I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I do not think there is consensus on the issue, and the more she spoke, the more I realised why there is not. I do not think that there is chaos outside; far from it. I have seen chaos and that is not chaos. It is untidy and annoying for people who like everything to be neat, tidy and orderly, but it is not chaos. I oppose the amendment, first, because I do not think that there is much of a problem and, secondly, to the extent that there is a problem, the means already exist for dealing with it.
Parliament is situated in the middle of a city; it is not in the middle of the countryside. One cannot expect total silence in the middle of a city. The evidence of the noise that we hear—it was accepted by the Government in their consultation exercise—showed that it was no more annoying than traffic noise. [Laughter.] It might be that I have lived a more urban life than members of the Conservative party; I am almost certain that I have. The idea that one cannot work in a city that is somewhat noisy would come as a great surprise to most of the inhabitants of London and all our great cities, and certainly to the inhabitants of New York. The idea that one cannot work except in total silence is extraordinary. If I think of occasions when my own work and that of my office in the precincts of the Palace has been disrupted, it has not been by protests outside but by the helicopter that we sometimes hear—whether it is a police or MOD helicopter, I am not sure—or by noise from the river traffic, which is the kind of thing that one expects if one lives and works in a major city.
To the extent that there is a problem, I cannot see why we need special protection in this House, and why we cannot use the general law. I cannot see why we should give ourselves some kind of special position legally. There are three obvious existing legal methods for dealing with any problem that arises. First, there is statutory nuisance—environmental health legislation.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 2 March 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
506 c875 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:06:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625702
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625702
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625702