1-20 of 29 results for subject:Protest
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.245 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Protest
- We searched for
- subject_t:Protest OR subject_t:"Social protest" OR subject_ses:92644
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of trends in the level of anti-abortion activity aimed at women and staff attending abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureaux over the last four years; and if she will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of trends in the level of anti-abortion activity aimed at women and staff attending abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureaux over the last four years; and if she will make a statement.
The Home Office is aware of a number of recent protests outside some abortion clinics which we take extremely seriously. This country has a proud history of allowing free speech but the right to peaceful protest does not extend to
harassment or threatening behaviour. The law currently provides protection against such acts.
The police have a range of powers to deal with protests outside clinics. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, makes it an offence to display threatening, or abusive words or images that, within the sight of someone, is
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on the location, duration or numbers attending a public assembly. This can be applied where the police
believe that the assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the purpose by the assembly organisers is to intimidate others to compel them not
to do an act that they have a right to do.
The police have dispersal powers (in public places) under sections 34 and 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to remove or reduce the likelihood of members of the public being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or
to prevent local crime or disorder.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 includes criminal offences that protect individuals, who are conducting lawful activities, from harassment by protestors.
The policing of protests and the use of powers are an operational matter for the police.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to enforce a designated area around abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureaux within which anti-abortion activity cannot take place; and if she will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to enforce a designated area around abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureaux within which anti-abortion activity cannot take place; and if she will make a statement.
The Home Office is aware of a number of recent protests outside some abortion clinics which we take extremely seriously. This country has a proud history of allowing free speech but the right to peaceful protest does not extend to
harassment or threatening behaviour. The law currently provides protection against such acts.
The police have a range of powers to deal with protests outside clinics. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, makes it an offence to display threatening, or abusive words or images that, within the sight of someone, is
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows the police to place conditions on the location, duration or numbers attending a public assembly. This can be applied where the police
believe that the assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the purpose by the assembly organisers is to intimidate others to compel them not
to do an act that they have a right to do.
The police have dispersal powers (in public places) under sections 34 and 35 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to remove or reduce the likelihood of members of the public being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or
to prevent local crime or disorder.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 includes criminal offences that protect individuals, who are conducting lawful activities, from harassment by protestors.
The policing of protests and the use of powers are an operational matter for the police.
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just make it perfectly clear that the Hertfordshire constabulary has been simply wonderful in its dealings with me? I wholly accept the first part of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but...
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just make it perfectly clear that the Hertfordshire constabulary has been simply wonderful in its dealings with me? I wholly accept the first part of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Nigeria concerning a reported military attack on pro-Palestinian protesters at the annual Al Quds Day rally.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Nigeria concerning a reported military attack on pro-Palestinian protesters at the annual Al Quds Day rally.
We are aware that a number of civilian deaths occurred during the annual ‘Quds Day’ rally in Zaria, Kaduna State on 25 July and understand that the Nigerian police have opened an investigation. Officials at our High Commission in Abuja are seeking more details.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 7 July (WA 8), why they have not sought evidence from NATO regarding claims that Russia is funding non-governmental organisations opposed to fracking in the United Kingdom; and whether they will now do so.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 7 July (WA 8), why they have not sought evidence from NATO regarding claims that Russia is funding non-governmental organisations opposed to fracking in the United Kingdom; and whether they will now do so.
I would like to clarify for the noble Lord, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Secretary General has not claimed to possess evidence that Russia is funding non-governmental organisations opposed to fracking in the UK or elsewhere.
The Secretary General is reported to have said during a speech at Chatham House that it was his belief, following discussions with Allies, that “Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engages actively with so-called non-governmental organisations, environmental organisations working against shale gas – obviously to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas. That is my interpretation.”
The UK works closely with NATO and Allies to refute misinformation disseminated by Russia.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on NATO–Russian relations of the comments attributed to Anders Fogh Rasmussen in The Guardian about Russian involvement in anti-fracking protests; and whether they have asked him to produce evidence that Russia is funding British non-governmental organisations opposed...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on NATO–Russian relations of the comments attributed to Anders Fogh Rasmussen in The Guardian about Russian involvement in anti-fracking protests; and whether they have asked him to produce evidence that Russia is funding British non-governmental organisations opposed...
We have made no assessment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Secretary General’s reported comments on Russian funding of British non-governmental organisations and anti-fracking protests. We have not requested evidence from NATO to substantiate these claims.
That this House congratulates Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC) and ILF Fight Back and Occupy London for their protest on 28 June 2014 occupying the grounds of Westminster Abbey and calling on the Government to halt its plans to abolish the Independent Living Fund in view of the impact this would have in undermining the potential of disabled people living independent and full lives within the community; regrets the refusal of the Dean of Westminster Abbey to even talk to the disabled protesters; but lends its support to DPAC and ILF Fightback's ongoing campaign to save the Independent Living Fund.
That this House congratulates Disabled People Against the Cuts (DPAC) and ILF Fight Back and Occupy London for their protest on 28 June 2014 occupying the grounds of Westminster Abbey and calling on the Government to halt its plans to abolish the Independent Living Fund in view of the impact...
Moved by
Lord Deben
93R: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of amplified noise equipment in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 142 there is inserted—
“142A Other controlled areas in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1)...
Moved by
Lord Deben
93R: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of amplified noise equipment in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 142 there is inserted—
“142A Other controlled areas in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1)...
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether plans have been developed by police forces in the south of England to recruit special investigations managers to prepare court cases against protestors at sites planned for shale gas fracking investigations.[HL4284]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether plans have been developed by police forces in the south of England to recruit special investigations managers to prepare court cases against protestors at sites planned for shale gas fracking investigations.[HL4284]
It is matter for individual police forces to determine how best to manage their case preparation processes and this information is not held by the Home Office.
My Lords, we have engaged constructively with lawyers over a period of many months and we continue to do so. However, the fact remains that we have one of the most expensive
legal aid systems in the world and in the current economic climate this is not sustainable for taxpayers, who fund it. We have to find efficiencies to ensure that legal aid is sustained and available for those most in need of a lawyer.
My Lords, we have engaged constructively with lawyers over a period of many months and we continue to do so. However, the fact remains that we have one of the most expensive
legal aid systems in the world and in the current economic climate this is not sustainable for taxpayers, who fund it. We have to find efficiencies to ensure that legal aid is sustained and available for those most in need of a lawyer.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the protests by lawyers on 6 January concerning further cuts to legal aid.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the protests by lawyers on 6 January concerning further cuts to legal aid.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the protests by lawyers on 6 January concerning further cuts to legal aid.
My Lords, we have engaged constructively with lawyers over a period of many months and we continue to do so. However, the fact remains that we have one of the most expensive
legal aid systems in the world and in the current economic climate this is not sustainable for taxpayers, who fund it. We have to find efficiencies to ensure that legal aid is sustained and available for those most in need of a lawyer.
I thank the Minister for that uninformative Answer. Does he recognise that the Justice Alliance, representing a large number of people and organisations and many senior judges, has expressed its concern about these proposals? Is it not the case that these cuts will lead to more, not less, expenditure, that cases will be bound to last much longer when people are unrepresented, that there will be a reduction in standards and that there will be more miscarriages of justice and an inevitable increase in guilty pleas? Is not the Minister concerned about all those things, as expressed by reputable organisations?
I thank the Minister for that uninformative Answer. Does he recognise that the Justice Alliance, representing a large number of people and organisations and many senior judges, has expressed its concern about these proposals? Is it not the case that these cuts will lead to more, not less, expenditure, that cases will be bound to last much longer when people are unrepresented, that there will be a reduction in standards and that there will be more miscarriages of justice and an inevitable increase in guilty pleas? Is not the Minister concerned about all those things, as expressed by reputable organisations?
My Lords, the Government have undertaken to listen, consult and work with the profession, and we continue to do so. However, in the current economic climate and indeed with the crisis that we inherited, we needed to look across the board to ensure that efficiencies could be had. Even with the efficiencies that we will be making from this series of cuts, £1.5 billion will continue to be spent on legal aid—a figure that is among the highest in the world.
My Lords, the Government have undertaken to listen, consult and work with the profession, and we continue to do so. However, in the current economic climate and indeed with the crisis that we inherited, we needed to look across the board to ensure that efficiencies could be had. Even with the efficiencies that we will be making from this series of cuts, £1.5 billion will continue to be spent on legal aid—a figure that is among the highest in the world.
My Lords, the Government have undertaken to listen, consult and work with the profession, and we continue to do so. However, in the current economic climate and indeed with the crisis that we inherited, we needed to look across the board to ensure that efficiencies could be had. Even with the efficiencies that we will be making from this series of cuts, £1.5 billion will continue to be spent on legal aid—a figure that is among the highest in the world.
I thank the Minister for that uninformative Answer. Does he recognise that the Justice Alliance, representing a large number of people and organisations and many senior judges, has expressed its concern about these proposals? Is it not the case that these cuts will lead to more, not less, expenditure, that cases will be bound to last much longer when people are unrepresented, that there will be a reduction in standards and that there will be more miscarriages of justice and an inevitable increase in guilty pleas? Is not the Minister concerned about all those things, as expressed by reputable organisations?
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the figures that the Government have been giving for the incomes of members of the criminal Bar refer to turnover before VAT, tax and chambers expenses are taken off, and that therefore these figures are utterly misleading?
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the figures that the Government have been giving for the incomes of members of the criminal Bar refer to turnover before VAT, tax and chambers expenses are taken off, and that therefore these figures are utterly misleading?
My Lords, the Government and indeed my honourable friend Shailesh Vara, who is the legal aid Minister, have made it quite clear that when we have referred to these figures—for example, the average figure of £84,000—they have related to fee income. The Government recognise that costs are to be taken from that fee income, and we have talked about that.
My Lords, the Government and indeed my honourable friend Shailesh Vara, who is the legal aid Minister, have made it quite clear that when we have referred to these figures—for example, the average figure of £84,000—they have related to fee income. The Government recognise that costs are to be taken from that fee income, and we have talked about that.
My Lords, the Government and indeed my honourable friend Shailesh Vara, who is the legal aid Minister, have made it quite clear that when we have referred to these figures—for example, the average figure of £84,000—they have related to fee income. The Government recognise that costs are to be taken from that fee income, and we have talked about that.
My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the figures that the Government have been giving for the incomes of members of the criminal Bar refer to turnover before VAT, tax and chambers expenses are taken off, and that therefore these figures are utterly misleading?
My Lords, one feature of the stand-off is that the representatives of the criminal Bar and the Government are quoting very different figures for earnings—not just the net and gross earnings. Would it not be helpful as a basis for negotiation to try to agree with the representatives of the criminal Bar a common basis for the actual earnings?
My Lords, one feature of the stand-off is that the representatives of the criminal Bar and the Government are quoting very different figures for earnings—not just the net and gross earnings. Would it not be helpful as a basis for negotiation to try to agree with the representatives of the criminal Bar a common basis for the actual earnings?
I repeat my assurance to noble Lords that the Government continue to consult. Indeed, we have just had close to 2,000 responses to the latest consultation on legal aid. As part of those discussions, I am sure that we will take on board the noble Lord’s comment, which seems a very sensible suggestion.
I repeat my assurance to noble Lords that the Government continue to consult. Indeed, we have just had close to 2,000 responses to the latest consultation on legal aid. As part of those discussions, I am sure that we will take on board the noble Lord’s comment, which seems a very sensible suggestion.
I repeat my assurance to noble Lords that the Government continue to consult. Indeed, we have just had close to 2,000 responses to the latest consultation on legal aid. As part of those discussions, I am sure that we will take on board the noble Lord’s comment, which seems a very sensible suggestion.
My Lords, one feature of the stand-off is that the representatives of the criminal Bar and the Government are quoting very different figures for earnings—not just the net and gross earnings. Would it not be helpful as a basis for negotiation to try to agree with the representatives of the criminal Bar a common basis for the actual earnings?
My Lords, does the Minister accept that over the past few years when there have been discussions concerning cuts in legal aid on a broad basis, the Government have accepted
that there are massive downstream costs which greatly erode what otherwise might seem to be an attractive saving? Can the Minister tell the House what surveys have been made of such downstream costs and what the results of those surveys are, and, in the event that such surveys were not made, how any Government could have been so monumentally imprudent as to jump into the dark in such a situation?
My Lords, does the Minister accept that over the past few years when there have been discussions concerning cuts in legal aid on a broad basis, the Government have accepted
that there are massive downstream costs which greatly erode what otherwise might seem to be an attractive saving? Can the Minister tell the House what surveys have been made of such downstream costs and what the results of those surveys are, and, in the event that such surveys were not made, how any Government could have been so monumentally imprudent as to jump into the dark in such a situation?
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. This is not a jump into the dark; it is a recognition of the current situation that the Government face across the board and across every department. We are seeking to focus legal aid spending on those who most need it. Spending on legal aid in the UK amounts to about £39 per head. I reiterate that one should look at some of the figures, even making international comparisons. Compared with like-for-like systems—for example, New Zealand at £18, Canada at £10 and Ireland, next door to us, at £20 per head—our legal system will, after the efficiencies are made, still remain one of the best in the world.
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. This is not a jump into the dark; it is a recognition of the current situation that the Government face across the board and across every department. We are seeking to focus legal aid spending on those who most need it. Spending on legal aid in the UK amounts to about £39 per head. I reiterate that one should look at some of the figures, even making international comparisons. Compared with like-for-like systems—for example, New Zealand at £18, Canada at £10 and Ireland, next door to us, at £20 per head—our legal system will, after the efficiencies are made, still remain one of the best in the world.
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. This is not a jump into the dark; it is a recognition of the current situation that the Government face across the board and across every department. We are seeking to focus legal aid spending on those who most need it. Spending on legal aid in the UK amounts to about £39 per head. I reiterate that one should look at some of the figures, even making international comparisons. Compared with like-for-like systems—for example, New Zealand at £18, Canada at £10 and Ireland, next door to us, at £20 per head—our legal system will, after the efficiencies are made, still remain one of the best in the world.
My Lords, does the Minister accept that over the past few years when there have been discussions concerning cuts in legal aid on a broad basis, the Government have accepted
that there are massive downstream costs which greatly erode what otherwise might seem to be an attractive saving? Can the Minister tell the House what surveys have been made of such downstream costs and what the results of those surveys are, and, in the event that such surveys were not made, how any Government could have been so monumentally imprudent as to jump into the dark in such a situation?
My Lords, the Minister has just spoken of efficiencies. How is it efficient to impair the quality of justice?
My Lords, the Minister has just spoken of efficiencies. How is it efficient to impair the quality of justice?
Again, I disagree with the noble Lord. Looking around the world, and speaking for the Benches behind me, I believe that our justice system is one of the best in the world and will continue to be so, despite the efficiencies being made. I do not agree with the picture that the noble Lord paints.