---

Human Rights

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I said earlier that the series of petty incidents have a cumulative effect, and that is an example. The Committee also recommended that if there is a lack of trust between the police and protesters, there might be a role for independent mediators to facilitate communication. HMIC disagreed, arguing that that could reduce the incentive for police to communicate with protesters and other parties affected by protests, but I am not convinced of that. Everyone agrees with the underpinning starting point and goal of no surprises—for the police, the protesters and the targets of the protest. But how can that be achieved if the police and protesters lack sufficient mutual trust to communicate effectively, or even at all? In Northern Ireland, where I understand the concept of no surprises first originated, a long, painstaking, but ultimately successful process to build trust and develop the no-surprises approach began with the use of intermediaries. There is also a lack of a process for dealing with genuine disagreements—about timing or route, for example. The option of going to court to challenge a police decision is a non-option; it is impractical, due to legal costs and too long a timescale. A mediator from, say, HMIC could help to resolve such problems. I urge the Minister to take another look at that recommendation. We have heard about the Spanish system, which is an effective and quick way of resolving such disputes. Several witnesses suggested that a disproportionate police response to protests was becoming more common, in terms of police numbers, uniform and equipment. The Campaign Against Arms Trade, for example, described "significant numbers" of police attending small vigils. It stated:""Most of the police sit in vans, not doing anything. Their presence in such numbers is…unnerving for protesters, as well as tying up a large amount of police time and resources."" The impact of officers fully kitted out in riot gear like "Star Wars" storm troopers inevitably highlights tension. It inevitably makes officers feel more aggressive and powerful, intimidates peaceful protesters, and, in itself, can lead to violence that might not otherwise occur. We all saw the images from the G20 of protesters, hands in the air, chanting, "This is not a riot," confronted by phalanxes of officers in full riot gear who adopted an aggressive stance—indeed, some hit protesters with the edges of their shields. None of that does anything for the image of our police service. Obviously, we do not wish to see officers or protesters hurt, but the current methods may perversely lead to that outcome, as violence might be provoked rather than dampened down. There is a lot to be learned from Northern Ireland, where senior officers led by example in policing at the front in ordinary uniform. They proved that it could be done by taking a well-considered risk in trying to avoid confrontation. I particularly commend Assistant Chief Constable Duncan McCausland of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whom we found very impressive.