I have already commented, in response to comments on my earlier post, on the evidence we heard on Wednesday from representatives of the police, Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority on demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. However, there was an additional thought that crossed my mind as the witnesses spoke about the problems of managing marches and demonstrations. Brian Haw has a permament demonstration but what about those who want to come and express their views? Would there, I wondered, be a case for having the equivalent of Speakers’ Corner in Parliament Square, where people could set up their soapboxes for a set period of time and make their case.
It was only a passing thought, but today I received a memorandum from Graham Allen MP (Labour MP for Nottingham North) offering his comments on the draft Bill. On protests in Parliament Square, he writes:
Parliament Square should not be ‘squatted’ by any one individual, as it has been for some years. The best means of ending this problem would be to establish a ‘Speakers’ Corner’ type arrangement for Parliament Square, meaning that anyone could come and direct their thoughts at Parliament, subject to proper regulation, including limitations on banners and a ban on electronic and other amplification equipment.
The advantage of such an arrangement is that it would enable all those who wish to protest to do so and – Graham Allen’s point – in an equitable manner. If it was for individuals, it would not necessarily require loudspeakers. However, one reason it was only a passing thought is that I can also see the problems. It deals only with lone or small groups of protestors: it does not address the issue of marches or large demonstrations. Even at the level of individual protest, the basis would be (as with Speakers’ Corner) addressing those who go by or assemble to listen to you. I am not sure MPs (or peers) would necessarily spend time wandering over to listen to them; the speakers are more likely to attract passing trade – principally tourists. If they stand displaying banners, it is difficult to read them from the Palace of Westminster – and in any event few people spend time looking out of their office windows. If they have loudspeakers, there is an obvious problem if there are several people protesting on different issues: they are likely to get into a shouting match with one another.
I still have some lingering attachment to the idea – there is a certain sentimental appeal – but I am inclined to rule it out as being impractical. Is it a good idea? Or is it appropriate that it was but a passing thought?
Yes, I share the sentimental attraction. I am lucky enough to live only a few minutes from Speakers’ Corner and so often stroll past it.
You are right however that there are clear problems. As someone who used to work in Parliament and who was in Parliament Square briefly yesterday, I can imagine that a sole speaker in the middle of a large traffic island cannot hope to be heard, even if it was Brian Blessed speaking. I think banners are clearly needed to make any kind of point.
Previously on this blog I have suggested that people can book daily slots for protests, and line up their banners for the day. My problem with Brian Haw is that his protest is selfish; he prevents any other protest from taking place in a prime position.
There’s the germ of an idea here. However I think it would be far more symbolic were it housed in some way within the Parliament and associated buildings. A good example to learn from would be the Festival Of Politics the Scottish Parliament have successfully run for some years in their recess periods using primarily committee rooms.
Perhaps the best example of inclusiveness for a public building and organisation in London for this kind of activity would be the Dana Centre at the Science Museum.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained in duplicating Speaker’s Corner, but providing a venue for regular non-partisan (and partisan) political discussion, discourse and meetings would be a real symbol of the inclusiveness other administrations have reached that Westminster has failed to have. Accommodating and working to help demonstrations is an admission of some degree of democratic failure. Including and encouraging citizens to engage with parliament is a far more progressive solution. People should not come all the way to Westminster to shout at brick or stone walls, they should be let inside, and heard.
I like the idea. I have heard there are plans over the next few years to pedestrianise Parliament Square and redirect traffic elsewhere, so perhaps it’s an opportune time to push this idea?
It would be perfectly suited symbolically as it would be faced on all four sides with the main elements of government – Parliament, the Church, the Courts, and Whitehall.
And as somebody who works in Parliament yes, most of the protests are hard to notice inside these walls, beyond a general indiscernable yelling and chanting, but no words can be heard.
I agree with the comments above – if the square is remodelled so that pedestrians can get to it without dodging the traffic, then establishing a Speakers’ Corner has some merit. It is unlikely to ever get parliamentarians listening (though you’d bet some of them would get up to speak from time to time), but the value for me would be the demonstration of democracy and free speech in action, and in the most appropriate of settings. I imagine some arrangement would need to be made to suspend it when large protests gathered on the square.
On the issue of amplification, a friend of mine works in an office with a window facing the square and says the tinny shouting through megaphones drives her to distraction. Given that parliamentarians aren’t going to listen to words shouted megaphones, should staff have to put up with it in their work environment? Some level of restriction is required in my view.
As to the ‘squatting’ protest, I rather worry that Brian Haw hasn’t got an exit strategy.
Yes! Why not? Perhaps an Athenian style assembly.
We would have to provide a long raised platform for the orators and allow space for a quorum of 6000 people so that motions could be carried by a cheirŏtonĭa (a show of arms).
Of course if it were not organised properly we would hear the bedlam of democracy, a cacophony of conflicting views with shouts of derision from the assembled ‘Athenian’ citizens loud hailers and all.
Admission by ticket with automatic entry to the draw; you can have rights to the idea but I want 10% of any tourist income? If all agreed with the speaker then the following day would be declared a national holiday as a celebration of consensus in British politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Assembly
Thanks for the responses. The comments of nuttyxander actually prompt a further thought. We have organisations that can hold displays in the Upper Waiting Hall in the Palace. We have people who wish to protest outside Parliament. Why not make greater use of Westminster Hall for organisations that wish to make a case to Parliament? We use the Hall for occasional exhibitions, but otherwise it is not used for much, other than as a thoroughfare now for visitors. Once upon a time, the Hall was a thriving public space. Perhaps we could allow organisations to apply for spaces in the Hall for a fixed time in order to set up a stall and display posters (akin to the sort of displays in the Upper Waiting Hall) subject to some regulation governing layout, time and the like. Loudhailers, or indeed shouting, would not be permitted! That would bring those who wish to make a point closer to Parliament, they would be able to make their case to parliamentarians (not least those passing through on the way to the Grand Committee Room) as well as visitors to Parliament, and they would have a roof over their heads. Just a thought.
Sounds an interesting idea, my Lord; it would bring Westminster Hall back into the central role it used to play in British life several centuries ago, and would allow Members and Lords to be able to come up face to face with people without being in danger of being overwhelmed or overly heckled, as it would be on Palace grounds; as long as security is aptly handled and no damage comes to that magnificent Hall, I’d like the idea. Of course there’d be accusations of favouritism and control as they’d be obliged to select those responsible or savoury enough to enter the Hall to demonstrate…
I have to say I like both ideas, though like others think a Speakers Corner type arrangement in Parliament Square would be difficult (mainly due to the current inaccesability of the Square and the traffic noise).
But the Westminster Hall idea you have suggested is a great one. The Hall is already used for occassional Lobbies of Parliament, but as you have said most days it is pretty empty. Having a number of spaces that charities, organisations, campaigns etc could book would be a great way of engaging with Parliament. Not only would it engage with MPs but with the visitor entrance being redirected through Westminster Hall it would also be an opportunity to engage with visitors.
A speakers corner in parliment square is not a suitable . It would substantialy undermine the terrorism laws in this country. The reason protest was banned in parliment square in the first place was due to the threat from suicide bombers and terrorism. One day Brian Haw the only protester allowed in this square without permission will either go away or will die.
The system is unfair as it stands why not just open the square back up for everyone to protest about whateer they like? I think it has been prooven time and again that this area will be used for protest law or no law. The fact that it is only applied when the police think they can get away with an arrest without causing a riot is laughable. I myself stood and gawped as i watched Hamas and hezbollah supporters take part in an illegal protest a year or two ago. No action was taken by police. This law should be repealled.