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

I understand the noble Baroness’s anxiety; it is about necessity and proportionality. Regrettably, a demonstration can sometimes metamorphose from a peaceful gathering to one which is anything but that, and an area which was perfectly well contained and managed may disintegrate into something totally different. It must be possible for the officer in charge on the day to say, ““As a result of developments—albeit that this demonstration had permission to proceed from A to Z—we must now curtail it because of what is happening. It has to proceed from A to G””. The provisions deal with that kind of situation. While I understand the noble Baroness’s concern, the difficulty lies in what notice could be given at that stage. However, it is incumbent on the officer to do only that which is necessary. The responsibility for compliance and behaving in a proportionate and appropriate way remains throughout the whole period. I can reassure the noble Baroness that in regard to the imprisonment of organisers, the court will have the same powers it has in relation to any other matter. It must consider the circumstances of the case, how the individual responded and whether it is an appropriate and proper sentence commensurate with the nature of   the culpability. That test will still be in place. Imprisonment is not available for the participants or those who carry on demonstrations by themselves. So   one is targeting those who organise these demonstrations and orchestrate what we know will be a very unlawful assembly, particularly if it is designed to cause damage and destruction and to subvert. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about that. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the cleaners in the House of Commons and other trade disputes. He will remember, I am sure, that there is an exemption in Section 132(4) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which provides for conduct,"““which is lawful under section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992””." Your Lordships will remember that we debated this issue when some asked why such matters should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. So those issues are outwith these provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also asked, ““Why the other side of the river?””. I shorten what he said but, in essence, it is ““Why the other side of the river?””. In drawing up and taking advice from the police commissioner, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the commissioner sought to draw the line as narrowly as is operationally necessary. A great deal of consideration went into the nature of protest that may take place and the nature of the area. Demonstrations on the opposite side of the river to Parliament could hinder the proper operation of Parliament, cause a security risk or a risk to the safety of members of the public. I should point out, too, that the conditions which the Metropolitan Police place on demonstrations, wherever they are held, must be those necessary for preventing one of the situations set out in Section 134. These include:"““hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster . . .  hindrance to the proper operation of Parliament . . .  serious public disorder . . .  serious damage to property  . . . disruption to the life of the community . . .  a security risk in any part of the designated area . . .  risk to the safety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration)””." Noble Lords can be assured that in coming to a decision on where to draw the line, those matters were firmly taken into consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that these provisions were in contravention of Articles 9 and 10.