Agenda item - Green Motion - Defending Our Democratic Rights

This Council notes that:

· On 2 May 2023 the final stages of the Public Order Bill passed through the House of Lords, which gives the Police greater powers to restrict people’s democratic right to protest in England and Wales.

· The Act grants the Police new powers to prevent protests occurring outside of major transport networks, oil and gas and energy supplies, making “locking on” a new criminal offence, expanding Stop and Search to include suspicionless stop and search, and enacts new individual protest bans under ‘Serious Disruption Prevention Orders’.

· Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines the Right to Peaceful Assembly into British law, guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

· A Legislative Scrutiny Report published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights called for key measures in the Public Order Bill to be amended or removed in order to reverse the “chilling effect” it is likely to have on the right to protest.

· This report found that these offences have a very wide scope and criminalise those legitimately exercising their Article 10, 11, 8 and Article 6 rights.

This Council also notes that:

· The Public Order Act 2023 has been criticised by Amnesty International, Liberty, Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and the UN Human Rights Commissioner.

· It follows on from the Police, Crime, and Sentencing Act 2022 which was also accused of infringing upon democratic freedoms by human rights organisations.

· The Government lost a vote in the Lords on the Public Order Bill 2023 to change the interpretation of ‘serious disruption’ of other people’s day-to-day activities to mean ‘anything more than minor’. The Lords opposed this change by 254 votes to 240 in May

· The government reintroduced the change by Statutory Instrument.

· Green peer, Jenny Jones, put forward a fatal motion to stop this unprecedented and anti-democratic move by the government. Unfortunately, Labour peers abstained, so it passed.

The Council further notes that:

· The Right to Protest is a fundamental pillar of democracy.

· The objective of a protest is to peacefully disrupt and agitate for change. The anti-apartheid and Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Suffrage, Gay Pride, workers’ rights and a government commitment to carbon zero by 2050 have been achieved through protest and public disruption.

· The Public Order Act is already having a ‘chilling effect’ on our right to protest.

· The King's Coronation in May saw over 60 people arrested by the Police, many of those on grounds of public nuisance and breaches of the peace for holding signs, chanting, reporting on the protests and standing in close proximity to those protesting.

· The police initially used the ‘lock on’ ban in the Public Order Act to justify some of these arrests and deployed the largest ever use of live facial recognition technology in the UK

· Police have written to residents of the Hackney area, warning them that Live Facial Recognition will be deployed at an unknown time and location in September 2023.

· This technology is over 80% inaccurate according to the Met’s own statistics.

· Amnesty International, Liberty and the EHRC have called for a ban of facial recognition technology, with reports from Amnesty International finding that it is a violation of privacy rights, is antithetical to democracy, disproportionately impacts people of colour, exacerbates systemic racism, and puts Black people at a greater risk of being misidentified.

· Baroness Casey’s Report into the Metropolitan Police Service found that there was a deepening mistrust of the force which is institutionally racist, sexist, homophobic and ‘broken', compounded by a culture of denial and obfuscation.

· Expanding the use of stop and search at protests without reasonable suspicion is likely to unjustly impact Black and Asian heritage people, and infringe upon their Article 14 right to non-discrimination.

· The Met Commissioner himself has stated that the present use of stop and search ‘burns through trust’.

This Council welcomes:

· The Administration's ongoing work with the Met Police Commissioner and local Borough Commander on improving standards after the Casey Report and City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Panel Child Q reports.

· The co-production of a local action plan with Hackney communities, the Met and the council on improving trust and confidence.

This Council resolves to:

· Write to the Prime Minister to urge him to repeal the draconian Public Order Act and protect our fundamental democratic freedoms.

· Meet with the Met Commissioner to express strong dissatisfaction with the heavy-handed policing witnessed at the King’s Coronation and the increasing use of live facial recognition technology across London.

· [U2]“Follow Newham and Lambeth Council’s request for an urgent suspension of the use of live recognition technology in Hackney, due to the risk is poses to privacy and freedom of expression, a lack of sufficient safeguards against discrimination and an absence of biometrics regulations, and write to the Home Office, the Mayor of London, and the Metropolitan Police Service to make its opposition to LFR technology clear.

· Ensure Hackney’s local action plan on policing involves consideration of alternative ways to keep communities safe, and includes community education on the Police, Sentencing and Crimes Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023, so that Hackney residents are briefed on their rights.

Proposer: Cllr Zoë Garbett

Seconder: Cllr Alastair Binnie-Lubbock

The Labour Amendments to the Motion were Carried

RESOLVED:

This Council notes that:

· On 2 May 2023 the final stages of the Public Order Bill passed through the House of Lords, which gives the Police greater powers to prevent serious disruptions caused by protests in England and Wales.

· Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines the Right to Peaceful Assembly into British law, guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

· A Legislative Scrutiny Report published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights called for key measures in the Public Order Bill to be amended or removed in order to reverse the “chilling effect” it is likely to have on the right to protest.

· This report found that these offences have a very wide scope and criminalise those legitimately exercising their Article 10, 11, 8 and Article 6 rights.

· Some aspects of the Public Order Act 2023 have been criticised by Amnesty International, Liberty, Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), and the UN Human Rights Commissioner.

· The Right to Protest is a fundamental pillar of democracy.

· The objective of a protest is to peacefully disrupt and agitate for change, such as the anti-apartheid and Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Suffrage, Gay Pride and workers’ rights.

· Baroness Casey’s Report into the Metropolitan Police Service found that there was a deepening mistrust of the force which is institutionally racist, sexist, homophobic and ‘broken', compounded by a culture of denial and obfuscation.

· The Administration's ongoing work with the Metropolitan Police Service, MOPAC and local Borough Commander on improving standards through the Community Resilience Partnership and after the Casey Report and City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Panel Child Q reports.

· The co-production of a local action plan with Hackney communities, the Met and the Council on improving trust and confidence.

This Council resolves to:

· Work towards Hackney’s local action plan on policing includes consideration of alternative ways to keep communities safe, and community education on the Police, Sentencing and Crimes Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023, so that Hackney residents are aware of their rights.

· Refer local issues concerning the Right of Protest to the Hackney’s Cabinet Member for Community Safety.

· Not agree to the deployment of Live Facial Recognition in Hackney until the Council is satisfied that the potential benefits to crime reduction will not lead to a further erosion of trust and confidence in policing in Hackney.

Proposed by: Cllr Fajana - Thomas

Seconded by: Cllr Joe Walker

Amendments to the motion had been received from the Labour Group and contained in the tabled papers circulated. The proposed amendments had not been accepted by the Green Group.

Cllr Garbett stated that all should be outraged at the continued assault on democracy and on the rights of citizens. In the interest of time, she decided to forego the right to make a speech.

Cllr Binnie-Lubbock, as seconder to the motion, reserved his right to speak until later in the debate.

Cllr Fajana-Thomas, proposed amendments to the motion which were seconded by Cllr Walker. The amendments were primarily made on the belief that the Public Order Act did not undermine the intention to peacefully protest; but strengthened police powers to tackle dangerous tactics and protect victims of crime.

Cllr Binnie-Lubbock believed that the motion as amended did not protect the right to protest. He expressed disappointment that the amendments removed reference to the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act 2022 which he believed to be discriminatory to the Traveller Community.

Cllr Walker, as seconder of the amended motion outlined what the administration had done to protect residents’ rights. This included making representations against the deployment of live facial recognition (LFR) in Hackney, without proper consultation and welcoming the police’s decision to suspend plans for this.

Following a vote, the Speaker declared the amendments to the motion CARRIED

The Speaker proceeded to the substantive motion which was not debated. Cllr Binnie-Lubbock had reserved his right to speak. He stated that the motion, as amended, did not protect the right to protest; and did not oppose Government regulation which he felt criminalised and made protesting more difficult for Hackney’s marginalised communities.

Following a vote, the Speaker declared the motion as amended by Labour CARRIED

RESOLVED: That Labour amendments to the motion be carried.