Public Order (Northern Ireland)

HC Deb 26 June 1997 vol 296 cc1034-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Ms Bridget Prentice.]

7.12 pm

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I appreciate having the opportunity to raise the operation of the public order legislation in Northern Ireland, having come up in the raffle or the shuffle. I have been seeking an opportunity for some weeks.

I recognise that Ministers were talking about unrest in the previous debate and the problems for tourist attractions. A few years ago, I had a telephone call from someone in Pittsburgh who wanted to know whether it was safe to come to Northern Ireland. I said that it was and that there were no difficulties. A short time after that, there was rioting in Detroit, so I rang and said that I was thinking of going over there that year but wondered whether it would be safe enough to go. The answer came back, "Point taken."

Those who keep emphasising the problems of Northern Ireland do not create confidence. We must bear that in mind. I am not minimising the problems, but we should not think of the jump from 1995 to 1996 as a wonderful landmark, forgetting that the world's media were coming and for months we had fact finders and trail blazers from the American President.

We were told last year that tourism had decreased dramatically around Londonderry and Belfast. I remember going to the Europa hotel in Belfast on 11 July last year to meet media people; I was speaking to Senator Mitchell's entourage there. I discovered other people who had pre-booked and were being redirected to other places because there was no room at the inn. I regret that some in the tourism industry are a little like farmers—they want each year to be better than the one before, forgetting that sometimes we have seven full years and seven lean years. We must put the issue in context.

People ask why we parade and what religious connotations there are in some parades. In the Old Testament, the people sang as they were glad when they went up to the house of the Lord. In the New Testament, there was a procession through Jerusalem when people cried, "Hosanna!" The people who did not like Jesus wanted him to ask his disciples to keep quiet. He said that, if they were to keep quiet, the stones would cry out. Walsingham is a pilgrimage site. We could go on and on naming other parades: American Independence day on 4 July, Bastille day on 14 July—they can be found everywhere.

People talk about the blocking of roads. We block main roads in Northern Ireland for longer periods for motor bike races, but there is not undue concern about that. The French dockers and others managed to block the roads around the channel ports and lost the country far more than our tragic losses of last year.

I am not minimising the issues, but I want to put them in context rather than have them over-emphasised. When Ministers talk about the amount of money lost as a result of stoppages last year—agaiin, I am not minimising the issue—it should be put in context. When Private Lee Clegg was released, some £20 million-worth of damage was done in Northern Ireland. I have heard no cries about that.

I could go on and on about that, but I do not want to do so. I merely wanted to put the background of the issue. The famous march to Bodenstown took place at the weekend, in which Martin McGuinneiss took part. The speeches at Bodenstown have traditionally outlined the policy of republicanism for the coming year. It will be interesting to examine what signals come from there.

The problems began in 1985 with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If any hon. Members want to read good contemporary fiction that is close to the bone, I recommend "Rogue Element" by Strong. The author depicts patterns of events since 1985 in a way too realistic for certain people to be able to rest content in their beds at night, knowing that the damage that they have done to the United Kingdom has been exposed.

Before the problems of recent years, marches generally passed off peacefully. They were regarded as a much cherished part of our heritage. Some people say that Roman Catholics were never involved, but I met several in demonstration fields. Some were glad to make a living there and nobody chased them away. We must face the harsh reality that the truth has been distorted.

Another factor was the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I opposed much of it in draft and thankfully some details were fine-tuned. Had it become law in its original form, we would not have been allowed the privilege or the pleasure of a traditional Salvation Army band playing on our streets and conducting open-air services. We would not have been able to give Barry McGuigan a spontaneous welcome when he came back with his world title. More significantly, trade unionists would have been unable to participate in spontaneous walk-outs.

Although we fine-tuned the legislation, it was not sufficient, and I continue to believe that it presents problems. Unlike public order legislation in England, under which more than 20 people are not allowed to assemble, in Northern Ireland the number is only six.

The Minister of State is from Scotland. I am sure that he is aware of young folk gathering on street corners intending no harm whatever. In Northern Ireland, however, if a police officer had had a row with the station sergeant and was feeling rather bilious, or if he had fallen out with his girl friend and did not like the look of six young people standing on a corner, he could tell them to move on. The young folk might well say, "Why should we move on? We are doing no harm." Under the public order order, he could then throw his weight around. I believe that the order was drawn too tightly.

More significantly, the order was absolutely unnecessary in regard to Orange parades, because the police were always notified. Most parades followed a time-honoured pattern and covered the same routes. As a lad, I remember the local constable coming to see my father, who for 21 years was marshal of the Belfast Apprentice Boys, months beforehand to verify the route so that everything could be kept in order.

Even today, many church services are included in the 3,000 so-called loyalist parades, which the media usually describe as Orange parades. They are not all Orange parades. Last week, in County Down, there was reference in the local media to an Orange parade. I heard about it as I was travelling in the car and I said that there was no Orange parade there. When I was asked how I knew, I explained that I knew the traditions and that I suspected that it was a band parade. I was right. The following day, the media described it as a band parade. So there is some confusion and Orange parades are often used as a bogeyman.

It is absolutely unnecessary to insist on seven days' notice. Amazingly, we were told that it was at the request of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As is our tradition, we abided by the law and gave seven days' notice. That does not work as, when patterns are changed, they are often lost.

Northern Ireland is a small place. On one humorous occasion, a series of protests were organised on a particular Saturday to commemorate Ulster day. The senior police officers went to the secretary of the Belfast Orange county lodge and said, "That was a good hand. We knew that you were doing something, but we did not know that there would be three." They would have known about them all had they not required seven days' notice. We abided strictly by the law.

Having explained the background, let us consider what is now causing trouble—the growth of residents groups in Northern Ireland. There are those who say they are genuine spontaneous gatherings. It took Radio Telefis Eireann to do what the BBC failed to do time and aigain—to expose the duplicity of Sinn Fein and Adams. As a result, in The Guardian on 5 March and the Belfast Telegraph on 6 March—the Belfast Telegraph was a day behind The Guardian—it was revealed that Adams told republicans that the stand-off at Drumcree which resulted in the murder of a Catholic, the displacement of families from their homes and millions of pounds' worth of damage was the product of three years' work. That was not work by the Orange or Protestant community in Portadown; it was Sinn Fein doing what it started in 1966 through undercover operations—using perceived or real grievances and putting innocent people up front. Sinn Fein was the puppeteer pulling the strings. When Adams was confronted with that allegation, he did not deny it. His accusation against the media was that they had used underhand methods to discover what was going on as they had recorded his voice.

It was not an innocent concern that led Brendan McKenna to form the residents group in Garvaghy road and a newcomer to the Ormeau road—Gerard Rice—to form the Lower Ormeau road concerned community group; it was part of a Sinn Fein policy to cause civil unrest throughout the country.

Of course there have been reactions, and we have challenged them. I have received two letters from solicitors representing Brendan McKenna saying that he would take me to court for alleging that he had paramilitary connections. I am still awaiting that summons, just as some of my colleagues are awaiting similar summonses from Martin McGuinness. I know that some Cabinet Ministers are in the same position. They seek to use the British law to browbeat those of us who would expose their duplicity.

Why am I concerned about the working of the public order order? As one who co-operated with the police through the years and would still seek to co-operate with them and abide by the law, I believe that, when the law is not equitably and impartially administered, someone has to challenge it.

Article 7(1) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 states: A person who for the purpose of preventing or hindering any lawful public procession or of annoying persons taking part in or endeavouring to take part in any such procession hinders, molests, obstructs or acts in a disorderly manner towards, or behaves offensively and abusively towards, those persons or any of them shall be guilty of an offence. Article 20(1) states: A person who by sitting, standing, kneeling, lying down or otherwise conducting himself'— no doubt reference to "he" or "him" would also include "she" or "her"— in a public place, wilfully obstruct or seeks to obstruct traffic or wilfully hinders or seeks to hinder any lawful activity shall be guilty of an offence. In a written answer on 19 November 1996 to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the following figures were given: from 27 April 1987, five people were charged with obstruction under article 20(1); in 1988, 21 were charged with obstruction under article 20(1); in 1989, none was charged; in 1990, one was charged with obstruction under article 20(1); in 1991, one was charged with endeavouring to break up a lawful procession under article 7(1); in 1992, none; in 1993, none; and, in 1994, none.

The figures for the latter three years are interesting, because the Drumcree service was held as usual. The Drumcree Faith and Order group held a tea party to protest and express its viewsi—it has a right to protest peacefully, and I would be the last person to deny anyone that right—but a strange thing happened. Certain republican hoodlums attacked the factory that had been leased to the group at a peppercorn rent for youth and community activities. As a result, the tea party was not held in subsequent years and there were no problems.

In 1995, the McKenna element began its work to disrupt a lawful procession. On the Ormeau road, the residents went to law three times to ask that the parade be ruled unlawful and therefore banned. The judge was not sure why anyone would want to walk down that road, but he ruled that the assembly was lawful. However, the people on that section of road, led by Rice, cleverly manipulated the police with the threat of violence, so that the police stopped a lawful procession because they feared public disorder. No one was brought before the courts for obstructing a lawful procession. Rice was able to say to the police and others, "We never stopped you coming down. It was the police."

Then we had the famous television coverage of the No. 10 district going down the Ormeau road. Ulster Television was the only company up front enough to show the mob on the house tops aggravating the parade and waving the tricolour. By and large, the parade passed down the road in good order. One incident occurred, which was later highlighted, when a man was shown apparently giving a five-fingered salute. It was alleged by the Sinn Fein propaganda machine that the man was referring to the murder of five innocent people at Sean Graham's bookies shop. What was the story behind that? As the man was walking in the procession, two of the republican bystanders said to him, "We know where to get you." That unemployed Protestant, walking in the procession, and the two Roman Catholics—I presume— on the footpath signed on at the same exchange. The man's response was to hold out his hand and say, "Forget about it." That was the five-fingered salute.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I thank my hon. Friend for explaining why the image that the media projected about those five fingers was entirely inaccurate. The presentation of that event contrasts with the media's total failure to report an incident that occurred during the funeral of the Shankill road bomber, who was responsible for the death of nine innocent civilians in Frizzell's fish shop. People in the funeral cortege passed the bottom of the Shankill road waving nine fingers in the air. One of them shouted up at the Shankill road people, "We can't kill enough of yous." That was not reported in the same way.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I confirm what my hon. Friend says, and it is one of the reasons why I prefer to do live interviews. I can be held responsible for any gaffes I make, instead of facing editorial misrepresentation that is done to distort or to get headlines.

I recognise the causes of public disturbances, but I indict successive Governments, from 1968 onwards, who have failed to grapple with the problem of organised terrorism. They have allowed it to grow and menace a whole society. It still menaces us. People talk about the peace process, but there has been no peace process. Thankfully, there has been a political process that has tried to develop democratic structures in Northern Ireland, but the so-called peace process has been a charade. From the beginning, Sinn Fein-IRA have not gone down the road of peace. I prophesy that, in six or nine weeks' time, depending how long it takes to make the decision about a ceasefire, the present Prime Minister—like the previous Prime Minister, who was put under pressure by the great and the good throughout the world—will be pressurised to accept that the ceasefire is real, without any weapons being handed over and with no evidence of sincerity.

I cannot accept the concept of chastising law-abiding people because others have broken the law. When the House, in its wisdom, passed the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, some 11 of us took a peaceful walk from city hall to the nearest police station to protest the order's denial of civil liberties. The law book was thrown at us. On another occasion, I was indicted for organising and taking part in what was called an illegal procession—I did not realise that walking down the road was necessarily illegal—but we won the case. On the occasion when we were convicted, we did our time. Admittedly, we received short sentences, but we have a criminal record because we stood by our convictions, as is only right when dealing with the liberties of our people.

Residents groups continue to plan counter-demonstrations across Northern Ireland that are contrary to the order, but few folk have been brought before the courts. Last year, we had a tragic but laughable situation when Brendan McKenna was brought before the courts in June for a breach of the law the previous July. As I understand it, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to decide whether someone has a prima facie case to answer. The DPP can get information only from the RUC—at least, I do not think that the Garda Siochana has a say. The court case was held and one of the witnesses on McKenna' s behalf was a senior RUC officer. McKenna was acquitted. How could the RUC give enough evidence to persuade the DPP to prosecute at the same time as a senior RUC officer appeared as a witness for the defence?

About a week later, in Londonderry, the drummer of one of the Portadown bands was up before the courts for provocative drumming. I have drums—one is plastic—in both ears, and I wonder how, in this age of heavy metal and other sorts of music, one should define provocative drumming. I can go no further with that case, because I am not sure whether there has been an appeal yet. I know that there was talk of one. Such judgments in the courts cause people to question whether the public order legislation is used properly and effectively. Already this year, a number of lawful parades have been re-routed.

Last year in Castlewellan, on the last Saturday in August, the local preceptory was walking through the village to join the district to go to the Comber rally of the County Down Black. One police officer was there for traffic control. The preceptory was stopped by a cousin of Gerard Rice—it is interesting how these folk turn around—a local man from Downpatrick and six others, and told, "You cannot go any further."

If the Black preceptory had wanted to, it could simply have gone further, but its members accepted the guidance of the police officer. No one has been brought before the court for obstructing a lawful parade. That is the point that I want to make.

I am told that discussions are going on, that approaches have been made and that people spend hours trying to get some understanding. It is to be hoped that that will be possible. None the less, there are several questions that I shall ask the Government.

Why are so few illegal demonstrators prosecuted, when they are clearly in contravention of public order? Why have Government not clearly recognised that parades were trouble-free before Sinn Fein-IRA-fronted groups sprang up across the country? Why have Government not pressed Sinn Fein-IRA to explain more fully Adams's Athlone comments?

Why do Government expect the loyal orders to negotiate with groups that clearly do not wish to reach accommodation, as is demonstrated by their choice of convicted terrorists as spokesmen? In 1995 the then County master of Belfast, Robert Saulters, met Gerard Rice with Quakers and police, and came to an agreement. Saulters stayed by it, but Rice could not stand by his agreement. Why continue to talk to folk who cannot be up front and deliver?

Finally, will the Government now firmly put the focus where it belongs—on those who go to parades not to celebrate their culture and heritage, but to stop others from doing so?

7.41 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I confess that the temptation to take advantage of the extra time available for the Adjournment debate is great, but I shall not stretch it to the last possible moment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on securing the debate. It is especially timely now, and the issues are important. I hope that the Government will examine them carefully and that we shall see significant changes.

There is no doubt that the public order legislation has failed. It was introduced as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, like that agreement, it has not brought peace, reconciliation or stability. Instead, it has added instability and set people at each other's throats. It has not produced any peace at all.

Like the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that legislation will have to be reconsidered. The Minister might find it instructive to peruse the debates in another place when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was being made. In particular, he should read the contribution of Lord Mason, who was probably the most distinguished and effective Secretary of State for Northern Ireland there has ever been.

If the Minister does that, he will see that Lord Mason accurately anticipated the problems that would flow from the Anglo-Irish Agreement in terms of interference with the traditions of Northern Ireland and with the traditional celebration of the culture and identity of its people, especially those who identify with the British tradition. It would be instructive for anyone to read that contribution and to see how prophetic Lord Mason's words were. Changes need to be made.

The problem is not new: it has arisen many times before. People who examine its history through the statute book will see that there is legislation on the subject going right back to the 19th century. At one point there was even an attempt to solve the problem by banning all parades—the party processions Acts.

Party processions legislation remained on the statute book for many decades of the 19th century. There is an interesting parallel with what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has argued, because not only was that legislation wholly ineffective; it was applied unequally. There was discrimination right at the roots of the operation of the legislation in the middle of the 19th century.

The legislation was enforced against the Orange Order but not against the nationalists. That is what one finds again and again. For many years throughout the middle of the 19th century, nationalist parades in breach of the legislation were ignored, whereas any attempt by Orangemen to parade in breach of the legislation was subject to penalties.

The same is true of the public order legislation. Illegal activity by nationalists is ignored and charges are not brought. Indeed, in a perverse way, assistance is given by the authorities to nationalists acting illegally in contravention of the Act. Conversely, the legislation is used against people who by their nature, habits and background are peaceful law-abiding citizens who are not causing trouble, people who represent the backbone of their community.

That important point should be more widely appreciated in this part of the United Kingdom. When one is dealing with the loyal orders, one is dealing not with a mere small section of society and a possible hooligan element—there are hooligan elements in society in all places, and they are present in Northern Ireland too—but when one is dealing with the parades of the loyal institutions, one is dealing not with the hooligan element but with people who are the backbone of their communities; people who uphold the traditions and values of society. It is their commitment to the values and traditions of society that, uniquely, leads them into such institutions. That point should be more widely appreciated.

Of course, I have a particular interest in such matters. Fate has it that an incident in my constituency is the focus of attention, but that is not entirely a matter of fate. As my hon. Friend said, it results from the calculation of Sinn Fein-IRA. He described how Mr. Gerry Adams boasted last year how he and his activists had put in the work over time to create that situation.

As we watched events last year, it was interesting to see how the republican movement teed up several parades with a view to causing trouble—the Whiterock parade in Belfast, the north Belfast parade known as "the tour of the north", and a parade in Newry. For those, and a few others, Sinn Fein-IRA made preparations. They could have selected any one of them to put their effort into. It was their choice to try to cause trouble in my constituency rather than elsewhere.

We know some of the reasons Sinn Fein-IRA did that. They believed that the loyalist ceasefire was weaker in that area, and they had good reason to believe there were people in loyalist paramilitary groups there who were not committed to it. They thought that they could provoke those people into action.

We are thankful that, leaving aside one highly regrettable incident—the murder of Mr. McGoldrick—the attempt to provoke the loyalist paramilitaries into violence was not successful, but now I see that Sinn Fein-IRA are coming back with renewed efforts to try to provoke them again, with the murder of two policemen in Lurgan the other Monday. That too, no doubt, was intended to provoke paramilitary reaction.

Now I shall focus upon what has happened in my constituency in connection with the Drumcree church service. There is not enough appreciation here of the considerable efforts that the local leaders of the Orange Order have made over the past year to explain their position to as wide a range of persons as possible and to ensure that they do everything possible to defuse any confrontation and probable trouble. Their efforts include, of course, coming here to meet a wide range of hon. Members. Their efforts are not widely appreciated.

