| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to consider a separate vote on new clause 4 when we have seen how the debate goes.
Mr. Öpik: The question of traditionality causes me some concern, because it raises the valid issue of special status. Surely the real issue is one of public order and other rights. I recognise that there is a genuine debate to be had here, but the important question is whether a procession is acceptable and unprovocative, or not so provocative as to cause danger.
Having lived in Northern Ireland, it seems to me that traditional marches have generally ploughed their own furrow, and tend to be accepted in a way which new processions may not be. However, that is more of an observation than a reason for allowing a procession to proceed.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the inherent points about traditionality is that, if something has been done for 150 years by our fathers and grandfathers, although logically it may not matter, the truth is that the removal of such marches engenders the greatest possible opposition? Therefore, if the object of the Bill is to lessen community confrontation, traditionality must be taken on board.
Mr. Öpik:
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, traditionality is not the reason for adopting the path he suggests: rather, it is everything else that is associated with the march--for example, its symbolic importance, the fact that it has been held repeatedly, possibly with no trouble, and the skill with which it has been organised. Those are the kind of matters that the commission should consider. The word "tradition" is simply a shorthand for all the things that we might associate with a well-run, long-standing event.
Therefore, I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's point, at least from the empirical standpoint of allowing many of those traditional marches--perhaps all of them--
to carry on. I am simply concerned that we are tying ourselves to the word "traditional", which is a shorthand way of describing the seven or eight key factors which really matter to the marches we are considering.
I should prefer us not to tie ourselves to the word "traditional", but to look behind that at all the things that the commission should consider. There is also the slight danger that, if we ascribe importance to the words "traditional" and "non-traditional", we open up a whole new front of conflict and debate as people seek to ascribe some extra status to their marches. That is not helpful in trying to be objective, in the interests of maintaining public order.
Mr. Ingram:
We have two different debates taking place on new clauses 2 and 4 and the consequential amendments. The new clauses would make radical changes to the provisions currently in clause 10. Clause 10 as it stands sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to prohibit parades. The Secretary of State already has, of course, power in the public order order to prohibit parades, but this power, as with the police's powers to set conditions on parades, may be exercised only on the basis of criteria that are exclusively related to public order.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
In line with the recommendations of the North report in paragraph 15 of chapter 14, clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State to prohibit parades, taking into account a range of factors that include the new factor of the impact of the parade on relationships within the community, as well as the existing public order factors. A further change from the existing law is that the powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 10 are now proportionate. That is to say, if the problems can be addressed by prohibiting an individual parade, that is what the Secretary of State will do. It would only be in circumstances in which the banning of an individual parade did not resolve the problem that the Secretary of State would move to ban all parades of a particular type, or indeed all parades.
A further significant change is, of course, that the maximum period for which parades may be banned under clause 10 is 28 days, which contrasts with three months
under the existing law. It is worth recalling that, in 1970, under the old Stormont Parliament, which was of course under Unionist control, the Minister for Home Affairs imposed a blanket ban for a period of six months. That was a much more draconian approach than that allowed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 14, tabled by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), would delete clause 10, on the Secretary of State's banning power, and new clause 2 would restructure that power. It is very similar to one tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, and we have already rehearsed the arguments elsewhere. This is a good opportunity to clear up some of the points the hon. Gentleman made in Committee, where we seemed to be at odds at times in trying to understand the issues at stake.
First, let me make it clear what new clause 2 would do. It would amount to a significant curtailment of the Secretary of State's banning power under the public order order. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government were seeking to expand the Secretary of State's power in clause 10. I disagreed with him then and I disagree with him now. The banning power in the Bill is different, but it is not fundamentally broader. His new clause would make bans much more difficult to impose. That may be his intention.
In the first place, new clause 2 would allow the Secretary of State to impose a ban only
During the drafting of the Bill, I considered whether there was a need for a reference to consulting the Chief Constable, as set out in clause 10. It seemed so straightforward and obvious that the Secretary of State would be in constant touch that it seemed superfluous to mention it in the Bill. However, discussion in Committee set out a different perspective. It is obvious that we were wise to make it clear in the Bill that we envisaged consultation with the Chief Constable. At times, the hon. Member for West Tyrone seemed to suggest in Committee that the Secretary of State would impose bans with no reference at all to the Chief Constable. That would be nonsense.
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram:
No, the hon. Gentleman has only recently entered the Chamber. I might give way to him when he has absorbed some of the debate. We have had an extensive debate; he may find it worth while to listen to some of the arguments that are being advanced.
Mr. Maginnis:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Minister's implication, I have been engaged in what is known as the talks process--in case he is not aware of it--and have recently arrived in the House to contribute what I can to this debate. I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman has made it clear, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Ingram:
I was not implying that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was not engaged in important business, but I was saying that it would be worth his while to pick up the flow of the debate rather than immediately trying to intervene. I was trying to be helpful, not insulting.
We are dealing with the notion that the Secretary of State would not consult her main security adviser before making decisions. That argument is the import of new clause 2, and it is nonsense. That is why the Bill provides for such consultation.
Mr. Thompson:
Does the Minister agree that the power given to the Secretary of State to ban a single parade is additional to what she had under the 1987 order? Will he explain why, if she would normally consult the Chief Constable, it cannot be put in the Bill as it is in the 1987 order?
That, at this day's sitting, the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Ingram:
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that he had received the impression that Ministers were not listening to what he had said about the Bill and its ramifications. If he believes that, he cannot have been listening to the debates in the other place, in Committee and tonight. As I explained earlier, substantial changes have been made following the input of noble Lords and of hon. Members in Committee. We have not only listened, but we have absorbed the arguments and modified the legislation to meet some of the concerns and issues that have been raised on both sides of the House.
"in consequence of information furnished to him by the Chief Constable".
In the public order order, a ban can be imposed in consequence of such information
"or for any other reason".
The Secretary of State is not constrained in existing legislation to impose bans only on the basis of the Chief Constable's information. That is not to say that the Secretary of State would make decisions off her own bat without consulting the Chief Constable, but the flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances needs to be there.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |