That is absolutely right. We spend a lot of time in this House passing legislation, and we collectively tend to pat ourselves on the back and say, “Well, look, brilliant, we’ve done it.” But unless legislation can be enforced, it becomes a dead letter. That is conversations that we have in this place in respect of all sorts of things ranging from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to the Equality Act 2010 and so on. The concern here is that unless people can get ready access to these sorts of protections then they are, as I say, a dead letter. The point that the hon. Lady makes about injunctions is an extremely good one. How many people want to issue a writ in the county court, or indeed in the High Court, at significant personal cost? Litigation of any type is an uncertain option, and—this is the critical point—what would be the remedy in the event that that injunction is breached? What we need is a swift and muscular—if I may use that expression—approach in order to be able to intervene early. It also has to be fair. That is the point that I will come to after I have taken this one intervention, and then I will make a bit more progress.
Stalking Protection Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Alex Chalk
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 23 November 2018.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Stalking Protection Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
649 c1152 
Session
2017-19
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-11-03 13:34:39 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-23/18112318000121
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-23/18112318000121
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-23/18112318000121