Some questions, and a few dubious answers from the Government, were fortcoming on Thursday 14th July 2005, in the
Grand Committee report to the House of Lords about the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Designated Area) Order 2005
"The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal):"I emphasise that nothing in this order or the Act seeks to detract from that.
However, we must pause to put some of the issues into better context. I should like to disabuse Members of the Committee of some misconceptions that have arisen. Let us be clear: the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act are not about denying the right to protest. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, they require the organisers of demonstrators to give prior notification of the protest to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and he is obliged—I put the emphasis on obligation—to authorise the demonstration. Nothing in this enables the Police Commissioner to deny the right to protest.
It will be open to the commissioner, however, to attach conditions to the authorisation where it is necessary. I emphasise the word "necessary" because the commissioner, in the exercise of his discretion, would have to respond in a proportionate and proper way."
"The Government believe that a notice period is an essential part of the provisions so that the commissioner is able to consider the circumstances of a demonstration and its likely effect on the work of Parliament and the security of the area around it. The commissioner can set these conditions, which are appropriate and proportionate, and he must be able to do so in advance. The Government have recognised that, as noble Lords have said, there may be occasions when demonstrations are organised as a response to events which could not have been foreseen. It was for that reason that we shortened the notice period to 24 hours in exceptional circumstances. But we do not believe that we should remove the notice period completely."
"But let me be clear, a penalty of imprisonment—which is a maximum of three months now and will be 51 weeks in the future—together with fines, is the maximum penalty that can be imposed in relation to these matters. Any punishment less than that is appropriate dependent on the nature and extent of the culpability demonstrated to have occurred.
It is to be applied only to those who do not comply with the conditions and to the organisers of the event—not the demonstrators but those who organise the event."
"I can reassure the noble Baroness that in regard to the imprisonment of organisers, the court will have the same powers it has in relation to any other matter. It must consider the circumstances of the case, how the individual responded and whether it is an appropriate and proper sentence commensurate with the nature of the culpability. That test will still be in place. Imprisonment is not available for the participants or those who carry on demonstrations by themselves. So one is targeting those who organise these demonstrations and orchestrate what we know will be a very unlawful assembly, particularly if it is designed to cause damage and destruction and to subvert."
"The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also asked, "Why the other side of the river?". I shorten what he said but, in essence, it is "Why the other side of the river?". In drawing up and taking advice from the police commissioner, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the commissioner sought to draw the line as narrowly as is operationally necessary. A great deal of consideration went into the nature of protest that may take place and the nature of the area. Demonstrations on the opposite side of the river to Parliament could hinder the proper operation of Parliament, cause a security risk or a risk to the safety of members of the public. I should point out, too, that the conditions which the Metropolitan Police place on demonstrations, wherever they are held, must be those necessary for preventing one of the situations set out in Section 134. These include:
"hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster . . . hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament . . . serious public disorder . . . serious damage to property . . . disruption to the life of the community . . . a security risk in any part of the designated area . . . risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration)"."
This still does not anwer the questions "Why the other side of the river", and "Why not St. James's Park a stone's throw from Downing Street ?" if "security" really is the motivation for this.
"Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am sorry. Articles 10 and 11. We do not agree that these provisions go beyond what would reasonably be necessary for the better protection of the public and Parliament. We believe that these provisions are proportionate and do not improperly restrict the ability to participate in peaceful process, not least because they provide that there can be no refusal or prevention of the process. It is simply that there are conditions attached to them. So we are confident that the provisions are sound."
Despite the Home Office Minister's claims, surely there must be reasonable grounds to challenge this on the grounds of proportionality, under Articles 10 Frredom of Expression and Article 11 Freedom of Assembly and Association, of the European Convention on Human Rights as implemented in the Human Rights Act 1998
"The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked specifically whether we would change the boundaries that currently have been drawn. I have to disappoint her. The Government do not intend to do so because a great deal of time and effort was taken up in close consultation with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on precisely where they should be drawn""We believe that these issues have been dealt with appropriately. We do not believe that they will prevent proper demonstrations taking place"
"Lord Kingsland: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. We know from what Mrs Flint said in another place that the aim of the law is to prevent disruption to the work of Parliament and access to the House. As I have understood the noble Baroness, she is saying that the one kilometre area is necessary to fulfil this objective.
But supposing there is a group of people within the one kilometre area who do not intend to disrupt the work of the House or to address their protest to Parliament, but intend to address it to No. 10 Downing Street or the Ministry of Defence. Would they be caught by the order? On the explanations given by Mrs Flint and by the noble Baroness, it seems to me that they would not because the intention of the demonstrators would not be to disrupt Parliament but to protest to the executive arm of government. Perhaps the noble Baroness may have some reflections on that situation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a fine lawyer, so he will know how to interpret the section as well as I. It states that the area may be specified by description. It then says,
"no point in the area so specified may be more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square."
It is therefore clear that the Act permits such a designated area and permits my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to designate that area. Once it is so designated, any demonstration which takes place falls to be one to which the commissioner is entitled to set conditions. It would of course be open to him not to set conditions if he felt that none was necessary or appropriate and proportionate. It does not in any way prescribe in this section that a demonstration must be limited. It is any place within the designated area which would fall to be considered."
"Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to make a correction because I do not want to mislead the Committee. It should have struck me that the demonstration on 8 July was not covered by these provisions. The offences do not come in until 1 August. The period between 1 July and 1 August is to ensure that authorisations can be obtained in time for 1 August, when authorisation will be needed. However, that does not detract from the fact that it would have been possible to have stated, even under our current legislation, that it was for security reasons
and so forth. I thought it important to correct that point because I would not like to have misled the Committee"
The Government has managed to confuse the public as to what is and what is not intended or permitted.
What is said by a Government Minister on the floor of either House of Parliment, actually has no bearing on the legal interpretation which a Court may make about the law, as it is written on the face of the Act of Parliament, so all the noble Baroness Scotland of Asthal's statements have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Note the correction Baroness Scotland made at the end of her speech, no doubt passed to her by one of the clerks when they noticed that she had shot her mouth off. At the start of her speech, she said:
"""
I do not think that the noble Baroness would suggest for a moment that this Government, in seeking to control the demonstrations that have properly taken place, have acted disproportionately or in any way that would limit our proud history of good, vibrant, democratic, lawful and peaceful protest.
I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that nothing in the legislation or this order seeks to do that. I join with my noble friend the Leader of the House in rejoicing at the fact that, notwithstanding the dreadful events of 7 July, we had the joy—it was a joy—of battling our way to this House through vibrant demonstrators, protesting at such volume that we could hear them clearly in our Chamber. That was not a matter of regret. A number of Members in our House rejoiced at it, because it demonstrated that, notwithstanding the fact that others would seek to destroy our democracy, we allowed that to take place in a way that was proper. I emphasise that nothing in this order or the Act seeks to detract from that.
"""
Clearly, she has little understanding of the meaning of this Act. This might be true of most of those who voted for it, for whom this issue was very low on their list of priorities.