| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): On the hon. Gentleman's first point about two different police stations, does he agree that the 28 days' notice will presumably be made public, and made public with reference to the police station at which it was given? People organising a counter-demonstration could reasonably be expected to serve notice at the place from where the notice of procession emanated. That supports his first point. Secondly, on his valid objection in respect of the term "reasonably practicable", most counter-demonstrations will almost certainly be argued to be extemporary or spontaneous protests. They will rarely be accompanied by people who accept that they are the progenitors. To put in the "reasonably practicable" escape clause will be no more than an encouragement to give notice at the last minute and disclaim responsibility.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for supporting my arguments. It is indeed the case that, if 28 days is the notice required from the organisers of a parade, it gives plenty of time for the parade to be publicised, for the commission to be notified, and even for the commission and its facilitators to make approaches to the groups in the community which they know, for historical reasons, might wish to organise a protest. I suggested 14 days as a reasonable time, bearing in mind the 28 days' notice for the parade organisers.
New clause 3 raises another question that the Minister could helpfully clarify. We are talking about giving advance notice of protests about public processions. If, within a short time scale, it is obvious to the commission and the police that serious disorder could ensue and the protesters are not looking to give way--they may or may not have given proper notice, but they may have given reasons why they could not do so--who is going to ban or prohibit the protest meeting?
Some of the amendments tabled by me and by Northern Irish Members that we discussed in Committee sought to give powers either to the Secretary of State or to the commission to prohibit what we then called counter-demonstrations--I am more than happy to go along with protest meetings--if there was going to be serious public disorder. In amendment No. 24, the Government have tied the definition of a protest meeting to an open-air public meeting. It may be that the powers to prohibit come under paragraph 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
Can the Minister confirm that the power to ban a protest meeting if the situation is getting out of hand remains with either the Secretary of State or the RUC under the open-air public meeting paragraph of the 1987 order?
On amendments Nos. 15, 17 and 18, once the Minister had accepted the need to be more even-handed in the legislation and offer more balance to the two communities, it was obvious that he had to consider bringing in protest meetings at various places in the Bill. That is in keeping with some recommendations in the North report, which I think was balanced in its approach and attempted to find a way through this difficulty by being as even-handed as possible. I am grateful to the Minister for adding "and protest meetings" to clause 2(1)(c), where the duties of the commission are spelled out. The commission now has to keep itself generally informed as to the conduct of public processions and of the protest meetings that have often gone alongside parades or processions.
On clause 3, amendments Nos. 17 and 18 again follow the recommendations of the North report that a code of conduct should be issued by the commission, to provide guidance not only to persons who are organising public processions but to those persons who intend or hope to organise protest meetings. I have two questions on that for the Minister. Before coming to his decision to include the new wording in those amendments, did he seek the views of the Parades Commission and in particular of Mr. Graham? If so, what did Mr. Graham have to say? Does the Minister intend to recommend to the commission that it follow the suggestions in the North report on a possible code of conduct for those making a protest against a legally held parade?
It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Minister has thought carefully about the reasoned amendments that we tabled in Committee. He was obviously persuaded by the power of our argument. I think he will agree with the Opposition that the new clause and the amendments strengthen the Bill and go some way towards redressing the imbalance that is perceived by one side of the community in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down):
New clause 3 and the amendments grouped with it show a significant change in the ethos of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill, which should perhaps now be called Public Processions and Protest Meetings (Northern Ireland) Bill.
I have great sympathy with the Minister. In Committee, he was subjected to arguments about the alleged imbalance in the Bill. The propaganda outside the House was that the Bill was intended not to regulate processions and parades but to deny people the right to hold them. That is a great pity, because in Committee the Minister
strongly rebutted that argument. He rightly claimed that the Government were trying to be even-handed in their attitude to parades and events that flow from them. I hate quoting the Minister's words back at him, but in Committee he said:
The wording of the new clause will create considerable difficulties for those whose duty it will be to implement and abide by the regulations that will flow from the Bill. My interpretation of the North report is that it came down against the extension of the notice requirements to what it called open-air public meetings, but which we are now calling protest meetings: they are the same. I cannot understand why North has been quoted as an authority for the introduction of new clause 3, given that it says that the requirements should not be extended to open-air meetings--or protest meetings.
Subsection (4)(g) is almost the same as clause 6 as it appears in the Bill, but there are two words missing. The subsection refers to
Mr. Moss:
That is one of the strong recommendations made by North. Page 181 of the report states:
By omitting the word "Commission", the Government are establishing two structures: parades and processions will be governed by the commission, and protests or anti-march demonstrations will be dealt with solely by the police and the Secretary of State. That will lead to a great deal of confusion in Northern Ireland, and to claim and counter-claim.
The presumption is that a parade should go ahead, unless there is the threat of public disorder. If the commission makes a determination that a parade should go ahead, and notice is given to the police and to the Secretary of State of a counter-demonstration, will the
police or, ultimately, the Secretary of State decide that, because the commission has allowed the parade, they must, willy-nilly and to be consistent, ban, restrict or abolish the right of peaceful protest? The people who will enforce the Bill have been given a difficult task. The two-tier structure that the Minister is creating will be exploited, and it will confuse the issue in the public's mind.
People who genuinely want to protest, be it by holding a parade or some other event, have the right to do so in a peaceful and orderly way. New clause 3 and related amendments will make it much easier for certain elements to utilise the new requirements of the Bill to orchestrate protests that are not genuinely peaceful, do not genuinely reflect local concerns, and could be exploited by any number of people.
"We demonstrated at length during the Bill's consideration in the other place that there is no need for the extension of the Secretary of State's banning power to cover counter-demonstrations because she already has the power under the public order order to ban all open air meetings. That power will remain when the Bill comes into effect."--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 January 1998; c. 52.]
That was the point of the intervention of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 contains provisions to deal with counter-demonstrations and protest meetings, so the necessity for the new clause must be called into question.
"such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary for, or appropriate for facilitating, the exercise by the Secretary of State or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of any function".
The words that have been left out are "the Commission". A definite decision was made to exclude the commission from any duty to consider public protests.
"we recommend that a Code of Conduct should be introduced covering the behaviour both of participants in a parade and of protesters."
Mr. McGrady:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for that correction. It was my interpretation that North did not want an extension of the legislation to open-air meetings. There may be a difference between open-air meetings as he conceived them, and what we now call protest or anti-march meetings. I will let that go for the time being.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |