Here is our short response to the Home Office's Managing Protest around Parliament public consultation which closes this Thursday 17th January 2008:
- 1) Repeal SOCPA 2005 sections 132 to 138
- 2) No "harmonisation" with the Public Order Act 1986
- 3) Sessional Orders must be reformed for the 21st Century
Some possible face saving options and minor amendments:
- Option 1: Vastly reduce the size of the Section 138 Designated Area
- Option 2: Remove the inclusion of indoor "Public Places
- Option 3: Clarify the ambiguous extent of the Section 138 Designated Area boundary
- Option 4: Amend Section 132 to include a clear definition of the word "demonstration"
- Option 5: Modify the SOCPA 2005 Section 128 Protected Site Designations
- Option 6: Remove the Security Service MI5 Thames House "steps" anomaly
]]>
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary says in her forward to the consultation document:
"We are clear that there should be no unnecessary restrictions on people's right to protest. This is particularly important in the vicinity of Parliament given that it the forum of our democracy - the seat of our elected representatives. Therefore it is right that we review provisions that have generated such concern. If left unchecked, such concerns can in turn contribute to a wider cynicism towards the political process."
This cynicism is already in evidence, and is turning to a mixture if contempt, fear and hatred of this Labour government, by otherwise law abiding, peaceful people.
1) Repeal SOCPA 2005 sections 132 to 138
Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament
132. Demonstrating without authorisation in designated area
133. Notice of demonstrations in designated area
134. Authorisation of demonstrations in designated area
135. Supplementary directions
136. Offences under sections 132 to 135: penalties
137. Loudspeakers in designated area
138. The designated area
These sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 should be repealed forthwith.
2) No "harmonisation" with the Public Order Act 1986
It is bad enough having our freedoms and liberties curtailed around Parliament Square and Whitehall etc.
"Harmonisation" implies extending SOCPA style restrictions such as the imposition of arbitrary Conditions and the requirement for Prior Notification and Prior Permission, to cover the rest of England and Wales as well.
This is totally unacceptable
3) Sessional Orders must be reformed for the 21st Century
The Sessional Orders, which Parliament votes in at the start of each Session of Parliament, are intended to prevent undemocratic intimidation and vote rigging, by crowds of people intent on preventing some or all Members of Parliament or Peers, from physically getting into (or out of) Parliamentary Estate buildings.
However, the modern Parliament buildings are far more accessible than they used to be in the 19th Century, especially with the construction of underground car parks and tunnels between buildings, and to the Westminster Underground Tube Station, the invention of the helicopter and with the use of modern telecommunications technology.
There can be no excuse for Sessional Orders being threaten to, or to actually prevent, marches or demonstrations which do not impinge directly on physical access to the Parliamentary buildings.
Sessional Orders have recently threatened a Peace protest march in Trafalgar Square and Whitehall, and also seem to be threatening the forthcoming march by law abiding Police Officers, in their pay dispute with the Home Secretary.
Any amendments to Public Demonstration laws should restrict the application of Sessional Orders to the narrow physical confines surrounding the Parliamentary Estate buildings and no further.
Neither the large and somewhat violent anti-hunting-ban demonstrations in September 2004 in Parliament Square Gardens, nor the more recent October 2006 "Sack Parliament" anarchy, managed to disrupt the access of MPs or Peers or the workings of Parliament.
The Sessional Orders should be updated to protect Parliament from electronic telecommunications disruption as well as from obstruction by physical crowds or mobs of people.
This does not require giving the Metropolitan Police Service even more legal powers,but does mean paying money for the appropriate technical and trained personnel resources.
These three points above are what should be done immediately following this Public Consultation.
However, since it seems that perhaps the Politicians and Civil Servants responsible for this legislative mess are trying to find some face saving compromises, then here are some other options which are needed if the current legislation is not actually repealed:
Option 1: Vastly reduce the size of the Section 138 Designated Area
There is absolutely no justification for the maximum extent of the Designated Area
"1 kilometre in a straight line from the nearest point in Parliament Square"
If, as stated, the intention of the legislation is in regard to Parliament, then there is no excuse whatsoever for extending the Designated Area across onto the opposite bank of the River Thames, around the Millennium Wheel and Lambeth Palace, and potentially including Waterloo railway station. It is absurd to claim that any demonstration in these locations could somehow impede access to Parliament etc.
If Section 138 is not repealed, then the Designated Area should be reduced in size to cover just the pavement and highway immediately outside and across the road from the entrances and exits to Parliamentary Estate buildings.
i.e. Bridge Street, Parliament Street, Old Palace Yard, Abingdon Street, Victoria Embankment (but only along the side of Portcullis House and the Norman Shaw Buildings)
Option 2: Remove the inclusion of indoor "Public Places"
SOCPA 2005 Section 133
"b) “public place” means any highway or any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission,"
Since this currently covers the interiors of many buildings such as public houses, restaurants, theatres, churches and other places of religious worship.
It also covers the Public Areas of Parliament such as Central Lobby or the Committee Rooms in the Palace of Westminster or in Portcullis House
This definition is far too broad, and far too difficult to Police. The Designated Area should only include pavements and roadways and should not include the interiors of buildings which happen to be within the Designated Area.
Option 3: Clarify the ambiguous extent of the Section 138 Designated Area boundary
Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1537 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005
The precise extent of the Designated Area is not clear:
The Order says for example, "over Lambeth Bridge, leftwards along Millbank as far as Thorney Street"
The current wording seems to apply to the entire "adjoining pavement" in the "named street" of Millbank, over its entire length, even the part of the street heading away from Parliament Square.
This seems to include the Millbank pavement but not the roadway in front of the National Gallery, since that is "no more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square", but that does not appear on any of the Metropolitan Police Service maps of the Designated Area, which are not legally binding, but the words of the Statutory Instrument are.
Such unnecessary ambiguity and vagueness cannot be tolerated.
The exact extent of the Designated Area must be precisely defined, with an official detailed map published as part of the Order, and made available widely on UK Government and Police public world wide websites.
Option 4: Amend Section 132 to include a clear definition of the word "demonstration"
There has been a definite "chilling effect" regarding the wearing of British Legion Poppies, political rubber wristbands, lapel badges and tshirts with slogans of any sort, within the Designated Area.
How can anyone be clear whether they are risking arrest for an "unauthorised demonstration" in the "opinion of a police constable" or not ?
Is taking a walk, on your on or with a small group, stopping off to take photographs of the prominent tourist sights, along the wide pavements within the Designated Area counted as a march or a procession (even though it is not obstructing traffic on the roadway) or is it an almost static demonstration ?
How long do you have to be standing or sititng still within the Designated Area, before it counts as a "static demonstration" ?
This ambiguity gives rise to a feeling of oppression and resentment, which breeds hatred towards the Government.
Option 5: Modify the SOCPA 2005 Section 128 Protected Site Designations
Trespass on designated site
128. Offence of trespassing on designated site
129. Corresponding Scottish offence
130. Designated sites: powers of arrest
131. Designated sites: access
Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 930 - The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Sites under Section 128) Order 2007
This Order was used to Designate, as Protected Sites under SOCPA 2005 Section 128 (as amended by the Terrorism Act 2006 which, for no good reason simply changed the name from "Designated Site" to "Protected Site").
This is Designation is far too broad in its physical extent regarding
a) Windsor Castle:
Home Park - this is a huge area of 655 acres - with many public sports events etc.
The public tourist areas of Windsor Castle grounds and state apartments and St. George's Chapel
b) The formerly Public Areas of the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, specifically the Central Lobby, the Public Galleries and the Committee Rooms and Corridors should be excluded from the Section 128 Protected Site boundaries.
There are already such exclusions for the commercial premises within the Portcullis House and Norman Lamb buildings blocks.
You should not be under threat of arbitrary arrest by a police constable, which nowadays is itself a punishment and intrusion on privacy, even if you are never charged or are found not guilty (your DNA samples, fingerprints etc. are recorded and kept on centralised databases until your 100th birthday or longer) , simply for having crossed the Protected Site boundary when attending or visiting such public areas.
Option 6: Remove the Security Service MI5 Thames House "steps" anomaly
There is a legal anomaly regarding the headquarters of the Security Service MI5 at Thames House at 11 to 12 Millbank.
The Millbank pavement and roadway is covered by the SOCPA 2005 Section 132 Designated Area
"over Lambeth Bridge, leftwards along Millbank as far as Thorney Street"
However the SOCPA 2005 Section 128 Protected Site designation excludes the steps:
"(f) Thames House, 11 and 12 Millbank, London, SW1P 4QE but the site does not include the steps that give access to the inside of the building; and "
These steps are not part of the public street pavement of Millbank, and are not a "public place" according to SOCPA 2005 Section 132 i.e
.
"any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission"
This makes the front entrance archway steps, into some sort of legal Temporary Autonomous Zone, between legal jurisdictions, regarding criminal offences, rather than civil trespass.
It is surprising that some sort of encampment has not sprung up in the shelter of these archway steps.
N.B. apart from the front steps on Millbank, there is another set of steps at the rear of the building, on Thorney Street, near the loading bay, which also give access to / fire escape exit from, the first floor or piano nobile interior.
Surely these "steps" should be specifically included, rather than being excluded from the Section 128 designation ?
]]>
