Grand Committee Report of 13 November 1997

Official Report of the Grand Committee on thePublic Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 13th November 1997.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I call the first amendment, I should explain that if there is a Division in the main Chamber I should like the noble Lord who is speaking at the time to come to the end of a sentence and I shall adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.
Clause 8 [The Commission's powers to impose conditions on public processions]:
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) the pattern and frequency of processions in particular localities;").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 14, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 15 which I understand is grouped with it. We addressed the meat of Amendment No. 14 yesterday when talking about the pattern and frequency of processions and the Minister indicated that he foresaw significant legal difficulties in respect of this. He requested that we take seriously the problem that might be created in terms of conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. I said then that we appreciated his difficulties but felt that we must search for some way of addressing this question. We said that we would be prepared, in light of the comments made not just by the Minister but by other noble Lords, to look at another form of words which might address this.
However, in Amendment No. 15 the situation is rather different. In this case we are asking that the commission be given the opportunity, when making a determination on a specific procession, to give guidance at that time in respect of subsequent processions in the same locality.I am clearly interested in what the Minister has to say, but I hope that his legal advisers will have acknowledged that this is a rather different proposition from the proposition to make determinations for the pattern of parades in an area. This is an opportunity for the commission to give a specific decision about a specific procession but to indicate its likely response further down the line.
The analogy that I made yesterday was of the planning department which is able to give guidance notes as to how it is likely to respond when applications are made. While one could argue that if it does not entirely fetter the decision-making powers further down, at least it narrows them. But I should have thought that
CWH 54
that was not unreasonable and it would at least give some reassurance to those who have concerns about the pattern of parades that giving permission to one parade was going to have some impact further down the line.
In respect of Amendment No. 15, therefore, I hope that there will perhaps be a somewhat more upbeat response from the Government, for the Minister yesterday, however kindly his response, was nevertheless fairly negative about the prospects of the pattern of parades being an acceptable one, however much we toiled over various forms of words. Amendment No. 15 is, I would submit, somewhat different because it asks that guidance notes he given.
It could be argued that in respect of this and the other matters, as was argued yesterday by one noble Lord, it is implicit in the Bill—and implicit indeed in the fact that some guidelines on parades have been published by the commission in a general sense—that it has the capacity to do this. Perhaps so, but it would be of great comfort if it were actually on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give a more positive response in respect of Amendment No. 15 than I suspect he will be prepared to give on Amendment No. 14, given that it is consequential on the amendments to which I spoke yesterday. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): I recognise the intention behind both amendments, although, as the noble Lord said, the effect of them would differ in that one is more relaxed in the way it would operate than the other.
May I say on Amendment No. 15 that I believe the commission already has the powers that the noble Lord asks for, and these are contained in the draft procedural rules which have been published recently by the commission. It is made clear that the commission will be seeking to gather information, take evidence and then express a preliminary view over a longer period than just one parade.
I quote from the procedural rules, which say:
"this will relate to the question of whether, and extent to which conditions might be imposed on any or all of the parades in the location".
I would suggest that what I have quoted and what the procedural rules say are so close to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 15 that I would think that the intention will already be fully met. Of course, the procedural rules go on to make clear that these preliminary views will not be binding and may be subject to change. Indeed, even if determinations were to be made well in advance, as the noble Lord has suggested in Amendment No. 14 and as he suggested in amendments yesterday, those also might have to change if circumstances alter nearer the time of a particular parade. So there is nothing unexpected in that.
In particular, the commission will wish to continue to take account of any fresh oral or written evidence on a parade up to 10 working days before the date on which it is due to be held. So by taking a preliminary view, the commission retains the flexibility to deal with further information that comes later in the day. The draft guidelines also make clear that the frequency with which

CWH 55
parades are held in a given area is a factor to take into account in assessing the likely impact of a procession on the relationships within the community.
There is a further point that, if we were to deal with, say, the middle of the marching season, my understanding is that it would be possible for the commission also to take into account previous parades at the same or a close location in making a decision about a forthcoming parade.
I believe that we are very close indeed to what the noble Lord seeks to achieve, not, I would suggest, as regards Amendment No. 14 but as regards Amendment No. 15. Therefore, I would argue that Amendment No. 15 is not necessary, and for the reasons that we discussed at some length yesterday, Amendment No. 14 I believe is not appropriate.
Lord Alderdice: If I might be permitted to respond, first, on Amendment No. 14, while I am not entirely surprised or particularly gratified by the Minister's response, it is what I had rather expected.
However, I am encouraged by his response on Amendment No. 15 because it indicates, first, that he does not see that proposition as being in conflict with ECHR and that indeed he regards it as being implicit in the powers of the commission confirmed by the fact that it has been able to publish these guidelines.
If I might make two comments in respect of that: first, it is the case that the subject matter of this is enormously sensitive, and therefore if any clarification can be given publicly, indisputably because it is not merely in Hansard as a ministerial reassurance but actually on the face of the Bill as a matter of law, then it may very well be that that would set to the side any dispute that there might be.
In passing, I make one other comment. It is to draw to the attention of the Minister the comments made by the Select Committee in regard to the sensitivities of the material upon which we are deliberating. It has indicated that, when it comes to orders, it may be important to consider the form of approval of orders and ensure that there is a degree of flexibility, so that no more parliamentary time is taken up than is necessary to ensure scrutiny but that there is proper scrutiny when the time comes.
Although the Minister and I might agree that we are not far apart on this amendment, sometimes things that appear very small and minor in a matter of this sensitivity may be seen as—if I quote the Select Committee correctly—"of the utmost importance". With both Amendment No. 15 and the question of how approval will be achieved, I simply wanted to draw the matter to the Government's attention in the hope that they will attend to it before we reach a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Molyneaux of Killeadhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 41, leave out from ("exceeding") to second (", or") in line 44 and insert ("level 5 on the standard scale").
The noble Lord said: In the light of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, yesterday and the response of the Minister and your Lordships generally, I would not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Review by Secretary of State of determination of Commission under section 8]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line I, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to comply with the Chief Constable's application or request, as it may be, in reviewing a determination issued by the commission. Given that the Secretary of State alone is answerable to Parliament, it is surely right that he or she should have cast-iron protection against allegations that due consideration was not given to the views of the Chief Constable.
The Chief Constable is not a kind of bit player; he is one of the three authorities in this form of decision-making. He is the person best placed to assess the capability of the police in terms of manpower and logistics, and if his advice and views are not automatically available to the Secretary of State any decision of the Secretary of State will be perceived in certain cases to be flawed. Apart from that, there can be no reason for appearing to downgrade the authority of the Chief Constable by retaining the word "may" instead of "shall". I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: I think it is a very reasonable amendment because, as we said yesterday and on Second Reading, any decisions that are taken will involve the RUC, who will have to police these parades. It would be a rather strange position if the RUC, who are, in fact, going to have to police the whole parade, went to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State said that he did not agree with them. It is something that I cannot see arising, but it would be better if it stated in the Bill that the Chief Constable should be listened to.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the amendment. We entirely share the North Report's assumption that the Parades Commission and the police will be working closely together and, therefore, applications by the Chief Constable to the Secretary of State to review the Parade Commission's determinations in any particular case should be few and far between. However, there may be cases where that will happen, and in the cases where the Chief Constable did make such an application, the Secretary of State would certainly wish to consider the case carefully. We are happy to make it clear that such a review will take place by accepting the noble Lord's amendment, which, in the words of the noble Lord, is reasonable.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for the support he has given. There is nothing unusual in that; we have seen eye to eye on a great many things; and I am even more grateful to the Minister for accepting our joint argument.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 6, line 2, after ("Constable") insert ("or a person proposing to organise a public procession").
Page 6, line 16, after ("Commission") insert (", the Chief Constable and the person proposing to organise the parade").
The noble Lord said: It is not intended to equate a procession organiser with the position of the Chief Constable. But, as we are all in the business of persuasion, it is surely sensible that a responsible organiser should have access to the Secretary of State when the occasion requires it.
It is not always possible for the Secretary of State to reverse a decision. But a decision may be acceptable to the organiser and those he represents if they have the right of access. They will then have the satisfaction of knowing that their views are clearly understood by all who participate in making the decision, particularly the Secretary of State herself.
Amendment No. 20 reflects the same principle in regard to the Secretary of State revoking, amending or confirming a determination. The Secretary of State, who, in addition to consulting the commission, has the power to authorise a determination, shall also consult with the Chief Constable and the organiser of a proposed procession. My amendment surely cannot be regarded as unreasonable in the light of the opening words of the subsection, though I accept that this might not always be practicable. However, I do not quarrel with the opening words of that subsection.
Again, it is true that an unfavourable decision by the Secretary of State is more likely to be broadly acceptable, admittedly with protest, by an organiser if that organiser is seen to have had direct access to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I have some doubts about Amendment No. 19. If it were to be accepted, it would tend to downgrade the role of the commission. Some parade organisers might be tempted to ignore the commission and wish to go straight to the Secretary of State.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was rather in support of Amendment No. 19. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is on a winning streak at the moment judging by the last amendment, but perhaps that will not last. However, it would be odd if the responsible organisers of a planned procession who were upset by the determination that the commission made were to make representations to the Secretary of State—which they or any other citizen would be able to do—and the Secretary of State were to say, "I am not allowed to consider what you say unless the Chief Constable raises the matter with me". That would place the Secretary of State in an awkward position which would be unsatisfactory. In addition to
CWH 58
that, it would place the Chief Constable in the unsatisfactory position of denying the citizens who were attempting to organise the procession the opportunity to have the determination reversed or changed in some respect by the Secretary of State.
Lord Alderdice: The anxiety that I have about the amendment is that one would quickly find oneself coming to the position where every parade organiser would automatically go for an appeal and the Secretary of State would have relatively little option but to grant it. Almost inevitably, it would downgrade the standing of the commission.
It has seemed to me from the beginning that it is important to develop the standing of the commission, rather than the opposite. Indeed, one of my concerns about the North Commission Report not being implemented in full and giving the commission powers of determination from the very beginning was that it was starting off from a rather lowly position where it could merely consult and then, frankly, be ignored. We may reach a point where it has powers of determination but every single one of those determinations can be set aside simply by the wish of the organiser of the procession, who will almost inevitably disagree with the Secretary of State if he or she does not get his or her own way. So while I understand the reasons given for the amendment, I do not think it is in the interests of the commission or its standing that there should be this loophole.
Lord Monson: Yesterday we spoke of the importance of balance in the Bill. It seems to me that these two amendments provide for a better balance, albeit of a slightly different nature.
Lord Dubs: I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and indicate that the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, come nearer to the position I would urge on the committee. Of course we want balance and of course we want openness and transparency, but there are a number of reasons why we would not be happy about these amendments.
First, there is the question of time. We need to recognise that time can often be of the essence and we need to avoid the danger that the new structures would be completely overwhelmed. I do not think we would be in the position that, at any given point in time, the Secretary of State would simply have to consider one parade. We would hope that she would have to consider none at all, but we would have to allow for the possibility that if we opened up the doors in the way suggested by these amendments, people who are dissatisfied with the commission's determination would appeal as a matter of course to the Secretary of State. We would find that the whole system would be clogged up at the very time when there were a number of key parades coming on stream very shortly. We would be opening up a whole new area of bureaucratic procedures and in practice it would almost take the decision on contested parades away from the commission, as recommended by the North Report, in order to give it

CWH 59
to the Secretary of State herself. That would not be acceptable, and it would certainly be far away from the intentions underlying the Bill.
While this amendment refers only to a right of appeal for organisers, if the ability to make applications to the Secretary of State were extended beyond the Chief Constable, I do not think it would be justifiable to extend it only to parade organisers and not to other interested parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, people may wish to contact the Secretary of State on a whole range of issues. I would have thought it would then be proper, if one were to accept these amendments, to give other people the same rights as parade organisers.
The North Report considered these issues in some detail and felt that, provided the commission's initial consultation and determination took account of the views of all concerned, there was no need for an appeals process over and above the possibility of judicial review, as is always the case. The legislation of course already provides for a greater degree of consultation with both sides than is the case under existing arrangements.
I think both these amendments provide a bridge too far, and I would recommend the Committee to reject them. I hope, indeed, that the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wonder whether it would help in the case of the second amendment if the same phrase was used as appears in the other one, "where practicable", because that would not make it mandatory.
May I confide in your Lordships something from my experience of last year? Forty-eight hours before what for shorthand we can call Drumcree No. 3 this year, the Secretary of State and I travelled down to meet not just the key people or the top people in Portadown Orange district, but 124 people representing the different lodges. It was my conviction as I came away from that meeting that, if we had had another 48 hours—in other words, if it had been possible to start the consultative process a little earlier—we would have been as successful that weekend as we were the following weekend, when consultation did take place. But for reasons of confidentiality, I cannot go into that in detail. That taught me a lesson: if consultation at the very highest level can be provided for, we could hope to prevent entirely the kind of disasters which caused us all—not least Her Majesty's Government—a great deal of distress this past year.
In short, I am not suggesting that the Minister can give me an assurance today, but in the light of what I have said, I believe that no barriers should be placed in the way if it is thought appropriate for the Secretary of State to invite people in a position to cool the situation to help her to find a solution.
Lord Dubs: I appreciate the very difficult circumstances last July. I also appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said about the helpful part that he played as regards the Secretary of State
CWH 60
having had that kind of involvement earlier this year, and having a formal arrangement on the face of the Bill as regards what the Secretary of State must do by way of specific procedures laid down.
Clearly the Secretary of State has representations from all sorts of people in Northern Ireland all the time on all kinds of issues. But the noble Lord's amendment seeks to place this on a formal basis, and that makes the process too difficult. It is opening the doors to everybody to make use of these procedures.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: One thought occurred to me. Is it possible to have some form of words—I know that is a phrase beloved of the Foreign Office and not the Northern Ireland Office—to protect the Secretary of State or any of her Ministers from the allegation that they have been engaged in a hole-in-the-corner, secret conversation with this or that body, and as a result of that a certain decision has been taken? Is it possible to have some kind of informal recognition that a service could be established by providing for an avenue to the top decision-makers in certain circumstances?
Lord Dubs: There is a difficulty. With the Parades Commission we seek to have a body that is independent of the Secretary of State, and one that will seek to achieve a compromise on or an agreed resolution of any difficulties without having to make a formal determination. However, if it is necessary, that will be another function of the Parades Commission.
The more we say that the Secretary of State will be involved in these decisions, the more we move back to the position of last July, and the more we undermine the independence, autonomy and authority of the Parades Commission. We believe that if the Parades Commission is to work, it has to be seen not only as being independent but also as a body which is not simply a doorway to the Secretary of State but will make determinations if informal resolutions are possible, without opening the door to the Secretary of State for everybody who is disaffected. My fear is that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, would simply impose the responsibility on the Secretary of State; and the Parades Commission would be seen as having a lesser part to play.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: What struck me as odd on that earlier occasion which I call the "Drumcree minus weekend" was that there did not appear to be any input by the commission at any stage. The Secretary of State on that weekend, supported as she was by one or two of us, could be seen to be acting without the views, determination and advice of the commission. I am not criticising the commission on that occasion, but for some reason or other it did not appear to have a clear role or to take any beneficial part in the discussion.
Lord Alderdice: Perhaps I may make two comments. First, I should like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, for his interventions last year. At the time, there was high tension and deep fear, and with good cause. Had it not been for the standing in which the noble Lord is held in this community, and the efforts that he made,

CWH 61
we might all be debating entirely different matters in respect of Northern Ireland at present. It is only fair to pay tribute to him because his experience there is real and considerable, and the contribution that he made was, in my judgment, enormous.
