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

I reassure the noble Baroness that they are, indeed, wise words, and by our actions we have demonstrated that we agree with them. I do not think that the noble Baroness would suggest for a moment that this Government, in seeking to control the demonstrations that have properly taken place, have acted disproportionately or in any way that would limit our proud history of good, vibrant, democratic, lawful and peaceful protest. I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that nothing in the legislation or this order seeks to do that. I join with my noble friend the Leader of the House in rejoicing at the fact that, notwithstanding the dreadful events of 7 July, we had the joy—it was a joy—of battling our way to this House through vibrant demonstrators, protesting at such volume that we could hear them clearly in our Chamber. That was not a matter of regret. A number of Members in our House rejoiced at it, because it demonstrated that, notwithstanding the fact that others would seek to destroy our democracy, we allowed that to take place in a way that was proper. I emphasise that nothing in this order or the Act seeks to detract from that. However, we must pause to put some of the issues into better context. I should like to disabuse Members of the Committee of some misconceptions that have arisen. Let us be clear: the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act are not about denying the right to protest. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, they require the organisers of demonstrators to give prior notification of the protest to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and he is obliged—I put the emphasis on obligation—to authorise the demonstration. Nothing in this enables the Police Commissioner to deny the right to protest. It will be open to the commissioner, however, to attach conditions to the authorisation where it is necessary. I emphasise the word ““necessary”” because the commissioner, in the exercise of his discretion, would have to respond in a proportionate and proper way. Therefore, the noble Baroness was right to remind herself of the wise words of a great Labour Prime Minister who emphasised ““absolutely necessary””. Necessity is here in these provisions. I remind the Committee, too, of that which was   agreed. Section 138 not only prescribes in subsection (2) that,"““The area may be specified by description, by reference to a map or in any other way””," but in subsection (3) it states that,"““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””." So in the Act it was envisaged that it would be no more than one kilometre. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord will remember that that was a matter of hot debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, suggested 100 metres—but we all knew that would mean that Black Rod would be in some peril because the back of his gate would not be included—and we discussed 200, 300, 400 and 500 metres and so on. In the end we settled on the description in 138(3), and that became the permitted and lawful outer perimeter within that area. Noble Lords will also recall that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act stated that no point, therefore, should go beyond that. The order defining the precise area to be covered has now been laid and came into force on 1 July, but, as noble Lords will accept, it is considerably less than one kilometre from Parliament. That order was drawn up following discussions with the Metropolitan Police and we have ensured that Trafalgar Square is excluded from the designated area. This matter caused great concern in both Houses and we have honoured the implicit understanding that Trafalgar Square would be excluded. During the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill we had extensive discussions about all these matters. The Government believe that a notice period is an essential part of the provisions so that the commissioner is able to consider the circumstances of a demonstration and its likely effect on the work of Parliament and the security of the area around it. The commissioner can set these conditions, which are appropriate and proportionate, and he must be able to do so in advance. The Government have recognised that, as noble Lords have said, there may be occasions when demonstrations are organised as a response to events which could not have been foreseen. It was for   that reason that we shortened the notice period to 24 hours in exceptional circumstances. But we do not believe that we should remove the notice period completely. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views provided that they do so within the law. Equally, access to Parliament must be maintained and those living and working in and around Parliament should be able to do so in safety and free from harassment. There is, of course, a balance to be struck between protecting the rights of those working in and around Parliament and the rights of protestors. But let me be clear, a penalty of imprisonment—which is a maximum of three months now and will be 51 weeks in the future—together with fines, is the maximum penalty that can be imposed in relation to these matters. Any punishment less than that is appropriate dependent on the nature and extent of the culpability demonstrated to have occurred. It is to be applied only to those who do not comply with the conditions and to the organisers of the event—not the demonstrators but those who organise the event.