Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
Mr Gareth Crossman, Mr Mike Schwarz, Baroness Mallalieu
QC and Mr Milan Rai
3 JUNE 2008
Q240 Martin Linton: So there is a
case for the police saying, "No large demonstrations immediately
outside Parliament"?
Mr Schwarz: There are different levels. The
first is, is there criminal legislation here to criminalise the
activity in principle. Answer: without SOCPA, yes. Are there the
police powers to enforce that, powers of arrest across the country?
Yes. Do the police have the resources to deal with it? Ask Charing
Cross, but they can deal with protests anywhere. As far as I am
aware Parliament does not pose particular problems, in fact quite
the reverse. There are police all over the place, CCTV all over
the place, a police station up the road. If anything Parliament
is, frankly, one of the most protected areas in the country.
Q241 Martin Linton: Baroness Mallalieu
is in a particularly good position here, being both the President
of the Countryside Alliance and a parliamentarian herself. Do
you accept that there are particular circumstances that apply
to Parliament that make large scale demonstrations more of a threat?
Baroness Mallalieu: No, I do not. I think that,
properly policed, a demonstration should not present a problem
purely based on size. I will, if I may, deal with the particular
instance you referred to in a moment, but going to the general
question of access to Parliament, which is clearly crucial, my
recollection of that particular day when there was a large demonstration
taking place outside is that, certainly so far as the House of
Lords was concerned, there was no difficulty at all with access
or moving outside and the annunciator was giving indications of
which gates were open for people to go in and out during that
time. That may be an inconvenience but it seems to me that with
a demonstration which after all is not going to arise in those
sorts of numbers spontaneously; there is going to be some indication
that there is to be a demonstration on that particular day, it
does enable Parliament to deal with the inconvenience in exactly
the way they did then. Certain gates were closed at certain times
but Members were made aware by the annunciator of how they could
come and go.
Q242 Martin Linton: There were a
number of injuries though.
Baroness Mallalieu: There were injuries, unfortunately,
on both sides. If I can deal with the specifics of that, it was
the first demonstration where there had not been what I would
call satisfactory liaison. The liaison officers dealing with those
in charge of the demonstration were placed in my view in the wrong
place, on the wrong side of the barricade, so they could not be
communicated with easily, and about 20 minutes before the incident
which you are referring to the stewards of the Alliance became
aware that there was about to be an attempt to push through the
barriers so that people could sit down outside Parliament. They
contacted the liaison officer but no apparent steps were taken
and the sensible course at that stage would have been to put the
stewards of the Countryside Alliance in front at that spot where
they would have told their people to go back. In fact what happened
was that the police, in close formation, wearing riot gear and
many of them, as the Police Complaints Commission found later,
concealing their identities, took up a confrontational stance.
That had never happened before save in one instance when access
to Parliament was denied. Of course, police in that instance had
a duty to ensure that no-one broke into the House. That was key
and crucial.
Q243 Chairman: Thank you for that
explanation. I think we have probably gone as far as we are going
to go on that.
Mr Rai: Could I please add a practical point
as an organiser? Can I just say that while frameworks of legislation
may or may not be well tuned to those kinds of circumstances,
the existence or non-existence of SOCPA or any other legislation
is irrelevant in that circumstance where a section of a demonstration
has formed the state of mind to create an incident of the kind
that you are talking about, so whether or not there is a SOCPA
or a super-SOCPA will have no bearing. It will be on the relationship
between the organisers, the police and the demonstrators as to
how incidents of that kind resolve themselves. Whatever replacement
to SOCPA there is, that will not enter into those relationships
which will determine a successful or unsuccessful outcome.
Q244 Martin Linton: In my day demonstrations
were always in Trafalgar Square and the difference with demonstrations
in Parliament Square is that they are only about 20 yards from
the gates to Parliament so that if there were a breach it could
lead to a security incident whereas a demonstration in Trafalgar
Square could not. That is the point I am trying to get to.
Mr Crossman: I would just like to make a very
quick point. In the sort of situation you have described, where
you have a large demonstration and as a consequence a rushing
at gates, the problem with SOCPA is that the temptation is going
to be that the next time you are doing it you say, "Okay,
we are going to limit it to 500 people because that way it is
less likely to happen", or however many people. If you are
the organiser of a demonstration, and I imagine Milan would be
more aware of this, how do you go about ensuring a certain number
of people turn up? You are just not going to organise it. If I
were organising a demonstration I would want as many people as
possible to turn up because that is the whole point of organising
a demonstration. That is why these limits on numbers and other
restrictions are so destructive to the ability to organise a demonstration.
Q245 Lord Tyler: I have a very small
supplementary for Lady Mallalieu. The logic of what you said earlier
is that there should be a different regime while a House of Parliament
is sitting. As I recall as a participant, the first Countryside
Alliance march took place on a non sitting day. Is it your view
therefore that there should be different controls when there is
a problem about Members of either House coming into the building?
Baroness Mallalieu: I do not think so. I would
like to know from those at the other end of the building whether
there was in fact any practical difficulty that day in getting
in. I know there were complaints, from Mr Alan Duncan among others,
to the police about police not letting MPs out who wanted to go
out and join the demonstration or see their constituents and refusing
to accept the Commons pass, and that was the subject of a formal
complaint. I was not aware, certainly at my end of the building,
of anyone being prevented from coming in or leaving. There was
a mention of Trafalgar Square and demonstrations there. Really
I think that leads to my having to make the point that this House
is the people's House, this square is Parliament Square, and it
may be very convenient for the authorities to say the demonstration
should take place down on the South Bank or elsewhere but noise
and things that are unsightly or things that are inconvenient
or irritating to MPs are things which have to be tolerated in
a parliamentary democracy. People are entitled to come to their
House and express their views to their MPs and that will on occasions
lead to difficulties and to people getting fed up and to inconvenience,
but it is a small price to pay in my view for parliamentary democracy
and freedom of speech.
Q246 Sir George Young: Can we move
on to noise? Baroness Mallalieu, I was very interested to read
the memorandum which you sent out but I was slightly surprised
by one sentence, "There is no doubt that excessive noise
impinges on the work of those working within the parliamentary
estate. This however is a small price to pay for free speech ...
". I wonder whether on reflection you might like to qualify
that. You have got the policemen at the gates of New Palace Yard
within feet of these loudspeakers, you have got tourists who are
trying to enjoy what is a world heritage site and you have got
colleagues who are trying to work in the outbuildings of the parliamentary
estate. Given that there are restrictions on noise for health
and safety reasons in other areas, do you not think there should
be some restraints on the sheer volume of noise that can be generated,
much of which makes it impossible to hear what the message is?
The message gets lost in the general noise. Do we not need some
control?
Baroness Mallalieu: We do have some control
but it simply is not exercised at the moment. Under the Public
Order Act, under the provisions for the control of Westminster
Green, there are provisions in both cases. First of all, unless
you have, as I understand it, the permission of the Mayor of London
you cannot use your loudspeaker on the gardens themselves but
there is no problem about the police, it seems to me, imposing
a restriction on the length of time that noise may go on and it
would be perfectly proper to say to a demonstrator, "An hour
and then that is it", and the power does currently exist
within the present legislation. I understand from those who work
in, for example, 1 Parliament Street, that at times it is unbearable.
I can only say that so far as the House of Lords is concerned
we are slightly further down the line. When there have been major
demonstrations the obtrusive noise has been that of an overhead
helicopter. Otherwise within the chamber I have certainly not
been aware of noise which interferes with the process of Parliament.
That may not be the case in the Commons but I would be surprised
if the Commons chamber was affected. It is absolutely right that
people in working in offices must have some respite from what
we have all heard, but it could be done now. The power is there.
Q247 Sir George Young: If the length
of time was exceeded or if the noise went over what was acceptable
would it be appropriate for the loudspeaker to be confiscated?
Baroness Mallalieu: Under the provisions the
police would have power to make the restriction and then no doubt
to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that that happens.
The powers are there. I was looking just now as I came in at Brian
Haw's present set-up and his fellow demonstrators and they are
within the law in every respect in that they seem not to be blocking
the pavement, they are not on the gardens, for which they would
require the Mayor's written consent, and they are not making any
noise. They are entitled to take out their megaphone and shout
until or unless they are subject to a restriction by the authorities
on the timing or the duration, and that could be done, but, perhaps
because there is a recognition in the authorities that although
they have the powers this is something that must be policed sensitively,
it has not been done. Going back to the old powers would give
the authorities power to do that. There is nothing to stop them.
Q248 Chairman: The power you mentioned
about confiscating loudspeaker equipment—
Baroness Mallalieu: I did not mention it. It
was a suggestion that was put.
Q249 Chairman: Does anyone know what
power that is because we are not quite clear about that? Certainly
the Mayor of London is suggesting that such a power should exist
so we have made the presumption that it does not exist.