However, I also wish to draw to the noble Lord's attention that we now hope that the commission will have the power to make determinations. On the occasion when the noble Lord was involved, the commission did not have the power to make any determinations; the Secretary of State and the RUC Chief Constable were the people involved. He was involved in much of the behind-the-scenes and difficult work with the decision-makers. If the Bill is enacted, the members of the commission will become decision-makers and makers of determinations, which they were not at that time, and that will change the dynamic considerably.
I trust that we shall not again find ourselves in the invidious position in which the noble Lord and the community as a whole found themselves last year. If we do, however, and if his services are called on again after the Bill is enacted, he will have the opportunity of being involved with the determination-making commission rather than the purely advisory body, which was largely marginalised by what was going on last year, precisely because these powers had not been given to it in time.
4 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for putting the argument so clearly. I warmly endorse the point he made about the helpful and positive role of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, earlier this year. It was much appreciated by the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues and it played an enormous part in resolving some of the difficult issues in a peaceful way. I am happy to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said.
Having said that, the difference, as has been made clear, is that with the Bill in place the Parades Commission will have a clear role and clear powers and responsibilities. The fact that it will have those will give it a chance to carry out the functions which the noble Lord said it did not seem to be carrying out earlier this year. I do not know any details about that, but the Parades Commission will certainly have a clear remit. That is central to the way in which we see the legislation having effect. The Parades Commission will be there to do a specific task, which is to achieve peaceful compromise and the resolution of difficulties. If that fails, it will then be authorised to make a determination.
Lord Fitt: On the off-chance that the proceedings may be reported in the Northern Ireland press, which is highly unlikely, I should like to place on record that I, too, fully support and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on what he did earlier this year. That was a very dangerous situation, as has already been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
I see the debate on the amendment opening up a whole can of worms. On the contentious parades where the commission will be asked to make a determination, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned responsible organisers. There are many irresponsible organisers in
CWH 62
Northern Ireland. The word "responsible" should be underlined. In Drumcree last summer the Secretary of State had to meet the protesters—the organisers, in other words—in Drumcree. She did what she could, and she received very little thanks for it at the end of the day. She was charged with everything under the sun in relation to that organisation.
At the moment two gentlemen—one who represented the Garvaghy Road residents last year and one who represented the Ormeau Road residents—are on a grand tour of America, and the only reason for their acceptance in America is that one of them led what was, and the other one led what could have been had it not been for the participation of the noble Lord, a very violent protest against parades which had been allowed by the police in Northern Ireland. Therefore, when the commission is approaching a determination on any given parade, it will have to speak to the people who are organising the parade. It will also have to speak to the people who are organising a protest against that parade; and one or other of those organisations will be dissatisfied with whatever conclusion the commission arrives at. Last summer, it was the Secretary of State, and I believe she showed great courage in trying to reach an accommodation with the various elements in these parades.
I believe it is right that the commission, as I am sure the noble Lord will confirm, will first seek to find an accommodation between the organisers of the parade and those who are liable to protest. After having taken account of their attitudes, it would make a recommendation to the police. We are only skating over the ice of all the terrible possibilities that could arise next year if no accommodation can be found between the warring factions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In light of the friendly and constructive way in which the amendment has been listened to, if nothing else, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Secretary of State's powers to prohibit public processions]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 33, after ("procession") insert ("or likely counter-demonstration to a proposed public procession").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I am right in saying—the Minister will confirm this—that we deferred discussion on likely counter-demonstrations. I do not feel that I need to add anything, unless the Minister wishes to make any comment having slept on the matter overnight. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I said that we would look again at the amendment to which the noble Lord refers. However, I suggest that these amendments are in a somewhat different category and perhaps I could briefly explain why.

CWH 63
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary because the Secretary of State already has the power to ban such counter-demonstrations. Schedule 3 of the Bill sets out amendments to existing legislation. The Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 currently gives the Secretary of State powers to ban both public processions and public meetings. Clause 11 restructures the power to ban public processions. Schedule 3 also restructures the Secretary of State's power to ban public meetings broadly in parallel with the provision of Clause 11. The power to ban public meetings will remain therefore, but can be found in the public order order rather than the Bill.
Technical as all this sounds, we are dealing in these amendments with a somewhat different point from that of people who would simply try to obstruct parades. I undertook yesterday to look again at the second point about people obstructing parades or causing such difficulties. I believe that we have all the powers to deal with the points that are the substance of these amendments.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 35. after ("any") insert ("serious").
The noble Lord said: The insertion of the word "serious" merely brings the Bill into line with the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. The organisers of all manner of events anywhere in the United Kingdom at various times are accused of causing disorder, annoyance or damage. Usually, on investigation, it is proved that there is no substance in these claims and allegations—that they are frivolous and bogus—and they are not pressed when they are faced with that awkward fact. My reason for selecting the word "serious" is that it is used in all similar contexts in the existing Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order, and it would seem sensible to use the same terminology in the Bill before us and thus avoid any unnecessary problems over interpretation. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have discussed on several occasions—it was mentioned again this afternoon—the need for balance in the Bill. It is of course most important that the Bill is not seen as an anti-parades Bill and that the commission is not seen as an anti-parades commission. I do not believe that that was the intention of the North Report, nor do I believe it is the intention of the Government that it should be so. The Government may feel that it is unfair that some people undoubtedly at this point think of it as an anti-parades commission and an anti-parades Bill.
But there are a couple of parts of the wording which lend credence to that view, and I am keen that we should tidy those up to try to remove the feeling that it is an anti-parades Bill. The amendment goes to one of them because, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said, it repeats the wording of the public order order of
CWH 64
1987, except that it leaves out the word "serious" in a number of cases. The Secretary of State's power to prohibit public processions, which up to now has been only in case of serious public disorder being threatened or likely, means that in future any public disorder threatened or likely can give rise to the parade being altered or banned.
It is related to the same point that we were making yesterday about the code of conduct. The North Report specifically recommended that the code of conduct should have clauses in it about the conduct of counter-protests and what they should do. The Government have not put that into the Bill, which is another example of why the Bill tends to be seen as an anti-parades Bill.
It is important to point out that what is intended is certainly not a commission to stop parades. The commission itself has no power, as the clause makes clear, to stop a parade. Only the Secretary of State has the power to ban a parade, or the police in case of serious public disorder. The purpose of the commission is to enable parades to take place peacefully and in an orderly manner, as most now do. It is small changes to the wording of the Bill by comparison with the previous order and with the North Report which lend a little credence to the wrong idea about this commission, and it is important that we try to eliminate them.
Lord Monson: I agree that it is highly desirable that this series of amendments be accepted either now or possibly at the next stage; otherwise the likelihood of a single broken window pane or a single bent car aerial might lead to the banning of a traditional parade which has been going on for 50 years or more.
Lord Dubs: The amendments tabled by the noble Lord refer to the provisions contained in Clause 11 of the Bill on the Secretary of State's power to ban parades. That is a much more significant power than the powers given to the commission. The noble Lord seeks, I believe, to ensure that the clause lends greater emphasis to the seriousness of the factors which the Secretary of State must take into consideration in making her decision. Those factors include the threat to public order or damage to property and the impact of the parade upon community relations.
Clause 11 is based on the Government's view that the Secretary of State must take into account the full range of factors which have a bearing on any decision to ban a parade. Unlike in the previous legislation, there is not a threshold of disorder or disruption beyond which the Secretary of State can immediately act. Rather, we have moved from a criteria-based to a factor-based approach. We believe that the Secretary of State should seek to make decisions taking account of all the possible implications. That does not, however, mean that the Secretary of State will require a "weaker" case in order to consider it necessary to impose conditions on a particular parade. The Secretary of State must ask herself if it is necessary for her to ban a particular parade in the public interest.
