House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1998 (pt 39)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say--I might have been wrong--that some of the counter-demonstrations were as old as the parades. I do not know of any recent counter-demonstration that has caused trouble which was not a new counter-demonstration, carrying out the programme of IRA-Sinn Fein.

Mr. Öpik: To correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that some counter-demonstrations were as traditional as the parades--certainly not as old. In that sense, I completely agree with him. It would be rather strange to suggest that counter-demonstrations were set up on the same day as the original demonstrations. I was referring simply to a question of traditionality. By that I mean that communities have, in some cases, taken as a traditional element of the marching season participation in certain counter-demonstrations. I note his other point, which is valid.

Despite all our concerns about potential weaknesses, the new clause would tighten up something that needed to be addressed. In effect, it prevents or reduces the danger of allowing some people to exploit the law for narrow party political purposes. It will not eliminate exploitation, because some situations will always lend themselves to such political exploitation. However, it will hopefully strike a fairer balance. With the proviso of the Minister's explanations about the concerns that I and others have expressed, the Liberal Democrats will support the changes.

Mr. William Ross: This matter came before the Committee at some length. We had a long and interesting series of exchanges on the theme. Afterwards, one of my hon. Friends said to me that the question of people assembling for peaceful purpose and being thwarted by others in carrying out that purpose had been thoroughly explored a long time ago. So I did some checking up.

It is of note that, as long ago as 1882, the Salvation Army, which enjoys a favoured position under this legislation, had a certain amount of trouble. The position

4 Feb 1998 : Column 1109

taken by the mayor of the town at the time was that order could be easily maintained if the Salvation Army would simply stop parading. The account of events describes a

"melee involving thousands, including Mayor Blatch, the largest brewer in town."

It continued:

"Despite much superficial bloodshed, there were no injuries more serious then broken limbs."

The magistrates who considered the issue said that the ban that the mayor had tried to impose was "an interference with liberty". They

"placed the blame for the riots squarely on a band of young roughs, paid agents of the liquor interests of Basingstoke."

Those events occurred in 1882, in the south of England. What has changed? All one has to do is take away "Mayor Blatch" and the "liquor interests" and insert "IRA", and take away "the Salvation Army" and insert "loyalist institutions", and one has the exact same set-up that we have seen in recent years in Northern Ireland.

The issue in Basingstoke--the same as the one that we are facing tonight--went to the Queen's Bench Division on 12 and 13 June 1882. The issue considered was:

"The appellants assembled with others for a lawful purpose, and with no intention of carrying it out unlawfully, but with the knowledge that their assembly would be opposed, and with good reason to suppose that a breach of the peace would be committed by those who opposed it".

That goes rather further than anything that could be levelled against the Orange institution concerning any procession. The matter was

"Held by Field and Cave, JJ., that they could not be rightly convicted for an unlawful assembly."

If the Minister is really looking for background and a solid foundation on which to base the changes that he is introducing, perhaps that is where he should start. If he starts from that solid foundation of more than 100 years since, he will come to the conclusion, as we have, that the Bill is fatally flawed, because it builds on a sandy foundation rather than a solid rock of reason.

I welcome the Government's limping conversion towards reality, but it is too little, too late. Far more should have been done and far more sense should have been injected--not only under this Government but under the previous Administration 11 years ago. If it had, we might have been in a happier position today.

That matter was the subject of many amendments in Committee. The Government, to some extent, have been converted to our point of view. We believe--the Government now accept our point--that those who assemble intent on disruption and confrontation and who are prepared to use violence to stop a customary legal procession or any procession to which they choose to object should come under the same rigorous conditions as those who are going about their peaceful business in the first place.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) got it wrong in believing that there have been only a few such examples. We have always maintained that there are as many as the IRA wish to create, and can create, at a given time. As soon as it has finished with one area, it moves to the next. There are not just a few; there are as many as it can manage. There is no comparison between the crowd

4 Feb 1998 : Column 1110

of thugs that we often see in the street, carrying petrol bombs, bombs and iron bars, with those who simply want to go on a customary parade of whatever type, usually to a church. I do not see how both groups can be placed on exactly the same footing.

What will the commission do as soon as it is informed? We were told in Committee that 28 days' notice was needed for the commission to manage to work its way through all the various steps that it has to take. Fourteen days is a lot shorter than 28 days, so, it will have only eight or nine days to reach a decision after it has received notice--provided that it is served with notice in the first place. I suspect that protesters will say, "Oh, but we did not know," and will go along at the very last minute. Instead of two weeks' notice, it will be two days--although the protesters will have spent a month preparing.

The Government have a problem, and the police will have a problem. I assume that that is the reason why the police will have to take the primary decision rather than leaving it with the commission, which I think will be informed, in practice, as a matter of courtesy.

What will the commission and the police do? Let us say that the commission is given 14 days' notice. Will it try to persuade the objectors to withdraw their objections? Will it try to persuade them to call off the protest? Will it try to persuade the organisers of the original procession to call off the procession? Will it meet representatives of IRA-Sinn Fein or send somebody else to meet it? Or will it begin to recognise just exactly what it is up against: an armed, criminal, murderous conspiracy to overthrow the United Kingdom's constitution? How will the commission operate?

Mr. Moss: Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to what might happen in relation to the giving of notice? We know that only one parade or procession will be involved in giving 28 days' notice, but how many protest notices could be given relating to that one procession before somebody decided that they must be taken as a whole? Or will they have to be considered individually?

Mr. Ross: That opens up the can of worms--not one relating to objections but the one constituted in the Bill. We believe that the whole arrangement is built on the wrong foundations, and can therefore do nothing but create more problems than it resolves. That is why I am asking questions. I hope that I shall get answers to them, but I have some doubts.

When the 28 days' notice is received, the commission will go out and ask people in the villages, "Do you object to this procession?" I know that that is not on the face of the Bill, but the guidance booklet that we were given says that that will be the procedure.