 House of Commons |
Session 2004 - 05 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates |
Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Column Number: 1 Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated LegislationThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: Mr. Roger Gale †Bradley, Mr. Keith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)†Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) †Clark, Mrs. Helen (Peterborough) (Lab) †Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab) †Cousins, Mr. Jim (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) (Lab) †Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP) †Gummer, Mr. John (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con) Hague, Mr. William (Richmond, Yorks) (Con) †Hall, Mr. Mike (Weaver Vale) (Lab) †Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab) †Hepburn, Mr. Stephen (Jarrow) (Lab) †Hermon, Lady (North Down) (UUP) †Lidington, Mr. David (Aylesbury) (Con) †Luff, Mr. Peter (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con) McGrady, Mr. Eddie (South Down) (SDLP) †Miller, Mr. Andrew (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) †Öpik, Lembit (Montgomeryshire) (LD) †Pearson, Mr. Ian (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) †Prentice, Mr. Gordon (Pendle) (Lab) †Watts, Mr. David (St. Helens, North) (Lab) Frank Cranmer, Committee Clerk † attended the Committee Column Number: 3 Tuesday 8 March 2005[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Draft Public Processions (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 20058.55 amThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): I beg to move,
Good morning, Mr. Gale. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning. A draft of the order was laid before the House on 27 February 2005. Before I turn to its detail, I shall briefly set out its context and the wider package of measures on parades that I announced on 22 February this year. Sir George Quigley’s report, commissioned following the Weston Park talks, was submitted to the Secretary of State on 27 September 2002. Sir George’s central recommendation was the establishment of a parades facilitation agency and a rights panel. The agency would offer a mediative function, but parties might make alternative arrangements that the agency would monitor. If agreement was reached, it would be documented and have the same force as a determination. Otherwise, the agency would report to the rights panel on the extent to which the parties had acted constructively. The rights panel would be the determining body in respect of parades and protests. Basing its decisions on article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the panel would consider whether restrictions needed to be placed on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, in line with some elements of article 11(2) of the convention. The rights panel would then issue a determination. It would then be for the police to determine whether any restriction needed to be placed on the article 11 right in the interests of national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime, in line with the remainder of article 11(2). I am sure that hon. Members will agree that Sir George’s report is an intellectually impressive piece of work that has provided a significant contribution to the debate about parading in Northern Ireland. We are all indebted to him for that work. The report was issued for public consultation on 7 November 2002, and following representations from both sides of the community, the consultation period was extended so that everyone would have a chance to comment. Column Number: 4 On 3 September 2003, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee announced an inquiry into the Parades Commission and the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Its report was published on 11 January 2005. The Committee came to the following conclusions: no fundamental structural change is required to parading arrangements in Northern Ireland; steady progress has been made by the Parades Commission in difficult and highly contentious circumstances; new organisational arrangements at this stage would be destabilising; and the Orange Order should engage in direct dialogue with the commission—that point was made very strongly by the Committee. The Committee also concluded that the Parades Commission could build confidence in its work by increasing transparency and ensuring compliance with determinations and ensuring that complaints are followed up; that parades and protests should be considered by the same body; that the position on supporters and followers of parades should be clarified before the summer; and that mediation work should be stepped up. It was a helpful report, but I have also been considering the events of the past few summers. It is important to note that parades have been increasingly peaceful over the past few years—the number of contentious parades has fallen. Out of approximately 2,000 parades last year, 200 were regarded as “contentious” and only two resulted in serious public order incidents. In recent years, however, the behaviour of supporters has become an important factor in parades disputes. Both the Parades Commission and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have, in the past, taken the view that determinations apply to parade supporters. Indeed, the Parades Commission has issued determinations that have placed conditions on supporters. However, in a recent judicial review application, the Parades Commission accepted that the applicant, who intended to walk alongside the parade, was not a participant and therefore not the subject of its determination. That led to an ambiguity on the status of supporters, which had significant implications for subsequent processions and contributed to a serious public order incident last summer. It also placed the PSNI in a difficult position. One principle underlying the 1998 Act was removing from the police the dual responsibility of taking decisions on parades and then policing them. I have been considering how best to resolve that. When I gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last summer, I indicated that I would respond formally to the Quigley report when the Committee published its own recommendations. Both the Quigley report and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee present cogent arguments for a way forward, and I have taken both their views into
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. Will the Minister outline to the Committee how representative the Parades Commission, which he has mentioned several times, is of the community? Mr. Pearson: As the hon. Lady knows, the Parades Commission is an independent body, the members of which have been appointed by the Secretary of State. It acts independently in reaching its conclusions and issuing its determinations. There is no point in hiding the fact that the Parades Commission has not enjoyed the confidence of a significant portion of the Unionist community. That is a matter of concern to the Government, and is one reason why Sir George Quigley was commissioned to carry out his report in the first place. The issue has been addressed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and its conclusion was that the Parades Commission remains the best hope for developing the peaceful resolution of disputed parades. I shall now turn to the issues addressed in the order, dealing first with supporters and followers. The order puts the position of supporters beyond doubt. It is vital to do that as soon as possible, which is why I have brought the order before the House. The order makes it clear that the Parades Commission has the discretion to include in its determinations conditions that would apply to supporters of parades as well as participants. As with parade participants, if a supporter were knowingly to fail to comply with a condition imposed by a determination, it would be a criminal offence. That will make it clear to supporters that they must act responsibly and in accordance with the determination or face sanction. However, safeguards are in place. Section 8(7) of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 provides that it is a defence for an individual to prove that the failure to comply with a condition arose from circumstances beyond his control, or from following the instructions of a senior police officer. Article 3 contains the most critical part of the order: the definition of a supporter. Lady Hermon: Before the Minister moves on, will he clarify whether a mother and her children standing at the roadside applauding a passing band and procession qualify as supporters? Do they fall within the catch-all phrase used in article 3(4), which states that
Column Number: 6 they are present and their presence
Mr. Pearson: That would be a matter for the police to determine, because they will interpret the legislation. The crucial point to make to the hon. Lady is that the practical consequences are that a family in that situation are unlikely to be affected by a determination by the Parades Commission. The definition of a supporter in article 3 has two parts. First, it requires a person to be in a public place and in close proximity to persons taking part in the procession at any time when the procession is being held. If a supporter is temporarily moved away from the procession through acting in compliance with a condition imposed by a determination or a direction from a senior police officer, he is still regarded as being in “close proximity”. Secondly, a person will fall into the definition of supporter only if in all circumstances, including his conduct, his presence in that place may reasonably be taken as expressing support for the holding of the procession. The police on the ground will be making that judgment. Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Will the Minister give way? Mr. Pearson: In a moment. Confirming that the Parades Commission may make determinations that include conditions on supporters will give us greater clarity ahead of the summer. Making it clear in advance what behaviour is expected of those who support a parade as well as those who participate should help to make parades pass off more peacefully and reduce the scope for public order incidents. Mr. Gummer: I just wondered as a matter of practical concern how a police officer distinguishes between somebody who happens to be around the march and supports whatever the march is about, and somebody who supports the march—it having been illegal. In other words, it seems difficult to make that decision either on the spot or afterwards. Is it not a rather curious distinction? How does one distinguish between somebody who is there by accident and happens to support the principle upon which the march is taken, and somebody who supports a march, which is the thing that is illegal? Mr. Pearson: I do not see that as curious at all. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are dealing with some potentially difficult situations when it comes to parades in Northern Ireland. Our experience has demonstrated that. Previously the police would have used the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to ensure order at parades. Most people would accept that it is sensible to allow the Parades Commission to make a determination about supporters and followers and to stress as part of its determination that their