The power to ban parades is a serious matter, raising fundamental questions of civil liberties and rights.

CWH 65
Indeed, in European Convention on Human Rights terms, if a decision to ban a parade were challenged, here again the Secretary of State would need to demonstrate that the decision was necessary and proportionate to the facts of the case. It has only been needed in exceptional circumstances in the past and I can assure noble Lords that this will remain the case in the future.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: If the Minister is reasonably confident that what appears to me to be a little loophole will not be permitted to be exploited by frivolous people, and with there being time to think about the matter while the Bill progresses through another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 28 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 40, after ("community") insert—
(" ( ) the desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to be held along that route:").
The noble Lord said: There is a difference between the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to ban a public procession under Clause 11, which we are considering now, and the criteria to be used by the commission under the earlier clause in deciding whether to issue a determination. It seems to me that the difference between the two sets of criteria is undesirable.
In the set of criteria to be used by the commission, it has to have regard, among other things, to what is called in shorthand traditionality, namely, the desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to be held along that route. By the time we get over the page to the Secretary of State's powers to ban a public procession, that paragraph has disappeared.
It seems to me to be right for the commission to have regard to the traditionality of a parade in making its decisions. It is equally right that the Secretary of State should have regard to that traditionality in making her decision on the same parade. It is rather difficult to see how the considerations of the Secretary of State could leave out a consideration which the commission had taken into account. It might have been of significance in the commission's decision, in which case the Secretary of State should certainly consider it too. That is why this amendment seeks to insert those lines and that paragraph into the Secretary of State's power to ban a parade.
Lord Monson: This is a good amendment. As a general principle it is proper that there should be a modest—and I stress the word modest—in-built bias in favour of any longstanding tradition.
Lord Hylton: I am not quite sure that it is absolutely necessary to have precisely the same
CWH 66
criteria laid down in the Bill for both the commission and the Secretary of State. If a text along the lines proposed in this amendment is thought desirable, then there might also be grounds for having something written in describing the situation where the character of a particular road, street or neighbourhood has totally changed—for example, as a result of the building of houses—and a completely different and new population has come into the area.
Lord Fitt: The amendment relates to the whole question of desirability and traditionality. Let us take the areas which have been a great bone of contention in Northern Ireland: Drumcree, Garvaghy Road and the Ormeau Road. In both those areas, over a period of 10 to 20 years the demography has changed out of all recognition. The Garvaghy Road was at one time an almost 100 per cent. Protestant district in culture and identity. Those people left. Many Roman Catholics moved into the Garvaghy Road area; they have their culture and identity. They did not like the Orange parades passing by what they regarded as their estate, even though those traditional parades have been taking place on that road for over 100 years.
The same thing has happened with the Ormeau Road in Belfast. At one time the population was nearly 85 per cent. Protestant. With the troubles that changed. People were ordered out of their homes. One section of the Catholic population was ordered out of a Protestant estate. I saw that happen, tragically, in 1968 and 1969 after the advent of the civil rights movement. Then the Ormeau Road Catholics who had been intimidated in other parts of Belfast moved into the Lower Ormeau Road, an area where Protestants had been intimidated to move out of that area. The whole demography of the area changed.
The Orange parades have passed this area traditionally over a number of years, and traditionality must take precedence over the wishes of the people who are living in those estates that the Orange parades must pass through. The commission will have to take many decisions. I believe that the wishes of the people who live in that area must be paramount. They live there. They do not want to see what they regard as a hostile, triumphalist parade going past their estate.
Two areas were highlighted last year. In the Garvaghy Road there has been a 90 per cent. change as regards the people who live in that estate. The same applies to the Lower Ormeau Road. Those are the two most contentious areas in which parades took place last year. They will undoubtedly be so next year. The big question arises as to whether traditional parades take precedence over the wishes of the people who are living in the areas where the parade will pass. That is a big decision for the commission to take.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, indeed, it is a decision for the commission to have to take. In the criteria laid down in Clause 8. the commission is already charged with the duty of considering the traditionality aspect; and, in addition and in fact of more importance, any impact which the present procession may have on relationships within the

CWH 67
community. It seems to me that that allows changes about which we all know. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, knows a good deal more about such changes than I do and he speaks from great experience.
If, as we agreed yesterday, the commission will take account of traditionality in making its decision and issuing its determination, then I believe that the Secretary of State should have to take account of the same criteria in making her decision to ban the procession if that is what seems to be necessary.
I am seeking similar criteria. It is right that the traditionality criteria should be included. It is also right that account should be taken of changes in population in particular areas. But both the commission and the Secretary of State in their respective roles should have to take account of the same factors.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It might have been expected that I should wish to say something in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, given that I have been participating in such activities for some 60 years—on all occasions I trust well-behaved and within the law.
With great respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, misunderstood the opening words of the proposer. He spoke about the amendment's desirability. At no time did the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggest that the proposal meant giving a degree of priority or precedence to traditional parades on the route used. Nobody is suggesting that these routes should have absolute priority and precedence over all other considerations.
Lord Dubs: Clearly the Committee is well aware that the Government recognise fully the importance attached to traditional parades, particularly among those in the unionist community. This is also recognised in the North Report; and just as North recommended the commission be able to take into account traditionality in deciding whether to impose conditions, we have included a provision to that effect in the Bill as regards the way in which the commission would operate. We have not, however, included it in the banning power for what I would call pragmatic or perhaps technical reasons. Let me explain.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the traditionality criterion is intimately associated with the particular route a procession should follow. Should it be allowed to go a traditional way or should an alternative, perhaps less controversial, route be found? That will certainly be taken into account in deciding whether to impose conditions. But the banning power is a different matter. We hope the banning power will be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. But when deciding whether to exercise the banning power, the Secretary of State has to make up her mind whether a parade should be allowed to go ahead at all—not which route it should take but whether it should be banned altogether. In a technical sense, therefore, we felt that the traditionality criterion which
CWH 68
applies to the commission's work would be less appropriate, or indeed not really appropriate, for the Secretary of State.
That is how we saw it. It is not an absolute argument; it is simply a matter of asking whether we are giving the Secretary of State in this legislation the appropriate criteria with which to ban a parade. We took the view that the traditionality argument had particular relevance to the route a parade should follow but that this was less appropriate in the case of the banning powers which Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State. It is a fairly pragmatic argument and not one of absolute principle.
Lord Desai: May I ask my noble friend a question? I am sorry, I have not been here before. Suppose we have a traditional march and there are negotiations about changing the route or part of the route but not the march itself. Does the non-inclusion of this paragraph prevent those kinds of explorations being made? There may be a situation where people say that they want to march and the Secretary of State or the commission may say, "Yes, you can have the march but not along that route". Does this make it more difficult for those kinds of negotiations to arrive at a decision to have the march but on a different route?
Lord Dubs: I am happy to clarify that for my noble friend. The position is that the commission, when deciding about a parade, will take all these factors into account. If, however, we reach a more extreme situation when the Secretary of State has to consider banning a parade—not the route of a parade as determined by the commission but actually banning the parade altogether, which is an extreme step to take and in civil liberties terms a very difficult step for the Secretary of State to take—we have felt that in Clause 11 the four criteria that we have laid down are the ones that the Secretary of State would take into account, simply because we felt that technically it would not be appropriate to consider the route of a parade if such an extreme step as banning it altogether had to be taken.
That is not an absolute argument, but it is an argument as to how the Secretary of State might feel able to make such a decision. It seems to us that if the extreme point of banning a march had been reached, the traditionality aspect would play a smaller part in her mind. But I repeat that I am listening to the arguments; I am not taking an absolute view. However, one wants to have on the face of the legislation as sensible an approach as possible. For those pragmatic reasons, we felt that the four criteria in Clause 11 were the appropriate ones.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has been generous in explaining that he will think about things further, and that includes this matter. I do not propose to press it today, but just to draw attention to the fact that there seems to me to be another practical difficulty from the point of view of the Secretary of State.