The House may be unaware that the Orange Order took the extraordinary step of writing a letter to every resident adjoining the Garvaghy road—nationalist and Unionist—to explain its position. The letter was widely praised and is fairly well known in Northern Ireland because it was reprinted in the press, but its terms may not be familiar to the House. I want to put some extracts of the letter on the record. Representatives of the County Armagh Orange Order wrote: This is a sincere and genuine attempt to deal with the many misconceptions concerning the walk and there are a number of points we would like to make for your information:

1. 1. The service on the first Sunday in July is partly to remember those who died at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. We pay tribute to all those of both communities who died for the cause of peace and justice.
2. 2. The Orange Order is traditionally a parading organisation. We see our parade as an outward witness to our sincere belief in the Reformed Faith. For that reason, we see attacks on our parades as both a denial of civil liberties and an attack on our religion…
3. 3. In the interests of harmony, mutual respect and reconciliation the Orange Order has acknowledged objections raised by the Nationalist community and has already implemented the following principles for the Drumcree Church parade:
   1. a. The number of parades in the area has been reduced from ten to one in the past ten years.
   2. b. Only members of Portadown District parade.
   3. c. No bands take part which could be perceived as antagonistic to our Nationalist neighbours. Accordion bands lead the parade playing hymn music that is common to both traditions.
   1042
   4. d. The Orangemen walk four abreast so that the walk will pass any one given point in less than five minutes.
   5. e. The Order marshals and disciplines its own members to ensure there will be no confrontation on our part. If this was reciprocated, then there would only be a need for a minimal police presence.
   6. f. The right to walk peacefully and in a dignified manner and the right to protest in a peaceful and dignified manner should not be denied to anyone.

It is the sincere hope of the Orange Order that the vast majority of the people of Portadown will work together in a new spirit of tolerance to defeat extremists who want confrontation this Summer. That letter was well received by residents of the Garvaghy road, the general community in Northern Ireland and by many commentators.

Brendan McKenna, to whom reference has been made, is the spokesman for what is called the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and was largely responsible for a reply, which was publicised. It was of a very different tone and character. Instead of engaging with the conciliatory nature of the Orange Order, his letter was more querulous and demanding. In particular, it referred to the unfortunate murder of Mr. McGoldrick in 1996 and the alleged triumphalism of the Orange Order and others.

I find the reference to murder interesting, in that Mr. McKenna did not take account in his missive of the murders which have occurred closer to Garvaghy road. It is not widely appreciated that, during the troubles, there have been a number of murders in Garvaghy road of Unionists and Protestants by nationalists. The road that is now the cause of dispute originally moved through an entirely Unionist area. The population living adjacent to the road was overwhelmingly Unionist in its political persuasion.

In the early 1970s, a number of public authority housing estates, such as Churchill Park, were constructed. They originally had a mixed population but, as the troubles developed, that ceased to be the case and they are now almost overwhelmingly nationalist. One of the factors that led to the Unionist exodus from the area was the violence directed against Unionists, and the murders, for example, the murder of Mr. Paul Beattie, shot dead near his home in Churchill Park in 1972; or Mr. Roy Rutherford, killed by a booby-trap bomb at the Moy road end of Garvaghy road in May 1973; or Mr. Eddie Clayton, killed by a booby-trap bomb attached to his car on 6 March 1975; or Mr. Robert McNally, killed by a booby-trap bomb which exploded in West street after he had left his home in Woodside Green in the Garvaghy road in 1979; or Mr. John Truckle, killed by a bomb in Woodside Hill in 1983; or Mr. James Wright, killed by a booby-trap bomb in Corcrain—close to Corcrain Orange hall, which has been repeatedly vandalised and regularly burnt—in 1989.

Another part of the background is the continuing abuse and intimidation of Unionists who want to reside in the area. This was brought home vividly to me while I was canvassing in the area prior to the recent general election. I visited a street, the inhabitants of which were—only a few years ago—almost entirely Unionist voters. As a result of republican pressure, most have left. Only about 25 per cent. of the street's inhabitants are Unionists, and those residing there are not having a happy time. One of them said to me, simply, "Our lives here are hell." That hell has been created by the associates of Brendan McKenna.

That is part of the reason why there are strong feelings in the area. The brethren in Portadown perceive the attack on the parade as part of a campaign to drive all Unionists from the area to create a sectarian ghetto that will be 100 per cent. nationalist, so that the republican movement can operate at liberty within the community and use it as a base from which to attack and intimidate the rest of the town. That is a significant factor.

The letter from the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition referred also to the alleged triumphalism of the Orange Order. I will not go into the incidents which it alleged to be triumphalist, but I wish to contrast them with the behaviour of Mr. McKenna himself. He was elected as-allegedly—an Independent Nationalist councillor to Craigavon council in the local elections towards the end of May. After his election, he and his associates formed a cortege and drove down one of the main roads in the centre of Portadown with Irish tricolours flying.

The cortege drove up Garvaghy road and around local streets several times in the small hours of the morning. That involved driving through the part of Garvaghy road and Park road that is Unionist. They drove through that area with their tricolours waving and their car horns sounding at 2 o'clock in the morning. Some local residents came out to protest—vigorously, I must add—and were met with cries from the McKenna cortege of, "You will be burnt out before July." The threat was followed by attacks on subsequent nights on the homes of local people to intimidate them.

Not content with that, the cortege drove past Drumcree parish church and along the Dungannon road to the MI motorway—a distance of some five miles—through an area that is wholly Unionist. When they reached the roundabout, they contented themselves with breaking the windows of the local Methodist church. This behaviour could not of course be triumphalist and would not attract the attention of the media—nor has it.