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Are we not getting to the heart of the problem? Although the Minister says that the overwhelming majority of supporters act reasonably, the question is whether it is reasonable to jeopardise the authorisation for a march on the basis of the small number who act unreasonably. Is it reasonable to expect the organisers to prevent a bunch of people who have spent the day in the pub from coming out and behaving unreasonably? Jumping ahead a few steps, I suggest that the Minister’s proposed legislation could be a green light to vigilantism. Mr. Pearson: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is trying to suggest that parades organisers should not be responsible for the actions of all supporters and followers, and I must recognise and accept that. It is not reasonable to expect parades organisers to ensure completely the good behaviour of all supporters and followers. That is why the legislation we propose demonstrates that the responsibility for failure to comply with the condition imposed by a determination rests with the individual and not the parades organiser. Lady Hermon: It is awfully good of the Minister to take so many interventions; I mean that most sincerely. The topic is sensitive and controversial, so I am most grateful to him. He will know that one requirement of the organiser of a parade, be it the Royal Black Preceptory, the Orange Order, the Ancient Order of Hibernians or any others, is that it must state the number of persons likely to take part. How in heaven’s name could a lodge, be it Black, Orange or the Ancient Order of Hibernians, possibly estimate the likely number of supporters who will turn up to a particular event? Mr. Pearson: I understand that they have done that in the past. These things are not an exact science, but I do not think that it is impossible for a reasonable estimate to be made. Of course, we will not take sanctions against a parade organiser who underestimates or overestimates the number of supporters and followers who may be attracted to attend a parade. We want to be seen to be acting reasonably here. Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): If that is case, why include the requirement in the legislation? If it has no effect in law I fail to understand why the Government are placing the responsibility on parade organisers to predict the number of people who
Mr. Pearson: The point about this—it also applies to protests, which I shall come to—is that it is helpful to have an estimate to decide on the amount of resources that need to be devoted to manage a parade. That is part of good operational management. Lembit Öpik: But if, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) says, it is simply nice to have a piece of information, why put it in the legislation? For example, when 2 million people, in my judgment, marched through London in opposition to the Government’s plans to go to war in Iraq, the police estimated that they numbered around 1 million. Surely the inference here is that if the number is wildly different from the organisers’ original estimate, it could be used as a sanction to prevent the march. Crucially, as our estimates of how many people marched through London against the war still differ by about 1 million, how can the organisers of marches in Northern Ireland hope to be treated fairly, given the inaccuracies of estimates of numbers even when the police are present? Mr. Pearson: I do not want to get into the details of how many people attended the “Stop the War” march but, as I have already said, this is not an exact science. However, estimates can be made and they are helpful for planning purposes when it comes to the parading season, which is why it is in the legislation. Mr. Gummer: Before the Minister leaves that point, is he not aware that in mainland Britain now, organisers of major marches such as the Countryside Alliance have to have a system where by automatic and independent counting they can show how very large are the numbers who march, for example, in favour of hunting? They have to do it that way because otherwise the estimates are so inaccurate that nobody can possibly tell. Surely it is wrong to include something like this as a requirement in the law when one is trying to estimate something before it happens, which one cannot even get right when it is happening. It seems nonsense to me. Mr. Pearson: I think I will just have to return to the point that if one is planning to allocate resources to manage a parade, as the police and the armed services have to do, it is not unreasonable to expect a parade organiser to come up with his or her best estimate of the size of the parade and the number of likely supporters or followers. I do not want to make any more of it than that. Article 4 of the order also allows the Parades Commission to make determinations that impose conditions on protest meetings related to parades. I have been persuaded by Quigley and by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the time is right for the
The new guidelines will provide for the commission, in considering whether to impose conditions on protests, to have regard not only to public disorder or damage to property that might result, but to disruption to the life of the community, the impact that the protest may have on relationships in the community and any previous failure to comply with the code of conduct. Those factors reflect equivalent ones that the commission must consider when making determinations about processions. Articles 4 and 5 of the order allow the Secretary of State to review determinations made by the commission on protests. He may also prohibit protest meetings. That will mean that the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to processions and protests are brought into line. Asking the commission to consider both parades and protest meetings will mean that decisions balance competing rights and take account of all relevant factors. Article 7 modifies the procedure that the commission must follow in the first revision of the code of conduct, guidelines and procedural rules after the order comes into operation. The shorter procedure will ensure that revised statutory documents can be in place in time for the summer. The order will apply to all parades and related protest meetings happening on or after 14 May 2005. They must be notified on new forms that I shall prescribe shortly and will be considered under the new arrangements. Parades and protests happening before 14 May will be notified and considered under the current arrangements. I firmly believe that agreed outcomes that reflect a mutual respect for one another’s rights, traditions and sensitivities remain by far the best solution for so-called “contentious” parades in Northern Ireland. Mediation can provide the basic framework to reach those agreed outcomes. The principle of mediation enjoys broad support, but there has not been agreement on how best to deliver it. Accordingly, I have launched a consultation exercise to seek views on the most effective way to provide and support mediation for contentious parades. It will consider the following questions: how parties to mediation can be encouraged to engage meaningfully; what the most effective way to deliver mediation will be; whether the
I hope that we can reach a position whereby the issues relating to all contentious parades can be resolved through mutual agreement. In the meantime, there remains a role for an organisation to consider parades and related protest meetings and to make determinations about them when necessary. The order will ensure that the Parades Commission can do its job effectively by considering all relevant factors and coming to a balanced judgment about them. I commend the order to the Committee. 9.18 amMr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the order, although it caused me some concern when, particularly in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), he appeared not to be entirely clear about what the order will mean in practice. The Minister will know that, historically, the official Opposition have supported or not opposed the Government on various items of parades legislation that they have introduced. I agree with the central conclusion of the Select Committee report that the responsibility for deciding whether to authorise or impose particular restrictions on processions should not be returned to the police. The present arrangements with the Parades Commission remain controversial and are certainly not perfect, but it would be invidious to return that responsibility to the Chief Constable and his officers. That would inevitably take the PSNI back into taking what would be considered as political decisions. I also agreed with the Select Committee that the experience of last summer, particularly the incident in the Ardoyne, which came dangerously close to being the cause of considerable disturbance, suggested that the Government needed to look again at the legislation. In particular, that incident identified that there was an issue to be addressed concerning people who were following, rather than participating in, parades. Of course, that was not the only problem that we saw last summer. It has to be said that there were some rulings from the Parades Commission that were seen, particularly in the Unionist community, as not merely controversial but almost incomprehensible. I strongly endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee that the commission should be much more open in giving an explanation in good time for restrictions that it is proposing to impose. One thing that has emerged from conversations that I have had with the Orange
The Minister will know too that there is a continuing issue within the Unionist community about what is seen as the asymmetry of our current arrangements for dealing with public processions, and that the definition of a public procession includes marches by the various loyal orders. The example often given to me is that the current definition excludes motorcades by Gaelic Athletic Association supporters or other manifestations of Irish nationalist and republican feeling. When those motorcades drive through Unionist villages or estates, they arouse resentment and sometimes fear. Any debate needs to appreciate that such feelings still exist, and that there is an asymmetry in the current legislative arrangements. Having made those general points, I want to press the Minister further about some of the details of the order. I am concerned about some of the definitions included in it, and I want to be absolutely clear before the end of today’s debate how the Government believe that the legislation will make a difference on the ground when it comes to the ordering of processions in Northern Ireland this summer. Let me deal first with the question of supporters, to which the hon. Member for North Down referred in her intervention. As I understand the order, it imposes duties both on the organisers of processions and on the individuals who are deemed by the order to be supporters. The organisers have to notify the commission of the number of expected supporters, as well as the number of people participating in the parade, and the individuals themselves have to comply with any restrictions that may be placed on them as supporters by the commission in its rulings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised the question of how a parade organiser is likely to be able to give an accurate prediction of the number of supporters who will turn up to take part in a particular parade. That estimate will be affected by what is meant by a parade supporter. The intervention by the hon. Member for North Down was very pertinent to that matter. The parades pass through high streets and residential areas and are watched by large numbers of people standing on the pavement—people in public places. The Committee therefore needs to be clear whether those spectators are deemed to be supporters during such time as the parade is going past them because, in terms of the order, they are standing in
We are not just talking about the drunken louts who attach themselves to the back of an organised parade and then announce to the police and others, “No, we’re not taking part, we’re just supporters.” We are considering whether, perhaps inadvertently, the order might extend various rules and regulations to people who are taking part quite innocently as spectators. That needs to be clarified. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 9 March 2005 |