Baroness Mallalieu: I have no knowledge that
there is a specific power of confiscation but presumably, as there
is a power to limit the duration of noise, steps can then be taken,
whether by injunction or whatever means I am not totally clear,
I am afraid, to enforce that order.
Q250 Chairman: Would you accept that
it would be a reasonable power to give to a local authority or
to the police if indeed a nuisance did continue?
Baroness Mallalieu: Persistent noise I think
in those circumstances, yes. There is just one thing I would add
to the question of microphones if I may and it has already been
raised by Milan Rai. When there is a demonstration in Parliament
Square microphones, loudspeakers, amplification are crucial in
our submission for two reasons. First, without them there can
be no proper speech made to a crowd who can hear it, and, secondly,
and this comes back to the matter that Mr Linton mentioned earlier,
on the occasion when there was trouble in Parliament Square permission
had been refused for there to be loudspeakers at each corner in
order that the crowd could be contacted. When trouble brewed up
the single loudspeaker, which was some distance away from what
was happening, was used to give an order to the crowd simply to
sit down, and those who could hear it did so, to try to defuse
the situation, but there was no means of communicating with those
who were in the area where there was conflict and there was a
crush. The loudspeakers are important in the case of a demonstration
both in order to allow the demonstration to be effective for those
who attend but also to maintain some control over a really large
crowd.
Mr Schwarz: I do not think any special powers
around Parliament to do with loudspeakers is necessary because
if someone is doing something with the intention of harassing,
alarming or distressing parliamentarians or with the intention
of interfering with their lawful activity or their work, the powers
are there in the Public Order Act under aggravated trespass and
under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act.
Those offences exist and if those offences are proved then the
courts have the power after conviction to order confiscation.
Q251 Chairman: That is not quite
what we were looking at. We are talking about the here and now
rather than after a trial. Would it not be reasonable to give
the police the power to remove the offending item at the time
and then, of course, it would be subject to review subsequently?
Mr Schwarz: When you say "review subsequently",
what you are saying is that the police have a unilateral power,
using their own discretion, to take someone else's property without
due process. If the Committee is considering that, that is quite
a serious inroad into human rights and protest and the right peacefully
to enjoy one's possessions and to protest. I think that would
be a very serious step without some due process to order the confiscation
of someone's property.
Mr Crossman: I refer back to section 14 of the
Public Order Act, but it does cover a lot of ground. It allows
conditions to be imposed for a number of grounds, including serious
disruption to the community. That is one of the specific grounds
set out in the Act. If I were a police officer and I decided that
use of a loudspeaker was doing so I could place a condition upon
you to stop using the loudspeaker. I could not take it off you
but I could tell you to stop doing it. If you then continue to
do it you have committed an offence under the Public Order Act
because you are breaching that, to which I presume not only would
you be arrested but that loudspeaker would be taken off you because
it is a material piece of evidence that is relevant to the prosecution
that you will no doubt be facing. Prior to arrest I do not think
you could justify it. Post arrest the power exists.
Q252 Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen:
Some of the points I was going to raise, Chairman, have just been
answered and thank you very much for that. As someone who has
been a protester and organised protests in the past I have a little
knowledge of this but, of course, it is past knowledge. I think
a lot of what we are discussing in relation to the powers around
Parliament does really concentrate on noise. I really do think
that noise is something that people get particularly angry about.
Can I just say that it is not just the noise from Parliament Square
because what seems to be happening at the moment is that if demonstrators
come they are sent down to demonstrate around the King George
statue and, as someone who has an office overlooking the King
George statue, I can assure you it does affect work, so I am very
interested in the whole question of how we come to what is a satisfactory
answer for allowing people to protest to our Parliament, which
I totally agree should be allowed, but how at the same time we
can keep control of the rights, if you like, of those who work
in Parliament and those who are on the marches or whatever. One
of the things that I have been thinking about during your answers
is, is there a difference—and I thought of this when Milan
raised issues about marching and then assembling—between
the use of loudspeakers on a march where you ask people to keep
in, keep up and not to go onto pavements and things like that,
and when you get to the assembly point and are using it then constantly?
I think that is (and Baroness Mallalieu raised this issue) about
whether there should be a length of time for it. If there is a
length of time at the moment are we able to tease this out in
a better fashion than we have done because there do seem to be
some genuine feelings that a certain amount of time should be
allowed for a very loud loudspeaker if you are addressing a group,
or indeed keeping a group in order. If there was a time limit
that people knew about would that not make things easier for both
the demonstrators and those who are being demonstrated to?