I go into the details because it is important that people know the details of the background before they make judgments. If they feel like making judgments, let them bear in mind the conciliatory approach that the Orange Order has taken and the way in which it is trying to reach out to people to increase understanding and to ensure that no valid complaint can be made about its behaviour and to find out if we can move forward positively. There is that desire, not merely within the Orange Order but more widely throughout the Portadown community—I am sure that that includes the greater number of the people in Ballyoran and Churchill Park along the Garvaghy road. We are dealing with a small group of people who are deliberately manipulating the problems and the emotions to which those problems give rise to try to destabilise society and plunge it into disorder. It is claimed that those people are not, as alleged, Sinn Fein. We say that there is Sinn Fein orchestration behind the operation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South referred to some of the personalities concerned. There are three principal, so-called residents groups—one for the Lower Ormeau road in Belfast, one for the Bogside in Londonderry and one for the Garvaghy road in Portadown. The people who front those organisations have clear associations. Mr. Gerard Rice, who is the spokesman for the Lower Ormeau residents group, served a four-year prison term for IRA membership and possession of weapons, which clearly demonstrates his background and allegiance. The spokesman for the Bogside residents group, Mr. Donncha MacNeilis, has been convicted of IRA membership and arms possession and is the son of a Sinn Fein councillor on Derry city council. As for Mr. McKenna himself, he was gaoled for six years in 1982 for his part in a bombing in Portadown and received sentences for firearms offences, false imprisonment and hijacking, being one of two masked terrorists who held a Churchill Park family hostage for three hours while their car was stolen and used in a bombing—the bombing of the Royal British Legion hall in Portadown. It was clearly an attack on the British identity, but it is interesting to note his selection as spokesman for the Garvaghy road coalition. I am sure that when that selection was made it was thought that his record in bombing the Royal British Legion was appropriate because, by tradition, the Portadown Orange district processions are always led by the ex-service men's lodge. It was felt appropriate, no doubt, to have someone whose record was bombing a Royal British Legion hall to cause the maximum offence to an organisation that gives former service men pride of place in its activities.

I hope that problems of that nature will be resolved. I hope that the desire for peace of the greater number of people in Northern Ireland will be respected. I hope that we will see better quality decision making from the police and others on this problem.

Over and above all of that, we also need changes in the legislation. We put those points firmly to the North committee. Unfortunately, its report did not reflect the points that we made. The structure of the public order legislation exacerbates the situation. By appearing to cast on the police an obligation to stop a parade if violence is threatened if it should go ahead, the legislation ensures that any group that threatens to block a parade—using violence to do so—has its desire carried into effect. The structure of the legislation assists groups that want to destabilise the situation by attacking traditional parades. That aspect must be studied. We must move away from these competitions—as it were—to see who can muster the larger crowd to determine the police decision. In some cases, it appears that the decision depends on which group has the larger number of protesters assembled. That is not a satisfactory way to deal with the matter.

The right to assemble and to freedom of movement ought to be respected, particularly in regard to traditional activities of a largely religious and cultural nature. Distinctions could be drawn between religious and cultural activities on the one hand and party political activities on the other. They could also be drawn between what is part of the accepted custom and practice of the community and what is introduced as a new event to provoke trouble or to depart from that established custom and practice. Those are the factors that ought to be embodied in the legislation.

Of course we hope that there will be consensus in the community on the issue, which would help to support such legislation and make it effective. The Government have to do something more, however, than simply sit back and say, "It's up to local people to solve the problem." The Government have a responsibility and I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is doing what she can in that respect, but she is not tackling the root of the problem. Simply going to each trouble spot and hoping that one can patch the problem up there will not solve it. The armed conspiracy that lies behind it can move to and create other situations. We shall solve this not by chasing to one hot spot after another, but by realising that we are dealing with an armed conspiracy that is manipulating the situation and by ensuring that our legislation and practices do not assist such a conspiracy and give it more tools with which to destabilise society.

8.5 pm

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)

I welcome this opportunity to debate parades in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for belonging—like many others in my constituency—to the Orange Institution. Furthermore, I believe that some of the best people in Northern Ireland—some of the most honest and most respectable citizens—belong to that institution. We do not have to apologise for being members. Republican propaganda would taint us as bigots, but we certainly are not.

Many of the Orange Institution's members have given noble service in the part-time security forces protecting the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, history shows that many members of the Orange Institution played a noble part in the two world wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45.

The object of the Orange Institution is to show loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. Of course, IRA-Sinn Fein want to paint the Orange Institution black with their propaganda campaign. I want to remove some of the mists from the organisation. The Orange Institution does not march through Roman Catholic estates. Of necessity, when walking a public highway, it has to march past Roman Catholic estates, but it is not the practice of the institution to march through the estates and give offence.

Over the years, because of changing populations, changes have taken place in the Orange Institution's parades. There used to be a parade up Castle street in Omagh, but it does not now take place. There used to be an Orange parade through that most republican village, Carrickmore, but it does not now take place. Due to reasonableness and understanding and the changes in population, many changes have taken place by normal agreement.

There is now a deliberate attack on the marches of the Orange Institution; that is a direct attack on our Protestant ethos and culture. I have personal experience of the situation in my constituency, because each year two Orange lodges get together and march through the village of Mountfield to the local church, where they have a religious service, and then walk back again. They walk respectably, in order and peaceably, and over the years there has been no trouble in the village.

This year, because of events elsewhere in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein and the IRA have discovered that if they gather a crowd and threaten to sit down in the road, the police, rather than allowing the parade to go ahead, will stop it and do nothing about the Sinn Fein-IRA sympathisers. Last Sunday, the IRA-Sinn Fein trick meant that the Orange parade never got to the church; it was stopped.

The police interpretation of paragraph 4 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in such a situation can only be perverse. Surely the order is intended to operate only if the parade is the cause of serious violence. Surely the police should reroute the parade only if the behaviour of those on the parade necessitates it. It is perverse to argue that if a third party blocks the parade, it is the parade that should be stopped. People's legitimate rights are done away with, as on Sunday, when the Orangemen did not get to their church.

The police of course say that they have stopped the parade to prevent a breach of the peace, but surely anyone blocking the road to stop a parade is committing a breach of the peace. Surely the police are duty bound in that situation to prevent that, and to clear the roadway, so that those who are legitimately, lawfully and peacefully marching can go about their business. The Minister should consider the order again, and if the interpretation is not clear it should be altered to ensure that people have the right to march peaceably along the Queen's highway.

What is the point of 21 days' notice in relation to Orange parades? In the English legislation, there is no need to give notice for parades that are traditional, regular and yearly. If the police are doing their job and know anything about the community in which they operate, they will know about the Orange parades that take place annually.

The chief of police says that he welcomes the Parades Commission, and that decisions about parades should be taken out of his hands and given to a third party. Surely the fact remains that ultimately the police are responsible for law and order. To try to give the responsibility for public order to a third party is ridiculous, because the commission knows little about the various areas of Northern Ireland.

The commission will take advice from many different people, and we can rest assured that on some occasions its decision will be ridiculous. Only the local police know the exact circumstances, and it is up to them to take the decision. The commission will say that a parade is to be stopped, and the police may find that they cannot stop it; or the commission will say that a parade is to go ahead, and Sinn Fein-IRA will try to stop it, so the police will have to enforce a decision that they did not make and might not agree with. They will have to police the situation, and if they do not do what the commission says, they will be called the worst thing in the world.

Furthermore, many decisions in Northern Ireland go up the line to the Chief Constable. Often, the recommendation of the local police is not accepted, and what the local police commander who is active on the ground would like to do and considers reasonable is countermanded by his chief, away up at headquarters. That is intolerable because, as I understand the law, the commander on the ground at the time has to make the decisions and is responsible for them.

There is no doubt that the iniquitous Anglo-Irish Agreement has had a detrimental effect on decisions on Orange Order parades and that the Irish Government have put pressure on the British Government and the Northern Ireland Office to ban certain parades. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Chief Constable is open to such political interference. The Chief Constable is ultimately responsible for security and for taking the decisions; he should not be moved by political interference.

The Secretary of State seems to be travelling around and talking to this person and that, to one side and the other. Surely that is a very foolish exercise for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Whatever decision she makes, or the police make, she will be accused of being on the wrong side.

Surely the Secretary of State's responsibility should come into operation only when she is asked by the Chief Constable to ban a parade. Surely going around in such negotiations prejudices her role. She has the obligation before making such a decision to consult the police authority; can we take it that she will do that?

The parades issue in Northern Ireland is very emotive and serious. The activities of the police mean that they are beginning to lose the support of the Protestant and loyalist population of Northern Ireland. When lawbreakers come out to stop a parade, it is unacceptable that the police, instead of directing their Land Rovers at those who are breaking the law, aim and face their Land Rovers against the lawkeepers. That causes great anger in the Protestant, Unionist, loyalist population. As this year's season continues, I hope that things will go peacefully. I hope that if the law is properly enforced, we can find peace in these difficult times.

8.20 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram)

It has been a long debate—longer than many of us expected.

Mr. Trimble

The Minister has two hours.

Mr. Ingram

I might just take that long if I thought that the hon. Gentleman would miss his flight.

Mr. Trimble

I have missed it already.

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Gentleman has missed it already.

I join the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in congratulating the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on obtaining this debate, which has been helpful. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made his maiden speech earlier, and has now made another. If he makes a habit of that, we will never get home.

As Minister responsible for security matters and economic development, I should perhaps take issue with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. It is not the purpose of this debate to deal with the economic consequences of public disorder, but I take issue with some of his conclusions about the impact on the tourist sector in Northern Ireland.

There is clear evidence that, while there was a very positive upsurge during the ceasefire, it has gone into serious decline. That causes unemployment and major problems in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. We should all take stock of that. It is difficult to achieve significant job investment in Northern Ireland while there are problems of serious disorder. The figures point to that.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I agree with the Minister, but, as I said to Secretary Ron Brown, when he came with President Clinton, some American and other companies invested in Northern Ireland in the worst possible times. Companies could learn to invest in the best possible times. We should not give credibility to those who are trying to destroy the economy by highlighting the problems to our American and other friends who came in when things were much worse.

Mr. Ingram

This debate is not about the economic impact of public disorder, which we shall have other opportunities to debate. I know that hon. Members want as many jobs as possible brought to Northern Ireland, not only to their constituencies but to all parts of Northern Ireland. That is the task with which I have been charged, and I hope to work with them in future. I share the sentiment that we should not talk up the worst scenario, but should remember that bad scenarios affect those who make investment decisions. Sometimes we know only what we win, and not what we have lost as a result of past activities.

The issue raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South is clearly important because of the many worries that exist in Northern Ireland. I am genuinely grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out in detail the nature and extent of public order legislation as it applies to Northern Ireland. I would also like to deal with the actions being taken by the Government, and particularly by the Secretary of State, since she was mentioned in the debate, in seeking an accommodation and a resolution of the extremely difficult problems and differences between certain sections of what many rightly consider to be the deeply divided community of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised specific matters relating to the application of the law as it stands in articles 7 and 20 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. He mentioned two specific cases with which I shall deal later. Let me set his remarks in context with specific reference to the legal framework within which the forces of law and order operate in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, South agrees that, in any democracy, it is a fundamental right for people to be able to express their views publicly. That right, however, is conditioned by the need to behave responsibly and to be conscious of the rights of others likely to be affected by the public expression of the views in question. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the legal framework within which those rights are mutually protected is set out in the public order legislation determined by this Parliament.

That legislation provides that, so long as serious public disorder is not expected to cause serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of community, or intimidation of others, public demonstrations, parades or marches are lawful. In essence, the law allows people a right to peaceful protest or demonstration of views, but each side must behave responsibly and consider the other.

Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland there are people intent on violence, confrontation and disorder. There can be no question but that many of the scenes witnessed last year, particularly around the time of the parade in Drumcree in July, were the deliberate work of people wishing to cause disruption.

Mr. Thompson

Will the Minister confirm that the law breaking and intimidation must result from the parade itself before it can be re-routed or banned by the police?

Mr. Ingram

Of course, there are many aspects of the legislation that are brought into play in making a determination. The hon. Gentleman commented on the role, function and powers of the Chief Constable. He makes his judgments, based on the law that he has to operate. That is the basis on which decisions are taken, and taken often with the co-operation and accommodation of those seeking to march and parade.

My point was that the scenes we witnessed last year, particularly around the Drumcree events in July, were the deliberate work of people wishing to cause disruption. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that there can be no excuse for such violent behaviour, then or at any time, no matter from which source it comes. The sad fact is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is all too often caught in the middle. All of us, whether Members of Parliament or people who participate in community life in Northern Ireland, must do all we can to support the RUC and others who act in support of it.

Hon. Members know that public order legislation in Northern Ireland provides for a number of offences for those involved in confrontations such as those we witnessed last year. They include specific offences of, for example, provocative conduct and obstructing a lawful parade, as well as the offence of disorderly conduct. It is, of course, a matter for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to come to decisions on prosecutions.

I hope that the hon. Members for Belfast, South, for Upper Bann, and for West Tyrone accept the Government's assurances that the police are determined to keep the peace and see the rule of law prevail. Those engaged in violent protest should expect to face the full rigour of the law. That is the overriding objective of the Government.

Under existing legislation, the RUC is not empowered to make decisions on whether to allow parades to take place. However, legislation does allow the RUC to place conditions on a parade and to order its re-routing if, on grounds of public order implications, it is considered necessary. Experience has shown that the RUC makes every effort to exercise its best judgment in dealing with contentious parades. Every year, there are many hundreds of parades of all types, the vast majority of which pass off peacefully.

