defend protest near Parliament

show solidarity with Brian and others challenging restrictions on protest near Parliament

analysis of SOCPA

press articles about SOCPA

return to main Defend Protest Near Parliament page

Some analysis of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

This page was written shortly after SOCPA was passed by Parliament in 2005. For more recent analysis about the effect of SOCPA see www.repeal-socpa.info and its links to other useful sources.

Introduction
What the new law now is
The latest in a long line of attempts to remove Brian
This is an issue for all of us
The first draft of the Bill
The final draft of the Bill
Government dirty tricks
What MPs said and What Lords said
Media articles

Introduction

On 7 April 2002, the Prime Minister made a speech at the George Bush Senior Presidential Library on his visit to the US. He said:

'When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street, and believe me, you name it, they protest against it, I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can. That's called freedom.'

This freedom has now been severely curtailed.

“The Government doesn’t want people to hear what I’m saying and to see the pictures of tortured and bombed innocent children which I have on display here.” Brian

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act contains an assortment of measures that have nothing to do with serious organised crime. Among other things it attempts to deal with Brian and other protesters in Parliament Square, with animal rights protestors, with those trespassing on property of the monarchy etc. In the process of doing this however, the Government have taken the opportunity to introduce measures that can be extremely widely applied. They threaten the whole reasoning behind protest - it could be that taking an action (any action - even as simple as leafletting) in an attempt to pursuade others not to take other certain actions will no longer be seen as a mark of free speech and our right. Read George Monbiot's analysis of how this Bill will criminalise protest in different situations.

What the new law now is

This Act contravenes the right to freedom of association and speech under the Human Rights Act
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act contains a number of measures that are set to radically change our rights to protest. One of the measures will severely restrict, and effectively stop, most protest in an area up to 1km around Parliament.

6 days notice of a demonstration would have to be given to the Metropolitan Commissioner (or 24 hours if 6 days was not 'reasonably practicable'), who would say whether a demo should go ahead or not and, if it was allowed, put severe restrictions on it. The restrictions could be changed without notice on the day by any senior police officer. One of the considerations is 'disruption to the life of the community' - a catch-all category that could allow the Commissioner to stop almost any protest (processions organised under the Public Order Act 1986 are exempt). Loudspeakers will be banned except for use by those in various positions of authority. The 'designated area' around Parliament to which these restrictions could apply remains 1km.

The new law states that:
'A person seeking authorisation for a demonstration in the designated area must give written notice to that effect to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis... not less than 6 clear days before the day on which the demonstration is to start.'

'The notice must state—
(a) the date and time when the demonstration is to start,
(b) the place where it is to be carried on,
(c) how long it is to last,
(d) whether it is to be carried on by a person by himself or not,
(e) the name and address of the person giving the notice.'

'The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration.... In giving authorisation, the Commissioner may impose on the persons organising or taking part in the demonstration such conditions specified in the authorisation and relating to the demonstration as in the Commissioner’s reasonable opinion are necessary for the purpose of preventing any of the following -
(a) hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster,
(b) hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament,
(c) serious public disorder,
(d) serious damage to property,
(e) disruption to the life of the community,
(f) a security risk in any part of the designated area,
(g) risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration).'

'The conditions may, in particular, impose requirements as to -
(a) the place where the demonstration may, or may not, be carried on,
(b) the times at which it may be carried on,
(c) the period during which it may be carried on,
(d) the number of persons who may take part in it,
(e) the number and size of banners or placards used,
(f) maximum permissible noise levels.'

A 'senior police officer' may give 'supplementary directions' which can impose additional conditions or vary any conditions.

A person guilty of an offence under these sections of the Bill 'is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.'

Clause 134 prohibits the use of loudspeakers except for use by those in various positions of authority.

Clause 135 states that the 'Secretary of State may by order specify an area as the designated area' and 'no point in the area so specified may be more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square.'

See here for the complete wording of clauses 132 to 138 from the Act and here for an extract for printing out in Word. See details of when the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act will be enforced and the designated area around Parliament to which the new restrictions will apply.

The latest in a long line of attempts to remove Brian

This extreme and extraordinary legislation is explicitly aimed at removing Brian Haw from Parliament Square, where he has been continuously protesting against the UK government's policy towards Iraq (economic sanctions, invasion and occupation) and the 'war on terror' for over three and a half years - since June 2001. For the government, Brian's presence is too embarrassing, too constant a reminder of their readiness to go to war and sacrifice other people's lives.

Various authorities have tried various measures, legal and non-legal, to get rid of Brian. He has been derided by outspoken politicians, most of whom are ignorant of what he stands for or who have utterly failed to understand the extent to which he has support from people all over the world as well as global media interest. They choose to hear only the megaphones, not the message. Yet others in authority are supportive of his stance and the seriousness of his views and this has helped him to keep going despite the difficulties of maintaining such a protest. In 2002, Brian won a landmark case in the High Court in which the judge ruled that Brian was exercising his right to freedom of speech in Parliament Square and that any pavement obstruction was not "unreasonable". Since that point, Brian's protest has been regarded as lawful.

This is an issue for all of us

Most protest within 1km of Parliament Square could be stopped, including at Downing Street and Trafalgar Square.
Although Brian is the first target of this legislation, it is likely that the legislation would be applied to other protests. The Anti-war Community Speakout, organised by the Global Women's Strike, which has taken place in the Square every week for two years, will also be targeted as there have been various attempt to close down its loudspeakers. The anti-terror and anti-social behaviour laws passed recently are also increasingly being used by the police to stop legitimate protest. There is little doubt that this law could make all protest in the area (up to 1km), except marches held in accordance with the Public Order Act 1986, liable to severe police restrictions or dispersal.

"The right to peaceful protest goes to the heart of the British tradition of liberty. It is an indictment upon the Government that they seek to pass primary legislation which will end demonstrations near Parliament...It is difficult to see how Clause 129 can be compatible with Article 11 of the Human Rights Act (the Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association)."
from Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, Liberty's briefing for the Second Reading in the Lords, March 2005 See here

The first draft of the Bill

The first draft of the Bill would have made it an offence if a person is, or could be, "hindering any person from entering or leaving the Palace of Westminster", "hindering the proper operation of Parliament", or "spoiling the visual aspect, or otherwise spoiling the enjoyment by members of the public, of any part of the designated area." The designated area can be up to 1km from Parliament Square. The Committee of MPS that read through the Bill raised a number of objections to the substance and aims of these clauses and also pointed out the ludicrous position that would occur if any single police officer was responsible for determining if an activity around Parliament was spoiling the view.

The final draft of the Bill

During the debate in the House of Commons on 7 Feb 2005, the Government put forward its own amendments to the Bill, over-riding any amendments by MPs which were aimed at lessening the impact of the Bill. The amendments rewrote the legislation (as the Government realised the original draft was completely unworkable - the final draft only slightly less so) so that 6 days notice of a demonstration would have to be given to the Metropolitan Commissioner, who would be able to say whether a demo should go ahead or not and, if it was allowed, put severe restrictions on it. The restrictions could be changed without notice on the day by any senior police officer. One of the considerations is 'disruption to the life of the community' - a catch-all category that could allow the Commissioner to stop almost any protest (processions organised under the Public Order Act 1986 are exempt). Loudspeakers will be banned except for use by those in various positions of authority. The 'designated area' around Parliament to which these restrictions could apply remains 1km. See What MPs Said for further comments about what this legislation will mean.

Although amendments were put forward in the Lords, the only ones to survive are the government's own - allowing a 24 hour notice period if a 6 day notice period was not 'reasonably practicable'. This has been seen by some press as a climbdown by the government but it was, in fact, only a tiny compromise to ease the passage of the Bill.

Government dirty tricks

MPs Simon Hughes and Lembit Opik (both Lib Dems) and John McDonnell (Labour) came over from Parliament to support the demonstration as the Bill was being debated on 7 February. They said that the clauses relevant to Brian and the right to protest in Parliament Square were only debated within the final hour (9-10pm). No more time was available for debate because the Government had imposed a 'guillotine' (time limit) on the debate of six and a half hours for the whole Bill - this itself caused lots of anger among MPs. Some other important aspects of the Bill were not debated at all.

The Government did a further manoeuvre by putting in amendments which overrode the amendments proposed by Lib Dems and Labour MPs which John McDonnell characterised as even more 'draconian' than the original legislation.

Caroline Flint, the Home Office Minister who introduced the Bill, severely mis-characterised the impact of Brian's protest on Parliament. For example, she said 'there are issues relating to the use of equipment to amplify voice, one of which is its impact, day in, day out, minute by minute, on those who work in Parliament, whether they are elected representatives or staff of the House.' This suggests that amplification is being used all the time which is very far from the truth and also that those working in Parliament are hugely affected when others in Parliament say this is not the case (much of the noise is drowned out by the traffic!)

She also suggested that one of the main issues was that 'such protests have become a real problem in terms of security.' If this was the case, other legislation could have been utilised.

Like a number of parliamentarians who have debated this issue over the past year or so, Caroline Flint talked about 'gaps and loopholes in the law', suggesting that Brian, and others, had been able to somehow get away with their protests because they had actively found a way around the law rather than merely exercising their right to free speech. If every 'gap and loophole' were plugged, there would be no free speech.

The minister created confusion in the debate by saying that the Government intended to consult on the area that the restrictions would cover, even though the legislation itself still says the 'designated area' is 1km. This is a particularly contentious issue and her vagueness is an attempt to disguise the massive impact this legislation will have on all protest. However, she did say that 'we want to ensure that all parliamentary and key Government buildings are covered' - as clear an indication as any that the Government are making the most of this opportunity to limit all protest.

Confusion also showed in her handling of questions as to the 6 day notice periods which some MPs found unacceptable. The minister said that, 'we are considering a shorter period of notice for exceptional circumstances, such as an emergency. We are looking into that but the circumstances would have to be exceptional for such a demonstration.' The question of course arose as to who would determine what the 'exceptional circumstances' would be.

What MPs said

Most so-called 'radical' MPs voted with the Government when the Bill was voted through on 7 Feb 05 (check here to see if your MP was one of them). However some other MPs did manage to raise objections in the short time allotted in the debate to this part of the Bill. Here are some of the comments (see all the relevant debate here):

Jeremy Corbyn (Lab): I, like many others I am sure, am concerned about restricting the right of free speech and demonstration. Why on earth should many public buildings in this area be included, as well as Trafalgar square, which is a traditional place of protest and demonstration? The Minister should think carefully about removing rights that are enshrined in our history.

Glenda Jackson (Lab): Has any representative of an environmental body attempted to measure the level of noise from the demonstrators in Parliament square? Does it in fact exceed the noise that exudes from Big Ben every 15 minutes? Does it exceed the noise of Division bells which, as we have heard this evening, can be frequently rung? The Bill attempts to silence one particular protester, who has been there for a considerable period. Far from attempting to silence him, every hon. Member should be extremely proud that we live in a society where he can continue to express his concerns.

Simon Hughes (Lib Dem): Where do people who want to protest about something that the Government suddenly announce or introduce in Parliament go so that we can hear and see them, and there is a relationship between the people and their Parliament?

Mr. Grieve (Con): ...any rapidly organised demonstration in response to a specific political event or situation will be impossible. If, for example, in response to an emergency, Parliament was about to vote to go to war, it would not be possible for demonstrators to stand in Parliament square to express their view. I simply cannot accept that it will require six days for the police to decide on such an authorisation.

Lembit Öpik (Lib Dem): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provisions focus on one man, Brian Haw? Does he also agree that that puts political pressure on the commissioner to make a judgment on whether Brian Haw's demonstration is acceptable? The crucial point is that it shifts political judgment in the wrong direction and takes us away from it.

John McDonnell (Lab): The process that we are going through tonight is absolutely shambolic. We have tabled amendments to what we thought were the proposals in the legislation, only to discover that the Secretary of State has signed our amendments—I thought that we had achieved a revolutionary position at one point—and other amendments have been tabled that are an absolute travesty. This is not just a question of not having time to debate these issues.

The definition in the new clause of a "public place" is "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". That could include Methodist central hall, Westminster Abbey or Trafalgar square. Spontaneous demonstrations will no longer be possible. Worse, if I get permission to hold a demonstration, having given my six days' notice, and someone sees me demonstrating and thinks, "That's a good idea. I'll go and join him", that person would be committing an offence. As the organiser of the demonstration, I would have a defence, but I might have committed the crime of incitement. So I could go down for 51 weeks or a year, not for organising the demonstration but for incitement. What is the definition of incitement? A phone call to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) the night before?

Simon Hughes: One demonstration could take place, having given notice, but there might then be no opportunity for another demonstration to take place at the same time on what could be a hugely important and divisive issue.

John McDonnell: So, by the sound of it, we can no longer have competing demonstrations to counterbalance each other. In addition, the powers that the measure gives to the commissioner are absolutely staggering, and there is no provision for them to be circumscribed in the future, or for setting guidelines on them. Is the commissioner really to have the opportunity to designate how many people can turn up to a demonstration, how many placards they can bring and what the design of the placards should be? Is that what we employ the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for? He is going to have a wonderful time choosing between the different designs on Brian Haw's placards.

Jeremy Corbyn: What would happen in the event of the commissioner refusing permission for a demonstration in an emergency such as a potential war, and 10,000 or 20,000 people subsequently turning up in Parliament square anyway? Would there be pitched battles outside Parliament because people wanted to reach their Parliament to protest?

John McDonnell: Under this legislation, large numbers of people would have to be arrested. That is the only way to interpret the provisions. Furthermore, no conditions are to be placed on the commissioner in relation to when a decision has to be made after a person has given their six days' notice. Then there is the worrying provision that any police officer, of any rank, can change the conditions at will at any time during a demonstration in Parliament square. Those powers are beyond those that the police officers themselves would wish to have. The designated area of 1 km will include vast tracts of traditional demonstrating areas. The Government will be passing power to one part of the state to control demonstrations in a way that we have never known before in the history of this country.

Tonight, we are seeing a small but significant part of our democratic tradition being chiselled away. Why? Because one person out there has the moral authority, the guts, the tenacity and the courage to stand in Parliament square for several years telling us what we did wrong in this House by authorising a war. Part of the motivation behind this legislation is that some people cannot come to terms with the illegality and immorality of their actions in this place. We should be supporting that democratic voice out there, and the right of that individual to voice his concerns in this way—near to us.

Mr. Heath (Lib Dem): I do not think that Mr. Brian Haw suddenly appeared on the scene—he was there for some time. Yet the law, as it was suggested, would have allowed a police constable to wake up one morning and think, "He looks a bit scruffy. We'll get rid of him." I do not think that that is the right approach.

It is arguable that there was a nuisance. I do not happen to agree, and not just because I agree with the cause that Mr. Haw espouses. If there was a nuisance, however, the right remedy was a civil one, not the creation of a new criminal offence. The Government threw all that away, because they recognised that it was bonkers, and presented an alternative, but the alternative has some swivel-eyed aspects. It refers to "a demonstration", but a demonstration can be a demonstration by one person. When is one person a demonstration? Presumably when he or she manifests some aspect of demonstration. Is that a leaflet? Is it a placard? Is it a double-decker bus? I do not know. One person becomes a demonstration and requires a permit but another person is simply someone standing in Parliament square. How does a police officer determine who is a demonstration and who is someone who simply does not like the look of the Government?

The point about the removal of spontaneity in demonstrations has already been made. We are no longer allowed suddenly to feel that the Government are doing the country a grave injustice and protest about it. We must give six days' notice to the commissioner before we can mount our one-man demonstration with a leaflet outside the Houses of Parliament. What criteria is the commissioner allowed to take into consideration? Is it serious hindrance to the work of Parliament? Is it serious damage or disruption to the environment? No—it is simple disruption to the life of the community. How do we define disruption to the life of the community of Parliament square? I thought that the life of Parliament square was demonstrations. I thought that Parliament square was the centre where we expressed our political differences with the Government of the day.

Lembit Öpik: Is this not the natural and unavoidable consequence of framing a piece of legislation with the sole aim of preventing one man, Brian Haw, from demonstrating in this way? The unintended consequences for the other 60 million of us arise because the Government have not thought this through strategically and have brushed away the issue of principle that has already been raised.

Mr. Heath: In fact, I do not think the Government have a clue what they are doing. They simply have a visceral dislike of someone disagreeing so obviously, and in such a prolonged way, on their doorstep. That is why we have what can only been described, although it is a cliché, as a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. I do not believe that the Government should be making it a criminal offence for someone simply to express his view in Parliament square in a time-honoured way, and I do not think they should extend the area to 1 km. I find it alarming enough that the Minister has changed the Government's position since she said in Committee that the intention was to protect Parliament. Now it is Parliament and Government buildings, which is illustrative in itself.

Jeremy Corbyn: I ask all hon. Members to think of whence they came. We are all elected to the House to represent people. We have the great privilege of having the opportunity to speak in this Chamber. The people of this country have every right to protest, to march, to meet and to demand.

Are we seriously saying that, because one person, Brian Haw, has been outside for three years, we will sweep away the right that has existed for centuries for people to come to the House, without seeking permission from anyone, to express their view? If these amendments are passed, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner will decide who is fit to demonstrate and who is not. It puts a great burden on him and it will make it impossible for any person to come here in an act of spontaneity to demonstrate against a decision that the Government or House are about to take.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Metropolitan Police Commissioner will be deciding what they can say, who they are, what they can carry, how long they can be there and how many people are involved. It will be police control of demonstrations outside our Parliament.

This is a very serious matter. I urge hon. Members to think very carefully of their privileges to speak, to vote and to talk before denying that right to others who wish to come to the House and make life uncomfortable for us. In a democracy, there is nothing wrong with people making life uncomfortable for elected politicians.

I personally admire Brian Haw but that is not the point. As I said when I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee, what he is demonstrating about is not the point. It is about his right or that of anyone else to come here and express their view, however welcome or unwelcome it is for us. That is what democracy is about.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) spoke of the defacing of Parliament square. I have heard people say that no such demonstrations as we have seen for the past three years should be allowed in Parliament square because it is a world heritage site. It is a world heritage site not because of that rather scruffy square of grass or the statues at its corners, and it is certainly not surrounded by buildings of overwhelming architectural excellence, with the exception possibly of Westminster abbey. It is a centre that the whole world comes to visit because of what has happened in this Parliament, and certainly what happened in Westminster abbey.

This building is a symbol to the world of a democratic system whereby the rights of the individual were placed above those of, in the first instance, a sovereign, and, in the second instance, a state. Westminster abbey is the great symbol of Christianity with its call to all of us to have compassion for those who are the lowest in our esteem.

Lembit Öpik: I do not know whether the Minister intends to refer to the debate we had only half an hour ago about the restrictions on people's right to demonstrate. I counsel her to recognise that although she has successfully marshalled the Bill through the House, she needs to give careful consideration to the dangers that we highlighted. She may be in government now, but that will not always be the case, and the restrictions on demonstrations may one day restrict her opportunity to protest against a future Government.

What Lords said
See all the relevant debate as the Bill was voted through the Lords on 6 April 05.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond have drawn attention to the fact that, in the Bill, there are a number of unrealised and insufficiently appreciated elements that will have a major effect in our society in years to come. One of them concerns demonstrations and whether they can be held within the ambit of Parliament Square and the areas that traditionally in this country have been the centres of demonstrations for many decades.

Either on grounds of security—not necessarily justified—or even on arguments of tidiness, we are gradually seeing the colour and the vivacity of our democracy leeched out. Many of us are conscious that we live in a society that feels much less free than it did 10 or 15 years ago. We always have to ask whether it is necessary to take such steps. In these clauses, it is not necessary to do so. Let me say one or two quick words about that.

Demonstrations are a crucial safety valve—a way in which our fellow citizens can express their indignation, anger or disgust at government policy. I say that about all governments at all times. It is crucial to allow our fellow citizens to demonstrate peacefully because, if we make that extremely difficult, sooner or later they will demonstrate non-peacefully. That is the lesson from many other societies.

Let us look at the examples of two recent great demonstrations. Both were great credits to our democracy, and both saw Parliament as their target and the hub of their protest. The first was the great Iraq march, in which many of us took part. It brought home to the Government the extent to which many of our fellow citizens felt deeply concerned about that war and the arguments leading up to it. The second, from a very different part of the political spectrum, was the Countryside Alliance demonstration. It was widely rumoured in the press to be likely to get out of hand, but was actually conducted with extraordinary courtesy and restraint.

It has been a credit to our democracy that, on both sides of the political spectrum, such demonstrations have been held, to the great admiration of many other parts of the world. It might be said by the Government, "There is no reason for you to object. After all, we are still going to permit demonstrations". However, they will be demonstrations so controlled and capricious that it would be very difficult for them to take place within the "designated area" with any degree of true freedom. I shall give three examples.

First, the designated area is much wider than need be to protect the Houses of Parliament. It is simply ludicrous that the designated area as it stands—I am not clear exactly where it will run—includes almost all the areas of traditional demonstration in London, such as Whitehall, the Embankment and Parliament Square itself. Then there is a question about whether Trafalgar Square is in or out; it is certainly within a kilometre of the Houses of Parliament.

Secondly, there is some uncertainty about the degree of notice required. Will it be six days except in exceptional circumstances, and how does one define those? Will the exceptional circumstances be widely recognised so that anyone dealing with a demonstration about a recent event—something new that has happened or an announcement by the Government—would be permitted to go ahead?

Thirdly—this was hardly debated at all in Committee, and not debated much in the other place—huge uncertainty is constituted by Clauses 134 and 135, which are rather innocently described as supplementary provisions. If I understand them properly, they allow, amazingly, any "senior police officer"—defined as the most senior person in any group who happens to be present at the time, which often may be a constable or someone only a little more senior—to change, vary or add to the conditions. Those are the very conditions laid down by the commissioner of police that have required notice to be given.

That is intolerable. It means that a decent organiser of a demonstration will not know until he is actually involved in it precisely what conditions have been met by those whom he has organised to take part in it. That would not be so serious were it not for the scale of the punishment that would be visited on him or her if he or she got it wrong or was unable to change what the demonstration did at what may be the very last moment. Those sentences include 51 weeks of custody or a level 4 fine—the kinds of punishment that we normally reserve for people who have committed some substantial crime in the ordinary world.

Do we really want to put police officers in a position in which they vary and change conditions at such a high price to the genuine citizen taking part in a demonstration? That will gradually drive people away from the designated site altogether, which is far from desirable because—bluntly—it is important that Parliament feels in itself the anger and indignation of its fellow citizens and does not try to encapsulate itself from any such inconveniences. We worry about the gap between Parliament and the people; the Bill will widen that gap yet further, completely unnecessarily.

In conclusion, all of us in the past few weeks have hugely admired the amazing demonstrations in the Ukraine against rigged elections, which went right up to the doors of the parliament and which brought about, totally non-violently, the change in the Ukrainian regime and the ushering in of genuine democracy. We have admired the demonstration of tens of thousands of people in the Lebanon, calling for the Syrians to leave. That was described, from the White House to 10 Downing Street, as a remarkable example of the great attempt to extend democracy to new parts of the world.

How bizarre and how ironic it should be that those very things that we praised in the Lebanon, in the Ukraine, in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere, we are now beginning to make almost impossible in our own country. I would ask the Minister to think seriously about the implications if the Government's proposals, not only here, but also far beyond where British influence and British example have long been regarded as important.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I do not wish to repeat what I said yesterday, but I feel that I am living in some type of Cloud-cuckoo-land when a Labour Government are bringing forward this type of legislation.

I was in the Labour Party for 54 years and in that party we believed that people had the right to assemble in virtually all circumstances and that it was part of this country's freedoms and heritage that they should be able to do so. We were always proud of the right to assemble outside Parliament and to be able to demonstrate our views to the elected representatives of the people and do so without let or hindrance; and, indeed, with the assistance of the authorities and the police.

Now we have a piece of legislation which will keep people away from the doors of our great and ancient Parliament. We will discourage them from coming here and will put them at the risk of arrest, as far as I understand, for the minor offences that they may commit. I cannot hope to emulate the language of the noble Baroness. She put the case so well that it needs little addition, but I emphasise that the most disgraceful part of the proposal is that it comes from the Labour Party—a party that was built on the right of people to speak and to act in support of freedom, to demonstrate—particularly against Tory governments—when things were going wrong and to allow trade unionists to march in the vicinity of this place. I think that trade unionists shall still be able to do so, but I do not see why it should be only them.

I wish to express my sheer disappointment that we should have this type of legislation from the party of which I was a member for 54 years, which I admired throughout that period and for which I worked with great alacrity. I regret the passing of such a party.

From committee stage in Lords, 5 APril 05

Lord Dholakia: I shall certainly smile with that small mercy from the Minister, which, in particular, excludes Trafalgar Square from the demonstration provisions. I should remind her that I never thought that I would see the day—given that I used to march outside Parliament in my younger days, as did many members of her own party—that new Labour would actually prevent people from demonstrating in the square outside this place.

I shall express my concerns about the severe restriction on peaceful protest proposed by these clauses. In the light of the protection that has been given to political speech in Article 10 of the convention, we are particularly concerned at measures that seek to inhibit public protest on the doorstep of parliamentary democracy. It is an unpleasant irony that, should this provision become law, freedom of expression will be most at risk in the one area where it should be most protected.

Under existing legislation, the police may place conditions on processions if they reasonably believe that the purpose of the organisers is to intimidate or if the procession may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. We therefore question whether these further restrictions are necessary to achieve any legitimate aim. In fact, we are unclear as to the aim of the provision. If it is to regulate static assemblies, as opposed to processions, by allowing the police to impose conditions in the interests of public safety and so on, we believe that that could be achieved in a more proportionate manner.

There are a number of issues here. In relation to Amendments Nos. 193 and 194, we appreciate the move made by the Government from six days to 24 hours, but that still does not allow for continuous protest in the vicinity of Parliament. Business in Parliament can change very quickly and, in the event, there may not be 24 hours in which it is reasonably practical for someone to notify the Commissioner.

With regard to Amendments Nos. 195 and 198, we believe that the Commissioner should not be able to impose conditions on demonstrations on the grounds of disruption to the life of the community unless the disruption is serious. Any large-scale demonstration will almost inevitably cause some disruption. We are concerned that, without the amendment, the legislation will permit disproportionate restrictions on protests.

We oppose the Question that Clause 134 stand part because we believe that a total ban on the use of loudspeakers in a designated area is a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression. It is arbitrary as to the area and could have unintended consequences.

With regard to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205, we believe that, if these provisions are retained, the area should be designated, and I believe that the Minister has now accepted that. However, if that is not practical, the maximum radius should be reduced generally to cover Parliament and its surroundings rather than large parts of central London. Now that Trafalgar Square is excluded, will Waterloo Station, which I suspect falls within the 1 kilometre range that we were talking about, also be excluded? For that reason, we propose that the centre of the area should be Parliament itself rather than Parliament Square. Those are our concerns and I hope that, by tomorrow, the Minister will see fit to make some changes for the betterment of this clause.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall comment briefly on this group of amendments. I welcome, in particular, the commitment given by the Government with regard to Trafalgar Square. I think that that is a proper response to the debate that was held in another place and to the concerns expressed there.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is absolutely right in stressing how important it is that British citizens should have the right to make their views known at the very doors of Parliament. The Front Bench view is that the Government have met our concerns about the original proposals by the amendments that they have tabled today and that therefore they are still enabling proper demonstration to be made.

I have certainly been reminded by organisations such as Global Women's Strike that there is a vital need for them to have the right to come to Parliament Square—indeed, they would say to use loudhailers as well. They remind me that, on occasion, they have lobbied Members of another place by post and have not received a single response. Therefore, they feel that they can make themselves heard only in a physical way by coming here with a loudhailer, and I can well understand that view.