| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Feb 2010 : Column 172WH—continued
Such an approach should not be different when it comes to policing protests. We have a close communicative approach to policing protests rather than the distance approach that is seen in some other countries. I know
that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would back me very firmly in my view that we have the best police service in the world. We must nurture it.
As the Committee will be aware from the letter of 13 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister welcomed the Joint Committee's report on behalf of the Government, as well as the other reviews that have been published on this issue in the past year. Our response to the Committee's recommendations is based on the HMIC report, "Adapting to Protest: Nurturing the British Model of Policing". That title sums up the sentiment at the core of the Home Office's attitude to policing. The report was published last November, and the Government's position on the policing of protests was set out in the White Paper "Protecting the Public: Supporting the Police to Succeed", which was published in December.
As we said in the White Paper, the public have the right to expect the highest standards of policing, and we have to support every officer in delivering those high standards. None the less, it is important to put the policing of protests into a proper context. The overwhelming majority of officers do a professional job in what can be testing circumstances. Examples of good practice include the sensitive policing of the Tamil protests around Parliament. Difficult challenges were presented by the English Defence League demonstrations, which saw thousands of people gathering in some of our cities.
As the Government made clear in the White Paper, we welcome the HMIC report as a major contribution to the future direction of the policing of protests. We are committed to working with the police and others to ensure that the recommendations are properly acted on.
The White Paper endorses the values championed by the HMIC review and reaffirms the key principles of the British policing model. As I have said, community policing and policing by consent underpin the policing of protests as well as our general approach to policing. We agree with the Joint Committee that human rights awareness must be a core part of policing protest. A human rights-based approach, however, is not a soft option; it does not mean anything-goes policing. It upholds our democratic principles, supporting the founding tenets of British policing and, crucially, providing a practical framework for the police to resolve any areas of conflict.
Mr. Dismore: The Minister is right to say that human rights policing is not anything-goes policing. Evidence from Northern Ireland shows that lethal force can be used in a human rights context if it is used with proper safeguards.
Meg Hillier: I take this opportunity to echo the comments of my hon. Friend and to praise the progress that has been made on policing in very challenging circumstances in Northern Ireland. We recognise that in the Home Office, and it was certainly reflected in the Committee's report.
The Government believe that we must start from the position of supporting those who want to exercise their right to peaceful protest. None the less, those seeking to exercise it must act responsibly and look to work constructively with the police. The public can expect some disruption and inconvenience as a consequence of the state's upholding the rights of protest. That is the
hallmark of an open and democratic society. We agree with the Joint Committee that the policing of protest must be founded on good communication and dialogue between the police and protest groups, drawing on community-style policing, which is the foundation of what we do. It is key to a no-surprises policing policy.
The Government are not saying that protests will be unfettered. If, for example, there is a threat of serious public disorder, the Public Order Act 1986 specifically allows the police to intervene and impose conditions on protests to prevent serious public disorder, serious disruption to the life of the community and serious damage. That is based on a senior officer's reasonable belief, taking into account the particular circumstances.
It is very clear that we need to ensure that such a decision is made at an operational level-by that, I mean at the time and on the judgment of a professional police officer. The 1986 Act needs to be read against the Human Rights Act 1998 whenever the police consider using their powers in such a way. Clearly, the police must have guidance and training. The principles also provide clarity on issues that continue to raise legitimate concerns, such as the proportionate and appropriate use of police stop-and-search powers; the use of force; the application of containment; how police and protesters can improve their communication with one another; how chief constables can ensure that officers in uniform are clearly identifiable at all times to the public whom they serve; and what images and data on protesters the police can gather and retain. I will touch on the points raised by hon. Members in a moment.
ACPO and the National Policing Improvement Agency are already well on the way to updating guidance and training. As the HMIC makes clear, it is all very well providing guidance and training, but the guidance and training need to be targeted, practical and informed by front-line officers who are facing the public.
Transparency is key to building confidence and to working towards a no-surprises policing policy. Given the national public order and interoperability challenges, forces across the country need to use and comply with guidance and training. We often have situations in which police are moved from one force area to another to police a protest. If they work under different guidelines or have a different approach, that could cause great difficulty and mean that they were not doing their job so well. It is important that we have some consistency across the 43 forces in England and Wales.
We agree with the HMIC recommendation that a Home Office code of practice is the way to achieve that consistency, and we are working with the police service to develop a code that supports common standards and gets the right balance in minimising bureaucracy and respecting key elements of the British policing model-operational independence, officer discretion, local innovation and political neutrality.
I have listened very carefully to the points that have been raised, and I am delighted to be able to answer them. Unusually, I have time to do so; I do not think that I have ever been in Westminster Hall when I have had time properly to answer the points raised. I hope to cover everything that has been raised today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon raised a number of issues, particularly about stop-and-search, section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and photography.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds talked very supportively about the hard work that our police do, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) raised other concerns that I will address later.
I hope that in my first comments I addressed the concern of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the core principles. Proportionality, legality and necessity are the principles behind the policing of protests. ACPO, the NPIA and the Home Office all have a role to play in ensuring that our police on the ground have the guidance and practical support that they need to act in that way.
Mr. Dismore: The Minister is right, but what she is talking about are the restrictions on protests; the restrictions have to be necessary and proportionate. Will she also confirm that articles 10 and 11 are the key human rights principles here-that they guarantee the right to protest and that there is a duty to facilitate that right?
Meg Hillier: I can confirm that and I will go into more detail on that when I address those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised a concern about photography. I know that that is a sensitive area; as a constituency MP, I have had to deal with that issue in relation to a particular constituent. We know that photography can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool. Of course, it works both ways-there are the photographs taken of protesters by the police and then there is the section 44 issue. However, photographs taken by the police can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool, which allows officers to build up a clear picture of who is involved in planning and organising any criminal behaviour. It can also provide the police with valuable evidence.
The use of photography raises human rights issues. The courts have recently considered whether the taking and retention of photographs is compatible with the right to private life protected by article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The decision to retain images is a matter for individual police forces, informed by the legislative framework set out in the ECHR and the Data Protection Act 1998. The Home Office code of practice on the management of police information sets out the key principles to be followed in the retention of police data.
In line with HMIC's recommendation, we intend to clarify that legal framework for the use of overt photography by the police during public order operations. In producing detailed advice on this area, we shall be drawing on the summary of the ECHR implications of the Wood case in HMIC's report, the advice sought by ACPO and the Metropolitan police service's revised standard operating procedure on overt filming. We are holding "train the trainers" events to raise awareness and understanding of human rights issues for those who deliver command training across the police service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Cambridge mentioned our relations with journalists and the media. We are looking at media best practice with the Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists; indeed, that best practice has now been finalised. Furthermore, the profile of the UK press card will be
raised throughout police forces, and forces are now building the role of journalists into their training scenarios to increase awareness among front-line officers. As a former journalist myself, I am certainly very pleased that we are making it clear to police officers that journalists have a legitimate and proper role to play in covering protests and related issues, and that that role is separate from that of protesters. Crucially, as HMIC recognises, awareness-raising is already being translated into action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) both raised issues about injunctions against protesters; I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on those issues too. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is no longer in his seat, but he can read my comments in Hansard tomorrow.
As we said in our response to the Joint Committee, we consider that the civil procedure rules provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that those who are the subject of injunctions have the opportunity to make representations. We are not convinced of the need to amend the civil procedure rules and we believe that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which considers changes, would be unlikely to be convinced about the need for change on the basis of what appears to be an isolated case.
Mr. Dismore: I do not think that it is an isolated case-that is the problem. Indeed, the BBC produced a programme about this issue of injunctions in the middle of last year. It found quite a few cases in which the civil injunction procedure was being used to restrain potential protests. The real question is this: is the state facilitating protest or preventing it? To an extent, that issue is mixed up with the issue of private land and private-public space. However, the fact remains that the safeguards are simply not there in any meaningful way, and although it may be theoretically possible for people to come back afterwards and challenge such injunctions, in practice that does not work. There is no urgency about these things.
Meg Hillier: It is not that there is no urgency. If we are looking to change the law, whether through primary legislation or other routes, we have to be careful to ensure that we are not doing so on the basis of just one case. If the Joint Committee has evidence in relation to other cases, we will certainly look again at the issue of injunctions and I will certainly pass any such evidence on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism. However, as I say, we cannot work on the basis of one case.
Let us take what is perhaps a more challenging example. If there is someone who is a partner and, say, a member of Fathers 4 Justice, could that person not use the cloak of being a protester to circumvent civil procedure rules?
Meg Hillier: Well, I think that we need to be clear that there could be perverse outcomes if we rushed into change on the basis of one example. We need to look into that issue.
Mr. Dismore:
I simply say to my hon. Friend that someone from Fathers 4 Justice, or whatever, may well be a protester, but that is not the point; there is nothing to stop the injunction being granted. The only issue is
that they should have proper notice and a fair hearing, and the problem is that at the moment they do not get those things.
Meg Hillier: Perhaps I did not make my point clear, but it was about somebody who was, for example, in the situation that I described. If there is an issue about personal safety for an individual, sometimes the injunction needs to be put in place expediently and there is not time to give notice. There should always be as much notice as possible, but sometimes urgent situations arise and we need to ensure that we provide safety for people too.
I am keen to move on, because essentially injunctions are a matter for the courts to decide and we need to be mindful of the separation of powers in this country.
Mr. Dismore: Of course it is a matter for the courts as to whether an injunction should be granted, but it is a matter for Parliament to decide the circumstances in which that power should be available to the courts. The hon. Member for Cambridge came up with what I thought was a very neat formulation, which is that a court should pay due regard to articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. That would not necessarily bind a court, but it would mean that, for example in the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlined-a better example might be that of animal rights activists who have actively engaged in violence-the injunction could still be granted ex parte, but that should be the exception and not the norm.
Meg Hillier: The courts are obliged to take into account articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR in all cases before them, under the Human Rights Act 1998. In this instance, we are talking about procedure rules and there remains a role for without- notice injunctions. Ultimately the courts, which are used to all aspects of granting injunctions, will decide on injunctions. If the Joint Committee has further evidence in relation to this issue, we would welcome the chance to look at it. However, as things stand, we have no plans to change our position.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the use of technology. There is a real benefit to using technology, but we must not forget the basics and in this country the basics of policing are human-our police officers on the streets. Good communication is the key, in terms of face-to-face community-style policing, and that is how we in this country choose to police protests. We do not stand at a distance using water cannons, as police in other countries do, and we should not have communication as a specialist role; I believe that it needs to be embedded, as it already is, in the training of all police officers.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of independent mediators. We agree with HMIC that it is preferable for the police to remain the primary arbiter in relation to decisions about protests, on the basis that they will take impartial decisions and are accountable under the law for the exercise of their discretion.
Mr. Dismore:
Generally, there is not a problem-there is communication. We know that from the 4,500 to 5,000 cases of protests that pass peacefully every year. However, I mention to my hon. Friend the position of the hon. Member for Cambridge during the G20 protest. In that protest, neither side-neither the police nor the
protesters-was prepared to talk to the other. It was only when he tried to bring them together that there was any dialogue at all; it may have been a dialogue of the deaf, but at least it was a start. In Northern Ireland, that very painstaking no-surprises process began through the use of intermediaries-Catholic priests, in that particular case.
Meg Hillier: Of course, the police should always be willing to talk to anyone. It distresses me sometimes when I hear of cases where a group of protesters, or any group, does not wish to co-operate with the police, because if we can engender dialogue we often break through these problems.
The existing public order framework-
Meg Hillier: May I just finish my point? The existing public order framework operates effectively and it ensures the facilitation of protests in the vast majority of cases across England and Wales. Good communication and effective dialogue are key. However, we are not convinced of the need for mediators at this point, because we believe that the police are well trained in this area. Furthermore, I believe that the use of mediators can add complications and overly bureaucratic processes to what is essentially the current effective model of working, whereby the police enter into discussions with the people they are policing and they are not seen as unable to do that. There is a danger in bringing in mediation. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge first.
David Howarth: The problem, as I observed it in the G20 situation, was that both police and protesters assumed that any contact with the other side would reveal information to the other side, in some kind of tactical battle in which the police's main objective appeared to the protesters to be to prevent the protest from happening at all. Therefore, it is important that the starting point changes, and that the protesters are confident that the police's objective is to facilitate the protest and not to stop it.
Meg Hillier: Certainly the police's job is to facilitate protest-as long as it is peaceful. The police must establish that balance, on human rights grounds, between the rights of the wider population and the rights of the protesters. So, a certain level of disruption may be acceptable, but there must be a decision made on the ground about, for example, when it is acceptable for protesters to block a road and for how long. A protest may be peaceful, but it can be very inconvenient for other people. There needs to be a balance.
I am of the opinion that the problem must be solved by building trust rather than circumventing it. Bringing a third party into discussions would not build trust between the police and protesters. We are talking about one challenging case. We should not be thinking about changing procedure on the basis of one example.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |