Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Designated Area) Order 2005  

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Designated Area) Order 2005. The noble Lord said: It should be no surprise to the Committee that I raise this issue again, having opposed this particular part of the clause when it came before this House in the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Let me start this debate with a quote from noble Baroness, Lady Amos, Leader of your Lordships’ House. Responding to questions on the Statement about the terrorist attacks in London, the noble Lady said:"““On the issue of democratic liberties, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I cannot think of any other country in the world where the demonstration that is going on right outside Parliament this afternoon—right outside my window—would be going on. We should take immense pride in that””.—[Official Report, 11/7/05; col. 905.]" That was said last Monday, 11 July. I welcome that remark for two reasons: First, demonstrations are an essential part of out highly valued democratic institutions and, secondly, the world marvels at the tolerance that we display towards those who disagree with us. It is for that reason that I have serious concern about the restrictions now being placed on peaceful protests in the vicinity of Parliament. I am well aware that this secondary legislation is a response to the Procedure Committee in the other place. The legislation recognises the unique position of Parliament and its surroundings. The argument advanced is that the existing legislation has not provided the police with all the powers they need to control all protest and demonstrations around Parliament. I do not dispute that, at times, placards and slogans in Parliament Square cause annoyance to some parliamentarians. But Parliament, the seat of our   democracy, is big enough to take such protests in its stride. In any case, so fundamental are the geographical changes proposed by the Government that it strikes at the very heart of the citizen’s right to protest well outside the ambit of Parliament Square. The changes will have a major effect for generations to come. Let me first start with the geography of the designated area. What initially started as a debate about demonstrations in Parliament Square has now resulted in legislation which will create ““fortress Whitehall””, where no one can protest without permission. It would have been helpful to have a map in front of us which could identify the boundaries of the order that we are talking about. In the absence of such a facility, I decided to draw my own map, which encompasses the boundaries set up by the Government. Having done all that hard work, I suddenly find that the Home Office already have it on the website, but as one who is computer illiterate, that facility was not available to me. Let us use Lambeth Bridge as our starting point. All noble Lords know where Lambeth Bridge is. You walk on the south side of the river, taking Lambeth Palace Road, York Road and right up to the Hungerford Bridge, leading to Embankment tube station. What does this part of the order include? It includes St. Thomas’ medical school, St. Thomas’ Hospital, the whole of Albert Embankment, County Hall, the London Aquarium, and the London Eye. Thank God that they just left Lambeth Palace out of that equation, as I am sure the Archbishop of Canterbury would have used some choice words in his sermon to protest. The question I ask is why, oh why, do we have to exclude such areas of public interest on the south side of river? We then move from Embankment station to Northumberland Avenue, Charing Cross Station and the Whitehall side of Trafalgar Square. It is a small mercy that Trafalgar Square itself is not included. As if that was not enough, we then include the Admiralty Arch, the Horse Guards Road, right up to Queen Anne’s Gate, where the former Home Office building is situated. We then move to Broadway, taking part of Petty France, Strutton Ground, and Horseferry Road, leading to Millbank and to Lambeth Bridge. I would not wish to bore noble Lords, but that massive area includes almost all government offices, Scotland Yard, Smith Square and many places of interest in that part of London. In reality, what started as demonstrations in Parliament Square has now resulted in a massive exclusion of almost all protest activity from Trafalgar Square to Lambeth Bridge and from Horse Guards Parade to St. Thomas’ Hospital. Did any one of us really believe that this is what the Government had in mind? Well, in reality, that is precisely what we have got. If any member of your Lordship’s house is wondering what it looks like on the map, then they can look at the website. May I ask the Minister to confirm that there is no dispute about the area that I have outlined? Suffice to say at this stage, there is no legitimate reason for extending the area in this way. The Government may argue that the time for permission to be obtained has been reduced from six days to 24 hours, but this still does not allow for spontaneous protest in the vicinity of Parliament. Business in Parliament can change very quickly. There are many days when we are unaware when a particular Statement will be made by the Government in Parliament. The reality is that you cannot protest and there may not be 24 hours available in which it is ““reasonably practicable”” for someone to notify the Commissioner of Police. Let me take another example. I understand that cleaners at the House of Commons voted unanimously yesterday to stage their first ever strike. The workers will walk out on Wednesday in a dispute over pay. If this legislation were in place, they would not be allowed to demonstrate outside the Palace of Westminster, where they work, unless, of course, prior approval was obtained. Civil Servants working in government departments and the area including almost all major government offices will not be able to protest without permission. We could have a situation in which Ministers and members of the Labour Party can walk with their heads held high because there will be no picket lines to cross. I hope that the unions and others will note how fundamentally their rights to peaceful pickets can be hampered by such legislation. This Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Designated Area) Order 2005 is the outcome of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I need to ask a very important question in that regard. Surely the right to protest outside Parliament Square has never been regarded as serious organized crime. Can the Minister cite a single example that those who are at present protesting with their placards have hampered the business of Parliament in any way, let alone have committed a serious and organized crime which has affected Parliament’s capacity to work? Of course it is embarrassing to politicians when their policies are exposed and of course it is embarrassing when the Government’s human rights record is questioned, but that is not a reason to silence a minority, which will always find a way to get its message through. There were times when I marched alongside a number of Labour Party members who are now Ministers in this Government. They should hang their heads in shame, for they deny the very facilities which they enjoyed in their youths. What we have achieved under Sections 132 to 137 of this Act is to impose severe restrictions on peaceful protests. Justice is an all-party organisation, largely made up of lawyers, dedicated to advancing justice, human rights and the rule of law. It also comprises the British section of the International Commission of Jurists. In relation to Section 138 of the Act, this is what it has to say:"““We are extremely concerned by the extent of the designated area. We believe that if these provisions are retained the area should be designated by Parliament, rather than by granting a discretion to the Home Secretary. We believe that the maximum radius proposed is greatly excessive; a protest one kilometre from Parliament would encompass Trafalgar Square, a traditional and important focal point for protests. It would also cover parts of Millbank, Whitehall, parts of St. James’s Park and stretch across the Thames onto the south bank. Much of the area does not contain parliamentary or government buildings. We believe there is no legitimate reason for extending the area in this way””." Can the Minister confirm that freedom of expression and assembly, protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European convention, will be seriously restricted in the designated area? Justice also said:"““The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly emphasised that freedom of expression constitutes an essential foundation of democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment””." The Commission has also said that freedom of assembly is a,"““fundamental right in a democracy and . . .  is one of the foundations of such a society””." We could have swallowed these provisions, with difficulties, if restrictions were limited to a very small area of this Parliament. We do not believe that the measures the Government seek are proportionate, nor do we believe that there is a legitimate aim such as the prevention of disorder or crime. We see no evidence of adequate and effective safeguards to protect against arbitrary interferences with convention rights. If there are no such safeguards, police power could become oppressive. What guarantee do we have, as happened during the miners strike some years ago, that a national policing strategy would prevent the legitimate rights of miners to picket or protest? We have gone through that period and I do not need to spell out the dangers of such actions by those in power and authority. Would the Minister confirm that protest in the designated area, even by a single, stationary and silent demonstrator, is an imprisonable offence? How often is it practicable to give six days’ or 24 hours’ notice to the police when events would move so fast? I am also concerned, as is Justice, about the Commissioner’s powers to impose conditions on demonstrations on receipt of a notice. Where are the guidelines issued to the Commissioner? What sort of code of practice would guide the Commissioner in reaching such a decision? Let me give one example. One of the listed grounds includes,"““disruption to the life of the community.””" But everything we do is disruption of some sort. Such blanket powers are more akin to dictatorial regimes, not affiliated to our democracy. I come back to the point I made before. The zone defined in paragraph 1 of the order goes well beyond what Parliament had in mind. It is designed to ensure that no protest is seen or heard except with police permission. I can see Robert Mugabe laughing his head off at this cynical attempt to tread on our democratic values. I do not understate the need for security, but democracy is well-served when there is a balance between what is required and what is appropriate. There is still an opportunity to restrict this order to a small part of the parliamentary estate and not use it to silence those who disagree with us. There is a danger that if we do not do this, it will make policing work of control and discipline more difficult. No tidal wave of protests could stop the diktat of the order that we are trying to establish. It could only make policing work difficult. Policing in our country is the envy of the world. It is its independence, accompanied by consent of the public, that makes it possible to maintain law and order. I suspect that, to an extent, we are eroding that independence. Police will have to take decisions which will often smack of political interference. The powers should be removed from the Home Office and we should let Parliament decide. Demonstration and protest are the healthy aspects of our democracy. We may not ban them, but by creating obstacles we are treading on values that we have treasured for so long. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (Designated Area) Order 2005 [3rd Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Dholakia.)