DISPLAY OF SUPPORT IN PUBLIC FOR A PROSCRIBED ORGANISATION (Hansard, 28 November 1974)

§ Mr. Craig
I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.

§ The Chairman
With this amendment we are to discuss also the following:

§ Mr. Craig
There is always difficulty about arriving at the right penalty. The amendments are based on the simple thinking that it is good sense to keep the penalties here and in Northern Ireland at the same level. That is the only merit of the amendments. The period of imprisonment and the fines are realistic and will act as a deterrent. For the sake of uniformity throughout the United Kingdom I commend these amendments to the Committee.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends have much the same purpose as was expressed by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). It seems that the punishment is drawn from, if anywhere, the Public Order Act 1936. We believe that the proper precedent is the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 which has exactly the provision which we have written into the amendments in our names.
We do not base our case simply on legal precedent. It is also worth mentioning that in the past we have seen in cities like Birmingham marches, demonstrations and displays of men and women who have been supporters of the IRA. In the past such displays have 837 caused offence. It is clear that if they were to take place now they would cause total outrage.
It is therefore important that we in this Parliament show our disapproval and condemnation of such possible acts and display. It is important that the punishments under the Bill should be realistic and to some extent should deter people from display. We do not believe that a maximum sentence of three months, which in most normal circumstances means two months served in prison, is sufficient. We would prefer a more realistic sentence, and we believe that that would be a maximum sentence of six months.

§ Mr. Cormack
Since there are two amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I must say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I would not wish to insist on the sentences proposed in my amendments. I hope that the Committee will accept the other amendments.

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
I do not wish to oppose the amendment, but it is worth pointing out that if carried it would permit a defendant to claim the right of trial by jury since it would increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment to six months. It might be better that the offence should be restricted to summary trial alone for practical and other reasons. That might be of greater assistance to the police than that a defendant came before a jury. I wonder whether my hon. Friends have considered these implications.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
The object of the clause is to try to eradicate any doubts that might exist about the section of the Public Order Act concerning the wearing of a uniform which have caused some inhibition concerning taking of proceedings under that section. Although a recent prosecution was successful, there has always been doubt as to what constituted a uniform. The clause is designed to make clear what might be unacceptable if it was done for the purpose of arousing reasonable apprehension that a person was a member of a pro- 838 scribed organisation. It is, therefore, to the Public Order Act that we have looked on the question of penalties. The penalties in the Bill reflect those in the Act—three months' imprisonment or a fine of £50. We have taken account of inflation in monetary terms and provided for three months' imprisonment and a fine of £200.
The proper maximum penalty for any new offence is always a question of judgment. But we must recognise that if a person could be convicted under the clause there might at any rate be some evidence which would enable him to be convicted under the earlier clause. There the penalties are very much more severe. So it is not the only action that the police can take.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is right in saying that if any of the amendments were carried it would give the right of trial by jury in a case of this nature. Although that would not be reprehensible in itself because it would be an extension of the civil rights of the accused, it would give an opportunity for the accused to make his declarations in court in a way which might be even more offensive than the kind of conduct which is thought to be so reprehensible as to justify the clause in any case. There are, therefore, dangers in that, although I do not put them very high. I should have thought that if a person was an active member of the IRA so that he was taking part in marches it might be possible to prosecute him under the earlier clause.

§ Mr. Stainton
I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 6, leave out from first 'have' to 'access'.

§ The Chairman
With this Amendment we shall also take Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 6, after 'whether', insert: 'permitted or not and whether'.

§ Mr. Stainton
My concern in moving the amendment is to clarify, in the situation where there are displays in public in support of a proscribed organisation, what constitutes a "public place". It is not evident from the wording of the subsection that a private churchyard, for example, if there be such a thing, or the campus of a university, would be covered 839 adequately. I have sought to delete the words or are permitted to have in line 6 so that the line would read The public have access whether permitted or not and whether on payment or otherwise. It does not make it completely clear for example, what would happen if a display were to take place in someone's front garden, permitted or not, or in a church yard where a volley of shots was fired during a funeral ceremony. That situation would not appear to be covered by the Bill and I suggest that the amendment would make the clause more effective.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
I can see the point of the amendment. As I understand the hon. Member, he is seeking to create the situation in which it would be permissible to charge that an offence occurred in a public place if the public had access to that place in normal circumstances but when it was closed or when the permission had been withdrawn so that the demonstration was conducted by trespassers. That would be the effect of the proposed wording, but I think that the hon. Member's concern is largely met by the clause. A church would be a public place since the public would normally have access to it and would be permitted access to it.

§ Mr. Stainton
What about a private crematorium?

§ Mr. Lyon
A private crematorium is defined almost by the use of the adjective. A private crematorium to which the public did not have access, even on payment, and where access was restricted to a certain limited number of the public would perhaps not be a public place.
It would be a matter of nice judgment for the court whether the public had access in such circumstances. When the hon. Member talks about a private garden where a demonstration might take place, the answer is that it would not and could not be a public place by any definition put into legislation that I know of. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that might cause offence if it were done in this way. It would be going further than any legislation on the subject has ever gone to say that a demonstration within a private area, even if the area were visible from 840 the road—say, one's front bedroom window—would constitute an offence of this kind.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the subsection as drafted covers most of his concern——

§ Mr. Stainton
But not all.

§ Mr. Lyon
But that which it does not cover would not be dealt with by his amendment.

§ Mr. Stainton
What about the university campus?

§ Mr. Lyon
That would probably be a public place if the public had access to it, as the public does in most circumstances. It would depend upon the facts. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would not cover the private garden situation. It would be going further than I want to go to say that we ought to cover that kind of area.

§ Mr. Powell
This is probably the point to raise a matter of great administrative importance. I am glad that both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are present because this matter concerns both equally. By Clause 1 and Clause 2, which we are now adding to the Bill, the law in Great Britain and the law in Northern Ireland is for the first time being virtually assimulated. There are still slight variations, some of which have concerned the Committee in previous amendments.
Broadly speaking, and quite deliberately, we have made the law on proscribed organisations, on public demonstrations and on belonging to such organisations the same throughout the United Kingdom. It would, I think, be accepted by all that where a law applies uniformly to the whole of the kingdom it should be administered on similar lines and principles and the enforcement should be broadly similar wherever the law is broken from one country to the other.
Hitherto this problem has not arisen in the same form since this was the law only in Northern Ireland. It will now be the law in the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, both in its administration in Great Britain, where it is new, 841 and in its administration henceforward in Northern Ireland great importance will attach to uniformity. That will present grave decisions and serious administrative problems, not least in Northern Ireland. Those have to be faced and they will be easier to face if they are faced from the outset. I hope that before we part from the clause we shall receive, on behalf of the Government, an indication that it is their serious purpose to aim at uniformity of enforcement and administration of the law as embodied in Part I of this measure.

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He is right in saying that there is a closer approximation than hitherto between the law in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is not an exact coincidence. It is clear that there are certain differences between the conditions in Northern Ireland and those prevailing in Great Britain. We take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is our desire to see peaceful conditions restored in both parts of the United Kingdom. In so far as joint application of the law can help, we shall endeavour to do that.