---

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Yes, it will be interesting to see whether they still hold that view. The problem for me is whether the purpose is really to maintain access to the House itself, or instead to stop demonstrations that simply annoy people to some extent. Let me explain one final query, which is raised by our amendment 21. Schedule 9 includes provision for the Bill's regulations to be extended beyond Parliament itself to any building that Parliament is using—I suppose an example would be a building in which a Regional Committee is meeting off site. The regulation of demonstrations that the schedule creates would exist for a week around such a building. Why opt for a week? Why not just opt for the day on which Parliament is proposing to use the building? This approach raises a more general issue about proportionality, which is addressed in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon, because this is another example of a power being sought that is disproportionate to the problem at hand. Why is it necessary to control demonstrations for a week when Parliament or a parliamentary Committee is meeting in a building for only one day? This debate is about the untidiness of democracy. I know that it offends some people and that some people find it difficult to cope with, but that is democracy—democracy means an untidy populace who will have their say. I do not think that we should do any more to get in their way.