Foreign National Offenders

Lord Richard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We are now taking part in the European prisoner transfer agreement; it relies on the country being willing to take the offender back into the prison system. There is another element to consider, in relation to non-EU countries: we need to make sure that the prisoner will actually serve in that country the sentence handed down to them and that they will not be allowed out early, as has happened in some countries when prisoners have been returned.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

Will the Minister help me on one point? Could he emphasise a little more clearly than he has done that it is firmly the policy of the Government to re-enter—that they now wish to go back into—the 44 matters that they opted out of from the 144 on the original list for opting out? Things like the Schengen information exchange and the European arrest warrant are fundamental to the operation of any sensible system as far as deporting foreign criminals is concerned.

[Lord Bates]

I hear that. The Government will make their announcements in due course. Of course, just because we are not part of the Schengen agreement in terms of the movement of people does not mean that we cannot share information. That will be helpful not only to this country but to the countries in the Schengen area.

Child Abuse

Lord Richard Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I understand what the noble Lord is saying. The terms of reference will be decided in conjunction with the chairman. Only the chairman can determine where the inquiry should go. We need to have no closed minds on this issue but we have made clear that, while it is not a statutory inquiry, it can become one if the chairman and the panel believe that that is necessary for them to continue with their work. There is no reason why the inquiry cannot make interim reports on matters considered to be essential for the Government to take action on immediately. None the less, I think I made clear in the Statement that I repeated here on Monday 7 July that the whole point is that the inquiry should be deliberative and thorough so that we make sure that the Government can deal properly with an issue that is of concern to the House and to the country as a whole.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo what people have said about the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is a great shame that she is not doing the inquiry. I have great admiration for her, which goes back a very long time, and she would have done it beautifully. However, I have some problems with the inquiry itself. The Government speak of an overarching inquiry, which I understand. The expectation seems to have arisen that this inquiry will name names—that people will be named in the inquiry and that somehow there will be an exposure of people who are supposed to have committed these dreadful crimes. The inquiry is not a court of law and cannot deal with a defendant as a defendant. It is not a police force, so it will not have the resources of the police and the Home Office to investigate these matters. How do the Government see the inquiry dealing with the issues when names are named, which, as I understand it, the Government want them to be?

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Richard Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord leaves Part 3, I wonder whether he can help me on one issue that slightly bothers me—that is, why we have to move beyond the existing law of conspiracy into this new offence. As I understand it, he is saying that if someone did something unconnected with the actual offence, such as delivering a package—if it were connected, you could charge conspiracy—then you would be able to bring him within the scope of the criminal law and charge him with this offence. Would you not still have to prove some kind of criminal intent? If the man is delivering a package and does not know that a crime is going to be committed, he has not committed the new crime any more than he is part of a conspiracy. On the other hand, if he knows that it is in pursuance of some crime, I would have thought the existing law of conspiracy would probably be enough.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is our view that it is not enough. I thank the noble Lord for raising the question. We will obviously have the chance to debate this at length in Committee but, in essence, the conspiracy charge requires a direct relationship between the organised crime activity and the individual involved in the conspiracy. The noble Lord is wise enough to know that, in the real world, there are individuals who have managed so far to distance themselves sufficiently from the conspiracy but have, none the less, been aiding serious criminal activity through their deeds.

I am sure we will have good debates on this. It is not about people who unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law in this regard. It is about those who are either knowingly Nelsonian in their view of what is going on or who deliberately choose to aid a client or some other person in this way. I hope the noble Lord will understand why this is in the Bill and why it is an important extension of the conspiracy provision which will, of course, continue to exist.

I come to Part 4, which deals with another aspect of the illegal drugs trade. Illegal drugs, especially cocaine, will be adulterated with other chemical substances to increase their volume and, therefore, the profits of drug dealers. Many drug-cutting agents—that is what they are called—including the most common, such as benzocaine, are far from harmless. Part 4 confers bespoke powers on the National Crime Agency, the Border Force and the police to seize and detain suspected cutting agents. They will then be able to make an application to the court for the seized substances to be forfeited and destroyed. By tackling the supply of drug-cutting agents we can reduce the availability of illegal drugs on our streets, which will, in turn, drive up the street price and help to reduce drug use as part of the Government’s wider drug strategy.

Part 5 takes us into the different, but no less important, territory of child protection. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is not in her place today, has been among those who have argued that the offence of child cruelty lacks the necessary clarity when it comes to tackling psychological harm to children. I would be the first to admit that a law which, in its current form, was drafted more than 80 years ago uses rather archaic language in places. None the less—this view is shared by the Crown Prosecution Service—the offence in Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 remains fit for purpose. However, we accept that it would benefit from making explicit that the offence deals with both physical and psychological harm, and Clause 62 amends Section 1 of the 1933 Act to this end.

This part also makes it an offence to possess an item providing advice or guidance about abusing children sexually. It beggars belief that such so-called paedophile manuals are circulating on the internet. However, sadly and worryingly, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command of the National Crime Agency—CEOP—has uncovered a number of such documents. The new possession offence provided for in Clause 63 will carry a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

The third child protection issue dealt with in Part 5 is a strengthening of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and its Scottish equivalent. I know that this is an issue in which a number of noble Lords take an interest. Clearly, the challenges presented by the widespread practice of FGM cannot be dealt with by legislation alone. After all, FGM has already been an offence in this country for nearly 30 years. However, it is important that we change the law where necessary. The CPS has identified cases that it was unable to pursue because the extraterritorial jurisdiction provided for under the 2003 Act was limited to UK nationals and non-UK nationals permanently resident in this country. Clause 64 extends this to cover habitual residents. We are looking at other changes in the law in this area, which we hope will help to secure more prosecutions, including whether the victims of FGM should be afforded the protection of anonymity during the criminal process in the same way as rape victims.

Clause 65 deals with another aspect of extraterritorial jurisdiction, in this case in respect of certain offences under the Terrorism Act 2006. My noble friend Lord Marlesford, who I am delighted is in his place, is among those who have rightly highlighted the threat posed to the United Kingdom by “foreign fighters” returning from the conflict in Syria. The amendments made to the Terrorism Act 2006 will enable persons who, while overseas, have undertaken preparations for terrorist acts or who have trained for terrorism more generally, to be prosecuted on their return to the UK. While our priority remains to dissuade people from travelling to Syria or other areas of conflict in the first place, we must ensure that the legislation we have in place to tackle individuals engaging in terrorism overseas is as robust as it can be.

We all share the anguish over the humanitarian disaster that has befallen Syria but there are perhaps better ways to help the people there than by travelling to the region; for example, by donating to registered aid charities. Even those travelling for well intentioned humanitarian reasons are exposing themselves to serious risks, including being targeted by terrorist groups. Those who engage in terrorism or acts preparatory to terrorism while abroad should be in no doubt about the action we are prepared to take to protect the public, should they return to this jurisdiction.

Finally, Clause 66 ensures that two draft EU Council decisions relating to serious crime are subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and approval before UK Ministers can vote for them in Brussels. The first of these draft decisions relates to the continuation of a funding programme to protect the euro from counterfeiting. The second draft decision will repeal a now-expired programme to fund measures to protect critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks.

Under this Government we have, by establishing the National Crime Agency and revitalising the regional organised crime units, put in place the necessary capacity and capabilities to tackle serious and organised crime. However, as those who engage in organised crime evolve and adapt to the countermeasures we take, we in turn must adapt and respond. The Bill will ensure that the NCA and other law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to continue effectively and relentlessly to pursue and disrupt those who engage in serious and organised crime. I commend the Bill to the House and I beg to move.

Passport Office

Lord Richard Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As noble Lords will know, we have in fact been seeking to reduce the cost of passports. The Passport Office works on the basis of trying to offer value for money to customers—for example, the adult overseas passport has been reduced by £45 this April as a result of the measures that we have taken.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to come back to the question of the website, but I think it is very important as far as ordinary people are concerned. Is it proposed to leave the period of three weeks as it is, as expressed on the website, or is the website now going to be amended to say that we hope that the period will be three weeks but it may be four and in fact we are not absolutely certain? It is very important that this aspect is clarified.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will take the noble Lord’s advice. I am not an expert on how to handle a website, but I see that it is very important that the public are properly informed about the time taken. As I say, that three-week deadline is accurate for the vast majority of long and complex cases. However, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, and it would be wise to say to people, “Get your application in in good time”. That would avoid a great deal of anxiety on all parts.

Police: Private Prosecutions

Lord Richard Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend is right about this. The public expect the highest level of professionalism and integrity from the police. Next month will be the first anniversary of the Home Secretary’s Statement to Parliament on the College of Policing, which I repeated here. The College of Policing is setting out those measures to ensure that the integrity of the police force we share is of the highest standard. This year will see the publication for the first time of a code of ethics by the college.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has told the House that the Government are taking this issue seriously and will consider it seriously. Can he tell us how long we will have to wait to see the results of that consideration?

EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Lord Richard Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I will deal with a small point to start off with. As I understand it, no impact assessment will now be coming until the final list of measures to which the Government are proposing to opt in is determined, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will notice from the document that we got this afternoon—at long last, the government response to the Select Committee report.

I find it difficult to see the reasons for this debate. I am not absolutely certain why it is being held, or held in this way, or of the procedures through which we are being put. The Government have produced a procedural mess into which, unless we are very careful, they, the country and these issues will sink. It may be worth while briefly going back to the origins of this whole affair.

The Government having declared that they were minded to exercise the opt-out, the matter was then inevitably transferred to your Lordships’ Select Committee for scrutiny. The committee decided that, since the matter was so unusual, the scrutiny should be conducted by a joint committee consisting of Sub-Committee E and Sub-Committee F sitting together. This was a precedent but it seems to have worked extremely well. As a former member of Sub-Committee F, I express my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Bowness, for the way in which they jointly chaired that committee.

I will not bore the House tonight with details of how the committee proceeded. Suffice it to say that we took a great deal of evidence and heard from a large number of witnesses, including the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. Rarely—I think never before—have I participated in a process in which the evidence was so overwhelmingly in one direction. It was really quite extraordinary. Members of the committee were actually looking hard for evidence on the other side of the argument, but evidence was there none.

I will quote two paragraphs from the report. We said:

“Beyond concerns about the EAW, which we have already discussed in Chapter 6, very few of our witnesses drew our attention to any specific measures that they considered to be detrimental to the interests of the UK”.

The committee’s conclusions were clear and quite firm:

“We therefore consider that there are compelling reasons of national interest for the United Kingdom to remain full participants in most of the measures and agencies referred to in this Chapter. As to the remainder we have identified no persuasive reason for the United Kingdom to withdraw from them”.

We have waited until today to get the Government’s response to that report. On the very day of this debate, indeed, at last we got it. That is very interesting and, indeed, rather revealing.

In the mean time, however, the Government acted by tabling a Motion in the House of Commons last week, and in your Lordships’ House today, determining that the opt-out should be exercised. It is not a question of discretion. It determines that the opt-out should be exercised, and that is expressly the opinion of this House if it passes the Motion. At the same time, the Government accepted an amendment in the other place that the process of opting back in should be delayed until after three Select Committees of the House of Commons had reported on the measures in respect of which we should exercise the opt-back-in.

The reason for this extraordinary mix-up seems to have been the inability of the Government to produce Explanatory Memoranda in the timescale that they had themselves specified. They had told us that we would get them in February of this year. Had they produced them in Feburary, those Select Committees in the other place could have been engaged in their scrutinising role for some months past. As it is, they will have to do it by October.

The main difficulty that arises from all this relates to the credibility of the Government’s commitment to opt back in to the 35 measures that they have set out. The Lord Chancellor, in his closing speech in another place, said:

“The Government have taken a decision in principle that it will be in the interests of the UK to join a number of measures that involve international co-operation in fighting serious … crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/13; col. 851.]

That statement understandably provoked a reaction from Mr Cash, who immediately asked whether the Government could take the view that it was not appropriate to opt in if the evidence taken by the three committees led to the conclusion that that was not in the interests of the United Kingdom.

That is precisely the point on which some of us on this side of the argument need reassurance. Can I take it—and I hope that the Minister will deal with this directly in his summing up—that the Government’s firm intention is that they wish to opt back in to the 35 measures set out in the Command Paper and that they consider those to be in the national interest?

This is really a political argument and not a legal one. There are obvious risks in the policy that the Government are pursuing. There is no guarantee that the Commission and member states will be prepared to give Britain an easy route back in. There are bound to be some gaps and delays.

If one looks at the 35, I do not think that one can objectively doubt that they are in the national interest. Indeed, if one looks at the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report, it is clear that they are quite warm towards these measures; I am conscious of time and will not go into the details on that. The tone of the Government’s response is favourable to the opt-back-in of the 35 measures, but this brings us to the real difficulty. If we pass this resolution, that, coupled with the Commons, will give the Government parliamentary authority to exercise the opt-out. There is no such parliamentary authority for the Government to exercise the 35 opt-ins, and there is certainly no obligation—only a declaration of intent. Let us assume that we opt out and then nothing happens. What are the consequences of that? The result is that the 35 measures will lapse. Moreover, the procedure now being used by the Government in the other place—namely, giving Select Committees opportunities to look at this matter in the way that they are—is itself a recipe for delay and continued friction.

The truth is that this procedure is politically disingenuous. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to smoke and mirrors. There is a lot of smoke, and there are certainly one or two mirrors around the Government’s position on this. The noble Lord shakes his head. I do not agree with him. The Government position is to pretend that they are getting rid of significant things in the hope that nobody will notice that what they are doing is not getting rid of significant things but getting rid of things which are defunct, unimportant or irrelevant. Then they will opt back in, so it is said—if they can get the Commission and other bodies to agree—to things which are important and relevant.

The safe way to do this would have been not to opt out in the first place. There is absolutely no reason why we should have taken that risk. Alternatively, if we did opt out, the other way of doing it would be to do the two things together, at least as far as Parliament is concerned. Why could we not have had a vote on a Motion approving both the opt-out and the list of measures to which the Government wish to opt back in? We do not have that. It is not in this Motion. It was certainly not in the Motion that was debated in the House of Commons last week. If that had happened, it would have been neater, crisper and more comprehensive. As it is, we should not vote to approve one side of the equation without being in a position also to approve the other side. That is by far the safer way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I must declare an interest, as a member of EU Sub-Committee E, one of the two sub-committees that produced the report that we have been discussing this evening. I also remind the House that I am a trustee of Fair Trials International, which has a particular interest in the operation of the European arrest warrant. Given the lengthy speakers list and the short time available to us, I will cut to the chase.

For me and my noble friend on the Front Bench, judging by some of his opening remarks, one of the fundamental problems that the Government faced in addressing this opt-out decision is the nature of the wording of the opt-out negotiated under Protocol 36 by the last Government. This is its all-in or all-out nature. There is no picking and choosing; no matter how futile, irrelevant or unnecessary a particular measure may be, the totality has to be accepted or rejected.

I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that on reflection he would not divide the House on his amendment. That would have seemed an unwise course of action. First, it would have treated the issue as black and white. As I said, while that construction is placed on us by the wording of Protocol 36, within the areas covered by the protocol the pluses and minuses of the policy issues are much more nuanced. Secondly, while the Government should have responded earlier to the joint sub-committees’ report—I entirely share the view of other noble Lords that producing the response at noon today is really not good enough—nevertheless Members of the House not on those sub-committees should have the opportunity to express their views this evening. That answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the rationale for this debate. It will no doubt help to inform the Government’s thinking. Finally, as I understand it, this is only the first time round the track, because we will come back for a further debate and discussion as the Government’s thinking and approach to each individual opt-in or opt-out decision become clear.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, since the noble Lord quoted me, I thank him for giving way. He says that the purpose of this debate is to help to inform the Government’s views. Why, in that case, is this not a take-note Motion? Why is it framed in the express terms of the opt-out?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

If the noble Lord reads the Motion before the House, he will see exactly what it is. It gives Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly those who have not participated in the sub-committees’ deliberations, a chance to express their views. That is entirely appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Richard]

I am much obliged to the Minister. He says that this vote tonight is necessary so that negotiations can begin. Why is it that the House of Commons was not asked to endorse the Government’s view that the 35 measures were in the national interest, whereas in this House we have been asked to endorse that? Why is there that difference between the Motions that have been put to the two Houses?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Noble Lords conduct their own business in this House and I think that the Motions—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will give way to the noble Lord, but I want to make this point absolutely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is plucking at straws. Let us get to the substance of this. There is a Motion before the House this evening that gives Members of the House an opportunity to express an opinion on both the opt-out and the rejoining of 35 measures. That is quite clear and it was the purpose of tabling this Motion. It is up to noble Lords to decide how they react to it, but there is nothing devious or obscure in the way in which the Motion has been derived.

[Lord Richard]

With great respect, I am not clutching at any straws at all. Having been drawn into a conversation with the noble Lord, I think that I am entitled to put this point to him. It is a question not of clutching at straws but of asking a very simple question of the Government. Why have they asked this House to endorse their proposals when they did not ask the House of Commons to endorse them? Why is there a difference between the Motions put to the two Houses?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have given the noble Lord the answer.

St Paul’s Cathedral

Lord Richard Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I note what my noble friend has to say, but this is on private land and therefore it is a matter for the owners of that land to deal with it. We do not have the powers to deal with it at the moment, but as I said in response to the original Question from my noble friend, obviously if we continue to have problems of this sort, this is something we will have to consider.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, the noble Lord in an earlier answer referred to Parliament Square, on which he said that action would be taken shortly. We all know what “shortly” means: it can mean either “some time in the future, perhaps, when we get round to it”, or “we are on the verge of taking action now, and it will happen fairly soon”. Is it the first or the second?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, when a Minister, has used the word “shortly” before now. We all do use it from time to time. The noble Lord will also be aware that we have given ourselves powers in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Those powers need to be brought into effect. I cannot confirm precisely when, and that is why I used the word “shortly”, which the noble Lord will be familiar with.

Police Federation

Lord Richard Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, we have yet to receive from any police force its Bill in respect of the riots. We have had some indication in one or two forces—for example, I think that some evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee earlier in the week would have indicated the nature of the bill—but we cannot at this stage give an open assurance that every bill as presented will be paid. As we understand it, some of these bills are likely to contain quite significant sums relating to opportunity costs. I think that the House will understand that, when I stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we will honour every bill as presented, we will honour our pledge but that we will want to examine those bills very carefully.

[Lord Richard]

The Minister failed to answer the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Morris, so perhaps I could pose it again. Is it true that the Police Federation was not consulted about the effect on frontline policing of the proposed cuts?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, the nature of those proposals are such that, in order to give a definitive answer to the noble Lord, I will have to write to him. I will want to take careful advice as to what opportunities were given for discussion or written consultation. The noble Lord is shaking his head. I think that he would prefer a definitive answer in writing than for me to wing something at the Dispatch Box.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Richard Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

Perhaps I may be of assistance to the House. At the moment, no other Motion is before the House and the noble Lord’s amendment has been called. Normal procedure would be for him to move his amendment.

[Lord Richard]

Perhaps the Leader of the House could help me. From the muttering around the House, it would seem that there is a feeling that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should not move his amendment in view of the clear indications given by the clerks. However, I am not clear about what the procedure should be now. Should there be a Motion before the House as to whether the amendment should be moved, on which, if necessary, the House can divide? How does it work? I never came across this particular type of issue when I was Leader of the Opposition or Leader of the House, or since. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could enlighten me.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and indeed to the Lord Speaker.

It is true that there is a lacuna in the procedure and when I discovered this about half an hour ago I suggested that the Procedure Committee should look at it. In the normal course of events, there is an underlying assumption in the Companion that the mover of the manuscript amendment would feel so moved as to not move the amendment. However, as I said earlier, under the terms of self-regulation the amendment is ultimately in the hands of the House. There is no Motion before the House. There is the possibility of a closure Motion or indeed the Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard. Both are quite heavy-handed. I dare say that if the noble Lord insisted on moving his amendment the House would take a pretty dim view of it, and if he tried to convince the House of the merits of his case I suspect he would not succeed.

Parliament Square (Management) Bill [HL]

Lord Richard Excerpts

Friday 1st July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I am coming to that. My background is that of a demonstrator. I demonstrated in Grosvenor Square against the American war in Vietnam, I helped students occupy the LSE and I did various other things.

[Lord Richard]

My noble friend demonstrated in Grosvenor Square, he did not sleep in it. He is making a link between demonstrating and sleeping somewhere in a tent. That seems somewhat tenuous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I do see that as a distinction, but perhaps I may continue my remarks. The focus of what we are trying to do in the government Bill is to get a sense of balance and proportionality. That is why, having moved from the legislation that has been on the statute book for some time to enhancing the powers of seizure, we are very much more focused on encampment and all that goes with overnight encampment than on the individual’s right to protest. The balance we have tried to strike is to preserve the individual’s right to protest but deal with what has been a very difficult issue for all Governments—the encampment and the materials associated with it not just on the green of Parliament Square Garden but on the paving areas around it. I will come on to displacement because I realise that that is a particular problem.

Parliament Square Garden is a World Heritage Site surrounded by important historic buildings, such as Westminster Abbey. Its location opposite the Houses of Parliament also makes it a focus for protests, and rightly so. But we need to remember, as noble Lords have already said in contributions today, that others come to Parliament Square for a number of reasons. My noble friend Lord Sharkey touched on this. Some come as tourists to see the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey; others, as a cultural experience by visiting a World Heritage Site; or as individuals interested in the democratic process by seeing where Parliament is situated.

We all witnessed the occupation of Parliament Square Garden by the democracy village encampment last summer which prevented members of the public and visitors using and enjoying the garden. Noble Lords have also had experience of trying to access that part of the square themselves and seeing the monopoly that those particular protesters had on that piece of land. The courts have said that Parliament Square Garden is not a suitable area to be used for any sort of encampment. More recently the High Court has also said:

“Parliament Square Gardens is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character of Parliament Square Garden and it is also inconsistent with proper management of the area as a whole … members of the public have been and would be precluded from using the area occupied; the area in question is the area nearest to an important entrance to the Houses of Parliament”.

The Government and I think that we in this House and the other place would agree with the court’s findings.

The democracy village encampment caused significant damage to the garden, which has required considerable remedial works by the Greater London Authority, during which time nobody could enjoy this unique space. Others have drawn attention to the statues in the garden, which are important to our nation’s history, which the visitor to London would quite naturally wish to access, photograph and take a closer look at. The Government are clear that the same applies to the ongoing encampment on the footways adjoining Parliament Square Garden. It is not acceptable that a few individuals should trump the wider public enjoyment of this unique location, deter people from visiting the area and even deter others from protesting on the footway.

As noble Lords will know, there has been quite a monopoly on this area by key groups who have not only caused the problems I have just described to the public visiting the square, but have monopolised it in terms of other representative groups who also want the opportunity to protest peacefully and make their views known on a wide number of issues in the vicinity of Parliament. That is something which the Government’s Bill, which is before the House at the moment, does not seek to prohibit. The Government have brought forward measures to have a small controlled area in which certain activities—namely, erecting tents and the unauthorised use of loudhailers—are prohibited. We believe that this is a proportionate and targeted response, which is the minimum necessary to deal with the particular misuse of tents and structures on Parliament Square Garden and the footways.

Our approach is aimed at targeting specific problems on a small area of Parliament Square and empowering local authorities to take action by giving them the ability to enforce relevant by-laws more effectively. We have not tried to address the misuse of public space by changing the laws governing the right to protest. We think the same framework governing protest in the rest of the country should also govern protest around Parliament. People have the right to protest, but it is the encampment aspect of it that we have sought to address in the Government’s legislation. We have instead addressed the behaviours that we consider are unacceptable around Parliament and have applied the law to everyone, not picking out those exercising rights to protest. So if people want to protest for days, weeks and months, they can, which answers a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. What they cannot do is erect tents or construct permanent or semi-permanent encampments to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, described it as “living on site”, and that is what we have sought to address.

I appreciate my noble friend’s intention in bringing this Bill to Parliament—

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Can she help me a little with the point raised by her noble friend Lord Cormack? I thought he made a powerful case when he said that there is not much point in dealing only with Parliament Square because everything is going to transfer over to College Green, or the green where the statue of George V stands, or indeed any other area within the immediate environs of Parliament. Have the Government given this any consideration?

[Baroness Browning]

I was going to come on to that point, but I am happy to deal with it now, and to respond to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. We have enhanced the powers of seizure in the by-laws for local authorities to deal with displacement activity around the square, but I have to tell noble Lords that we are still having discussions with lawyers on the consideration of particular areas around the House. Those are ongoing and I do not rule out the possibility of bringing forward further measures before the Bill completes its passage through this House. I do not think I can give more detail at the moment, but it certainly is a matter under consideration and the talks are ongoing.

The Government wholly agree that it is necessary for all enforcement agencies to work closely together if Parliament Square is going to be managed in a way that promotes its enjoyment and use by all. The Government are working with the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police on effective enforcement protocols. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred to a letter he has received from a councillor and he has kindly made it available to me. I had not had sight of it before he raised it. I hope that he will allow me to respond specifically to it, but I am aware that Westminster City Council has been involved in discussions about the proposed changes to the Government’s Bill because clearly the council is key, along with other enforcement strategies, to ensuring that when the new laws are on the statute book, it will be able to enforce them and thus resolve the problems I have identified.