Public Demonstrations (Repeals) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill’s purpose is to delete those clauses in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which condition demonstration. Freedom to demonstrate outside Parliament is one of the most important freedoms of expression that Britain has. This Government changed that fundamental freedom to a conditional one. My Bill would simply return the law to the 2005 position when there were many adequate safeguards against violent or disruptive protests but people were not frightened to demonstrate. People are now afraid that they will get a criminal record for simply holding a placard or even wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it anywhere near Parliament. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is not in her place. I fully understand the reason and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, for taking this on. But if the noble Baroness were in her place, she might say that she was puzzled why I, who usually speak on environmental matters and did not take part during the passage of the SOCPA, should introduce this Bill. It is because many young people at the start of their careers through to ageing pacifists have said, ““Well, I feel like coming up to Parliament and demonstrating, but you just cannot demonstrate there any more like you used to be able to, can you?””. They either think that the right has been lost entirely or they are unsure of how they can be legally able to take part. If an organiser gets it wrong, those taking part are implicated, so people are frightened off. Just being arrested will affect your life for ever. For instance, you lose immediately the right to a visa waiver to the USA, even though you may be innocent of any offence. The effect of these SOCPA clauses has been to cast a great chill across demonstrating peacefully in the designated zone. As my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said, "““Parliament is properly described as ‘the people's house’””.—[Official Report, 14/7/05; col. GC 154.]" Now, the people have to watch what they wear, hold or shout outside their House or they may be arrested, charged and face a jail sentence of 51 weeks or a fine of £2,500. The situation was foreseen by my noble friend Lord Dholakia when he said: "““What initially started as a debate about demonstrations in Parliament Square has now resulted in legislation which will create "fortress Whitehall", where no one can protest without permission””.—[Official Report, 14/7/05; col. GC 149.]" The purpose of my Bill is to restate the presumption in favour of the citizen and to ensure that the right to peacefully demonstrate outside their Parliament is not conditional. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that conditions are not usually imposed. But when the applicant fills in the form to apply for permission, he or she states who they are, how many people will be there and what time the demonstration will take place. They become the conditions unless the police impose additional conditions. In addition, spontaneous protest is illegal because at least 24 hours’ notice must be given. Additional conditions can be imposed on the hoof under Section 135; for example, a vigil could be moved from Parliament to a side street or a 24-hour protest could be suddenly curtailed. I want to look at why this was introduced. The Government claimed that the powers were needed around Parliament for three reasons: first, increased security because of terrorism; secondly, aesthetics; and, thirdly, undisturbed parliamentary business. I accept totally that the terrorist threat is very real. When the House authorities talked to us about it, they maintained that the highest threat came from the traffic and the road outside remaining open. Yet that road remains open. Of course, there was a remote possibility that a terrorist could hide a device in Mr Haw’s sleeping bag or under his placards, but they also could hide one in the bushes by Victoria Tower or in the vans that deliver vegetables to the kitchens. The question is whether this legislation was a proportionate response to the terrorist threat posed by Mr Haw’s demonstration. As the order went through, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said from the Conservative Benches: "““Interferences with rights to expression and assembly must … be proportionate””.—[Official Report; 14/7/05; col. GC 153.]" Noble Lords will rightly have concerns about the security of people in the area around Parliament and I want to emphasise that both for security on demonstrations and security on designated sites around the UK, there are already powerful laws in place to stop violence or obstruction and to address the terrorism issue. Indeed, in the evidence that came out in the Brian Haw court case under the Terrorism Act, the police have powers to stop and search in the designated area, and Superintendent Terry stated in the evidence that between January and July 2006, 714 searches took place within the government security zone around Westminster and Whitehall and a further 4,465 people were spoken to about their activities. I certainly pay tribute to the efforts of the police in protecting the area, but I do not feel this legislation is helping them; rather, I will show later how it is hindering their work. Since 1997, the Minister will be aware of many Acts that have been added to the statute book which lengthen the list of powers available to the police to control situations that pose a threat to the public interest. Those powers could have been used to address the situation in Parliament Square, in addition to civil action. I shall now address the aesthetics. It was one demonstration that provoked the Government. In fact, many parliamentarians find Mr Haw’s demonstration messy and annoying. Now of course it is the subject of an exhibition at Tate Britain. One man’s protest is another man’s mess is another man’s art. But as my honourable friend David Heath MP said in Committee on the Bill in another place: "““What I cannot believe is that the Government, in response to a demonstration that they happen not to like, in a place where they happen not to want it to be, are prepared to bring forward not a civil remedy to provide for an injunction but a new criminal offence””.—””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 20/1/05; cols. 434-35.]" Did the Government realise the mess they were getting themselves into with their route for addressing what they saw as a problem? Last week Mr Haw won his court case. He also featured in ““The Trial of Tony Blair”” a fictional TV drama, and he certainly made his point in a much wider way than he probably thought when he started his protest. His principles and perseverance are admirable. I had only one reservation about his original demonstration, which was that it took up the whole south side of Parliament Square, a prime position which was then denied to other causes. But my Bill is not about Mr Haw because he will demonstrate no matter what. My proposal is about Sue Smith from Salisbury, Mr Jones from Cardiff or Jeff Brown from Yorkshire who have been put off from joining demonstrations by the chilling effect of the SOCPA clauses. The last of the Government’s reasons for bringing forward the legislation was the wish for undisturbed parliamentary business. The fact is that Parliament needs disturbing—not disrupting or obstructing, but there is already enough legislation to prevent that. I turn now to the mechanics of the system imposed by the Government. How does it work? The demonstrator who wants to demonstrate has to fill in a form. I shall tell the House what happened to me last week when I wanted to get a form to do just that. I looked through the Metropolitan Police website for a form. I could not find the form, so I rang Charing Cross police station where a very helpful policeman agreed that there might not be one on the site, but that I could download it from the Mark Thomas website. It is lucky for the police that Mark Thomas has it because it saves a lot of trouble. So some demonstrations take place with the form filled in but other events take place which may look and sound like demonstrations, but are not. My Parliamentary Questions have revealed that there is no statutory definition of ““demonstration””, so it is left entirely to the police to decide. Last week at the Mark Wallinger exhibition, a young woman told me that she had stood outside Downing Street wearing a T-shirt saying, ““Rogue state Britain””. The policeman on duty told her, ““You can’t wear that here, it is a demonstration””. She replied, ““I am advertising an art show at the Tate””. He said, ““Oh, that’s fine then””. My noble friends will give several other examples of people who have been arbitrarily arrested for matters which I am sure the Government never imagined would be arrestable offences—for example, reading out a list of names of the people who have died in Iraq. The police have chosen not to apply the law to others such as the carol singers or the owners of the boats demonstrating on 10 January. They received only a warning letter. As my Parliamentary Question 109 revealed, as I have said, there is no statutory definition of ““demonstration””, so the police must make it up as they go along. Is a picnic a demonstration? Perhaps not if it contains only sandwiches, but if it contains a cake iced with the words ““Blair out”” then, of course, it could be. I do not believe that the time the police have to spend on T-shirted individuals or cake decorators is time well spent. I am not blaming the police. I feel it undermines their credibility and the law in general to give them such ill-considered legislation to enforce. Many noble Lords will be much better equipped than I to address the issue of whether the arbitrary nature of the enforcement is likely to have any implications under the Human Rights Act. It is a matter which may be debated again. Why was the legislations so ill considered? It was rushed through Parliament just as it was about to rise for the 2005 election. The remainder of the Bill dealt with very weighty issues and so voting down the Bill as a whole because of these clauses was not an option. But now the Government can have a cool, considered look at the whole matter. As well as the principle of free expression, the other major reason for the Government to have this cool, reasoned look is that vast amounts of police time and public money are being wasted. We know that the cost of policing only one unauthorised demonstration on 9 October last year was £298,000. As of last week, we also know—because Judge Purdy, in his judgment on the Brian Haw case, said so—that it is the police commissioner himself who must impose the conditions on the demonstration. Judge Purdy said: "““I conclude that the Commissioner cannot delegate his powers as he purported to do””." So now the commissioner's time is to be spent looking at condition forms instead of conducting the fight against terrorism and crime. This may not be so simple, as Brian Haw’s defence lawyer, Mr MacDonald, showed As he cross-examined police witnesses the absurdity of some the conditions imposed in that case became very clear. The Minister may say that conditions are applied in only a very few cases—indeed, only about 10 demonstrations have received added conditions—but the experience of how the Act works has revealed something else. For every demonstration, under Section 133(4), an applicant must state the date, time, place, length and size of the proposed demonstration, and these become the binding rules for the demonstration. Section 134(7) states: "““Each person who takes part in or organises a demonstration in the designated area is guilty of an offence””," if it is, "““carried on otherwise than in accordance with the particulars set out in the authorisation””." That means that every protest is effectively subject to conditions. The requirement for 24 hours’ notice is completely unacceptable anywhere but all the more so outside Parliament where people may want to respond to events as they happen. What will happen if a ministerial statement causes unexpected uproar? Are people to wait a day before they express their feelings? I have concentrated on the situation affecting Parliament Square but the sections of the Act which my Bill seeks to delete also give the Secretary of State the power to designate any site in the UK in the interests of national security, and so far he has designated 13. In practice, these sites will carry similar problems and penalties for demonstrators. I have set out the moral, legal, economic and practical reasons for repealing Sections 128 to 138 of SOCPA, which represent the very worst of hurried legislation in an especially serious way. I was struck by the speech of the Leader of the Conservative Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the gracious Speech on 15 November last year. He said, "““I was born in the Cold War era, in which we faced a society where the surveillance of every individual was a commonplace, where the state was master and not servant, and where freedom was conditional and every citizen a suspect. That is not a society in which I wish to die, and I suspect that that goes for many noble Lords on all sides of this House. Freedom does not die in one blow; it dies by inches in public legislation””." I thoroughly agree with that sentiment, and I therefore suggest to the House that the time is right to remove these completely disproportionate restrictions on people’s liberties, both here outside Parliament and around the country. What we had before may not have been perfect—carefully circumscribed rules limiting the disruption of protests—but they were adequate. If it had been really necessary, they could have been strengthened by more moderate amendments that were laid down during the passage of the Act, but which the Government chose to defeat in order to introduce their much more extreme solution. What we have ended up with, however, is totally unworkable and unacceptable. I beg to move. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.)