CWH 69
The Secretary of State will have to consider in relation to a particular parade, first of all, whether to vary the determination made by the commission, which may be to do with the route and so forth. Then, in extreme cases—and there are relatively few parades which have been banned in the past—the Secretary of State will have to turn her mind to whether to ban it. In practice, I suspect the consideration will go on at the same time. The options open to the Secretary of State will be to stick with what the commission said, or to vary the instructions that are given, or to ban the parade altogether. We cannot say that when we are considering option two (to vary the determination) we must consider traditionality, but five minutes later when we are considering option three (to ban the parade) we must not consider traditionality. I agree with the Minister that traditionality will perhaps not feature enormously in the decision to ban, but to have a different set of guidelines for option two and option three seems to me to be unusual.
However, the Minister has said he will look at these matters and I accept that. Unless he wishes to say anything further, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I put a question to him to clarify my mind? He says, for example, that negotiations will be going on with the commission about altering the route of a parade. If those negotiations get to a stage where people cannot agree to alter the route, I would see Clause 11 being put into effect at that stage, when all attempts to find solutions have failed. Therefore, a traditional march will go along a traditional route and the ban has to be invoked. I think this is probably why this framework has been designed. But I do not know whether that is the impression of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The process is that a parade is planned and an application is made to the commission. The commission makes a determination that it should follow a certain route, and then the Chief Constable says to the Secretary of State that there will be trouble if it proceeds like this and the determination should either be varied or the march should be banned altogether. He may say only one of those things. He may say that the only thing to do is to ban the march. The Chief Constable may say that if the determination is changed it would be all right and the march would not need to be banned, but if the determination is not changed then it should be banned and the Secretary of State will need to consider this.
At that point the Secretary of State will have the three options—to stick with the commission's view, to vary the determination or to ban the procession altogether. In considering varying the determination under the previous clause, Clause 9, traditionality must be taken into account by the Secretary of State. In
CWH 70
considering whether to ban it under Clause 11 the Secretary of State does not take into account that particular criteria. I think he should.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that I had said I would consider it. I am not sure that I used those words, but I do so now.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 41, after ("any") insert ("undue").
The noble Lord said: "Any undue demands" would be my preference—
"which the procession may cause to be made on the police or military forces".
Without the inclusion of "undue demands'', demands on police time and even military time could refer to road traffic incidents, normal crime detection and even regulating traffic at rush hour; so in plain common sense the inclusion of the word "undue" would clearly imply a very clear definition of the meaning of the word. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It would also have the advantage of bringing this wording once again into line with the public order order 1987.
Lord Monson: Any procession, even in London, with as few as a dozen people normally requires the presence of a police constable, so that, unless the word "undue" is inserted, it could give an excuse to ban almost any parade, however small.
Lord Dubs: This amendment is similar to other amendments to Clause 11 tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Molyneaux of Killead. I am not sure that I am happy about the amendment.
Clause 11 is based on the Government's view that the Secretary of State must take into account a full range of factors which have a bearing on any decision to ban a parade. We believe that the Secretary of State should seek to make decisions taking account of all the possible implications. In this case, we believe that the demand likely to be made on the police and military forces, of whatever level, is an essential factor to be taken into account and balanced by the Secretary of State against the other factors. A decision to ban would be unlikely to be made on this factor alone.
As I have already said, the Secretary of State will not take a decision to ban lightly. Total bans on parades have been needed only in the most exceptional of circumstances in the past, and I can assure noble Lords that this will remain the case. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is, in a sense, not strictly necessary and be able to withdraw it.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I believe that it is rather a pity that we are here designing fresh legislation which is going to

CWH 71
be implemented and enforced in parallel to existing legislation, the public order order 1987. It would surely be much simpler for all concerned, in the case of a judicial review, if the same terminology applied to both sets of legislation, overlapping as we all know them to be.
If I were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which I have no ambition to be at my time of life if I ever entertained such ideas, I would welcome the inclusion of that word because I would be protected from all manner of pressures by little do-it-yourself pressure groups and so forth. It is easy to lay on a march on the spur of the moment and to impose additional strain on the security forces when they might have many other demands on their time. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think about this issue and perhaps, when the legislation comes before another place, they might at least be able to modify their thinking on that particular subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Registration of bands taking part in public processions]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) A statutory instrument which contains an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This brings us on to Clause 12 which concerns bands. The clause permits the setting up of a system for registering bands. The North Report urged the Government to look at this possibility and patently, judging by the clause being inserted in the Bill, they have begun to look at it. I hope that we shall learn a little more this afternoon of what their thinking is in that regard.
I was not quite sure why it was necessary to put this set of provisions in the Bill because they are already in the 1987 order in a not dissimilar fashion. Of course, that has been on the statute book for a decade now and has not been put into practice. I cannot recall from memory whether we seriously considered putting it into practice during the time I was in the Northern Ireland Office, but it undoubtedly has been considered over the years.
The North Report tells us that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would like to see a system of registering bands; it also says that consideration should be given to the system being court-based. That is put forward tentatively by the North Report, which believes it would be right for the courts to be involved in the process, certainly at the appeal stage and quite possibly at the initial decision-making at stage two. But we do not consider it right to make a specific recommendation to this end.
The Government have clearly gone further than North because he has chosen a court-based system, which is the principal difference that I can see
CWH 72
between the provisions in the Bill as compared with the provisions in the 1987 order. It seems to me that this is a provision to which careful thought should be given, and it would be helpful to know how the Government's mind is moving on it.
We all know that bands can be a cause of trouble, and I suspect that part of the purpose of having such a registration system is to be able to de-register a band which misbehaves. The difficult part is to know how the order which is proposed under the Bill should fulfil subsection (2)(c). That is to say, the order must lay down the grounds on which an application to register a band should be refused. I find it difficult to know on what grounds a first application to register a band would be refused.
I can see that if it misbehaved at a procession and was thought to be offensive, one course of action under the process would be to take away its registration. I suspect that in that case most of the members of that band would quickly find a slot in another band. I do not think it would be a very effective measure, and it may be that is why it has not been implemented since 1987. But I do think we should know more about how the Government are thinking on this.
I also put down Amendment No. 32 which suggests that there should be an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament to confirm the band order when it is made, rather than the negative provision which is given in the Bill. That is because I think it is important to get it right. To slip it through on a negative order, which in the other place is not very likely to be debated on any occasion and where it makes a bigger difference than it does in this House, seems to me unsatisfactory for an instrument of this importance.
My understanding is that the loyal orders, the Orange Order in particular, go to great trouble these days to try to control the bands, which are not their own. They are bands which they hire, and there is a contract system which has proved quite effective in some cases in controlling the bands. If it can be done voluntarily, that is much better than dragging the courts into a whole system of registration and appeals and all the palaver that is necessary if a registration system were to be set up.
I am not therefore wholly against the registering of bands, particularly if the RUC thinks it necessary. But I am sceptical about it, and I would certainly want to know more about it before we put it into law. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that the Minister, who I know will have given the background to this a great deal of study, can give us some idea why the authorities did not ever see fit to implement that which is already on the statute book in the terms of the public order order. It is true that some of the organisations—and those of us involved in some of the organisations became a little impatient about this delay and set about designing a code of conduct and, in some years, imposing very strict

CWH 73
measures of control over bands. It seems odd that that legislation has been lying unused for a decade, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, and is now being duplicated in the Bill for no very good reason while it is already on the statute book.
Lord Monson: Whereas there are many precedents throughout the United Kingdom for controlling processions along a public highway, forcing bands to register, and controlling them, seems a different matter to me. Is the Minister certain that this will not conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised an important question. I read somewhere in an earlier part of the Bill that a band in Northern Ireland could consist of two or more people. The people of Northern Ireland would feel highly insulted if they were told that they had a band with only two people. They have some of the best bands and the best musicians in the whole of the United Kingdom, if not in the world. It is not their musical ability that causes the trouble but the tunes they play.
I have lived on the Antrim Road where the Orange Parade begins in Northern Ireland in the City of Belfast. It is well known that a number of those bands have been referred to as "kick the Pope" bands. Many are brought over from Scotland and we know how bitter and sectarian some of those bands can be in Scotland. Two or three hundred yards from the beginning of the parade at Carlisle Circus the band passes St. Patrick's Chapel: I have stood outside the chapel and seen the Orange "kick the Pope" band passing by. It caused a great deal of ill-feeling.
I hope that some self-regulation could be applied here. The Orange Order could decide which band to employ for the day and which not to employ. I fervently hope that by the time we consider this legislation next year there will be some resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland from the peace talks now taking place which are meant to come to a halt in May next year. If a peaceable solution emerges from those talks, it will be far easier to implement the conditions of the Bill.
We have seen recently in Bellaghy that malign forces were undoubtedly trying to cause trouble in relation to Poppy Day. When they were challenged on this, they said they were not challenging the Remembrance Day march. But they took exception to the band because it was anti-Catholic, anti-Irish and totally sectarian. If the Orange Order wants to hold its traditional parades—and I support it in that objective—then it is incumbent upon it to ensure that the bands play non-inflammatory tunes when leading parades. The same consideration applies even to the names of the bands. I refer to the Lord Carson True Blues. Lord Carson is credited with being the architect of the Northern Ireland state and people find the name highly offensive to Irish nationalism. Many other names on the drums of the bands can be offensive to one or other of the cultural identities in Northern Ireland. Bands are an extremely important part of processions in Northern Ireland.
CWH 74
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has been helpful and constructive in his recent deliberations on the troubles in Northern Ireland. I urge him to take into account the feelings among the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland at the sometimes provocative attitudes of the bands. I am sure that if the Orange Order knows that the issue is of such importance to the national community, it will take the requisite steps.
Lord Hylton: I would like to say one word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said about sectarianism. The essence of sectarianism, as I understand it, is a complete opposition to and disrespect for anybody else's traditions. This can be expressed very forcefully by a small minority of bands.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I intervene briefly to assure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that I entirely agree with him about the tunes that are sometimes played in the wrong place. I was therefore glad to see in Appendix B to the draft code of conduct laid down by the commission that outside places of worship hymn tunes only are to be played and no tunes at all if Church services are taking place; no sectarian tunes where the majority of the population is of a different tradition, in the interface areas, and so forth. There are some quite detailed provisions which seem to me very sensible. They are part of the code of conduct and therefore will affect the way in which the commission makes its decisions.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may separate the two amendments because the arguments are somewhat different. Amendment No. 32 concerns the way in which the proposals about bands would he given effect to under parliamentary procedures. I appreciate that many people from both sides of the community have argued in recent years that one of the main causes of dissension around parades is the behaviour of bands. We believe that the overall powers of the commission to impose conditions on parades, which will include conditions relevant to bands, will be sufficient to deal with the problem and that it will not be necessary to introduce a scheme as set out in Clause 12. Such a court-based scheme would constitute a major new step. However, we have taken the precaution of putting the powers into Clause 12.
I notice that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation considered the form of the orders which might be appropriate and did not recommend an affirmative resolution procedure. However, given what I have heard this afternoon, I would be prepared to consider that point.
As to the substance of the points about bands, Clause 12 provides for the registration of bands wishing to take part in public processions. The North Report recommended that the Government give "active consideration" to a registration scheme for bands. Noble Lords have referred to existing legislation. We believe that that would be inadequate. It would not give us the powers to have a court-based scheme. Any regulation of bands under existing legislation would simply have to be seen as an administrative

CWH 75
measure, and to have a proper, court-based scheme would be better for all concerned. That is why we wish to have the new powers, in case it should be necessary to use them.
However, we consider that the commission already has sufficient powers to address the mischief caused by some bands. The prescribed form on which parades will be notified will contain considerable information about the proposed parade, including which bands are expected. It will not necessarily refer to the particular music, but, by inference, we will know from the particular band the type of music that might be played. The commission will have powers to impose conditions on processions, which may cover which bands can attend, or impose conditions on their conduct.
However, should for whatever reason these powers not be sufficient, there has been some support for the idea of a registration scheme. In that event, I believe that Dr. North and his colleagues were right to suggest a court-based scheme, perhaps on the lines of the procedures for registering clubs in Northern Ireland. This clause therefore amends the existing provisions to give the Government sufficient vires to introduce by order a court-based scheme if necessary. It would then be an offence to take part in a parade as a member of an unregistered band or a band that has failed to comply with the conditions of registration. That is the Government's thinking. It is a clause which we would not wish to bring into effect unless we felt it absolutely necessary to do so.
Lord Hylton: I wonder whether I might draw a very minor drafting point to the attention of the Minister. The side note to Clause 12 has in it the words "taking part in public processions". I notice that those words appear again in subsection (4), but the side notes, as I understand it, do not form part of the Bill. Would it not be a good thing to have those words in rather earlier in the clause?
Lord Fitt: May I ask the noble Lord a question on the registration of bands? Obviously when the band makes an application for registration it will be questioned about its ancestry, how long it has been in operation, how many members it has and what it does. Before granting certification for a band, would it not be possible for the people to put such questions? In Northern Ireland, the people would know the history of the particular band.
Being a Catholic and being of the Irish tradition, I take absolutely no offence at all at any Orange band playing the tune, "The sash my father wore". It is part of the Irish tradition. I certainly take no offence at it at all. But I take serious offence at another tune which is played by Orange bands. It was played recently in Ulster Hall at a protest meeting at which Dr. Paisley and Bob McCartney, the MP for North Down, were part of those proceedings. The crowd stood up and began a real sectarian, racist, anti-Catholic ditty, one line of which said, "We are
CWH 76
up to our necks in Fenian blood". It was Bob McCartney, who had engaged in this meeting, who took offence at this and disassociated himself from it.
When normally registration is applied for and consideration has been given to that registration, it should be said that there should be no such political vocabulary in Northern Ireland. There is no need in this year to have such songs carrying such sentiments and such hostility towards one section of the community. The band that plays such sectarian tunes should be questioned and if it insists or if it has a record of playing them, certification should not be granted.
Lord Desai: From what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said a while ago, it would seem that some bands are brought in from Scotland. Are these bands registered? Do you have to register those bands as well, and how would they come into the scope of Clause 12? We would have to think about that, because a band could always be re-routed by saying it comes from Glasgow and not Northern Ireland. Does that mean that Clause 12 does not apply?
Lord Dubs: I have said that we believe that the existing arrangements for the Parades Commission—and they have just been passed by the Parades Commission—will probably be sufficient to deal with the matters raised by noble Lords. It is only if it appears that those powers are not fully adequate that we would wish to bring the powers in Clause 12 into effect. It is a last resort, as it were. We very much hope that it will not be necessary.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the side note and so on, I am advised that it is in order and that the intentions of Clause 12—to cover the registration of bands taking part in public processions—are clear enough as the clause is drafted. That is the advice I have been given.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understood the Minister to say that he was accepting at least the point in Amendment No. 32. Whether he is accepting the precise wording on the Marshalled List is a matter for him.
Lord Dubs: I would prefer to consider the wording without being tied to the precise form today. If the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, I will then think about it accordingly.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Control of alcohol at public processions]:
5 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that the title of the clause is:
"Control of alcohol at public processions".
I believe this is the only amendment dealing with alcohol. But I listened closely to the discussion on the previous amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. As an outsider, I enjoyed what he had to say about these tunes and "The Sash my Father Wore". As one who is fairly well steeped in the paraphernalia of bands in Scotland and Northern Ireland, I always believed that it was wrong that the melodies, let alone the words, should be distorted.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will appreciate this point. One evening I had occasion to sing at a Knights of St. Colombus dinner and suggested that we should play "The Old Orange Flute". I suggested that instead of the last words we should have, "Why should the devil have all the best tunes?" I was told this would not go down well. All the priests were present, so I said that we would adopt it, but Father Confessor said, "Twice round your beads". In fact, we only just got away with that. But I felt that it was really brutal that one could not enjoy these lovely, haunting melodies. Perhaps one could do away with what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to as the rather more unpleasant aspects, especially when he mentioned what was sung in the Ulster Hall. I have to assure the noble Lord that that tune is sung 30 seconds before kick-off at big games in Glasgow three or four times a season. I am always astonished at the moderation shown.
Clause 13 deals with the problems of alcohol. Clause 13(1) deals with the constable who reasonably suspects that a person is consuming intoxicating liquor. I wonder whether that would be clear to see or by other signs such as leakage. Perhaps there might be not an odour of purity around!
Clause 13(2) refers to locality. That should not provide too much of a problem. Clause 13(4) deals with the transport of persons, perhaps through or around the locality. Subsection (5) raises the query that I wish to raise with the Minister as regards disposal. Clause 13(5) states:
"A constable may dispose of anything surrendered to him".
I understand that it refers only to intoxicating liquor and not to any other apparatus such as sashes or regalia which might be found in the back of the mode of transport. It occurred to me that there might be just a faint glimmer of suspicion that intoxicating liquor, or what might appear to be intoxicating liquor in a motor car or in transport would not be taken, and would have no part in the processions or in anything to do with the processions. It might be a small chance, but there should be a strong safeguard against any misunderstanding or against any further worsening of relationships with the police.
If a constable has grounds for suspicion, or thinks that the drink should not be in that car or van for good reason, it is reasonable for him to confiscate the drink and put it in a safe place. It occurred to me that a perfectly innocent citizen might have some supposedly intoxicating liquor, perhaps for a good
CWH 78
reason—a golden wedding or a family celebration. If it were confiscated, removed by the constable and disposed of, there might be grounds for grievance. The amendment provides that if the liquor were removed, and confiscated but not disposed of, the aggrieved person could go to the station and say, "I had three bottles of white wine in the back of the car, I quite rightly did not argue with the policeman since things might have been getting a little ugly or it could have been difficult". It is this loophole that concerns me. The perfectly reasonable citizen might go to the police station or another relevant place in order to collect his property which he would have purchased for perfectly reasonable—dare I say, innocent—reasons and not for consumption—perhaps to encourage the stretching of the larynx and the singing of various songs at these events.
It seemed to me that there was the glimmer of a suspicion, and, if this is so, would it be possible to remove it? I wondered whether my amendment went a little way towards so doing. I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord should apologise. Most of the Orangemen I know do not drink white wine. But they drink everything else. They do not drink it before they go to the field because, if they did so, they would not be able to march to the field. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows what Orange marchers are. If they start at the beginning of the march and go to the Finaghy or somewhere, they have to march five or six miles. Anything they have will be consumed when they reach the end. It is when they are coming home that the trouble is liable to begin because they have naturally imbibed—drunk the health of the Pope and everyone else.
If they are in the situation which the noble Lord envisages, with a car coming down the Ormeau Road, the Malone Road or the Balmoral Road loaded with drink—which is highly unlikely because most of it will have been drunk at the field—and the car is stopped and is found to contain drink, the police should have the right to confiscate that drink. What the noble Lord is saying sotto voce is that they may take it back to the station and drink it themselves.
I do not think this is a serious amendment. I cannot see any situation where the police are going to be involved in confiscating drink that has been found in a car at an Orange parade.
Lord Monson: Exactly the same question arose shortly before the last general election, when a whole raft of Private Members' Bills from the other place were being rushed through this House at great speed. The Bill in question involved the consumption of alcohol in public by young people. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was present on that occasion. I too ventured to suggest that there was a danger in allowing the confiscation of alcohol from young people or their parents, and there was a question of what would happen to it once it was confiscated. I was told indignantly by the government spokesman that it was quite unthinkable that a

CWH 79
constable should do anything other than pour it down the drain immediately. I suspect that is the answer we will get from the Minister today.
Lord Alderdice: There are two issues raised by the amendment. The first is that asking for the intervention of a sergeant simply makes it more difficult to deal with what may be a very minor matter. I see little purpose in creating a great bureaucracy about the disposal of a couple of cans of beer. That seems to be adding enormous problems when they are not necessary.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he could clarify the position for the RUC in respect of seizure of such materials. If, for example, they were to come across a minibus full of intoxicating liqueur and the occupants refused to hand it over, would the police, with this power, be in a position to seize immediately, or would they have to apply for a warrant or issue a summons later? I am asking this for clarification rather than in respect of any propositions. I have to say that I see little merit in the amendment put forward.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would be happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, provided I can be assured it is without prejudice to the Clause 10 reference to the powers of the constable. There is another variation in Clause 7 dealing with the ranks of an inspector in certain cases.
I wonder whether this is the sort of thing we might look at—maybe some of us consulting privately within the next two or three weeks—because there could be a conflict between these three different references to the rank of police officers. We have to bear in mind the possibility that it would not be an inspector, as stated in the Bill, but in some cases a lone constable having in an emergency to take a decision to re-route a minor parade.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may deal with the point that has just arisen before I deal with the substance of the amendment. My understanding is that if a person were unwilling to hand over alcohol, say in a car, a police constable would have the power of arrest under the legislation.
Dealing with the substance of the amendment, I am surprised at this amendment, coming, as it does, from a noble Lord who served as a Minister in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he ought to talk to a few police constables in view of what he said about them, because I am sure he would share my admiration for the integrity and, indeed, the sobriety of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at all ranks—not just sergeant and above. I am equally sure that Members of the Committee will share my view that constables in Northern Ireland, as in comparable legislation in Great Britain, can be trusted to dispose of any intoxicating liquor surrendered to them in a proper manner without the need for supervision by senior officers. I do not believe the noble Lord is serious in
CWH 80
saying that he does not trust constables in the RUC, and I hope that he will therefore do the right thing and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister but a little worried about his experience of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Everybody spoke of urban areas, but the Minister and myself seem to recall that much of our time was spent in rural areas. Of course, I would never cast aspersions on the sobriety of members of the RUC. I will pass that one aside after the hours of darkness, when they are away from the wheel and in the right circumstances. No, probity. It just seemed to me that there could be grounds for perhaps some grievance with what I call a misunderstanding.
However, the Minister made his case well that there should not be misunderstanding. In cases of doubt, any constables this side of the water, let alone the Royal Ulster Constabulary, would say, "You are having a celebration. I hope it goes well. On your way". The Minister may be interested to know that certainly in my country, Scotland, the police have fairly draconian powers to remove alcohol from people
going to— I would not call them public processions or expressions of cultural identity—football games, which of course can in this context combine the two. It seems, certainly in Scotland, that guilt is presumed first of all.
The Minister made a case and I assure him I was perfectly serious that there was a small glimmer in my mind that there could be a misunderstanding. But in view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Breaking up public procession]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 17 [Interpretation]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 4, leave out from ("1995)") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We have mention in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 of the phrase,
which is adapted to carry more than 8 persons".
That relates to a vehicle. I am genuinely confused over this because the only sort of vehicle I can call to mind is a minibus. The manufacture and structure of those vehicles are carefully supervised and the specifications tight and detailed.
If there were, for example, a vehicle converted into a minibus, that might qualify as being adapted. But I cannot think how, under the road traffic order, a small van or a large car could be adapted into something which could be licensed as a public service vehicle. If that means an omnibus, to carry eight persons or more, then there would be no problem. An omnibus is something which is manufactured en masse. It is a structure generally well understood and clearly supervised in design on grounds of safety. In the light of certain disasters, I cannot think that any sort of adapted chassis transformed into a passenger carrying vehicle could possibly conform with the road traffic order referred to. It is a matter of whether the Minister can provide some clarification on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful for this amendment, which impacts on the important question of controlling alcohol at public processions. It is generally agreed that hangers-on and alcohol are responsible for many of the problems which have been associated with contested parades. Anything which helps tackle the problem of alcohol is therefore to be welcomed. The power to confiscate was introduced in Public Order (Amendment)(Northern Ireland) Order 1997. We are currently reviewing this in the light of the experience of this marching season. We will certainly consider the noble Lord's amendment as part of this review.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is odd that the constable seems to have powers to stop a bus or a minibus and confiscate alcohol but not a car. A good many people go to these processions by car, and the effect of the amendment would be to ensure that a constable could stop a car and confiscate alcohol from it if that was necessary. That seems to be desirable.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the Minister's response. The amendment was put down in the light of the determination of all of us to ensure that this legislation is not in any way devalued by accidental drafting and does not conflict with existing legislation. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 38:
Page I1, line 13, at end insert ("and includes cavalcades or processions of motor vehicles along any public highway").
The noble Lord said: This is in no way a sectarian or political issue, but we are dealing here with a paramilitary speciality. I hasten to add that I do not include in those processions cavalcades of cars with their horns blowing in the aftermath of an election victory, because in the immediate aftermath of an election, and even during an election, a certain excuse has to be made for politicians generally, who are not at their best at such times. But, thankfully, that does not concern us in this House.
I wonder whether it would be possible to embody in the Bill the words which appear on the Marshalled List, and add:
CWH 82
"and includes cavalcades or processions of motor vehicles along any public highway".
The fact is that these are organised by paramilitary organisations on their very worst behaviour, insulting everyone in sight to an even greater extent than those earlier insults which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, described. They heighten tensions at a particularly sensitive time and stir up communities and small villages which have nothing whatever to do with any of the conflicts which might or might not be being celebrated.
That brings to mind the kind of things the paramilitaries celebrate. If the Court of Appeal decides that a prisoner serving a sentence is no longer regarded as being a prisoner and releases him, then whichever side the prisoner belongs to may then proceed to celebrate, as they would put it. At the same time they may cause a great deal of annoyance and a good deal of aggravation and excitement in the minds of people who would not otherwise have worried very much had they read it in the newspaper. It is a factor to which, particularly at a sensitive time as we are tidying up a good many of these other items, we ought to give attention.
As I said on another occasion, I understand that there is a loophole in the law. It would be helpful if we could do other law-makers a service by remedying that defect, if it exists. I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and took particular note of this cavalcade of vans. I wonder whether this clause will give the police power to intervene where there is a cavalcade of vans mounted in opposition to some political decision that has been taken in Northern Ireland.
I have vivid memories of May 1974 when a cavalcade of vans and tractors and motor vehicles of every description marched from every farmhouse in Northern Ireland—particularly from County Down—up the driveway to Stormont to bring to an end a specific government experience. I believed then, and still believe, that it was the most hopeful development in politics in Northern Ireland since the foundation of the state. There was certainly a cavalcade of vehicles in the most disruptive way possible that descended, or ascended, to Stormont that afternoon, which was the culmination of a fortnight's strike. That brought to an end the Sunningdale Executive at that time.
Can the Minister say, were such a cavalcade mounted not for the purposes of celebrating the Battle of the Boyne or any other historic happening in Northern Ireland, but with the intention of defying an edict from the Government in relation to politics in Northern Ireland, whether the police would have the same powers as we are now considering in relation to processions of a different nature?
Lord Alderdice: There are two elements to this particular proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. The first is an apparently reasonable one; that is, that if we are to expect the commission to monitor and to make determinations in relation to people who transport themselves on their

CWH 83
own feet, is it not reasonable that the commission should also have the power to make determinations if people choose to transport themselves in some other organised processional fashion? It certainly seems to me on the face of it that that is a reasonable proposition.
There is a further element which also may merit our consideration. On a number of occasions it has been remarked that we must do all possible to create a degree of balance and the perception of balance, and of course there are various elements in the community that are more prone to cavalcades of cars than others. I would be particularly susceptible to supporting this amendment, or a further more considered amendment of this type, if it were also clear that that would enable us to see a balanced Bill, and in particular a balanced Bill that did not require Clause 3. For those two reasons therefore I would be prepared to give a degree of support to this approach if all those elements were in place.
Lord Dubs: When the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, introduced the amendment—I believe I have the wording right—he said, "Politicians are not at their best during elections and thereafter". That seems to me to write off all politicians for ever! He may well be right.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have no objection to their feeling rather peculiar, but it would be remedied when there was dissolution and then they would all be back to normal again.
Lord Dubs: To be serious about the point in this amendment, I recognise the irritation and indeed offence which cavalcades of motor cars have sometimes caused in Northern Ireland, particularly at sensitive times. Those cavalcades are covered by the 1987 order in its definition of a public procession. I recognise that the drafting in the Bill is rather less specific, and I shall be happy to introduce an amendment to clarify the position.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: In the light of that generous response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("paragraph 4") and insert ("paragraphs 4 or 9").
The noble Lord said: The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation issued a report (the sixth report) which covered this Bill, among other matters, and drew attention to the fact that, where various documents are to be issued—that is to say, the code of conduct, the procedural rules and the guidelines—the initial structure of those documents
CWH 84
should be by order subject to affirmative resolution procedure, but that where there were subsequent variations to those documents it should be by order subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Select Committee said that the House may therefore wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to allow Ministers the option to use either the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure for variations. It was pointed out that there will sometimes be substantial, or sometimes quite small but nevertheless controversial and difficult, variations to the documents to which the affirmative resolution procedure ought to apply.
It is a little difficult to frame a satisfactory way in which Ministers would have the option of a negative or affirmative resolution procedure. Also, that may be unsatisfactory from the point of view of the House or another place and, therefore, I drafted the amendment so that they should all be affirmative. I understand that there are precedents for Ministers having an option of this kind and perhaps that would be a better way to do it.
Either way, this Committee should react to the report of the Select Committee and at least consider the point. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord's amendment would require any subsequent revisions of the Parades Commission's code of conduct, procedural rules or guidelines to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It would not be appropriate or good use of parliamentary time to require debate for any changes which may be highly technical in nature to the code of conduct and procedural rules in particular. However, I can see that changes to the guidelines might be regarded in a different light since theoretically at least amendments to the guidelines would radically change the way the legislation is interpreted. Were any such changes proposed by the commission, that would, of course, be clear in the consultation exercise and any order would be likely to be prayed against. In this case there would be little difference between affirmative and negative resolution procedures in practice.
However, I note what the noble Lord said and I looked with interest at the report by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. That report suggests an unusual procedure; that is, that it should be either by the affirmative or the negative resolution procedure, presumably the former where there are real points of substance and the latter where the points are too minor to oblige both Houses to debate them. If the noble Lord would accept the argument that the proposal he makes in outline has particular relevance to the guidelines but not to the other two documents, I would be happy on that basis to consider the amendment. I would take note of what the Select Committee had suggested to see whether we can have the alternative of an affirmative or negative resolution procedure. I understand that has happened before, but very seldom. We would have to see whether that particular form would be appropriate in this case. I would not wish to apply that to the code of conduct and the procedural rules, only for the guidelines.

CWH 85
If the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, were to accept my agreement to look into this, perhaps he would be kind enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am entirely happy to accept what the Minister says, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
CWH 86
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at half-past five o'clock.