| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ingram: I shall first deal with one more point; then I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not in his place, made the point that the commission could not fully consider the situation
relating to a parade until it had received formal notice of a protest, and that it would have to wait until the eleventh hour until it knew of that. Without new clause 3, there would be no notice requirement for a protest meeting, so the new clause obviously improves on that which was there before. We have an improvement in the legislation, not a reining back of the legislation.
In addition, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, authorised officers, and possibly even the members of the Parades Commission, will go out into the community when a potentially contentious parade is to take place so as to see what is happening on the ground. The responsibility rests with them to try to find out what is happening, so they will probably--although it is not certain--pick up on the possibility of some protest against the procession or the parade ensuing from the application going ahead. They would have knowledge of it before the 14-day period was triggered.
However, it was judged that it was reasonable to impose a 14-day notice period, because it would give people the right to know that a procession was to go through their area, and enable them to consider whether they were agreeable to its doing so. People have the right to consider what is happening in their area and the right to lawful and peaceful protest, and those rights should not be taken from them. That right should not be removed from them.
Mr. William Ross:
Trade union disputes are a case in point, and trade union peace rallies are another. Those are events that we all applaud. We know what happened recently when there was a hijacking by the IRA in front of Belfast city hall. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland turned up, and was happy to beat a hasty retreat. How will the Government, the police or the Parades Commission deal with such a situation?
Mr. Ingram:
My right hon. Friend turned up at the event to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but she did not beat a hasty retreat. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in The Newsletter. I accept, of course, that sometimes The Newsletter can be accurate.
My right hon. Friend's intention was to see the turnout. She wished to get a feel for it and then go on--[Interruption.] I am trying to explain the background. I seem to have created some hilarity, but I understand that some honest assertions or statements are not always accepted by some members of the Ulster Unionist party. I have outlined the circumstances relating to my right hon. Friend's presence.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry talked about a trade union peace rally, but that was not a public procession. There was no need for it to comply with new clause 3, because it did not relate to a public procession. Therefore, this point has no substance.
I have tried to deal in a structured way with the many points that have been raised during the debate. Some have been raised in different ways by different hon. Members, but I have tried to condense the issues into key elements.
New clause 3 and the associated amendments represent a genuine attempt to take on board what has been said in Committee about the need to amend the Bill. The same or similar expressions were raised in another place. We are trying to achieve a balance. There was always a possibility that the Government would proceed as we have.
Although members of the Ulster Unionist party may object to the Bill in its entirety, I am glad that they recognise that movement has been made, as shown by new clause 3 and the related amendments. I hope that this movement will be of benefit to the community generally, which is involved in participating both in processions and protests and upon which protests and processions impact. The Bill will be better as a consequence of the new clause and amendments, and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mr. Thompson:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 5.
No. 3, in page 5, line 14, leave out from 'procession)' to end of line 16.
Mr. Thompson:
Those who know the Bill will understand that clauses 7 to 10 represent its substance. We know, of course, that the Bill deals with important issues, such as law and order and the rights of people to process and to object. My hon. Friends and I do not accept that those matters should be decided by a commission, especially a commission that is a new quango in Northern Ireland, the members of which will be nominated by the Secretary of State. Our experience is that those who are nominated by the Secretary of State to quangos are placed to carry out the Government's business.
We believe that, as with protests, decisions on parades should be taken by the police. We believe also that when public order is at stake, it is the responsibility of the police to be involved. To seek to pass the responsibility over to an unelected lay body seems to my colleagues and me to be completely unacceptable.
The Parades Commission has been given significant powers under clause 7. They enable a determination to be made as the commission considers necessary. Guidelines provide for the commission to have regard to various factors, such as
We believe also that the Bill, in many instances, is a contravention of the European convention on human rights. In another place, the Government are putting through a measure entitled the Human Rights Bill. In the White Paper, there is a wonderful photograph of--guess who?--the Prime Minister. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says:
Article 10 states:
We read under article 11:
Article 14 states:
A number of human rights cases have gone through the European Court of Human Rights. Two of those cases are relevant to public order and the right of peaceful assembly. One was the case of Plattform "Arzte fur das Leben", an association of doctors that campaigned against abortion with a view to securing changes in the Austrian legislation. It complained to the court about violations of article 11. It is interesting to read about those demonstrations, because it is amazing how they compare with the situation in Northern Ireland.
'.--(1) If the Commission, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route, reasonably believes--
(a) that the likely actions of those taking part in the parade may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
(b) that the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do,
it may issue a determination imposing on the persons organising the procession such conditions as appear to it to be necessary to prevent such disorder, disruption or intimidation, including conditions as to route of the procession or prohibiting it from entering any public place.
(2) The Commission may amend or revoke any determination issued under this section.
(3) A person who knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed under this section shall be guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the failure arose--
(a) from circumstances beyond his control; or
(b) from something done by direction of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of inspector.
(4) A person who incites another to commit an offence under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) or (4) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'.--[Mr. Thompson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
"any public disorder or damage to property which may result from the procession . . . any disruption to the life of the community".
Two additional paragraphs refer to the
"impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community; any failure of a person of a description specified in the guidelines to comply with the Code of Conduct".
We believe that the two additional conditions are completely unacceptable. Furthermore, we believe that they are contrary to the provisions of the European convention on human rights. If the provisions were voluntary, they might be more acceptable. If the commission wishes to have guidelines and a code of conduct, that is up to it, but the idea that such provisions should be statutory and should be used to impose conditions on a parade is to us completely unacceptable.
"We believe it is right to increase individual rights".
Yet the Bill is taking away individual rights. These are the rights that are set out in the convention. Article 9 states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
As the Orange institution is a religious organisation, we believe that we have every right to march the Queen's highway and to proclaim our religion in that respect.
"Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers",
yet the Bill seeks to restrict the freedom of marchers to express their culture and beliefs.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
Again, the right of freedom of peaceful assembly is under grave attack in the Bill.
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
The Bill will give rise to instances of discrimination, because certain classes of organisation will not be required to comply with the requirement to indicate their intention to hold a parade, yet other organisations such as Orange and other institutions will be required to do so. That, we argue, is discrimination, in contravention of the European convention on human rights.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |