| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Amendment 85, page 91, line 24, after 'means' insert 'the'.
Amendment 86, page 91, line 25, at end insert
'in force immediately before the date specified in an order made by a Minister of the Crown by statutory instrument.( ) An order under sub-paragraph (8) may specify different dates for different purposes.'.
Amendment 87, page 92, line 4, leave out '1' and insert '1A to 1D'
Amendment 88, page 92, line 7, at end insert-
'( ) In paragraph 29(2) of Schedule 1 (interpretation) in the definition of "regulation functions" after "18(2)" insert "and (3)".
43 (1) An order under section 13 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 may make the provision mentioned in section 13(6) (provision for transfer schemes) in connection with this Schedule (as well as in connection with that Act).
(a) the reference in section 13(6)(a) to matters dealt with by the rules is to be treated as a reference to matters which could be dealt with by a scheme under paragraph 3 or 7;
(b) section 13(6)(b) and (c) does not apply to property, rights and liabilities, or documents and information, held by or on behalf of the trustees of the Fund.
(3) Section 13(7) of that Act applies to a scheme made by virtue of section 13(6) and this paragraph.
Trustees of the Fund44 (1) This paragraph applies if, under an order under section 90, paragraph 1A comes into force for the purpose of making an appointment under paragraph 1A(1)(a) or (b) before it comes into force for other purposes.
(2) The reference in paragraph 1A(1)(a) or (b) to the persons who are already trustees of the Fund is to the persons who are trustees of the Fund by virtue of section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 (c. 45).
45 (1) In this paragraph "the transitional period" means the period of six months beginning with the day on which paragraph 1A comes into force (other than for the purpose of making an appointment under paragraph 1A(1)(a) or (b)).
(2) During the transitional period-
(a) paragraph 1A(1) applies as if for paragraph (c) there were substituted-
"(c) the persons who (by virtue of section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987) are the trustees of the Fund immediately before the beginning of the transitional period.", and
(b) paragraph 1D applies to persons who are trustees of the Fund because of paragraph (a) as if they were member-nominated trustees.
(3) But if a person who is a trustee of the Fund immediately before the beginning of the transitional period is appointed under paragraph 1A(1)(a) or (b) that person is not to be treated as being a trustee of the Fund because of sub-paragraph (2)(a).
(4) The trustees of the Fund must make arrangements (the "transitional arrangements") for 8 persons to be nominated and selected as member-nominated trustees before the end of the transitional period.
(5) Those persons become member-nominated trustees immediately after the end of the transitional period.
(6) Only persons who are trustees of the Fund immediately before the beginning of the transitional period may be nominated and selected as member-nominated trustees under the transitional arrangements.
(7) But if it is not possible to secure 8 member-nominated trustees from among those persons, the deficiency may be supplied by other persons.
(8) At the end of the transitional period any persons who-
(a) immediately before the end of that period, are trustees of the Fund because of sub-paragraph (2)(a), but
(b) have not been nominated and selected as member-nominated trustees,
cease to be trustees of the Fund.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I beg to move amendment 2, page 33, line 16, leave out 'section 132 to 138' and insert
'sections 132 to 136 and section 138.'.Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 8, page 33, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 9, page 95, line 15, leave out schedule 9.
Amendment 10, in schedule 9, page 95, line 21, leave out from 'procession' to end of line 18 on page 55 and insert
'or a public assembly that is having the effect of preventing reasonable access to the Houses of Parliament.(2) The Speaker of the House of Commons shall decide whether reasonable access to the Houses of Parliament has been prevented.
(3) If the Speaker has decided under subsection (2) that reasonable access to the Houses of Parliament has been prevented, the senior police officer may, for the purpose of restoring reasonable access to the Houses of Parliament, give directions to any person who is organising or taking part in the public procession or public assembly.
(4) The directions referred to in subsection (3) must be necessary for the purpose of restoring access to the Houses of Parliament and proportionate to that purpose.'.
Amendment 17, page 95, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Amendment 24, page 95, line 41, at end insert
'in relation to how the specified requirements for maintaining access to and from the Palace of Westminster shall be met'.Amendment 14, page 96, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert-
'(6) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
Amendment 26, page 96, line 5, leave out 'include' and insert 'are limited to'.
Amendment 11, page 96, leave out lines 15 to 18.
Amendment 12, page 96, leave out lines 21 to 39.
Amendment 19, page 96, line 27, leave out '300' and insert '250'.
Amendment 30, page 96, line 28, leave out 'the nearest relevant entrance' and insert
'the point nearest to it in Parliament Square'.Amendment 31, page 96, leave out lines 29 to 36.
Amendment 15, page 96, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert-
'(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
Amendment 13, page 96, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 on page 97 and insert-
'14ZB Special provision for a House or Committee meeting outside Palace of Westminster
(1) If either House of Parliament, or a committee of either House of Parliament, intends to meet in a building outside the Palace of Westminster, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify that the building shall count as part of the Houses of Parliament for the purposes of section 14ZA on the day or days that the meeting is taking place.
(2) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
For the purposes of this section, the Speaker may delegate the matter referred to in section 14ZA(2) to the person who is in the chair of the relevant meeting.'.
Amendment 20, page 97, line 1, leave out '300' and insert '250'.
Amendment 21, page 97, line 19, leave out from 'any' to 'used' in line 20 and insert
'day on which the specified building is'.Amendment 22, page 97, leave out line 23.
Amendment 18, page 97, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Amendment 25, page 97, line 30, at end insert
'in relation to how the specified requirements for maintaining access to and from the specified building shall be met'.Amendment 16, page 97, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert-
'(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
Amendment 3, page 97, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert-
'Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15)2 (9) In section 137, the following amendments are made in relation to the use of amplified noise equipment and other devices designed to produce noise in the area around Parliament.
(10) For "loudspeaker" wherever it occurs substitute "amplified noise equipment or other device designed to produce noise".
(11) In subsection (1) leave out "in a street in the designated area" and insert "in the area around Parliament, as specified by order under section 14ZB of the Public Order Act 1986".
(12) In subsection (2), leave out paragraph (i).
(13) After subsection (3) insert-
"(3A) A police officer shall, on receipt of a complaint of excessive noise caused by amplified noise equipment or other device designed to produce noise, have the power-
(a) to require the operator to desist, and
(b) in the event of non-compliance, to seize the amplified noise equipment or other device designed to produce noise and to retain it as long as it is deemed necessary.
(3B) The powers available under subsection (3A) above may be exercised by the most senior police officer in the immediate vicinity of the source of the noise.".
(14) In subsection (6) leave out "or of" and insert "save where prohibited under".'.
Amendment 23, page 98, line 4, leave out paragraph 5.
Mrs. Laing: Although amendment 2 is the lead amendment, it is to amendment 3, proposed by the Conservatives, that I should like to address my remarks. It would amend the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 in respect of activities in Parliament square. The amendment would empower the most senior police officer present, first, to require the operator of amplified noise equipment to desist and, secondly, to confiscate the equipment on receipt of a complaint about excessive noise.
Mr. Heath: I spent rather a large part of my life dealing with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in Committee and on Report. One of the criticisms, which I thought Conservative Front Benchers at the time shared, was of the provision that allowed for the powers under that Act in respect of Parliament square to be exercised by an officer of no higher rank than constable. Is it not the case that what the hon. Lady is proposing today revisits that issue, with Conservatives on the other side of the argument? The nearest available police officer may well simply be a constable, yet she is proposing that that constable be given these powers.
Mrs. Laing: No, the hon. Gentleman is nit-picking. The intention of amendment 3- [Interruption.] We are discussing the general principle, although I agree that we are also discussing the particulars. I do not see that there is a conflict between what was said some years ago and what is being said now. However, if there is a conflict, my answer is simply that what is on today's amendment paper is what we are proposing today and that is what I am putting before the House now.
Mr. Heath: It is the opposite.
Mrs. Laing: If it is the opposite of what some colleagues of mine said some years ago, so be it-this is what we propose today. The hon. Gentleman is wasting time. We have very little time to get through the rest of this Bill. If he does not want powers to be taken to sort out the chaos in Parliament square, he is entitled to say so, but we are discussing what is in front of us now.
The Bill as it stands does not provide an alternative arrangement for dealing with an effective sanction by completely removing the illegality of the offence. We all know that people who work in the buildings surrounding Parliament square are particularly affected by the use of amplified loudspeakers, which are used almost constantly by protesters. We in this Chamber are protected. We cannot hear the noise when we are in here, but it is the people who work for us and the people who run the parliamentary offices and Government Departments who are affected. The vast majority of people who have complained are not Members of Parliament. There may be a feeling out there that Members of Parliament get what they deserve, and fair enough, but that is not the point. The point is that it is their long-suffering secretaries, assistants and researchers who bear much of the distress and disturbance.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)-I hope that he will be able to address the House on the matter shortly; he has campaigned effectively on the issue for some time-has received 52 complaints. I hope that he will not go into great detail on all 52, but I am sure that he will give us a flavour of them. For that reason, I will not go into those details, because he is well able to do so. However, 52 people have complained and there are many more who agree with them because their professional lives are frequently made more difficult and distressing by what can only be described as harassment from the protesters in Parliament square.
If the intention behind amplifying at such volumes is to penetrate the walls of Parliament and reach the legislators within, frankly, it does not work. It is impossible to distinguish what is being said, so although the enormously disturbing sound is loud, the message is not transmitted to its intended audience. Thus the aim of penetrating Parliament to convey a message is lost.
We also understand that there are practicalities to consider. I am being intentionally brief because we have so much more of the Bill to get through-once again, we do not have enough time to do that-and I believe that most hon. Members are well aware of the problem. The Government are also well aware of the problem and have been sympathetic to various plans over the years to try to sort it out. They have themselves tried to legislate to improve the situation in Parliament square. Frankly, they have failed but I am not blaming them-this is not a party political matter; it is a matter of principle and of getting the balance right. Allowing freedom of speech is of course essential in our free country, and freedom of speech in the vicinity of Parliament is totally right. It is the freedom and the right of every person in this country to be able to tell Parliament what they think, but that has to be balanced with the practicality of having, effectively, chaos and constant noise in Parliament square.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware of any other legislature in the world that would allow the chaos-the unregulated behaviour-that goes on outside our front doors?
Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I know of no other legislature that would put up with the chaos and mess that is out there now. I am always a great defender of freedom of speech. Freedom of the individual is the most important thing that this Parliament stands for. If we do not stand for that, we stand for nothing, but because some people have set up camp in Parliament square and effectively have a monopoly on that bit of ground, from which they can be most noisy and disrupt this place, other people who may wish to come for a day or an hour to make a short protest about something about which they care and that affects their families, town or principles, do not have the freedom of speech that they should have. The people who have already set up camp and established their monopoly are in a strong position and are preventing other people from having the freedom of speech that they deserve.
Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) (Lab): I have enormous sympathy with the hon. Lady's points. How could I not, as I have made them in the past? Would she be prepared not to press the amendment, to allow a cross-party, sensible approach to be adopted, rather than this being seen as adversarial?
7.30 pm
Mrs. Laing: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point but I had hoped that this debate was not adversarial. I had the impression that the amendment has support on both sides of the House. I do not wish to be adversarial at all. Unfortunately, when a similar amendment was tabled in Committee we ran out of time and it was not debated. If at that stage the right hon. Gentleman had made such a request, I would certainly have acceded to it. Now, alas, it is too late because we are running out of time. It is a pity that this long, ever-expanding and important Bill did not have more time in Committee, which would have allowed his proposed solution to prevail. I accept that he knows a great deal about the issue and that he is one of those who, very reasonably, tried to sort it out.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |