| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Worthington: That was an interesting intervention in that it prevented me from explaining why.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that one cannot take a case to Europe until one has exhausted all the possibilities in the courts here? It is almost impossible to take the marching issue to the courts; it is not as easy as the Minister suggests. One cannot just take a case to Europe immediately. He should be fair to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and make it clear that one has first to exhaust all the avenues here in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Worthington: What action has the hon. Gentleman--or the hon. Member for West Tyrone--taken to exhaust any legal mechanisms when they feel that their rights have been overridden?
I should like to progress--
Mr. Robert McCartney:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Worthington:
In a moment. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I have been reasonable.
In Committee we had detailed discussions about--
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan):
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Worthington:
No. That would not be fair. I have just refused to give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) because I want to deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I shall give way later.
Amendment No. 13 would delete clause 7. New clause 1 would restrict the powers of the Parades Commission to impose conditions on public processions, making its powers even narrower than those currently enjoyed by the police. The current law has created a situation in which the Chief Constable felt confronted by alternative evils, as he has graphically described, putting the RUC in an invidious position. Decisions were based on public order considerations alone. That meant that the side with the largest crowd who threatened most got their way. We cannot accept that as the rule of law. People were offended by the biggest group of thugs being allowed to get their way. We had to establish a different framework.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), does the Minister accept that the phenomenon of violent objections to parades is relatively recent? As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has pointed out, the fons et origo was the 1987 order, which was a protester's charter. Only since 1994 has opposition to parades--Drumcree, Ormeau road and Derry--been
Mr. Worthington:
My experience in Northern Ireland has discouraged me from any interest in history. I am interested in the present situation. That situation is unacceptable and we are trying to deal with it.
Mr. Stott:
My hon. Friend talked about unfettered rights a little earlier. He said that nobody has the unfettered right to do what they want in the face of the authorities' decisions on public order. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the Hansard. Those who know me know about my experience of Northern Ireland. I view the issue as a matter of public order. We are trying to ensure that people's rights are safeguarded. I remind--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or is he starting a speech?
Mr. Stott:
I am making an intervention. I remind--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Could it be an intervention, please, and not a speech?
Mr. Stott:
During the miners' strike, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire prevented miners from going down the M1 to a secondary picket protest on public order grounds. I heard nothing from Northern Ireland Members about that.
Mr. Worthington:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am disinclined to go not only into historical studies but cross-cultural studies.
The Government are making an honest attempt to balance competing rights. We are essentially about recognising the importance of the ability to march, but not regardless of the impact on others. It is as simple as that. We cannot go back, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone would want, to an even narrower definition than that in the 1987 order. That is the order that we are trying to deal with.
Mr. Thompson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Worthington:
I think that everyone in the House would recognise that the hon. Gentleman has had a fair shout.
If we accepted the new clause, we should be taking away the central thrust of the North report. As we all know, North found that legislation provided a disincentive to disorder by focusing mainly on public order factors, and he recommended that the Parades Commission should also be able to take into account the wider impact that a parade may have on relationships in the community. That is really North's most central recommendation. That is why the new clause is completely unacceptable. We must take into account the impact on the community, while recognising that there are malevolent people on both sides.
At present, the police are able to impose conditions concerning parades if they
Amendment No. 3, tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), presents the other side of the matter, and deals with the commission's powers to impose conditions. He does not believe that the traditionality of a parade is a factor that the commission should take into account. Well, we do. We believe that it is one of several significant factors that should be taken into account when weighing up whether a parade should go ahead. That is what is even-handed about the Bill. Although we understand the hon. Gentleman's point, the Bill's wording reflects the finding of the North report that
We believe that we have suggested a sensible compromise; it is about balancing rights. That is why what we have proposed should be accepted, and why we should resist the new clause and the amendments.
Mr. Thompson:
I very much regret that the Minister has found it impossible to accept the reasonable new clause. On his statement on the European convention on human rights, I should have thought that there was an onus on the Government to issue a statement of compatibility with human rights. Certain issues in the Bill seem to be contrary to those rights. For example,
In other words, if the Salvation Army says, "We are the Salvation Army; we preach the gospel and we are good people, so we have to be exempted," and the Secretary of State says, "It's all right for you," but when the Orange Order says, "We are the Orange Order; we are a religious organisation, we owe loyalty to the Queen and we should be released from the obligation," the Secretary of State says, "No, you can't," she would be discriminating between lawful people. She would find that distinction difficult to establish in the European Court of Human Rights.
What about the situation of a person who takes part in a public procession? Again, it would be difficult to uphold a conviction in the European Court of Human Rights if a
person went along to a parade and exercised his rights, not knowing that the parade was banned.
Clause 7 refers to
The hon. Member whose constituency I do not know, who referred to the miners' strike--[Interruption.]--the hon. Member for Warrington?
Mr. Stott:
Wigan. It has a better rugby team.
Mr. Thompson:
I know the case that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) mentioned. There was a lot of trouble at the strike and the police were of the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me to say--[Interruption.] A public order decision--
9.15 pm
"reasonably believe that it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community".
4 Feb 1998 : Column 1135
The new clause would make the commission's task altogether more contentious. It would mean that conditions could be imposed only if the commission reasonably believes that the likely actions of those taking part in the parade may result in serious public disorder. We cannot accept that, although we recognise the thinking behind it. The hon. Gentleman believes that it is not fair that conditions should be imposed on a parade when the threat of violence comes from those opposing it rather than those taking part, but the public order issue essentially remains the same. Such a new clause would cripple the new structures and lead to endless judicial reviews.
"whether . . . a parade or a route is long-standing should be one of the points to take into account"
as a feature of a parade. It is only one of the factors.
"a procession of a class or description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State"
will not need to apply to the commission. I think that, under European law, the idea that one can distinguish between classes of people has now become highly suspect.
"any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the community",
yet it is unlawful to place restrictions on a parade on the grounds that it will have some kind of adverse effect on the community. The provision could not be upheld in the Court of Human Rights, because it does away with the right to march--although I know that the Minister refuses to accept that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |