THE GOVERNANCE OF BRITAIN

MANAGING PROTEST AROUND PARLIAMENT

Response from the Metropolitan Police Service

Introduction

This document outlines the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) response to the ‘Managing Protest around Parliament’ consultation document. As well as providing answers to the specific questions raised in that document, it also sets out the MPS’s position in relation to the policing of protest. The MPS believes that a review of the current legislation is timely, given its experience of implementing the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) and fully supports such a review

The right to assemble and right to protest are clearly set out within the Human Rights Act. The MPS is fully committed to managing those who wish to lawfully assemble and protest and as the police service responsible for the capital, it fully accepts that the policing of such events is one of its key functions. The MPS has a long tradition of successfully policing processions and assemblies and holds the view that it can manage such events anywhere within the capital, provided that it is given the ability to apply conditions when appropriate

To ensure that there is consistency and transparency in approach, the MPS believes that s132–6 and s138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act should be repealed and that all marches and assemblies should be governed by the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), wherever they take place. However, given that the small area around the Houses of Parliament and Downing Street has more demonstrations than any other place in the UK and given that this location is the home of our country’s democracy, the MPS believes that there is a need to update the Public Order Act with specific provisions that will allow the MPS to effectively manage protest in this unique area

The MPS believes that it should be a matter for Parliament to decide if there are any geographical areas where protest should not be allowed. Government may wish to recognise that Downing Street itself is a unique environment and may form the view that this small area is one such location. Protest in other areas, such as the footway immediately adjacent to the Palace of Westminster, might also impact so adversely on access to the Palace of Westminster and therefore on the smooth running of Government that Parliament may wish to decide that it should be ruled out as a site for protest in the amended legislation. If Parliament decides not to follow this course of action but rely on the police service to apply conditions to manage protests in all areas, recent experience has shown that there will be those who choose to exercise their right to protest wherever they can and, as is required in law, the MPS will manage these protests

The issue of Sessional Orders is covered later in this response. It is vital that any new legislation clearly defines both the levels of access required by Peers, MPs and officials to the Palace of Westminster and also those activities and behaviours that would hinder the operation of Parliament. This would provide clarity for all concerned

3 Specific answers

Q1 – The Government believes peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society, and that the police should have the 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 MPS fully supports the view that the powers available to the police service should be generally consistent for both processions and assemblies

In recognition of the disruption that can be caused by a procession, the Public Order Act requires prior notification to be given in certain circumstances (s11(1)). While such prior notification is not required for assemblies under the Public Order Act, SOCPA requires authorisation to be given by police for static demonstrations in a defined area around Parliament. Prior to the SOCPA scheme coming into force, emergency police reserves had to be called in to manage assemblies around Parliament on a regular basis. While the MPS does not believe that prior notification should exist for all assemblies across the country, it does believe that prior notification should be required for assemblies that take place in the close proximity of Downing Street and Parliament itself. The MPS believes that prior notification is necessary to allow it to effectively manage the very large number of protests that take place in this small area

The MPS believes that the area currently designated by SOCPA should be significantly reduced and should only comprise of:-
• That area of Abingdon Street adjacent to or opposite the Palace of Westminster
• St Margaret’s Street
• Parliament Square
• Bridge Street
• Parliament Street
• Whitehall south of Horse Guards Avenue
• Downing Street (if Parliament decide not to prohibit protest in this street)
• King Charles Street
• Horse Guards Road between King Charles Street and Horse Guards parade ground
• Victoria Embankment adjacent to or opposite Portcullis House; and
• The Thames adjacent to the Palace of Westminster

The use of the undefined term ‘demonstration’ in the SOCPA provisions has caused difficulties. The MPS believes that prior notification for assemblies in the defined area above should rely upon the current definition of assembly under the POA and should only apply when two or more people intend to assemble. It should also only be required for assemblies that have the same purpose as currently set out in s11(1)(a) - (c) in relation to processions. In terms of the timing of such a notification, the MPS believes that this should also change and be the same as it is for processions under s11 POA, that being at least six clear days before the event or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable. These changes will help to ensure that there is a consistent approach for both processions and assemblies. The concept of ‘authorisation’ for any protest should be removed

The MPS also believes that the method of notification of assemblies within the area defined above should also mirror that of processions and must be done either in person at a police station within the Metropolitan Police District or by recorded delivery. However, given recent challenges that the MPS has faced in dealing with SOCPA, it believes that the legislation must make it clear that the onus is on those protesting to show that they have complied with the notification requirements. While the MPS is content with the notification methods outlined above, Government may also like to consider the use of new technologies, provided the necessary safeguards are put in place

Q2 – Do you agree that the conditions that can be imposed on assemblies and marches should be harmonised?

At the current time, police can impose any conditions on a procession provided they are necessary and proportionate to prevent any of the four stated outcomes in the POA. However, in relation to assemblies, the only conditions that can be imposed to prevent the four stated outcomes are those that relate to the place of the assembly, its duration and the number of participants. The MPS believes that the POA should be amended so that the flexibility that currently applies to conditions on processions also applies to assemblies

The Public Order Act was passed nearly 22 years ago. The world has significantly changed since then and the security situation is now an even more important factor in day to day policing. SOCPA recognised this fact and included the power to impose conditions on a demonstration on the grounds of security. The MPS holds the view that the issue of security is not restricted to the area around Parliament and can equally apply in other areas. As such, the MPS believes that the Public Order Act should be amended to allow appropriate and proportionate conditions to be imposed on any procession or assembly taking place anywhere on the grounds of security

The MPS also welcomed the ability that was provided by SOCPA to impose conditions on the grounds of public safety and given what is currently required of the police service in terms of considering public safety in all of its activities, the MPS believes that such a provision should also be imported into the POA

Q3 – Is special provision needed for static demonstrations and marches around Parliament and if so, what?

As outlined in the answers to Questions 1 and 2, the MPS believes that all processions and assemblies, wherever they take place, should be governed by the Public Order Act which should be amended to cater for the specific challenges that are posed in the area around Parliament and Downing Street

Sessional Orders, which are orders passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, place a duty on the Commissioner to ensure that access to Parliament is kept free of obstruction. However, these orders do not create any additional police powers and are put into effect by the Commissioner signing Commissioner’s Directions under S52 Metropolitan Police Act 1839. The powers available under this Act are very limited, are increasingly being challenged by protestors and do not provide any statutory framework to place conditions on processions and assemblies

As such, they have limited effect

To ensure transparency and consistency for both protestors and police in the future, the MPS believes that the Government should clearly define the levels of access that are required by Peers, MPs and officials to the Palace of Westminster and Downing Street. The Government should also define any activities and behaviours which it feels would hinder the operation of Parliament and Downing Street. Such definitions would allow all concerned to understand when conditions will need to be applied to prevent ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’ as set out in the POA

Q4 – Are there any other considerations the Government should take into account?

As stated in the consultation document, Parliament Square is a World Heritage Site. Both the Mayor and Government have a vision that ‘it should provide a symbolic and dignified setting for Parliament and the surrounding historic buildings, in keeping with its World Heritage location’. This area also attracts large numbers of protestors who hold very strong views and beliefs and some of their activities and behaviour may not be compatible with the vision articulated above. Government needs to define in the amended legislation any activities or behaviours they see as being unacceptable in this area

Over the last 18 months, the MPS has dealt with a number of individuals who have chosen to deliberately commit offences under SOCPA. A power of arrest has existed in some of these cases, an example being where a protestor refused to provide any details. However, the MPS is increasingly having to deal with those who choose to protest in the SOCPA area in situations where a power of arrest does not exist and despite being formally reported for an offence, they continue to commit that offence

In these cases, the MPS is powerless to prevent a continuance of the offence and those committing the offence continue to break the law, so undermining it. The MPS believes that a power to arrest should exist to prevent individuals continuing to commit an offence after they have been formally reported for it. This could be achieved by an amendment to s24(5) PACE

Q5 – Do you have any view on the model that should apply for managing demonstrations around Parliament?

As stated in the previous answers, the MPS forms the view that s132-6 and s138 of SOCPA should be repealed and the Public Order Act should be amended to take into account the specific challenges associated with managing protest around Parliament and Downing Street. The details of the MPS proposals are articulated in the answers to the questions above and below

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?

As covered in the answer to Question 2, the MPS believes that, because of the large number of protests that take place in the area around Parliament, a prior notification scheme should apply to assemblies of two or more people (using the POA definition) in the area outlined in Question 1 above. The requirement to notify police about processions already exists within the POA and should continue. This will allow protests in this area to be effectively managed

Although these proposals would mean that a lone protestor in the new designated area would not need to notify police, the MPS believes that as well as being able to apply conditions to any procession or assembly, either before commencement or during its currency, it should also have the power to apply conditions on those protests comprising of only one person. The MPS believes such a power is necessary because experience has shown that a lone protestor can have a massive impact on the local environment. There is no obvious reason why this power, to impose conditions on a lone demonstrator, should be limited to the new designated area. Although this would represent an extension of the POA, there is no necessary relationship between an assembly comprising of 2 persons or more and the occurrence of the risks that the imposition of conditions seeks to avoid. These risks can as easily arise as a result of a lone protestor

In summary, the MPS believes that a prior notification scheme should continue to apply to processions that fall within s11(1) POA and should also apply to assemblies of 2 or more persons within the proposed area outlined above. The MPS also believes that it should have the ability to place conditions, on the basis of the grounds laid out above, on any procession, assembly or lone protest wherever it occurs prior to it taking place or during its currency. The MPS believes that its proposals are far less intrusive than those currently imposed by SOCPA

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 highlighted in the answers above, the MPS believes that the POA should be amended to allow conditions to be placed on any procession or assembly or lone protestor to prevent a security risk wherever it takes place in the country

In terms of conditions to prevent a hindrance to the operation of Parliament, the MPS view is outlined in the response to Question 3. Clarity in the law about the access required by Peers, MPs and officials and the types of activity and behaviour that would hinder the operation of Parliament and Downing Street, would mean that any conditions could then be imposed under the remit of serious disruption to the life of the community

Q8 – Do you have a view on the area around Parliament that any distinct provisions on the right to protest should apply to?

The MPS has outlined its view on this in its response to Question 1

Summary

In its proposals, the MPS has sought to simplify and harmonise the powers that are available to the police service to manage protest. It has, wherever possible, sought to use existing definitions that are contained within the Public Order Act and has also sought to harmonise the powers so that assemblies and processions can be managed in a broadly similar way

The MPS believes that implementation of its proposals will ensure that those who wish to protest can continue to do so but in such a way that they do not hinder the operation of Parliament.