Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 2 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
I do not agree with that, because the existence of the power would be known to both sides. The point about there being no surprises is not to do with the law; it is to do with contact, negotiation and talks between protestors and police, so that both sides know where the other stands. A power of that sort would not interfere with that process. In fact, it might encourage more contact, because it would not be a pre-emptive power that protestors might think would be used against them any way. It is my view that we can move forward in this area with a proportionate power to deal with any real problems that might arise, not a power that can be used pre-emptively without any real problem having yet occurred.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 506 c877-8
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Disclosure of information Contracts Demonstrations Costs Allowances Audio equipment Constitutional and administrative law Freedom of information Exemptions Northern Ireland Pay Pensions Parliament Square Protest Members Palace of Westminster Noise Public records Royal family Cabinet Office Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 30 Year Rule Review
- Legislation
- Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:06:55 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625708
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625708
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625708