Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY
2003
MR ROGER
SANDS AND
SIR MICHAEL
CUMMINS
Q20 Mr McWalter: It need not be long.
Mr Sands: I certainly understand
the psychology behind Mr McWalter's suggestion. It is soundly
based in parliamentary tradition because the one thing that the
memorandum suggests should continue is the first reading of the
Outlawries Bill and the historical significance of that is that
that is the way that Parliament demonstrated its ability and determination
to transact business other than that that was being laid before
them by the Executive in the Queen's Speech. To that extent, I
agree with Mr McWalter, it is quite a good part of that tradition
that the Speaker gets the first word before we go to the moving
of the humble address and I am sure that some way could be found
to do that. I just fear that the effect of what he now has to
read out is rather the reverse. It diminishes his authority because
people are laughing and chiacking and it does not reflect well
on his dignity.
Mr McWalter: I was in a meeting in W2
on Monday and it was impossible to actually conduct our business
because of the cacophony from the site in question and the effect
was that it was impossible to proceed with business which obviously
we are enjoined to do by our electorate. Surely, it is the case
that there must be some breach somewhere here if people are making
such a din that Members of Parliament are utterly unable to conduct
their business. Has that avenue been pursued?
Q21 Chairman: I think that is a matter
for the Serjeant.
Sir Michael Cummins: I understand
that there is some legislation with regard to nuisance and noise
comes into this. What the police have done so far is that they
have taken some environmental experts to Parliament Square, they
have measured the level of the noise put out by what we all know
are very large loudspeakers functioning in the evening and a case
is now going to the Crown Prosecution Service to assess whether
that is substantial evidence that can be brought to stop this
noise coming about. Sadly, the police do feel that they can do
nothing peremptorily without such a court case being brought.
Q22 Chairman: While we are on that—and
this is a matter which occurred at the Ways and Means Panel of
Chairmen meeting this morning—it was raised that the Tate
Gallery is promoting itself with a boat that is going up and down
the river outside the Houses of Parliament playing music extremely
loudly. I think that some of the music perhaps on one occasion
is tolerable—it was either My Fair Lady or something
of that sort. Complaints were raised that those in Committee found
it extremely difficult to concentrate upon the matters before
them. I wondered whether matters relating to noise nuisance from
the river, in this case by a boat promoting I am not sure whether
it was the Tate Gallery or the New Tate going up and down the
river, is something again over which we can have some control
and, if the noise is inconvenient and a noise nuisance to Members
working particularly in Committees, I wonder whether there is
anything that can be done.
Sir Michael Cummins: Was this
a recent event?
Q23 Chairman: Yes, very recent. This
week, I understand.
Sir Michael Cummins: With respect,
you may have it wrong about the boat. I do not think it was the
Tate Gallery boat which caused the noise. I understand that today
the Mayor of London is opening a bridge across The Thames and
I think he is also opening the pedestrian walkway in Trafalgar
Square. Those two events have caused loudspeakers to be erected
in the area of Hungerford Bridge which had caused the noise which
floats down the river towards us. It took me quite a long time
to find out where the noise was coming from this morning because
the Speaker had exactly the same point and I think that noise
was purely from those rehearsals of celebrations first of all
and today's actual celebrations of those two events.
Q24 Chairman: One cannot comment
on the activities of the Mayor of London except to say that I
would have thought, having served in the House, he would have
had some understanding, without being too frivolous in any way.
Can I also suggest that the facts that I have stated or the case
that I have stated may also be in addition to what you are talking
about because certainly the Member who raised it in the Panel
meeting stated quite clearly "the Tate Gallery". I have
to say that I am not sure and I suspect that the clerk, Mr Cranmer,
may well be approaching you but, when I indicated that I would
be meeting you this afternoon, he said, "Sir Nicholas, you
will carry much more weight with the Serjeant at Arms than I will,
so, if you could raise it as well, I will do so later."
Sir Michael Cummins: I will look
into it and I will send a note to the clerk with my findings.<fu1>
<fo1> Note by witnesses: The Tate
Gallery boat has no sound system and I can confirm that the music
came from the Hungerford Bridge area while, at the same time,
the Tate Gallery boat happened to be passing in front of the House.
Q25 David Wright: I would like to
return to one of the issues about permanent demonstrations and
also the noise involved. Clearly, the Palace of Westminster and
its environs are a World Heritage site and clearly one of the
things that is a problem here is that people visit the House and
see this incredibly unsightly display of what can only be described
as rags and flags along the pavement outside Parliament Square.
