The Government have today published a public consultation document on the notorious Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Designated Area around Parliament Square.
There is no question but that this legislation has significantly undermined the right to peaceful protests in central London, without providing any extra real "security", It has causied lots of headaches for the Metropolitan Police, and has increased public contempt for the Government.
The Labour politicians and civil service apparatchiki seem to be desperate for a face saving way out of the shameful, hypocritical, undemocratic mess which, for which they are to blame.
Interestingly the language in the consultation paper focuses entirely on Parliament, whilst failing to provide any justification for the current and theoretical extent of the Designated Area. The Designated Area currently also encompasses Downing Street, Whitehall, Labour party HQ, Liberal Democrat party HQ, the Metropolitan Police HQ, the Home Office, the MI5 Security Service building, and the Millennium ferris wheel on the other side of the river Thames from Parliament, none of which are directly relevant to the smooth running of Parliament, which is the supposed justification for the Sessional Orders and for SOCPA sections 132 to 138.
Managing Protest Around ParliamentThe consultation paper Managing Protest around Parliament stems from a Governance of Britain green paper in which the government committed to consulting on the sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act covering demonstrations near Parliament.
This consultation takes another look at sections 132-138 of that act, and explores whether there is another way to address the situation that would both uphold the right to protest while also giving police the powers they need to keep the peace.
This consultation will close on 17 January 2008.
Full consultation document (360Kb .pdf): Managing Protest around Parliament
This "public consultation" does not guarantee that they will take any actual notice of the public who might choose to express their views, but it is worth going through the motions, so that they cannot claim that nobody raised any objections to the status quo.
If you do not trust this Government sufficiently (why should you ?) to send in an individual response, you are welcome to add comments here on this blog, or to send them in via anonymous or pseudo anonymous email and we will submit them anonymously alongside our own response to this public consultation.
You can use our PGP public encryption key for info@ParliamentProtest.org.uk, if you understand how to do so.
Happy to support a common response via this blog.
It's currently getting worse (before hopefully it can get better). A mailing list I got forwarded (don't know if they want the credit) pointed out that Schedule 6, Part 2, s59 of the Serious Crime Bill amends SOCPA to include up to 1 year imprisonment for anyone who commits the offence of 'encouraging or assisting' someone committing an offence under SOCPA.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/140/07140.72-78.html#jD014S
br -d
Another view on the consultation:
"The Home Office has recently published a consultation paper which hints at what was really meant by Gordon Brown's promise to look again at the law which restricts demonstrations near parliament, far from repealing this legislation the consultation indicates that the government wants to extend the restrictions on demonstrations to cover the whole country..."
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386033.html
It's a whole consultation paper about some controversial legislation that has been in force for two years.
It makes not one single reference to an instance where the legislation has been used!
It's an absolutely worthless and biased document.
My experience as an organiser has been limited to my lone demonstrations (and from SOCPA 132(7)(d) it looks like that doesn't even make me an organiser) so I have gone through the frustration imposed by SOCPA but don't know too much about all the issues one must anticipate in potentially large gatherings and marches. Here's my first draft attempt at answering the consultation. Feel free to comment. Peaceful Demonstrator, do you want to send in a joint response (with anyone else contributing here as well)?
@Julian, it is a very biased document indeed pushing for an adoption of the situation concerning marches to be used for assemblies - and it is not upfront about this. There are many public examples of where some of the legislation has been used (Section 132 of SOCPA in particular), including on this blog. What I find more lacking is examples of situations where the additional circumstances and conditions demanded by the Police have been used and to what effect.
Q1. Marches and assemblies are different in nature and hence there's no reason for the powers to generally to be the same.
Q.2 Some level of harmonisation could be achieved on the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches. The basis for such harmonisation should be the current possible conditions on assemblies: place, duration and numbers. For marches, place must be replaced by route. Having a limited list of the conditions that can be imposed in either assemblies or marches is essential.
These conditions should be imposed only by a senior officer if s/he reasonably the believe the march or the assembly may result in: serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, serious risk to the safety of members of the public, or, that the purpose of the march or assembly is to coerce by intimidation.
Q.3 The only special provision that appear needed is the one from the sessional orders: that the conditions can be imposed to prevent hindrance to persons wishing to enter/leave the Palace of Westminster.
Q.4 The document mentions "security risk". This is a much too general catch-all expression. If the Police raise the need to impose conditions to "security risks" (in the designated zone or elsewhere), the risks must be clearly listed.
Q.5 My views are that Sections 132-138 of SOCPA should be repealed.
Q.6 No, there should not be any requirement of a prior notification (or authorisation) scheme for static demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament.
Q.7 I agree that there should be free passage for persons wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster. As mentioned above I am opposed for conditions based on an ill defined catch-all expression "security risks" (presumably specific to static demonstrations).
Q.8 There should not be distinct provisions for marches or assemblies in the area around Parliament. The specific provision of free passage could be included in general provisions if the sessional orders are not to be used anymore.
br -d
The Repeal-SOCPA.info website has some useful briefing material for anyone wishing to make a submission to this consultation, which closes >strong>this Thursday 17th January
http://www.repeal-socpa.info/
Individual submissions will probably carry more weight han combined ones, but if anyone is too scared to submit one directly, this blog will happily pass on your comments on your behalf (the Home Office knows all our personal details already !)