under the Public Order Act, 1986.
'Most static demonstrations in Parliament Square or Whitehall number, at most, a few hundred people. The use of large numbers of additional police at such demonstrations is intimidating, unnecessary and a waste of police resources.
'Therefore, no requirement for advance notification of a static assembly in the designated zone is necessary or justified.'
Q7: Do you agree that conditions in order to prevent a security risk or hindrance to the operation of Parliament should remain in relation to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament?
'As stated in the answer to question 3, powers against obstruction, existing Sessional Orders and by-laws are adequate and the additional powers under SOCPA should be repealed.
'This repeal should include the amendment made to section 138 of SOCPA under the Serious Crime Act, 2007, to impose penalties on persons 'assisting or encouraging' an unauthorised demonstration in the vicinity of Parliament.'
Q8. Do you have a view on the area around Parliament that any distinct provisions on the right to protest should apply to?
'This question is redundant in the light of our answer to question 7.'
ENDS
