“We will restore rights to non-violent protest”, left Lord Lawson’s face a picture to behold!  

More importantly and much more seriously the minister failed to deal with the central question of the right of Parliamentarians to access the Houses of Parliament. This is not just about a right to work. It is more fundamental. It is a long time since Parliamentarians in Britain were prevented from attending but precisely because of the importance of that crucial occasion in the years of the civil war we have insisted that Parliamentarians must be allowed access. The budding dictator needs to be able to stop a Parliament sitting and what better method then directing a hostile crowd to block the nation’s representatives from attending? 

It is this crucial balance between the right of peaceful protest and the essential defence of the rights of representatives and legislators to take their seats and debate, vote and decide the nation’s affairs that is so important. 

I am hoping to get an emergency question down to make sure we clarify what has always been assumed to be the case. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101209-0001.htm#10120945000752

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?

They were in favour of getting rid of the provisions covering demonstrations that are contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 – provisions prompted largely to deal with Brian Haw’s demonstration – and argued that they did not need replacing by other provisions. 

They made a very persuasive case.  The right to freedom of expression should not be limited simply for reasons of inconvenience (or aesthetics) and there are already laws – especially the Public Order Act 1986 - that give police power to deal with public order offences, including causing harassment, alarm or distress.  

One particular concern of some members, though, was the problem of noise, primarily that generated by the use of loudhailers.   It may be possible for police to deal with loudhailers if the purpose of their use is to intimidate, but it was not clear to what extent this power could or would be used in practice and whether police could actually seize loudhailers to prevent them being used.

It will be interesting to see if the case we heard today carries weight with the police, Westminster City Council and the Mayor’s Office: we are taking evidence from them tomorrow.

Various attempts have been made to remove him.  When attempts to get him excluded on grounds of obstructing the highway failed, provision was included in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to limit demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament.  In the first half of 2006, over 4000 people were spoken to about their activities in the zone covered by the Act.  However, the Act proved inadequate for the purpose of removing Mr Haw, as it was held to apply to demonstrations after its passage; he was in place prior to its enactment.

Under the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, currently being considered by the Joint Committee on which Lord Tyler and I serve, Part 1 repeals the provisions of the 2005 Act covering demonstrations in the vicinty of Parliament.  The Committee has been invited to consider what, if anything, should replace the provisions.

On the one hand, members of Parliament and those who work in the Palace of Westminster have a right to go about their work – difficult when people standing outside are shouting consistently through loudhailers or when mass demonstrations make passage impossible – and on the other hand people have a right to march and demonstrate.  Demonstrations may be noisy and inconvenient, but what is far worse for Parliament than people demonstrating outside is people not demonstrating outside.  The fact that demonstrators concentrate their activities on Parliament suggests that the institution still has relevance. 

Should there be some law to regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament?  Should loudhailers, say, be banned, but otherwise people left to demonstrate?  Should there be limitations on how long people can stay in Parliament Square demonstrating?  Or should it be left to the police to utilise existing law (other than the 2005 Act) to maintain order?

The Joint Committee will shortly be taking evidence on the subject, but we have little time to reflect on it.  We are required to report before the end of July.