Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
Clause 57 agreed.
Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

The question is that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill.

Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is in the other group, is it not?

Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

No. It is a clause stand part. I paused slightly, but if nobody wishes to speak to it—

Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Is the Clause 58 stand part debate not in the next group?

Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Clause 58 stands on its own to be either agreed or not agreed. I think perhaps the noble Lord wishes to speak to an amendment. No?

Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thought they were all grouped together.

Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Okay, but I think I need to put Clause 58 to the Committee now. The question is—

Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sorry. On the Order Paper, it looks as though Clause 58 stand part is the lead amendment. Then there is a series of other amendments and clauses with it.

Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Yes, but I must put the question first. The question is that Clause 58 stand part of the Bill.

Debate on whether Clause 58 should stand part of the Bill.
--- Later in debate ---
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I speak now? I apologise. I did not mean to be rude.

Baroness Fookes Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I did actually pause originally, but nobody spoke.

Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am not used to standing up and speaking. If I was in the other place, I would have shouted out.

Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Clearly. That is the problem. No, I am glad that we do not. It is sometimes a bit off-putting when there is a nobody shouting at me when I speak, but there we go.

The serious point I want to make is this. Obviously, we have come to Clauses 58 and 59, which relate to various changes to the law with respect to demonstrations outside Parliament. I want to make a general point, because I have not done that already. Some really fascinating points have been made about public protests: the right to protest and the need to balance that with people’s right to be able to go about their lawful business. Clause 58, headed “Obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament”, extends the area, while Clause 59 is headed “Power to specify other areas as controlled areas” and Clause 60 is headed “Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”.

On Clauses 58 and 59, I think it was my noble friend Lord Dubs who made the point that many of us, including me, may well have not been able to protest if this law had been there. I am old enough to remember coming here, during a formative time for me as a local councillor in Cotgrave, which was a Nottinghamshire pit village, to demonstrate about pit closures, both in the mid-1980s, in and around the miners’ strike, and at the beginning of the 1990s, when the pit closure programme happened.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not know whether it is for me to move the first amendment in the group.