| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'mediate' to 'between'.
Mr. Ingram: As was pointed out in Committee, clause 2 does not impose a duty on the commission to mediate; it simply empowers it to do so. As drafted, the Bill would give the commission the flexibility to act as it believes most appropriate in the circumstances. However, many people have made representations on this point and believe that the mediation function is incompatible with the adjudicatory function.
I do not believe that the commission would in practice be faced with conflicting duties in this regard. In fact, the commission would only--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. There is far too much conversation, in front of the Chair and behind it.
Mr. Ingram:
I do not believe that the commission would be faced with conflicting duties. It would have only a power, not a duty, to mediate. It could choose not to do so if it considered that there would be difficulty.
I have had to recognise the strong counter-view that the same body should not mediate and have responsibility for issuing determinations. I have given that further thought. Government amendment No. 16 deletes the references to direct mediation, while leaving the power to facilitate mediation.
That is another example of our approach to the Bill. There are competing arguments on specific issues. As I have said in earlier debates, sometimes it is difficult to come to a firm conclusion because of the strength of the arguments on both sides. I hold to the arguments that I advanced in Committee, but I respect the strong views that others have expressed. That is why we have tabled Government amendment No. 16 to delete the references to direct mediation.
Facilitating local agreements is the way forward. I hope that those who have influence to bring to bear on the way in which the Parades Commission will operate agree that it should do everything in its power to pursue that aim. The Parades Commission will learn from last year's experience and that to be gained in the coming marching
season and future years. The amended power will still be flexible enough for the commission to put what it regards as best practice into operation.
Amendment No. 33, to which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will undoubtedly speak, would have the opposite effect. It would give the commission the power only to mediate directly. It could not facilitate mediation through whatever means it thought best. Its time would be taken up by mediating between the parties. I am not sure that there would be enough commissioners to get through all the work if that responsibility were imposed. The hon. Gentleman will set out his arguments, but I felt it important to define what I understand to be the purpose and impact of the amendment.
We have tried to give the commission the flexibility to facilitate and encourage mediation. Mediation leading to local accommodation is a key to the Bill. On that basis, I ask the House to support amendment No. 16.
Mr. William Ross:
As the Minister has said, the amendments contradict each other. I hope that we shall have two Divisions on them, because they represent two different approaches. The Minister told us a moment ago that the Government find it difficult to come to firm conclusions. That is evident. They have written the Bill ambiguously so that, on almost any provision, one can come to several different conclusions. Sadly, they come to the wrong one far too often. We who have had experience of running processions--and who will, no doubt, have further experience of it--know how much more difficult the work will be.
When I saw the Minister's amendment, I thought back to the long debate that we had in Committee on the rights of the commissioners and said to myself, "Good heavens! There has been another typing error. The Minister has taken out the wrong bit. I shall be helpful to the poor chap and take out the right bit." When I came here this evening, I found that, lo and behold, the Government have not made a mistake but have acted with malice aforethought. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
Perhaps we should explore the matter. We have been told by all and sundry that there are only 12, 15, 20 or a maximum of 30 or so commissioners--we hear all sorts of figures--but that there will be only a tiny number of processions where there is be any trouble. Now we are told that there will be so many decisions to make, so many problems to settle, that the commissioners will not have time for them all. Will the Government make up their mind? Are there 10 or 20 or 30 commissioners--or as many as the IRA will manufacture? The Government--not by their words but by their actions--have come down on our side of the argument. They are by their action admitting that we are right--that the IRA will ensure that there are more confrontations this year.
We are making progress, albeit slowly. It takes time to convert these people to the truth, to let the light of knowledge shine through. We are doing our best. It has been a long, hard slog, but we are getting there. It might yet take another go or two at this legislation before it is founded on fact rather than myth and nonsense, but we will get there.
One might say that the commissioners are the greatest of the great and the best of the good. The countryside, the whole nation, has been searched. It has been necessary to come across to Great Britain to get someone impartial
enough and with enough experience of processions to chair the commission. The Government are saying that those people will be put in an ivory tower. From there, the commissioners will send their carefully selected minions into the country to do we know not what we know not how.
The Minister is asking us to accept that the commissioners should be let off the hook completely and allowed to live in a remote ivory tower, never to come down to the ground, never to play an active part, never to meet the citizens, never to meet Mr. Rice and Mr. McKenna--no, that would never do. Let the minions do it; let somebody else take the brickbats; let somebody else take the insults. Three, four, five, six or seven commissioners will sit in their ivory tower and make decisions on the basis of what is carried back to them by people who will be suspected--certainly by the Unionist population, and if the past is anything to go by, almost certainly by the IRA-Sinn Fein population with whom they are dealing.
The Government have got it completely, utterly and monumentally wrong. We should go in totally the opposite direction, and say to the commissioners, "You have taken on this job. We are paying you a very considerable salary for a few weeks' work every year. The Government have been telling us up to now that there are only 15 or 20 hot spots." They can start the day after Her Majesty's signature goes on the Bill. They can go now to Mr. Rice and Mr. McKenna, or Mr. Hasson and Mr. Smith in Bellaghy. They can go to all sorts of places. All the individuals who are going to raise problems are known.
If the Government and all the great and good in Northern Ireland are to be believed, they would have the whole thing wrapped up in a month. It would be no problem at all. They would have a wonderful agreement, because the IRA are just dying to reach an agreement with them.
Mr. Ingram:
Does the hon. Gentleman respect the views and opinions of Roy Magee?
Mr. Ross:
The Rev. Roy Magee resigned. Has the Minister managed to replace him yet--and replace him with an individual who is acceptable to the Unionist and loyalist community, as Roy Magee was? If not, why not?
Mr. Ingram:
What is the hon. Gentleman's answer?
Mr. Ross:
I do respect the opinions of Roy Magee, but I think that his feet told the story rather better than his words.
Mr. Ingram:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Roy Magee, whom he respects, took a view completely
Mr. Ross:
If I recall correctly, Roy Magee saw his role as that of a mediator. Yet the Government are now taking that mediation role away from the commission and putting it into the hands of others. Roy Magee resigned over that issue. Have the Government managed to replace him yet with a man of similar standing. If not, why not? Are they really finding it so difficult?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |