| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15, 17 to 19 and 24 to 26.
Mr. Ingram: New clause 3 and the amendments grouped with it deal with introducing a new notice requirement for related protest meetings. New clause 3 introduces the requirement itself, Government amendment No. 24 introduces the definition of a protest meeting, Government amendment No. 25 defines a related protest meeting and Government amendment No. 26 is consequential.
In addition, Government amendment No. 15 would put a duty on the Parades Commission to keep itself informed of the conduct not only of those taking part in public processions but of those taking part in a related protest meeting. Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 would put a duty on the commission to draw up a code of conduct for protest meetings.
The Government have been acutely conscious of the need to ensure that the legislation is both balanced and seen to be balanced. We recognise that some have felt that the legislation and the North report focused exclusively on parades as the problem and did not take sufficient account of sometimes violent protests against parades. That criticism is mistaken, but we have recognised the need to address such perceptions.
A number of amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Those included measures to harmonise penalties in the Bill, to ensure that comparable penalties could be applied to protesters and marchers who broke the law. Today, we are introducing a number of further Government amendments, which similarly aim to ensure balance in the Bill.
The North report considered whether there was a case for introducing a notice requirement for open-air public meetings. Paragraphs 12.76 to 12.81 of the report concluded that a notice regime for all open-air public meetings would not be appropriate, particularly given the number of uncontroversial public meetings, such as open-air preaching, which would unnecessarily be caught by a notice requirement. The North report considered whether it might be possible to cover protest meetings only, but thought that that would not be practicable.
In Committee, amendments were proposed by the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), which dealt specifically with the concept of protest meetings. In some cases, they were described as counter-demonstrations or counter-processions. Of course,
if protesters choose to arrange a procession of their own, that will fall to be dealt with by the Parades Commission in the usual way.
In Committee, I explained that it would be important to get the definitions right, and I also set out some of the difficulties that there might be in defining a counter-demonstration. I did, however, say that I would consider the matter further.
I have taken considerable time to consider the issue and I have read our detailed debates in Committee. We have now come up with a workable definition. The definition of related protest meetings will ensure that the vast majority of open-air public meetings will continue to be able to take place without a notice requirement. That helps to satisfy the concerns expressed in the North report. But equally, the definition is tight enough to ensure that all related protest meetings are covered. The notice requirement will provide valuable new information for the police and the Parades Commission. We did not want to overburden the commission with extra work, but what we have set forth will provide it with additional and valuable new information.
None the less, the police will be obliged to pass notice of protests on to the Parades Commission, and it obviously makes sense for the commission to have as much information as possible about the likely reaction to a parade from which it has received an application.
Another important feature of the amendments is that the notice requirement for protest meetings is rather shorter at 14 days than the 28 days required for a procession. I believe that to be a sensible measure. It would clearly not be possible to demand the same notice requirement for protest meetings as that which applies to a procession. By definition, a protest meeting cannot be organised until it is known that the procession has been planned and is likely to go ahead.
Let me explain some of the mechanisms that will operate as a consequence of the amendments. Some might argue that there is a problem of conflicting responsibilities if a public procession is governed by the Parades Commission, while the related protest meeting is governed by the police. In addition, the criteria on which conditions can be imposed will differ slightly. Protest meetings that are largely public order based will continue to be dealt with under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. However, processions will be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, which include the factor of impact on relations within the community.
The North report considered whether it would be helpful for parades and protests to be dealt with by the same authority. It concluded in paragraph 12.96 that there was no particular difficulty, and recommended leaving open-air public meetings under the control of the police, using their existing powers in the order, if necessary. I agree entirely with the report's findings on that point. We anticipate the closest possible communication between the Parades Commission and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am certain that that co-operation will continue, and both will ensure that the combined effect of any measures imposed minimises any difficulties that might result from the procession or the related protest meeting.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry):
We on the Ulster Unionist party Bench have read new clause 3 with
Mr. Ingram:
I shall come back to article 5.
The new clause would be placed appropriately within the Bill, according to the structure of the legislation. That was not a serious point. The important point is what the new clause contains and where its powers lie with regard to related protest meetings.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim):
Will the Minister make it clear that the order has draconian powers on open-air meetings? For example, a police officer can say to a person addressing an open-air meeting, "I don't like what you're saying; you've got to stop speaking." He also has the power to keep people from attending meetings and listening to what is being said. He can say, "I don't want you to stand here and listen." The order has tremendous power on open-air meetings.
Mr. Ingram:
That is indeed the case. If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he referred to draconian powers. Those are appropriate powers to deal with public order. That is why the legislation was passed in the first place. I appreciate that he may not like legislation to deal with public order problems relating to open-air meetings that could possibly constitute public disorder, but all sensible people recognise the importance of the powers that reside with the RUC.
In Committee, I promised to consider a code of conduct for protest meetings. Government amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 deal specifically with that issue. They address--as recommended in the report--the perception that the Bill is unbalanced. As I said, new clause 3 introduces a notice period for protest meetings.
I maintain, however, that to make the commission responsible for making determinations on protest meetings is unnecessary. Going beyond North in that respect would impose a major burden on the commission in what will already be an extremely busy period, certainly in the year ahead and, perhaps, beyond that.
The commission will not deal with protest meetings directly, but it will have the power to take into account the behaviour of protesters. The amendments will enable the Parades Commission to recognise, for example, the extent to which the past misbehaviour of marchers at parades was provoked by similar misconduct on the part of protesters. The commission will thus be able to take into account the extent to which those parading or those protesting have breached the codes of conduct. That will be a useful contribution to the material that the commission will have at its disposal in coming to final decisions.
I believe that those measures are useful and proportionate. I hope that they demonstrate the Government's recognition that the problem of marching is not simply with the marchers, and that we are not looking to create structures to bear down on the overall number of public processions. As a consequence of the debate that took place in the other place and in
Committee, further consideration has been given to the issues that were raised about a code of conduct and a notice requirement for protest meetings. I hope that the House finds the new clause and amendments that I have proposed sensible. I urge that they be accepted.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire):
I am grateful to the Minister for taking away the recommendations that we made in Committee and coming back with the new clause and the amendments, most of which were tabled by me and my hon. Friends. New clause 3 is very much in line with the wording of new clause 1, which I tabled in Committee, but there are some additions. As I develop my argument, I shall focus on some of the changes.
Principally, we tabled our amendments to try to get more balance into this important measure. I say important because only today, from a radio phone-in programme that I listened to, it was obvious that there is tremendous resistance in the Province, particularly from Unionists, to the thrust of the Bill. It is vital that we in this place are seen to be even-handed as we write legislation for the first time to deal with what is accepted as a protracted problem, but, in forming the legislation, we might exacerbate rather than improve the position.
In that context, it is vital that the public in Northern Ireland--particularly one side of the public--consider the legislation to be even-handed, balanced and a genuine attempt to accept and tolerate marches and parades that have been going on for many years. We must ensure that it is not heavy-handed and that it does not make those who organise and take part in parades and processions leap through too many hoops, with some of their activities becoming almost criminal.
I now deal with the specifics of new clause 3. I should like the Minister to comment on them as best he can. Subsection (1) refers to the organiser of a protest meeting having to submit notice of such a proposed protest meeting
I accept that some processions and parades may cover several miles. The protesters might organise a protest at one position along the route of a parade or decide to protest at the start or finish. The notice that must be handed in will in many cases go to different police stations. Given the 14-day time scale for giving notice and the vagaries of the post and administration, I fear that proper and due notice will not be given, particularly to the Parades Commission, whose principal job in this context is to facilitate mediation between the two factions. Perhaps the Minister could give reasons for the different wordings.
My amendment left out the wording in subsections (2)(b) and (4)(f), which are linked. Subsection (2) provides that notice shall be given not later than 14 days before a meeting, and that, if that is not reasonably practicable, it should be given as soon as it is reasonably practicable. If notice is given later, reasons must be given for the notice being late.
"to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant by leaving the notice with him at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held."
That wording differs markedly from that in the provision that relates to the notice that needs to be given by organisers of a public procession, who have to leave notice at the police station nearest the procession's proposed starting place. That could mean two different police stations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |