HL Deb 13 June 2000 vol 613 cc1519-21

3.6 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the demonstrations that took place outside Parliament yesterday afternoon. I have received a number of representations from Members on all sides of the House, drawing attention to the difficulties which many of your Lordships experienced in reaching the House yesterday afternoon. Many noble Lords who were anxious to be here for an important vote on the Financial Services and Markets Bill found that their progress was impeded on Westminster Bridge, in Whitehall and all around Parliament by a large crowd of demonstrators.

As noble Lords will be aware, this House passes an order at the start of each Session that the Commissioner of Police shall ensure that passage through the streets leading to this House is kept clear and open for the duration of the Parliament. Clearly, that was not done yesterday afternoon.

I take this matter extremely seriously. It is unacceptable for Members of this House to be kept from an important vote by disturbances in the streets. I understand that Black Rod is already pursuing with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police the question of the earlier disturbance which, as your Lordships will remember, took place in Whitehall on 22nd May. Black Rod has also written to the head of security in the Palace of Westminster in relation to yesterday's incident. Both lines of inquiry will be vigorously pursued.

I take the view that yesterday's disturbance is precisely the kind of occurrence which a sessional order is designed to prevent. I assure your Lordships that I shall take a close personal interest in ensuring that adequate answers are received on this occasion.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her statement. I congratulate her on taking a personal interest in developments. As she correctly pointed out, this is the second time in a month that this has happened. We have a personal interest: yesterday afternoon we might well have won the Division had the streets not been blocked.

One disappointing side of the noble Baroness's statement was that it did not contain concrete proposals or positive suggestions. I wonder whether the noble Baroness might give us some idea of what she has in mind.

Has the noble Baroness given any thought to the response that might be made by the Commissioner of Police? Can she tell the House that, were the Commissioner to ask for extra resources to carry out his duties, the Government would not seek to block any such proposal? Would that be a decision for this House—a sovereign House of Parliament—or would it be one for the Treasury?

Having raised this matter, we on this side of the House, indeed the whole House, will wish to hear regular progress reports. In that light, can the Minister say anything further about the events that took place on 22nd May?

Can we also be clear that nothing should be done to block the entirely legitimate rights of individuals to demonstrate and to lobby their representatives in Parliament? The difference between 22nd May and yesterday was that the event on 22nd May involved the problem affecting the people of Ethiopia. If there are, sadly, any future disturbances I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will come to the House to make a Statement to explain the circumstances.

Finally, can the noble Baroness explain why her Government have so recently passed control of Parliament Square to Ken Livingstone?

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for making the Statement so promptly today. If Black Rod wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police three weeks ago, it is a little disturbing that we have not yet heard the outcome of his inquiry. I am somewhat confused—I acknowledge that the fault may be mine—that on this occasion Black Rod wrote to the head of security in the Palace of Westminster. What is the line of authority in these matters and who should be speaking to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and receiving an early reply? Can we have confirmation when the reply on both events is available? I understand that the noble Baroness has in mind then to make a Statement to the House which will satisfactorily tie up the matter.

No one argues about the right to demonstrate. What is at issue is the right of Parliament to proceed with its work unimpeded.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I agree with the final sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. That is entirely the point. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised some questions which were designed to elicit information and others to make separate points.

On questions of information, I shall be happy to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the precise terms of correspondence between Black Rod and the various people involved in the line of authority. As I said in the Statement—perhaps I misspoke; the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers was not clear—I understand that communications between Black Rod and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police are made through the head of security in the Palace of Westminster. It is indeed right that the earlier query has not been substantively reported on or replied to. I shall ensure that that is followed up.