---

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 3, I am grateful for the Minister's comments. If he refers to paragraph 13.42 of the North Report, which sets out the possible elements in a code of conduct for parades, he will find that Part III sets out quite clearly suggestions as to what might be included in a code of conduct in relation to what is described as,

"General behaviour for anyone participating in lawful protest against a parade".

That is what the amendment seeks. However, I am happy to leave the matter to be settled after further consideration, and for it to be dealt with in another place.

So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, I assure the Minister and the House that I have been far too long involved in parliamentary matters to have any pride in my draftsmanship. I understand from the Minister's remarks that the amendment does not achieve my intention. I shall therefore not move Amendments Nos. 5 and 11, but will leave others to consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [The Commission's powers to impose conditions on public processions]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 5, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert ("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.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I mentioned at Report stage, the Government acknowledge that the sentences in the current Bill are somewhat anomalous. Having a stricter maximum sentence for those defying a condition of the Parades Commission or participating in a banned procession than for those who seek to break up a lawful procession (which would of course itself constitute defiance of Parades Commission's determination) could strengthen the concerns of those who fear that this Bill is directed exclusively at one side of the community. Although the provisions of the Bill merely replicate provisions of existing legislation, we recognise the need for change.

We have been faced with a difficult choice, one shared by noble Lords who at different times have put down amendments, some proposing the one course, others the opposite. Nobody should be under the illusion that the offences in these clauses are not serious ones. The authorities are absolutely determined to maintain the rule of law and to see that decisions of the Parades Commission are not defied. But, equally, the choice lay between levelling up sentences under the Bill or

9 Dec 1997 : Column 21

levelling them down. This Government do not believe that the rule of law is necessarily best maintained by the threat of draconian penalties. Rather, we want to see even-handed and effective enforcement of the law. And levelling sentences in the Bill up to a maximum two years would seem disproportionate in the case of offences which need not involve violence or even the threat of violence. In addition, in the past the authorities have found the magistrates' court system adequate to deal with offences under the order, and we are confident that the same will apply in the future.

We believe that the structures established under this Bill will put the whole question of parades on a new, even-handed, transparent and, it is to be hoped, broadly acceptable basis. We do not see coercive penalties as the key for making the new structures work; rather the fostering of local agreement wherever possible and the ability for the first time to make determinations on contested parades on a fair and balanced basis. We therefore commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for moving this amendment, and we support it.

Lord Monson: My Lords, we are obviously living in a time of great compassion, when a convicted mass murderer who has spent no more than 10 years or thereabouts in prison is to be released on 10 days' home leave at Christmas. In the light of that, it would be going against the grain to permit the courts to impose a sentence of as much as two years on someone merely for parading without permission. I therefore support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions]:

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 6, line 35, after ("any") insert ("serious").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to introduce this set of amendments which seek to address the perception in some quarters that the Secretary of State's banning power in Clause 11 would effectively make parades easier to ban. I sought to explain in some detail at Report stage why we did not believe that that was a correct interpretation of the existing draft. We are, however, acutely aware that in such a sensitive area perception can be as important as reality. We are therefore happy to propose drafting which provides double reassurance that the banning power will not be used except in the most exceptional circumstances.

The Secretary of State will only be able to take into account disorder, disruption, and so forth, if they are themselves serious. But even that will not be enough, unlike in the existing public order order. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to be convinced that there is a danger of serious disorder, disruption, and so forth. He or she must also believe that, in all the circumstances, banning a parade would be necessary in the public

9 Dec 1997 : Column 22

interest. In European Convention terms, this would mean demonstrating that the step of taking a ban was both necessary and proportionate.

I also draw your Lordships' attention in this context to the wording in subsections (2)(e) and (3)(e) of Clause 11. These require the Secretary of State to take into account the extent of the powers exercisable under earlier subsections in the clause. This drafting looks technical, but it is important. In practice, it amounts to a further assurance that the Secretary of State will only use her powers in circumstances where it is proportionate. The banning power is now structured into a power to ban individual parades, a power to ban classes of parades and a power to ban all parades. As the power becomes broader, the Secretary of State will need to demonstrate both that the decision to use it is necessary, taking into account the seriousness of the disorder, and also that using the broader power is proportionate; that is, that using less draconian powers under this clause would not have been enough to deal with the problem identified.

With the amendments I have put down today, and the other changes in the drafting which I have already indicated, I believe that the banning power in the Bill provides greater reassurance than the existing banning power in the Public Order order to those who fear that these are too sweeping powers to curtail what is universally regarded as an important civil right. I can only repeat that the banning power has only been used in exceptional circumstances in the past, and that will remain the case in future. I therefore urge your Lordships to accept these amendments.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify whether the Government are now satisfied that, with the insertion of the words "serious" and "undue" in these subsections to define exceptional circumstances, the legislation is now on all fours with the European Convention in terms of proportionality?

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the answer to that question will be interesting; but, assuming that it is satisfactory, I think that the Government have been wise to accept the suggestions we made at an earlier stage, and I support the amendments.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, it is our understanding that we shall not be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights with these amendments and that the Secretary of State's other powers will ensure that any decisions are properly proportionate. I believe that the amendments will clarify any misunderstandings that there may have been about the way in which the Secretary of State would use her powers. I hope that the amendments will send out the right message. I can assure the noble Lord that we have taken the European Convention points into account.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9 Dec 1997 : Column 23

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 10:

Page 6, line 35, after ("or") insert ("serious").
Page 6, line 37, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 6, line 39, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 6, line 41, after ("any") insert ("undue").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 22:

Page 7, line 3, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 3, after ("or") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 6, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 8, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 10, after ("any") insert ("undue").
Page 7, line 18, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 18, after ("or") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 20, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 22, after ("any") insert ("serious").
Page 7, line 24, after ("any") insert ("undue").
Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert ("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.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 16 [Regulations and orders]:

---