| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
"conditions may only pertain to the place of the demonstration, its maximum duration and the maximum number of persons"
and so on, but that relates to only half the story. It relates only to public assemblies-static demonstrations-not to public protests, where no limit on the conditions that can be imposed is set out in the Bill. That is one of our main concerns and my amendment 26 aims to address it.
We agree with the Government's view that it is desirable for legal certainty and clarity for the same or similar provisions to apply throughout the country to protest and that as few distinctions as possible should be made, but in view of the particular significance of Parliament as a venue for protest and the historic problems that have arisen in policing protest in the area, we think it is far more appropriate for a much more precise list of conditions to be set out on processions around Parliament. That is why my amendment aims to provide for such an exhaustive list as part of the Bill. An alternative approach, which I hope the Minister will examine, is to provide legal certainty through relevant guidance, giving a comprehensive list of the sorts of conditions that could be imposed on processions under this proposed new section.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Government for making it possible by their arrangement of the business tonight for us at least to discuss amendment 3. Had we had an opportunity to discuss it in Committee, I am sure that it would have been accepted, because I understood at the time that the Secretary of State for Justice proposed to give the House a free vote. I have no doubt that if there had been a free vote, the amendment would have been overwhelmingly carried.
It is not a restriction of my freedom of speech in this place if, once I have had my say, expressed my opinion and communicated my views to other hon. Members, I proceeded to start ranting, shouting and continuing to demand to be heard even though I had had ample opportunity to convey my message-if I continued to insist on shouting my message in support of my views time and again, irrespective of the rights of others, defying any reasonable request to desist-I were then eventually forcibly removed from the Chamber. That would mean not that I had not had my freedom of speech, but that I had abused my right of freedom of speech and trampled on the rights of others.
8 pm
That is what has been happening with the protest noise in Parliament square. Hon. Members and, above all, their staff are sick to death of it. The previous Speaker, on a number of occasions, expressed his concern about the nuisance of constant amplified noise. I first became aware of the problem when I had my office in No. 1 Parliament street a few years ago. It became impossible to concentrate on work because of persistent ranting through a highly amplified loudspeaker. When I investigated what was happening, I was astonished to find that there was no rally or assembly of protestors in
Parliament square at all. On average, there were between half a dozen and a dozen people standing around and the person with the loudhailer certainly did not need to use it in order to exercise his right to communicate with anyone in attendance who wished to hear his message.
I crossed the road to ask the principal demonstrator why he was broadcasting at such a loud volume when so few people were present. He frankly explained that only by doing so would he be able to ensure that his message penetrated into Parliament above the noise of the traffic in the square. That clearly had nothing to do with the right freely to express his views or to communicate them to a voluntary assembly of people who wished to hear them. By contrast, it had everything to do with forcing his views on people who simply wished to go about their daily business undisturbed.
As has been pointed out already in the debate-and as I can vouch from experience-the ranting messages broadcast at such volume are loud enough to be a continual source of disturbance to people trying to work in their offices in No. 1 Parliament street, in particular, but also in various other offices and meeting rooms on the parliamentary estate. We must not forget those people who live and work in the vicinity of Parliament square and who wish to use the facility of Parliament square for their own enjoyment-they should not be disturbed unduly.
For the most part, it is not possible to distinguish what the shouting is about. The political message is not reaching its target-all it is doing is causing massive annoyance and significant distress to people who are trying to work. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who speaks from the Front Bench, I did a survey of people's experiences of this persistent noise and 52 of them joined together and submitted a complaint to the council. I attached those complaints to my submission to the consultation exercise that was held.
I should like to refer to the experiences of a number of hon. Members from all parties, including the Liberal Democrat party. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)-I have to confess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not warn him because I did not know that I would be referring to him in the Chamber today, but he gave me permission at the time to quote him in the submission that I publicly gave to the consultation exercise, so I am sure that he will not object to my quoting him now-wrote to me:
"We're at one. You're free to quote me objecting to the use of amplified material, provided I am also quoted as not wanting to restrict the right to protest outside parliament. (Indeed I think that the present exclusion zone should be lifted.)"
That is an example of someone who was rightly distinguishing between whether the protest should be allowed to take place and whether the people taking part in the protest should be allowed continually to use amplified noise for hours on end simply to batter the eardrums of other people who had nothing to do with the protest in the square.
An hon. Member from the Labour Benches, who is well-respected on constitutional matters, said:
"There was, and always should be, the right to lobby your MP. As a student, I would leave my placards etc on Westminster Bridge and join an orderly queue to see my MP. This whole episode shows the weakness of Parliament unable to control its surroundings let alone hold government to account."
I have given examples from one Liberal Democrat Member and one Labour Member, and a Conservative colleague of mine-a shadow Minister-said:
"I complained to the Serjeant and was told that there was nothing he could do. My office in 1 Parliament Street does not overlook Parliament Square and yet we are still tormented by the volume of the loudspeakers."
The parliamentary assistant to a right hon. Labour Member said that
"it drives me round the bend especially when I am trying to concentrate. We have to put up with enough noise from the constant flow of traffic without having to put up with them shouting through the loudhailer."
Another hon. Labour Member said:
"I fully support your contention that the protestors in Parliament Square do in fact disturb those working within the Palace of Westminster. My own office overlooks Speaker's Court and the noise can clearly be heard-even with the windows closed. Which means of course in hot weather it is impossible to open the windows without further amplifying the disturbance. I pity the poor security staff who have to work directly opposite and suffer the barrage of abuse for long periods of time."
I have only given half a dozen or so examples and there were 52 of them, which were submitted to the consultation. I believe that the consultation response showed that there was real concern about the noise, quite apart from the question of what people thought about the demonstration's being allowed to remain on a virtually permanent basis in the square. So, I went back to the permission that had been sought by the main protestor in Parliament square from Westminster council. I found the minutes of the meeting, which were helpfully on the internet. The meeting was held by licensing sub-committee No. 5 on 30 June 2006. The solicitor for the main protestor was a certain Mr. Grosz and the protestor, as we all know, is Mr. Haw. The minutes state:
"Mr Grosz stated that the area in question was already noisy with traffic, bells and commentary from tour buses. Mr Haw's site was a long way from the Chambers of Parliament. There was, Mr Grosz said, no evidence of noise from Mr Haw's loudspeaker reaching those working inside the Palace of Westminster, and that Mr Haw had no intention that loudspeaker noise penetrate its buildings."
It quoted Mr. Haw as saying that
"he wanted to work positively with officers from the City Council to avoid creating nuisance."
The sub-committee, it its naivety, accepted Mr. Haw's statement that he had no wish to cause a nuisance or a problem to people working in Parliament. That is, of course, exactly the opposite of what Mr. Haw told me when I went to ask him why he was broadcasting at such volume when only a tiny handful of people were present.
The problem of noise harassment is real and serious. There is not an absolute unfettered right to shout one's opinions in the face of everybody else for hours on end, long after any reasonable person would conclude that the first person had had their say. This is not freedom of speech-it is bullying. It is harassment. Indeed, in any other environment it would not be tolerated for a moment.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), said, "Well, it's all right. It's remediable-you can take them to court." The problem is that it is not remediable. Under the existing law, nobody can be dealt with who is determined to go on making incessant noise at unreasonable volume.
All that could happen is that they would eventually end up in a courtroom and there would eventually be some sort of conviction either for causing a nuisance or for breaking a byelaw, and then someone with a political axe to grind would pay the fine for them. At the end of the day, however, there would be absolutely nothing that anyone could do to stop them making the noise in the run-up to the court case or continuing to make it after the court case. This is not about freedom of speech; it is about intolerance. Those people are intolerant bullies who have not managed to have their own way and are therefore determined to shout, scream, rant, hector and harass other people.
There is only one way in which to deal with this matter: by applying a degree of common sense. I speak from experience because I am probably the only Conservative Member of the House actually to have been arrested for participating in a demonstration. As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, that was back in the 1980s when there was a demonstration against the Falklands war, and I was involved in a counter-demonstration. The police decided to remove us from the scene because we were the smaller demonstration of the two, but we worked with the police thereafter and were able to have our protest because we regulated the amount of noise that we made. At that time, before any of these other laws, restrictions and rights came in, we were told that if we raised the noise level excessively, our equipment would be confiscated at least until the demonstration was over.
Freedom of speech requires tolerance on all sides. The people who are ranting, raving and shouting-often in extremely crude, rude and insulting terms-in a public place cannot be dealt with by any means that does not require the removal of the equipment if, on receipt of a complaint about the noise, they refuse to tone it down and keep it to reasonable levels. This issue is being dressed up as being about freedom of speech, but it is actually about the bullying and intimidation of people going about their lawful business. I am very sorry that the Government, in the form of the Home Secretary, will not allow Labour Members to vote according to their consciences, because I know that large numbers-probably a majority-of those Members would like the amendments to go through. However, now that the Government Chief Whip has entered the Chamber, I shall simply repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I am grateful to the Government for having at least provided an opportunity for this issue to be aired and discussed.
Mr. Hanson: We have had, as usual, a very lively-and in part noisy-debate about these issues. I shall explain to the House why I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a Division.
The hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) have made their case about the noise, which is, on occasion, disturbing to individual Members and members of staff. When I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Prime Minister between 2001 and 2005, I was frequently in an office facing Parliament square and on the receiving end of amplified noise about the performance of the Prime Minister and the Government throughout some very difficult debates on Iraq, student fees and a range of other issues. The purpose of the amendments is to
remove such amplified noise from Parliament square, but I do not believe that they would represent a practical or workable solution.
My first point to both the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, and in support of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), has to be about what makes Parliament so different from any other place of operation in London and from somewhere in any other city in the UK. We have a responsibility to undertake work and our other activities in a positive way, but unless that protest noise is so disruptive that it prevents us from exercising our functions on the Floor of the House, the suggested action would be excessive and we could not support it.
8.15 pm
Dr. Lewis: The noise certainly prevents us from exercising our functions in the W Rooms and the Committee Rooms, and it certainly disturbs people who are trying to conduct constituency work from their offices but are not able to concentrate because of intrusive and excessive noise. If we had more time, I could quote the Minister chapter and verse about that.
Mr. Hanson: As has been outlined, there are measures in place regarding noise pollution and public order legislation, to which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred, and there are also provisions in place to deal with harassment, in addition to, when relevant, byelaws regarding this place.
Dr. Lewis: I promise that I shall not keep intervening, but will the Minister explain how any of those measures would stop the noise rather than simply leading to a fine that would be paid by someone else while the noise continued unabated?
Mr. Hanson: I will go through the measures that are available to ensure that such actions can be dealt with if they are excessive. However, let me first return to the original point of contention. What makes Parliament different from any other establishment that can be and is subject to protest? I can be sympathetic about the situation, because I know that the noise can be difficult to deal with, but let me recognise, as we did in the policing White Paper, and as the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have done, that the creation of noise and disruption is, and should be, part of our democratic process and a healthy element of a democratic society.
Mr. Dismore: Although we all agree about the problem of loudspeaker noise, one of my concerns is that when we have tried to legislate regarding protest in Parliament square in the past, we have made mistakes and all sorts of things have ended up going wrong. Would there be any fallout for other forms of broadcast noise in Parliament square if these amendments were made? Would anything else be unintentionally banned as a consequence?
Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend touches on an important point that I shall come to in a moment.
Let me tell the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for New Forest, East, who spoke in support of the amendments, that if noise from loudspeakers is threatening
or intimidating, the behaviour can be, and has been, captured by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. If noise from loudspeakers amounts to harassment, the civil and criminal remedies that other organisations have successfully brought are available to Parliament. If noise from loudspeakers amounts to
"serious disruption to the life of the community",
the police have powers under section 14 of the 1986 Act to impose conditions on assemblies. Clearly, the police could show that there was serious disruption if those who were being disrupted complained to the police. As has been made clear by the courts, by us in our policing White Paper, and by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in its report "Adapting to Protest", if noise from loudspeakers amounts to nuisance or inconvenience, that alone does not provide sufficient grounds to restrict peaceful protest.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East might be aware of the Greater London authority's Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Garden Byelaws 2002, which make it an offence for a person to use amplification equipment on Parliament square garden without the prior permission of the Mayor of London, whom I recall is one Mr. Boris Johnson of this parish, who is supported by the Conservative party. Westminster city council, which I recall is run by a party other than the Labour party, has also made specific byelaws under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 regarding causing or permitting any loud or continuous noise to be made by use of an amplifier or similar instrument after being warned to desist by a constable. The practical effect of amendment 3 would, as the hon. Member for Cambridge indicated, be to silence not only protestors, but anyone else in an area around Parliament. It would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon indicated, prevent the use of amplifying equipment in every way, shape or form. It would include stewards who use amplifying equipment to control crowds and people who use such equipment to speak at demonstrations. It would cover people such as the Gurkhas and groups such as the Countryside Alliance. Indeed, I sometimes oppose the content of parts of that body's demonstrations, but I respect its right to demonstrate.
Dr. Lewis: The amendment is not about banning noise but about giving a power to remove amplifying equipment if, on receipt of complaints, it is judged that people are being unduly harassed. The Minister is talking about demonstrations that would have been arranged and regulated, and so would be perfectly allowable. The amendment would not impinge on them in any way whatsoever.
Mr. Hanson: In February 2008, Barbara Tucker-she is well known to us because of the protests that she holds outside the House with Brian Haw-used a loudspeaker to express threatening language to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) as he left the Commons. In August of that year, she was found guilty of committing an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it an offence to use
"threatening, abusive or insulting words".
She was fined £100 and court costs. What is the difference between that and what the hon. Gentleman proposes?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |