Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Browning

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I understand that the ministry has met the council leader, but in his letter he says that the Government’s proposal will not work. He says that it will not fulfil the objectives set by the Government. I cannot imagine what has happened in the conversation with committees and officers of the council meeting to come to that conclusion. What happens if the Bill is enacted as the noble Baroness would want and it turns out as time passes that Westminster City Council is right and the Government are wrong?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, as I have indicated, no one says that this is an easy matter. We have sought to reform the legislation by giving more opportunity for peaceful protest on the square while seeking to remove the problem of the encampments. I have discussed Westminster City Council’s concerns with it, but it is quite clear that it will fully co-operate as partners in this legislation. We continue to discuss that with it. While I understand that Westminster City Council would perhaps have liked us to go further and extend the area that we are considering, given the proportionality concerns raised in this House and another place we have sought to get the balance right. I am assured, and I have no reason to doubt, that Westminster City Council will play its part with other partners such as the parks authorities and the GLA in endeavouring to make this legislation work. If in three or four years’ time noble Lords come back and say, “Well, that didn’t work”, I will be disappointed. However, this is the best way forward: trying to address the problem while maintaining the space outside the House for democratic protest.

Parliament Square (Management) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Browning

Friday 1st July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

I was going to come on to that point, but I am happy to deal with it now, and to respond to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. We have enhanced the powers of seizure in the by-laws for local authorities to deal with displacement activity around the square, but I have to tell noble Lords that we are still having discussions with lawyers on the consideration of particular areas around the House. Those are ongoing and I do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward further measures before the Bill completes its passage through this House. I do not think I can give more detail at the moment, but it certainly is a matter under consideration and the talks are ongoing.

The Government wholly agree that it is necessary for all enforcement agencies to work closely together if Parliament Square is going to be managed in a way that promotes its enjoyment and use by all. The Government are working with the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police on effective enforcement protocols. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to a letter he has received from a councillor and he has kindly made it available to me. I had not had sight of it before he raised it. I hope that he will allow me to respond specifically to it, but I am aware that Westminster City Council has been involved in discussions about the proposed changes to the Government’s Bill because clearly the council is key, along with other enforcement strategies, to ensuring that when the new laws are on the statute book, it will be able to enforce them and thus resolve the problems I have identified.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If they say that the Government’s proposals will not work, will we then have a blank sheet of paper to work on?

[Baroness Browning]

I will not be drawn on a letter I have not had sight of, and I am not clear how representative it is. I am not familiar with the name of the councillor mentioned by the noble Lord.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

He was the leader of Westminster City Council.

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that I am not over-familiar with London matters. I probably should have known that but I am afraid that my interest in politics over the years has been among the wild and beautiful parts of Devon rather than London. We will look carefully at that. I am concerned. I do not know whether the noble Lord received that letter recently—was it this week? I would hope that he might have copied it. I have not had sight of it and will make inquiries and look into it.

Coming back to my noble friend’s Bill before the House today, I fear that the proposals as tabled would not be effective in dealing with disruptive behaviours such as encampment, which is at the heart of the problem. It is likely that committee decision-making within this House would impact adversely on the swift and proportionate response that will be needed to tackle disruptive activities on the ground. In addition, the proposals are contrary to the Government’s position on the repeal of Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which was widely seen as stifling the right to non-violent protest by re-introducing a requirement for demonstrations in Parliament Square to be authorised.

I also have concerns about how the proposals would work in practice. For example, what happens if people do not move? Who has the power to move them on? On what grounds would they be moved? As tabled, my noble friend’s proposals would allow people to camp and are likely to require enforcement agencies forcibly to remove people every day. The purpose of the proposals in the Government’s Bill is to seek to act very quickly with the power of seizure, in order to prevent encampments becoming established. The Government’s proposals are focused on stopping people from camping there in the first place, recognising the problem of moving people once they are there, as seen with the democracy village. It is also unclear where legal and operational accountability would reside in my noble friend’s Bill as currently drafted.

While I have, regretfully, to inform my noble friend that the Government cannot support the Bill as it currently stands in the other place, the Government do welcome and urge continued debate around balancing competing rights, promoting the enjoyment of Parliament Square for all and, at the same time, protecting that right for peaceful demonstration and protest which is an extremely important part of our democracy and heritage. We have sought to do that in the context of the current provisions in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Browning

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, in responding to Amendment 244ZB and its linked amendments, it is important to re-emphasise why the Government are bringing forward this package of reforms. Parliament Square is a World Heritage Site surrounded, as we know, by important historic buildings such as Westminster Abbey. Its location opposite the Houses of Parliament makes it a focus for protests, and rightly so. This means that we need to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as protestors and of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space as visitors. This extends to the use of amplified noise equipment as much as to encampments.

However, the Government recognise that the use of loudhailers is linked to freedom of expression in a way that erecting a tent is not. The package of reforms accordingly puts lesser restrictions on the use of loudspeakers than on the erection of tents. It does this by putting in place a proportionate authorisation scheme which balances competing rights, so using a loudhailer is a prohibited activity only if it has not been authorised. The authorisation regime set out in Clause 148 applies to a much smaller area than the SOCPA provisions which the Government are repealing. This is in line with the Government’s determination to take an approach based on evidenced problems of the misuse of loudhailers in Parliament Square. The amendments would mean that there would be no regulation whatever on the use of items such as loudhailers and loudspeakers. Not only would this be an abdication of responsibility to deal with the noise nuisance that has plagued Parliament Square for many years, it would also risk causing difficulties where a number of competing protests are taking place.

I will not go into great detail on this. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Can I check on a technical point with the noble Baroness? Clause 148(5) states:

“The notice must specify… the kind of amplified noise equipment to which the authorisation applies”.

Does that mean that there will be a control on equipment in terms of the channel output of the equipment being used? It is quite a technical question, but I would have thought that some kind of estimate must be made of the channel output of the equipment. I cannot see any other way of determining what kind of equipment could be authorised.

[Baroness Browning]

I do not know if I am going to answer the noble Lord in as much detail as he would like. There are already noise regulations which, for example, would deal with other types of equipment such as radios. The noble Lord is indicating from a sedentary position that that is different. Perhaps I may write to him on the point.

We understand that the use of a loudhailer is intrinsic to the right to protest and being able to communicate one’s message, but we consider that some restrictions along the lines proposed in these clauses and elsewhere in Part 3 are required in order to ensure that the rights and freedoms of others are adequately protected and balanced with the rights of protestors. We have no wish to prevent protest around Parliament, and I would hope that the other provisions in Part 3, namely the repeal of SOCPA, show clearly our commitment to restoring rights to protest.

As I have made clear during the debate, the provisions in Part 3 are about ensuring that individuals do not usurp the rights of many others. Therefore it does not seem disproportionate for responsible authorities to be able to place limits on the duration of the use of a loudhailer. The details of this authorisation scheme are clearly set out in the Bill to ensure that it is clear and accessible to all. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have a further question. Sometimes when we come in by St Stephen’s Entrance, 200 or 300 people might be meeting on the other side of the road where there is a space. Someone with a loudhailer will be standing there. What control on them will exist? Will they be free to use that loudhailer, or is that a regulated area?

[Baroness Browning]

They would be free to use it, but subject to authorisation, which at the moment they do not have. I am coming to the question of applications to use the loudhailer, which might be helpful to the noble Lord. I shall just make this point. He and I have both experienced the use of a loudhailer there. If you stand within the precincts of the House of the Commons, you cannot hear what is being said. Protestors are not delivering a message; you just hear a very loud screeching noise. In that context, I also point out that it is not only Members of Parliament who have had their work disrupted by this. It is extremely difficult for the police officers who stand permanently on duty by Palace Gates, and who also have to endure this noise.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I did not refer to Palace Gates.

[Baroness Browning]

You can still hear it from there. I am not saying that that is where the loudhailer is; I am saying that you can hear it from there. You cannot hear what is being said; you just hear a shriek. As I have said, we are not trying to prevent protestors using a loudhailer but we want it to be proportionate in how it impacts on other people.

I shall just go through the regulations on applications. Twenty-one days is the period currently used by the GLA and Westminster to consider applications for loudhailers under local by-law provisions and Section 137 of SOCPA. Six days would be too short a period and would not give local authorities sufficient time to consult others. We are talking about a very limited area in which authorisation to use amplified noise equipment is needed. The authorisation scheme is there to protect competing interests in the limited space. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

I come to the court and the distinct issue of limiting its ability, on conviction, to make an order requiring the convicted person not to enter the controlled area of Parliament Square by imposing a time limit of no more than seven days. The Government’s provisions leave the length of time entirely to the court to determine, in line with the circumstances of each case. This is wholly appropriate and would allow the courts to deal with determined individuals who might be resolute in simply coming back after seven days. I hope noble Lords will understand that we believe we have got the proportionality right here. I will write to the noble Lord on his more detailed technical question about different types of equipment.