My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcement on the repeal of those SOCPA clauses clamping down on protests around Parliament. However, I should like to add that it is slightly unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to claim that the Conservative Benches fought vigorously against them. That tribute has to go to the activists out there with their lone demonstrations—particularly on Wednesdays—showing that the legislation was unreasonable, unworkable and unworthy of this country.
Before I get to my main question, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the people who since 2005 have been given a criminal record for a crime as minor as reading out in front of the Cenotaph the names of those who have lost their lives. What about those whose prosecutions are pending? I come to my main question to the Minister. Are there any examples pre-2005 of access to Parliament being seriously disrupted that the sessional orders did not cope with? It is our understanding that the legislation was introduced to deal with issues of terrorism and not with access to Parliament, the argument which has subsequently been developed.
Constitution
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 March 2008.
It occurred during Ministerial statement on Constitution.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c472 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:55:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457649
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457649
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457649