Q Having read the Bill, is there anything that particularly concerns you? Is there anything you think we could improve on? Are there any measures that you would like to see in the Bill that are not there as it stands?
Councillor Garratt: At the London Assembly, a big part of our work is scrutinising the Met police, including people’s concerns about policing and particularly around protests—we have had quite a lot of disruptive protests recently in London. There are some concerns about finding the balance between the way that the police and the courts interpret the powers that the police have to police protests, and how the general public, as expressed to me, interpret those powers. That goes in two directions; it is not all one-way traffic.
My perception is that there is a gap in the Bill, or perhaps an opportunity, to do something about disruptive protests. If you look at section 12 of the Public Order Act, it sets out the gap between substantial and minor disruption to the community. On the face of it, that seems a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to distinguish between significant disruption, which the police ought to act on to remove protesters, and minor disruption, which is just a normal part of life. We have challenged the commissioner on his officers not acting to remove, for example, people who park themselves in the road, glue themselves to things or lock on to things. His challenge to us is that his officers are enforcing the law as it exists and as it is being interpreted by the courts.
In particular, the Ziegler judgment essentially sets a high bar for what constitutes substantial disruption. For example, when people park and block a road, it is not considered substantial disruption. I would like to see some thought in the Bill as to how the police can be empowered to make sure that people can still protest in the way they would like, because it is an important democratic freedom, while other people are not prevented from just going about their life or their day.
In the other direction, I also see a challenge—again, it is not addressed in the Bill, but it could be—around what I think of as an emerging de facto blasphemy law, which is quite concerning. People who wish to protest are almost always annoying somebody in some way with the issue that they want to protest about. Rarely do people protest in favour of or against things when everyone agrees with them.
I have a concern about when the nature of that protest touches on religious or cherished beliefs, and people often react very negatively to that. You then see the police, and seemingly the courts, viewing the person who is reacting angrily to the protest as, in some ways, the victim, and the protester as, in some ways, the protagonist or cause of the problem. I think, having removed the blasphemy laws in 2008, the will of Parliament seems to be that you are allowed to offend people’s religious sensibilities.
We saw the example in Manchester with the burning of the Koran, and there was an example at the Turkish embassy in London. There are numerous examples along those lines, where section 4A of the Public Order Act seems to be used to determine that if you are causing harassment, alarm or distress, that is enough to block somebody from being able to carry out what otherwise would seem to be quite a peaceful protest. There is scope for the Bill to address both of those problems.
Councillor Conway: I was not going to comment, but I will on the bit about protest. We really welcome the Home Secretary’s amendment to the Bill that was announced last night about intimidation at places of religious worship. As a Barnet local councillor, that has obviously been a key area of focus for our communities, in particular during the past year and a half. I think that balance between intimidation and the right to protest has been very fairly dealt with, and it is a very welcome introduction to the Bill.
I am pleased that we are here today to represent local councils. Local councils, councillors and our officers are at the frontline of delivering community safety, and of keeping everybody safe and protected in our boroughs, district councils and all the areas across the country. Every point on my list that I want to make focuses on resources. There is some really good stuff in the Bill, but it needs careful working through so that there is no obligation or statutory duty without the resourcing to properly deliver it on the ground.
On training, I can give specific examples as we go along. With regard to collaboration, that is something that people in local government, as leaders of place, are very good at. However, we need the resourcing to do it. I know that at the moment, we in local government talk about resources in every space, but they are essential. That is particularly the case in areas such as social services, for example, with some of the duties there.
Broadly, we welcome the Bill overall. It has some really important measures in terms of cuckooing and child protection. As someone who leads on community safety on the ground, I think that those things are vital. There are measures in the Bill that will save us from having to try to find different ways around things so that we can directly go to the heart of the problem.
It is key that you keep talking to local government—particularly about fly-tipping. You cannot see the word “fly-tipping” as a local councillor and not have something to say. It would be great for the LGA to have further in-depth discussions with the Government as to how that is delivered locally and effectively. We are absolutely vital for doing that.