In the short time that I have had ministerial responsibility for this matter, I have been encouraged to note that, of almost 900 parades this year, only one has been classified by the RUC as disorderly. The Government welcome the co-operation given by parade organisers to the RUC when some parades have had to be re-routed. Such co-operation can be seen only as a positive sign for the future.

The ultimate sanction of banning a parade rests with the Secretary of State, and that would be exercised only when all attempts at accommodation and resolution have failed. That said, the serious disturbances surrounding contentious parades in Northern Ireland over the past two years led the last Government to appoint an independent review team, headed by Dr. Peter North, to examine the whole question of parades and associated public order issues.

The North report brought a welcome degree of fresh thinking to this contentious area. It recognised that a more structured and broadly based system was needed to encourage the local accommodation of difficulties on parades. It clearly acknowledged that the right of free association is fundamental in a free society, but it recognised also that that right is not absolute.

The report suggested that an approach based on compromise, mutual respect and recognition of the rights, viewpoints and sensitivities of others offers the best way forward where disputes occur. The review team consulted widely, taking careful account of the rights of both sides, and maintaining as a central consideration the need to avoid providing any incentive for those involved to provoke or threaten disorder.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the current public order legislation provides an incentive to disorder. The North report recognised that danger. Its recommendations seek to tackle it, giving the Parades Commission the power to take account not only of the wider impact of a parade on relationships within the community but of the past behaviour of both sides—marchers and protesters—in reaching its final decision. The aim is that those who seek to use force to get their way will be penalised, not rewarded, for their actions.

Several of the report's recommendations have already been put in place. The Parades Commission was established in March under the chairmanship of Mr. Alistair Graham, and is pursuing vigorously its current remit of mediation, conciliation and education. In addition, the passage of the Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order has extended the required notification period for a parade to 21 days and imposed new controls on the consumption of alcohol by those associated with such parades.

The Government are committed to implementing the remaining recommendations of the North report as soon as possible. Hon. Members will be aware that it was announced in the Queen's Speech that the Government will introduce a Bill in the autumn to do this. The Government intend to have the legislation, and the systems and structures that flow from it, in place in good time for next year's marching season.

That will place the Parades Commission on a statutory footing and give it a range of specific functions. Among those will be a duty to promote greater understanding by the general public of issues concerning public processions, and to promote and facilitate mediation as a means of resolving disputes.

Where mediation has not led to a local accommodation, the Parades Commission will be able to make determinations on particular parades, having taken into account all the relevant factors. As recommended by the North report, the Secretary of State will be able, if asked to do so by the Chief Constable, to review any determination by the commission. Moreover—this goes to the heart of some of the points raised by hon. Members—on the day, the police will retain their common law powers to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent public disorder.

The Government are keenly aware of the fears and sensitivities that those issues arouse on all sides. We are therefore determined, in taking forward legislation to provide new powers for the Parades Commission and the new framework for handling parades, to recognise some of the concerns that have been expressed this evening.

That is why we are proceeding by way of primary legislation, rather than by Order in Council. In the previous debate, concern was expressed about how some legislation has been dealt with through Order in Council. That will not apply to this legislation. That will enable our proposals to be subject to the fullest possible scrutiny by Parliament.

Mr. Thompson

The Minister said that the police would retain their "common law powers". Will they also retain their statutory powers?

Mr. Ingram

I was very specific in what I said. We shall have a full debate when the legislation goes through the procedures of the House. Now that the hon. Gentleman has found his voice and his capacity to intervene in Ministers' contributions to debates, I am sure that he will intervene regularly in my contributions on that subject. I look forward to dealing with him on the detail of that legislation.

In addition to the points that I was making, when the legislation is introduced later this year, it will take full account of the experience of this year's marching season. Importantly, the views of all those involved will be listened to in order to achieve any possible enhancements to the measures that we propose. The Government will be genuinely open to serious proposals on the structure of the legislation, such as to enhance the chances of local accommodation and the workability of the new arrangements. I am sure that hon. Members will make their views known at the appropriate time, when the matter is considered by the House.

The Government recognise that no commission can, of itself, resolve this contentious issue. What is required is a willingness on each side to appreciate where the other side is coming from. All of us in government—indeed, throughout the wider community—must work hard to encourage and facilitate a greater dialogue between both sides of the argument over a parade or demonstration. It is only by sitting down and talking to one another, through intermediaries if necessary, that each side will be able to understand the fears and sensitivities of the other. What is required is understanding and accommodation.

Hon. Members mentioned Gerry Adams's comments about Sinn Fein's objective of stirring up trouble on parades. Clearly, I am aware of those media reports of his alleged comments, and I deplore all such sentiments. The Government's objective is to encourage local accommodation. Such comments undermine that very objective.

Nobody is being asked to set aside their deeply held principles or to deny their culture and traditions, but there is a need to appreciate the other person's ethos and traditions and the importance attached to them. In a free society, we have the right to be different and to celebrate our culture and traditions, provided that we do so within the law, and having regard to the need to avoid giving offence to others.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I appreciate the points that the Minister has been making, and we look forward to a general debate later. Will he bear in mind, however, the fact that, with a bipartisan approach, people may not pay enough attention to the lone voices from Northern Ireland?

The Minister speaks of cherished traditions. Is he aware that the North report, which was given a specific remit concerning parades, criticised the qualifications of an Orangeman and made no reference to the qualifications or doctrinal standards of any other body? Such one-sidedness causes problems. Will the Government guarantee that those who deliberately set out to destroy a particular culture in Northern Ireland—our British culture—will not be allowed, by force of weapons or disruption, to have their way?

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Gentleman does not need to ask the latter part of that question. He knows the determination of this Government and previous Governments to resist the men of violence, from whichever side of the community they come.

With reference to the North report and its comments on traditions and culture, that is an analysis, as opposed to the conclusions on which the legislation will be built. We must deal with the purpose and possible impact of the legislation. The Government believe that the legislation will improve the situation, taking account of all factors.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which will no doubt be raised during the debate. Let us deal with the substance and purpose of the legislation, and what we are seeking to achieve.

It was mentioned during the debate that the issue of parades in Northern Ireland has considerable potential to polarise opinion and raise community tensions. Of that there is no doubt. There are deeply help convictions on both sides, but we believe that the best way to reduce the tensions and difficulties surrounding parades is through dialogue and negotiation, leading to accommodation at local level.

That is not a question of denying anyone his right. Instead, it is about reaching an acceptable balance. All those with influence—I include the hon. Members—should seek reconciliation, not confrontation.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others working on her behalf have been tireless in their efforts to achieve such an objective. Instead of the criticisms that have been made tonight, we should all pay tribute to her and the officials who have been meeting all sides to avoid a rerun of last year's disgraceful scenes.

The House will be aware that the Secretary of State has invited both sides involved at Drumcree, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, to join her for intensive discussions at Hillsborough castle, in a continued attempt to achieve the local accommodation that all reasonable people in Northern Ireland want.

It is not yet possible to say whether those efforts will have a successful outcome, but I can assure the House that the Government will continue to do all that they can to avoid a repetition of last year's appalling events. I hope that I take with me on that journey the hon. Members—I am sure that I do, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to call on them to use their good offices, when necessary.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I assure the Minister that that would be the desire of each of us. The criticisms levelled at my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) because he used his influence to divert problems last year—to curb extremists—have been perverted by the media to suggest that he was leading them against the RUC. Does the Minister accept that that was not a helpful representation? If my hon. Friend had not been there, using his energies to do what the Minister has asked us to do, the situation would have been entirely different.

Mr. Ingram

I have made no such criticism. I listened carefully to what was said. The media have a capacity always to play to their own agenda. As we are talking about the impact of the past, I emphasise that we must learn the lessons of the past, but I hope that that can be the forgotten country. Let us look at the point we have reached, and the point that we want to reach in future.

I was setting out the aims that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been trying to achieve by seeking through mediation an accommodation from both sides. It is important to make it clear that the variety of powers available to the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order will be exercised in full, if need be. That situation has not yet been reached. I ask all hon. Members who have any influence to bring to bear on the matter that they do so in a constructive, not a destructive, way.

The recent exchange of letters between the Orange Order and the residents of the Garvaghy road should be seen as a significant step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the letter from the Orange Order. Clearly that was a major step forward. I do not want to go into detail, but I would take issue with its total conclusion with regard to the residents' letter, as there were glimmers of hope in that as well. We must always look for ways forward. Clearly, all of us welcome the efforts of the newsletter and the Irish News in encouraging people to seek common ground. That was another helpful step forward.

I referred earlier to the fact that the RUC is all too often caught in the middle of public disorder situations, and the need to give the RUC our full support. Unfortunately, we have seen all too clearly the tragic results of the police being demonised by those who cannot accept decisions lawfully taken to prevent public disorder.

The appalling murder of Constable Greg Taylor in Ballymoney was a powerful reminder of what can happen when hatred and violence overpower the normal rules of civilised behaviour. Outright condemnation of such atrocities is required—condemnation without equivocation or rationalisation of the events. I cannot accept that such attacks on police officers or their families are in some way understandable. Such grotesque acts are no more understandable than attacks on the security forces or members of the public by the IRA or any other paramilitary group.

The police are there to serve the entire community. In doing so, they have difficult decisions to make. Although some may not agree with particular decisions, the blunt fact is that, if we truly believe in the rule of law, our reaction to such decisions should be to respect the role and functions of the RUC, as it is acting in a way consistent with the powers given to it by Parliament.

I shall deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South when he opened the debate. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases that are currently subject to legal process. At an appropriate time, when the legal process has been duly exhausted, I will write to him and to other hon. Members on points raised in relation to specific cases.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South for making some of his concerns known in advance. Accordingly, I have been able to investigate the points that he made. He suggested that Mr. McKenna of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition was prosecuted but acquitted when the police gave evidence on his behalf, or failed fully to carry out their duty.

Mr. McKenna was indeed prosecuted for obstructive sitting, under article 20 of the order in connection with an incident on 9 July 1995. The case was heard at Craigavon magistrates court on 25 June 1996. The police in fact gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution. A magistrate dismissed the case.

The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there is an imbalance in the rigour with which the law is enforced, citing the case of a loyalist bandsman convicted of provocative drumming.

Mr. Trimble

rose—

Mr. Ingram

I taken several interventions, and now I must get on.

I would strongly contest—

Rev. Martin Smyth

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the Minister is reading from a brief, and I sympathise with him, but someone may be helping him to give wrong information, if not to mislead the House. We must be careful about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

The Minister must respond in the way that he thinks best. The Chair is not responsible.

Mr. Ingram

Of course I am reading from a brief. The hon. Member for Belfast, South informed me that he would raise specific points, so we have investigated. I am replying according to the advice that I have received. I do not want to go into detail. We are not dealing with a specific case. If hon. Members disagree with the view that I am expressing, let us deal with that by way of correspondence. I am quite prepared to be open about the matter. I do not believe that that was a point of order—it was a specious attempt to intervene.

I return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South in relation to provocative drumming. If I understood him correctly, he said that there was bias in the way in which the police handled the case. If that was the implication, I entirely contradict it. I would argue that the individual in question received a fair trial and was convicted of a serious offence—that is the reality in law.

I turn now to matters relating to articles 7 and 20, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South referred. In cases where persons were allegedly involved in attempting to prevent a lawful parade, the police may have considered it more appropriate to proceed under article 18, which makes it an offence for persons in any public place to use riotous or disorderly behaviour, or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the number of convictions under articles 7 and 20. I have consulted the answer to the parliamentary question put down by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, and I accept that the number is not high. However, we must recognise that the number of prosecutions for disorderly behaviour is much higher: 1,612 in 1996, and a total of 19,165 prosecutions since the order came into force. That picture is entirely different from the one painted by the hon. Member for Belfast, South.

Hon. Members said that tensions are high in Northern Ireland at present. We all want to see an end to that state of affairs, and we must seek a solution. I have tried to deal with the main issues raised and with two specific issues—we should resolve any disputes that arise elsewhere if need be—and I have set out the context within which the forces of law and order are obliged to operate as they face the current round of marches and parades.

I repeat that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister urge that common sense should prevail, and that accommodation between the divided communities should take precedence over confrontation. I do not believe that any hon. Member would disagree with that objective. It is what the vast majority of decent people in Northern Ireland want, and nothing less will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Nine o'clock.