| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ingram: We have had a very extensive debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I shall do my best to deal with the many detailed points that were raised. First, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for her helpful comments. It is useful to hear new and different voices in
the House, and from people who have experience of events in Northern Ireland but do not necessarily represent any interests there. The greater and wider the knowledge of events in Northern Ireland, the better debates in this House will be.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend for her strong support of my position. She said that it was not the case that the new clause and the related amendments had been dragged out of the Government; far from it. Comments of that nature are ungracious. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) claimed all credit for what is happening, as if it were his inspired thinking that had brought it about.
We said in the other place that these matters were worthy of consideration. I said in Committee--the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was present--that I wanted to hear the strength of the arguments. Clearly, an option was open to the Government to propose measures relating to these matters. I wanted to hear the full flavour and strength of the arguments in advance, and then reach a balanced position. Clearly, many varied points of view could be expressed. The new clause was not dragged out of me, nor was it a result of the inspired thinking of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
This is the benefit of the Committee and Report stages of a Bill--something which, in opposition, we never had the courtesy of from the previous Government, who were usually extremely discourteous in dealing with any substantive points on the Bills on which I was privileged to serve.
I say to the Ulster Unionist Members that I fully understand their overall view; they do not want this legislation at all. I recognise and welcome the spirit and the intent of their amendments. We can perhaps deal with the overall thrust of the Bill at Third Reading, but I have no doubt that we will hear many of the same points expressed again. I recognise that Ulster Unionist Members do not want the legislation, but I have to say that that is not the experience of those who have viewed what is required in Northern Ireland and who are trying to bring about a more balanced and reasonable approach to the Province.
Mr. Thompson:
The majority of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland do not want the Bill--surely the Government should take notice of that. If the Conservative party were introducing a similar measure in Scotland, where there are no Conservative Members, there would be strong objections from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ingram:
I understand that argument entirely, but I am a representative of the United Kingdom Parliament, as is the hon. Gentleman. The responsibility rests with this House. We do not have a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland--something which many of us hope will come out of the current talks--and these matters must be considered by the UK Parliament. It may or may not become a devolved issue; that is a matter for the talks participants, and then for the people of Northern Ireland.
A number of hon. Members raised similar points in different ways, and I apologise if I do not mention them all in dealing with the substantive points. Clearly, hon. Members will have an opportunity to return to these matters if necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and Ulster Unionist Members mentioned the commission in terms of processions, and the way in which protest meetings related to those processions would be dealt with by the police, and asked why these were to be dealt with differently.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Down said that the commission was not to be involved at all. Of course the commission is involved in the process, because, under new clause 3, the police are required to give notice to the commission of the fact that the organisers of a related protest meeting have given notice of such a meeting. The commission will take the behaviour of the protesters into consideration when making determinations in relation to future parades. It is wrong to imply or indicate that somehow the commission is not associated with matters relating to protest meetings.
Mr. McGrady:
I thank the Minister for trying to explain this point, but the fact is that the commission will have been given notice through the police of a protest, and will have taken cognisance of the overall problem in terms of the procession and any possible protest. None the less, there is a definitive distinction, as the commission apparently cannot make a determination on the protest meetings. That is the point I was making.
Mr. Ingram:
I was going to come to that, and I may have misheard my hon. Friend. I thought that he had implied or indicated that the commission was not associated at all with protest meetings.
The difference between that which relates to protest meetings and that which relates to public processions is quite clear. By their very nature, protest meetings have a tendency to become matters of public disorder. That view has been expressed. It does not happen at all protests--nor should it happen at all--but we have seen examples of it. As it is a public order issue, it should rest with those who have direct responsibility for dealing with the matter--in this case, the RUC. Of itself, it does not create a new distinction, as it is dealing with the reality of the situation.
Another fundamental issue is at stake in dealing with protest meetings. If the matter were to be given to the commission to deal with, my best judgment--after consultation with the commission--is that an incredible burden would be placed on the commission, which has to deal with a wide range of issues. We are dealing with a
difficult enough set of circumstances without giving the commission a much more contentious area to deal with. That is why we have dealt with it separately.
Mr. Öpik:
If my understanding is correct, the Minister is suggesting that the commission will take account of the performance of the counter-demonstration in future assessments of the procession. If that is correct, is there not a built-in temptation for the counter-demonstration to work in such a way as to prompt the commission to rule that the procession would be unacceptably dangerous in terms of public order? That could be counter-productive, by giving the counter-demonstration an unreasonably high incentive to misbehave.
Mr. Ingram:
All those things are a possibility, and the Parades Commission has been given a difficult job. As the hon. Gentleman recognised in his speech tonight and on Second Reading, we have consistently spoken about the difficult nature of the commission's job. It will not be easy to make those judgments, and in future years fine, precise decisions will have to be taken based on past years' experience.
I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was not on the Standing Committee, but we dealt with a wide range of matters relating specifically to ways in which the commission will have to deal with those complex matters. The hon. Gentleman will have had the opportunity to read the Committee Hansard--if not, I suggest that it should be his bedtime reading tonight, assuming we get home to bed tonight. I have dealt with that issue generally; if hon. Members are dissatisfied, they have the right to vote accordingly, but the judgment was based on the parameters and issues I have described.
The hon. Member for South Down implied that a requirement to give notice of protest meetings is somehow restrictive of people's civil liberties, but that requirement is no more restrictive than the notice requirement on parades and processions. We have to take into account the rights of those who wish to parade and march, and those who wish to make a peaceful and lawful protest.
There is no threat in the legislation to the latter group--that is an important aspect of the Bill. The right to peaceful and lawful process is a fundamental right of all UK citizens, but sadly we have seen examples of protests that have gone beyond that limit, for a variety of reasons. By no stretch of the imagination can the new clause be described as a denial of the fundamental right to peaceful and lawful protest.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised issues relating to subsections (2)(b) and (4)(f), and asked about the words "reasonably practicable". There is a need for flexibility in legislation, which is why those subsections appear in new clause 3. The use of the word "reasonably" precludes deliberate manipulation by protest organisers of the sort described by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
There might be circumstances in which 14 days notice is not practicable, and we could spend all night thinking of examples of that--problems with the post or other reasons. We also have to remember that parades and processions can be notified less than 28 days in advance if prior notice in their application was not practicable, either. Flexibility is built in for processions, and similar provision is required for protests.
At the end of the day, the judgment on whether those who are protesting are in breach of the legislation and whether they acted in an reasonable way will be made by the courts, if the matter is referred to them by the RUC. It will not be a matter for political judgment or intervention. It is reasonable to have those subsections in new clause 3.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about article 5 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Article 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to ban open-air public meetings. It has been amended by schedule 3 to the Bill, but the power continues to apply to all open-air meetings, including protest meetings. There are amendments consequential to the provisions of schedule 3, but the specific application of article 5 to open-air meetings continues.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked about the police station where notice is to be given. A meeting is "a related protest meeting" when it is to be held at a place which is in the vicinity of the route, or proposed route, of a public procession. Therefore, as new clause 3 requires notice to be given at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held, that will almost certainly be the same power station--sorry, police station: although the police have the power to take action; sometimes one cannot read notes scribbled down as points were made--as that which is nearest to the proposed starting point of the procession, but that will not necessarily be the case; hence the difference in the wording.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised points about parades being dealt with by the commission, and protests by the police. I hope that I dealt in my earlier explanation with the reasons why it is set out as it is in the Bill. I reiterate that any problems resulting from protest meetings are almost exclusively--albeit not wholly--public order-related.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |