Director of Legal and Administrative Services
C T Wilson, LLB., CMA

Please contact: Peter Large
Telephone direct on: (020) 7641 2711
Fax No: (020) 7641 3325
Minicom: (020) 7641 5912
London Dx 2310 Victoria
Our Ref: LAS/PL/SD
Email:  plarge@westminster.gov.uk

Ms Maggie Ainsworth
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

Dear Ms Ainsworth

MANAGING PROTEST AROUND PARLIAMENT

Thank you for giving Westminster City Council an opportunity to respond to this consultation. I am grateful for the extension of time you have allowed and hope these comments may be taken into account.

Westminster City Council is planning and highway authority for Parliament Square and the surrounding area. In addition, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 conferred upon the City Council the new function of considering applications for the use of loudspeakers in the “designated area”.

From a planning perspective, there are clearly more than public order issues at stake. Given the status of the adjoining World Heritage site and the significance of the buildings adjoining the Square, including Westminster Abbey and the Palace of Westminster, given the Mayors proposals for the Square deriving from the 1997 World Squares for All Masterplan, and given the involvement of the Greater London Authority and Transport for London, Westminster is concerned that:

1. Whatever is proposed by way of legislation must be capable of effective implementation.
2. No requirement for signs or structures should be required in or around the site to give effect to the regulations.
3. The likely changes to highway layout, use and function need to be reflected in any Orders or Regulations which may be made, so consideration should be given to when any new provisions come into effect. The new scheme is aimed for completion by 2011.
4. Given the above, further discussion with the City Council, the Greater London Authority, the Police and Security Services seems essential.
5. Given the conservation area status of the square, which is also a protected historic garden, the adjoining World Heritage Site and the surrounding listed buildings and statues the importance of preserving and enhancing the character of the Square needs to be reflected in the legislation.

As highway authority, the City Council has been unsuccessful in the past in seeking to use its highway papers to prevent obstruction of the pavement area on the south side of Parliament Square. The City Council failed in its application to the High Court for an injunction against Mr Haw to restrain the obstruction of the highway. Highway legislation will not provide an adequate means of managing protest in the Square.

It is an offence to operate a loudspeaker in the designated area. However, there are exemptions, one of which applies where consent has been granted by the local authority under section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act. The City Council has been called upon to consider whether such consent should be granted, and this has given rise to numerous difficulties in practice.

In the event that these provisions are to remain in force, the procedure for granting loudspeaker consents should be reviewed. Applications are considered under the Control of Pollution Act. The Act provides little guidance on the procedures to adopt, unlike many other consent regimes enshrined in legislation, which helpfully particularise the steps to be taken before, during and after consent is given. The procedure is not a suitable one in the context of balancing the rights of peaceful protest against the rights of others, and nor is it suitable for considering requests which are in effect for “permanent” loudspeaker use.

The City Council would like to see the following clarified in the Control of Pollution Act –

• the length of consent, or at least confirmation that its duration is a matter of discretion for the local authority. (The Act clearly envisages these types of consent to be temporary in nature, yet Mr Haw has been present in the square for some years and is likely to seek consent to use his loudspeaker for some time to come)
• the consultation period of 21 days is too short
• the Act is silent as to any power to revoke
• power to for local authority to exempt charitable organisations from requiring consent. (The City Council has been required to process several applications by organisations intending to lay wreaths on Remembrance Day parades)

The City Council would propose that the police be given specific power to seize equipment, i.e. banners, placards, loudspeakers etc. used in connection with an unlawful demonstration/in breach of the conditions of consent to hold a demonstration/use a loudspeaker.


The City Council has received complaints about noise nuisance from those who work in the Houses of Parliament and has been called to attend meetings at the Palace of Westminster to discuss the on-going problems associated with the demonstrations in the square opposite. The City Council would propose that consideration be given to prohibiting the use of loudspeakers in Parliament Square and excluding the local authority’s power to grant consent .

If the use of loudspeakers in Parliament Square is to be retained, the City Council would propose that responsibility for granting such consent and enforcement of such consent should be passed to the police. This would remove the current blurring of responsibilities between the police and the City Council.

In the event that the City Council is to continue to have responsibility to grant and enforce consents under the Control of Pollution Act, we would propose that authorised officers of the City Council should have power to seize a loudspeaker used without consent or in breach of the terms and conditions imposed upon consent.

The City Council would propose that the police should consult the City Council before granting consent for a demonstration and for them to be required to have regard to any representations made.

Parliament Square is one of the most prestigious, visited and photographed squares in the world and is a place the City Council is rightly proud of. The City Council recognises all individuals’ right to peaceful protect, but the extent and manner of such protest can often have a disproportionate detrimental effect on amenity. The south side of Parliament Square is often an eyesore; a blot on the landscape. The City Council would propose that the police should be given the power to impose reasonable conditions upon consent in order to minimise the adverse effect on amenity.


Yours sincerely


Deputy Director of Legal Services