The Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill took evidence this afternoon on the provisions of the Bill dealing with demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. We heard from Milan Rai, who was arrested in 2006 when he was reading out the names of people killed in Iraq. (He was subsequently convicted, fined and, when he refused to pay the fine, imprisoned.) We also heard from Gareth Crossman, the Director of Policy for Liberty; Mike Schwarz, the solicitor who represented Brian Haw; and Baroness Mallalieu, the President of the Countryside Alliance, which was involved in a large and controversial demonstration in Parliament Square in 2004.
They were in favour of getting rid of the provisions covering demonstrations that are contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 – provisions prompted largely to deal with Brian Haw’s demonstration – and argued that they did not need replacing by other provisions.
They made a very persuasive case. The right to freedom of expression should not be limited simply for reasons of inconvenience (or aesthetics) and there are already laws – especially the Public Order Act 1986 – that give police power to deal with public order offences, including causing harassment, alarm or distress.
One particular concern of some members, though, was the problem of noise, primarily that generated by the use of loudhailers. It may be possible for police to deal with loudhailers if the purpose of their use is to intimidate, but it was not clear to what extent this power could or would be used in practice and whether police could actually seize loudhailers to prevent them being used.
It will be interesting to see if the case we heard today carries weight with the police, Westminster City Council and the Mayor’s Office: we are taking evidence from them tomorrow.
I had not heard about the case of Milan Rai before. How depressing.
Please let us know what the police, the council, and the Mayor’s office say – and thanks for this.
The Countryside Alliance so called ‘demonstration’ was a violent riot where their supporters assaulted police officers, threw explosives at police officers and their horses and invaded the chamber of the House of Commons. They do not believe in democracy and their vicious actions are all part of their wish to get back to chasing and tearing apart British wildlife, all for so called ‘sport’.
Why wee they were given legitimacy by being invited to give evidence at this committee?
Any other institution that gets shouted down doesn’t get the same right to silence… Maybe we shoudl think about why!
Is it not time that the rights of women in terms of constitutional equality with men be considered and given? Our constitution it seems is men only.
Stuart: The police and representatives of the GLA and Westminster City Council confirmed the legal difficulties in dealing with noise from loudspeakers; if the provisions of SOCPA were repealed, there would be problems for the police in taking action. The Mayor can set limits in the area under GLA control, but has no sanctions if they are ignored. Westminster City Council pointed out that, in practice, noise from loudhailers is usually drowned out by the traffic. The general view was that if loudhailers were to be restricted, it was for Parliament to determine what the limits should be.
The more serious problem was, from the police point of view, having powers to impose conditions for reasons of safety and security. The witnesses also felt that it was important to have prior notification of demonstrations, primarily for practical purposes. There are so many demonstrations that there can be problems with accommodating them if several take place at the same time.
Chris: in many respects, the answer to your question is to be found in what you write. The Countryside Alliance was involved in one of the biggest demonstrations in Parliament Square in recent years.
My overall assessment, on the basis of the evidence, was that it is clearly difficult to do anything in practice about loudhailers. They cause a nuisance but may be necessary (a) to give directions in the event of a large demonstration and (b) to enable a protestor to be heard above traffic noise. We will need to give serious thought not only to whether but also how anything can be done about them.
The 2005 Act was instigated initially by a desire to deal with Brian Haw’s protest in Parliament Square. The evidence tended to confirm my view that, if Parliament wished to deal with that permanent protest site, the best way to have dealt with it would be to provide that the pathway in the square be deemed a highway. Instead, we have a piece of legislation that is highly problematic. We need to think about the practical implications of allowing protests while giving priority to the presumption that people have a right to demonstrate in front of their national legislature. As I have said before, there is only one thing worse than having noisy protestors demonstrating in front of Parliament and that is having no protestors at all. If people ignore Parliament, then we lack a healthy polity.