Baroness Mallalieu: Protests take various different
forms but I do agree with Baroness Gibson that incessant noise
is not fair to anybody. I think it is very difficult to be prescriptive.
This is something that presumably is best agreed between the organisers
of the march or the demonstration and the police in a proper liaison,
and it is one of the factors that should be taken into account.
It seems to me these are things that the police have power to
agree already. The time and duration of the demonstration are
two of the features that the police can specify in relation to
an assembly and they can certainly do that and more in relation
to a march, so I think the complaints that are quite justified
about the noise are ones that could be met under the existing
legislation if there was a willingness to do it.
Q253 Emily Thornberry: As somebody
whose office is on the second floor of 1 Parliament Street I again
have some sympathy with the complaints people are making about
noise, but I was interested in the answer you gave, Gareth, about
the Public Order Act and about police officers' powers to be able
to confiscate megaphones. How many people need to be on a demonstration?
It is two, is it?
Mr Crossman: Two. It used to be 20. When the
legislation was passed it was 20. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act
of 2003 reduced the number from 20 to two.
Q254 Emily Thornberry: So if one
person turns up with a megaphone it is not able to be confiscated?
Mr Crossman: It may be if you feel that they
are acting in a way which is in effect under section 5 of the
Public Order Act, for example, behaviour likely to cause harassment,
alarm or distress. I would say that if a person with a loudspeaker
turns up in Parliament Square and starts speaking through that
loudspeaker it is not activity (depending of course on what they
are saying) which in my view of itself would justify taking action
and not activity that a single person on their own is such that
is going to significantly affect the people working around Parliament
Square. I do not work there so it is probably easy for me to say
that.
Q255 Lord Morgan: I would like to
consider a different matter if I may, which is not how many people
are on demonstrations or the form they take but their duration.
Mr Haw, for example, has been there for many years. One could
imagine, for example, people being opposed to Britain having nuclear
weapons, and that is an ongoing issue which has lasted almost
the whole of my life and no doubt will continue long after I am
dead. Do you see any possible justification for saying that there
should be some kind of time limit; otherwise we all have consciences
which are, of course, eternal?
Mr Schwarz: Can I respond with a question, which
is what is wrong with a permanent demonstration about war or nuclear
weapons if it is quiet, peaceful and otherwise not committing
an offence? That is what I do not understand.
Q256 Lord Morgan: Could I suggest
one possible objection, which is that it prevents other people
of equally strong consciences on other issues demonstrating. I
would support this hypothetical demonstration that you mentioned;
I wish Britain never had nuclear weapons, but it does also raise
the issue of small minorities allocating to themselves particular
positions of conscience and protest which other people have and
indeed other people might be in favour of Britain having nuclear
weapons and equally campaign for ever.
Mr Schwarz: I think Liberty have made this point
in their own representation, which is, and perhaps you are better
placed than I am to comment on this, that there appears to be
no evidence that there is a conflict in terms of time or space
or politics between protesters. I remember the time when the Countryside
Alliance were there with their banners and Brian Haw and anti-war
campaigners were there, and as far as I am aware they got on pretty
well.
Q257 Lord Morgan: The Alliance was
not there for weeks on end, was it?
Baroness Mallalieu: Yes, at one stage. It ran
from, I think, April to September, a small demonstration. I can
only endorse that. They got on extremely well, and on one occasion
I think there was a pig also in the corner of the square and that
seemed to fit in perfectly well with everybody else protesting.
Q258 Lord Morgan: That almost makes
my point because I was not aware that you were there. I suspect
the reason why I was not aware was the loudspeaker of Mr Haw which
prevented you impinging on my consciousness.
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps we did not make
our point strongly enough.
Q259 Lord Morgan: But there is surely
a point about permanent occupation for the rest of time by any
group, whatever it might be.
Mr Crossman: As I said a little while ago, the
rather unusual nature of the authorisation process has this very
narrow L-shaped strip which is controlled by Westminster Council
which is the part of Parliament Square where you do not need to
get authorisation from the GLA. Part of our concern is that there
is this great big swathe where you do have to jump through a great
number of hoops, which is why Mr Haw's demonstration is where
it is and why anyone who wants to compete for space with Mr Haw
would find themselves in a very narrow area in which to do so,
so I think that says more about the problems arising from the
severe restrictions imposed elsewhere than any concern in itself
about a demonstration taking place over a long period of time.
| 