One of the things that strikes me is, first of all, does the area
need to be designated a pavement if it is going nowhere? Secondly,
would it be appropriate within a sort of restructuring of the
Sessional Orders to look at whether we could permit demonstrations
whilst Parliament is sitting? For example, the Countryside Alliance
had a very good demonstration the other day. I did not agree with
them, but it was very, very well managed, there were some very
impressive temporary structures erected and then, when Parliament
finished at the end of the day, they were removed and fair play
to them for that. Would that not be a better approach? I think
that we have to get a balance between the right to demonstrate,
clearly looking at European legislation which I think we would
all accept, but we need to be able to remove what is, I think,
a fairly unsightly display at the moment.
Mr Sands: I think that would be
the key point in the new legislation which I am implying is necessary.
The power of regulation which applies to the central area, the
grassed area, would, I imagine—although I think it would
be necessary to seek further advice about this—cover the
regulation of its use for demonstrations and could therefore be
used in such a way as to rule out permanent demonstrations, if
I can so describe them. That is really what we are talking about.
It is the distinction between a one-off demonstration, which is
here for a day and then goes and is targeted at a particular parliamentary
event, and a permanent eyesore. The trouble is that the permanent
eyesore is erected on something which, for the present, is designated
as a highway and the judge has said that that obstruction is,
in the circumstances, a reasonable obstruction, and it is impossible
for the police to go behind that ruling.
Q26 David Wright: Do you think that
we could also include staff of Members of Parliament in relation
to the Sessional Orders because clearly, in relation to the noise
and very often the obstruction, the staff of Members of Parliament
are inconvenienced in terms of getting into work and actually
supporting Members in terms of delivering a service to their constituents?
Do you think there would be a case for looking at issues around
Members' staff?
Mr Sands: If you look at the parts
of Erskine May which cover contempts of the House, obstruction
of the business of Parliament has been regarded as a contempt
and that covers the staff of Parliament as well as Members of
Parliament. It does not specifically apply to Members' staff,
but obviously if you are keeping the approaches open, you are
keeping the approaches open for everybody who has business in
Parliament. I just slightly correct, Mr Wright, and say that he
is still referring to the Sessional Order and the burden of what
I am saying in my paper is that, however one rewrote the Sessional
Order, it just would not help in the end, I am afraid. It might
make the House feel better, but it would not help the police carry
out the job.
Q27 David Wright: What you are saying
is that we have to actually frame a specific piece of legislation
or add into a particular Bill that is going through the House.
Mr Sands: I cannot see any other
way out myself. The Home Office may be able to suggest something
else to you, but I cannot see it.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Following up on David's
point first of all, I was greatly taken by the act of tumultuous
petitioners, but much of the discussion we have had so far has
been framed around the ease of access for Members, their staff
and also constituents as well. However, in this day and age, it
is quite simply a question of getting the balance right, but is
not one of the aspects at which we should also be looking, if
we were to look at framing some legislation, is not of tumultuous
petition but actual tumultuous sedation with the threat of terrorism
and so on? If we have whether it is temporary structures or permanent
structures within such close proximity to the House, I wonder
what your views would be on the use of that which could be of
assistance to somebody. We are familiar with the Downing Street
example where mortar was used from the back of a van. We cannot
avoid it entirely, but is that something at which we should be
looking within any framing of legislation?
Q28 Chairman: Before you answer that,
can I just add, because this is the critical element and certainly
I know that you are concerned about it, Sir Michael, security,
not only security of the Palace itself but also of Ministers,
Members and staff. Is there not a huge security risk with allowing
the sort of demonstration that has been there now for so many
months?
Sir Michael Cummins: You are absolutely
right, of course there is, and it causes me great concern on security
grounds. That permanent demonstration there could, for example,
as the Chairman and I have discussed privately, hide someone who
is going to somehow impede access to a particular Member maybe
or indeed do him or her harm. The police now regularly search
that area three times a day to ensure there is nothing there.
Having said that, those searches only last as long as they last.
After the search, then it is quite possible that something may
be put there or someone may hide there. Unfortunately, this has
not carried much sway with either, I think I am right in saying,
the judge in the case that Westminster City Council brought or
anybody else for that matter, so we have no great locus in which
to put that security context. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police feels that he has no further action which he can personally
take in this respect.
Q29 Huw Irranca-Davies: If I could
follow through on that particular point. One aspect is the assembly
of people together with any bags or luggage that they may carry
with them. The other aspect is in respect of, whether it is aesthetically
appealing or not, any sort of actual temporary erection there
to house those banners or whatever. If legislation were to be
so framed, should we be looking at totally exempting that area/totally
excluding from that area any sort of fixed erections, whether
it is for one day or whether it is for a month?
Mr Sands: The details of this
are obviously for discussion. Whether you can have a concept of
a fixed erection for one day, I am not sure. Of course, we have
the experience of the area—I am not sure if that area has
ever been used for media structures but certainly Abingdon Green
is. During the time when Mrs Thatcher was in the process of being
removed from the leadership of her party, it somehow felt that
the whole of Westminster had become one vast television studio,
there were so many temporary structures out there. So, there are
difficulties about being precise and too prescriptive. I would
have thought that the regulation of demonstrations and displays
is the key thing.
Q30 Chairman: For information, the
area that was covered with television cameras and media tents
and other things was Abingdon Gardens, almost opposite St Stephen's
Entrance and really lying opposite the House of Lords. I cannot
myself ever recall seeing permanent tentage or buildings out on
Parliament Square. Huw Irranca-Davies has raised an important
point. In the legislation that you are suggesting we might recommend
to the House, we would deal not only with demonstrations, that
is the physical presence of people demonstrating, but also the
paraphernalia that they bring with them, whether it would be permanent,
as this particular gentleman out here has had now for very many
months, or the sort of demonstration that the Countryside Alliance
organised on Monday of this week, which was put up and taken down
and the place was left absolutely pristine and clean when they
had done that. You are saying that this legislation would necessarily
deal with that aspect as well?
Mr Sands: I would have thought
that was the crucial thing. I see a distinction between what is
happening in Parliament Square and seems to be tolerated and the
way demonstrations opposite Downing Street are managed. There
are a lot of such demonstrations and they sometimes involve the
display of placards, but they are kept within a tightly confined
area and they do not stay for more than a certain time. So, somehow,
there is a power to regulate that and the number one question
that I would want to ask the Metropolitan Police Commissioner
is, "If you can do that between Downing Street and the Ministry
of Defence, why can you not do it opposite the gates of Parliament?"
Q31 Mr McWalter: The answer to that
is that the Parliament Square pavement is not basically used much
as a thoroughfare and Whitehall is.
Mr Sands: I think that is the
answer.
Huw Irranca-Davies: To move on slightly
from that, you have mentioned already that the Sessional Orders
we have discussed so far have very limited relevance indeed to
the current situation. Would the same apply to Westminster Hall?
Are the powers to control Westminster Hall fairly independent
of the Sessional Orders?
Q32 Chairman: There is a separate
Sessional Order dealing with Westminster Hall.
Mr Sands: There is a separate
part of the Sessional Order. I think that the Sessional Order
dates back to a time when Westminster Hall was in effect a public
thoroughfare. It was the way in which you got to St Stephen's
Chapel which, until the Great Fire, was where the House of Commons
met. So, the physical circumstances have changed and the legal
circumstances have too since 1965 when control of Westminster
Hall was vested in a triumvirate of the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker
and the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Serjeant will probably have
further and better particulars.
Sir Michael Cummins: In my letter
to the Commissioner every year after State Opening, I do say that
no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passages of Members
to and from this House and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster
Hall or in the passages leading to this House and this really
supplements what the Clerk has just said. That is a very archaic
message to give to the Commissioner with regard to the former
relevance of Westminster Hall with regard to access to the House
of Commons.
Mr Sands: We now have effective
control up to the perimeter and indeed we have a large and very
expensive contract with the Metropolitan Police to provide us
with security services within that perimeter. So, the matters
which are dealt with in that letter in relation to Westminster
Hall are effectively dealt with by our contract with the Metropolitan
Police to provide our security around and within the perimeter.
Q33 Chairman: To put it in a nutshell,
are you saying that the security and access through Westminster
Hall is now adequately catered for without a specific mention
in a Sessional Order?
Mr Sands: Certainly.
David Hamilton: I was attempting to get
in earlier and I would not like it to be misunderstood, but I
remember in the Scottish Parliament, prior to it being established,
that there was a permanent site outside the Scottish Parliament
for I think three years; it was outside where the Scottish Parliament
was going to be. I do not agree that we should do away with permanent
sites; I think that an accommodation can be made. I do believe
that you have to have the right to demonstrate and the right to
establish a view. I understand the point that Huw makes in relation
to terrorism, but that of course can be said when you have a train
station just the other side and it is very difficult when you
talk in terms of the whole of this campus, the whole of Westminster.
There are any amount of places from which a terrorism attack could
come. There is an old saying in Scotland that you do not throw
the bairn out with the bathwater. I think that when you look at
what happens across the road, what could be happening, I believe,
is that we should not give a prime area for someone who is there
every single day of every week of every month over a year or longer,
but that that person should be relocated or that organisation
should be relocated to another point to allow people who justifiably
come on a daily basis, a one-off basis, to demonstrate in Parliament.
To me, that would be a far more constructive way of moving than
what we have at the present time. What we have now is a situation
where an organisation or an individual has a prime site, and I
have been across there on some occasions to meet organisations
that have come here, and you find them around the corner because
the prime area has been taken. I think that one of the ways of
looking at it would be that we relocate that individual or that
organisation if they are there for any longer than a set time
in order to allow demonstrators who come all the way from all
over Great Britain, at great expense in many cases, to come down
and say what they want to say and I think they should be given
the prime areas for doing that. I think that may be another way
in which to look at it when we look at potential changes.
Q34 Chairman: That is a different
point of view from within this Procedure Committee. Would you
like to comment on what David Hamilton has said? Should there
be strict rules on time limits laid down in respect of any group
of people or individuals for that matter who wish to come and
make their views known to Parliament or is it your view—and
perhaps I can add to what David Hamilton is saying—that
that is not the ideal area because of its heritage and importance
to this whole area of Westminster and that another area might
be found and designated for the use of those who wish to make
their views known to Parliament?
Mr Sands: I remember the demonstration
outside the old Royal High School when this Committee's Clerk
and I used to take the Scottish Affairs Committee up to meet there
from time to time; that demonstration was pretty permanent, although
it was, I think, in a rather less prominent place than what we
are talking about here. I am just reminding myself of the debate
in the House of Lords when the land in Parliament Square was being
turned over to the Greater London Authority and there was another
clause in that same Bill relating to Trafalgar Square; one of
the prominent ideas in Ministers' minds at the time was that this
was part of what was called the World's Squares Project and Trafalgar
Square was going to be recreated as a world square and of course
that is happening now, it is being reconstructed, and the idea
was that, having done that, I think that work could move on to
Parliament Square and that that would be recreated in new form
and not be a traffic island in order that the central area would
become much more accessible than it is now. I do not know at what
stage those plans are and I do not know if we have heard anything
about that recently.
Sir Michael Cummins: No, we have
not.
Q35 Chairman: Is it your view, bearing
in mind that you raised this, Mr Sands, that such a project could
make Parliament much more vulnerable?
Mr Sands: I would not have said
so, but I think it would add to the case for strong regulation
of the central area if the central area were to become much more
accessible.
Q36 Mr McWalter: One of the things
that did used to occur in the Sessional Orders was a matter related
to, as it were, strangers infiltrating the premises in various
ways. You may have seen in the Mail on Sunday that a journalist
for that newspaper walked around the House with great freedom,
including getting into lofts and into areas where there was piping
and things like that. Is there not some ground for having a Sessional
Order that runs along the lines that the Serjeant at Arms attending
this House do from time to time take into his custody any stranger
or strangers that he shall see or be informed of to be in the
House or gallery where he is not supposed to be, to slightly change
the Sessional Order that used to be there? It does appear that
it is all very lax. There are all sorts of signs around saying
"Members Only" but nobody takes a blind bit of notice
of them. I wonder if you would like to comment on that.
Sir Michael Cummins: The particular
incident to which you have referred is being investigated. As
soon as I heard about it on Friday evening before publication
in the Daily Mail on the Saturday, I asked a very senior
officer from Scotland Yard to come here and to undertake an assessment
of access into Portcullis House. There is no doubt that the journalist
concerned was properly received and searched when he arrived in
Portcullis House and it was only by his own devious behaviour
that he gained access to those areas to which he should not have.
Q37 Mr McWalter: He also gained access
in the main House as well to a large number of areas.
Sir Michael Cummins: Yes, he did.
Those matters are now being investigated. I would wish not to
say too much more about it at this stage; a report is going to
the Speaker about this.
Q38 Mr McWalter: Do you think you
have the power to deal with people who, as it were, behave in
this kind of way? That is the issue.
Sir Michael Cummins: The Security
Force have the right to retain any individual who is not wearing
a pass, whom they do not know and to ensure either their adequate
identity by some other means or by taking them to a senior officer
who can detain them and contact me or one of my staff.
Q39 Mr McWalter: When did this last
happen?
Sir Michael Cummins: I cannot
tell you that, I do not know.
Mr McWalter: I think there is possibly
a case there for some Standing Orders.
Chairman: We have to respect the Serjeant
at Arms's request in respect of the current issue.
| 
