HL Deb 09 December 1997 vol 584 cc13-26

Read a third time.

Clause 1 [The Commission]:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) moved Amendment No. 1: Page I, line 6, leave out from ("established") to ("Northern") in line 7 and insert ("a body to be known as the Parades Commission for").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it serve to remove Clause 3 of the Bill, which covers the Parades Commission's extended remit, and make the necessary consequential changes. The Government's decision to remove Clause 3 follows extensive discussion in this House at all stages, and the emergence of a clear cross-party consensus that the clause as drafted would not have the desired effect. I believe this decision demonstrates how right the Government were to decide to make this legislation through a Bill rather than Order in Council, an option which was open to us. I have been most grateful for the vigorous debate surrounding this clause, and am now convinced that removing it is in everyone's best interest.

But equally, I have been heartened by the recognition from all sides of this House that the Bill needs to be even-handed and be seen to be even-handed. A number of other amendments tabled today will, I believe, go some way towards reassuring people on this account. But it is highly important that people do not see removal of this clause as leaving us with a Bill which is straightforwardly anti-parading and targeted to the culture of one particular part of the community. We shall continue to consider carefully all suggestions as to how our commitment to implement the findings of the North Report can be carried out in a balanced and even-handed way. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, this House is often described as a revising Chamber. We have certainly revised this Bill, or at least we shall have done so by the end of the afternoon. The face of the Bill, as it is now intended to go to another place, is substantially changed. The government amendments to be moved today, all of which, including this first batch, have my support, strike out one of the main clauses, Clause 3, entirely, rewrite six of the other 18 clauses and two of the three schedules, and alter both the Short and Long Titles. That is the extent of the revision. There are some outstanding matters which we shall discuss later in our deliberations.

As regards Clause 3, the Bill came to us with the power for the commission to consider all kinds of other outdoor expressions of cultural identity, including church services and painted gable ends, although not offensive sporting occasions. Now the Bill deals only with processions such as parades and protests. The Bill came to us—as it seemed to many of us—as an anti-parades Bill. However, after all these amendments, it will leave us as a parades enabling Bill, which is what I think it should be.

First, the Secretary of State's powers to ban parades or protests are not now to be easier to invoke, as the original Bill suggested. Secondly, the penalties for parade organisers when a parade goes wrong are not now—as they were originally—to be four times the maximum penalties for those who set out to break up parades. Thirdly, the same penalties will also be available for organisers of or participants in an illegal parade held without notice as are available for the organisers of or participants in a legal parade which goes wrong in some way.

The Government are to use again the old definition of processions, which includes car-borne processions or vehicle processions. The original wording of the Bill was changed from the present law and did not seem to provide for that. The Government have accepted the recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation on the handling of changes to the code of conduct, the procedural rules and the guidelines. That is a complete raft of changes which alter the whole effect of the Bill. Of course we know that some people both north and south of the Border wanted an anti-parades Bill—a Bill which they could exploit as widely as possible. This House, in the amendments we are about to make, will deny them that. This Bill is now fairer, more balanced and much more likely to prove workable, effective and acceptable to everyone of good will.

It is also worth drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that these revisions have been achieved by different parties acting together and by distinguished Cross-Benchers. I add for the record that the changes have been pressed on the Government by both life and hereditary Peers within this House. The Government were wise to accept the suggestions that have been made. The Minister gave in with good grace and was clearly effective in arguing the case that was put in your Lordships' House with his colleagues in the department. I am therefore delighted to accept all the amendments which the Government will propose this afternoon.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, the Government deserve double congratulations. First, they have achieved the remarkable feat of having united all quarters of the House in opposition to Clause 3, with which this bundle of amendments deals. To unite your Lordships' House—albeit against the clause—is no mean feat. The Government should also be proud that they had the grace to withdraw the clause and thus to improve the Bill when faced with the fact that the clause does not enhance the Bill and might well damage the ability of the Parades Commission to establish itself as a useful way of managing the parades process in the public interest. I use the word "manage" rather than "enable". I say that with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

As regards this group of amendments, and in particular Clause 3, I wish to pay tribute from these Benches to my noble friend Lord Alderdice who in the Committee stage adopted a leadership role which assembled this motley coalition of Cross-Benchers—as has been said—the heavy and weighty guns of the Opposition Front Bench and other quarters of the House against the Government. I believe that it was largely his intellectual leadership which has led us to the point of identifying that the Bill is better without Clause 3.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I shall support the amendments before us this afternoon. However, at the end of the day, the Parades Commission will have a difficult job next spring. Its task next spring will coincide with the crucial stage of the peace process, running up to the Government's hoped for deadline of 1st May to arrive at a settlement of the difficult and contentious issues in Northern Ireland. It is extremely important that all people of good will, both in your Lordships' House and, much more importantly, in Northern Ireland itself, now try to give the Parades Commission a fair wind in this agonizingly difficult task. It will not be any easier for that body than it has been for successive governments to manage this process. I offer Mr. Alistair Graham and his colleagues best wishes in that task.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, whatever feelings one might have about the Bill and the central objectives—some of us cannot be terribly optimistic—nevertheless it would be churlish not to say that we greatly appreciate the patience and the diligence of the Minister and the effectiveness with which he must have put forward our ideas embodied in these amendments when dealing with various arms of government. It is certainly my intention to reward the Minister in a small way by supporting the amendments which he will move.

Lord Alderdice

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for all the work he has done thus far in the passage of this piece of legislation. First, we ought to be grateful to the Government that they wisely chose to carry this measure through as a Bill rather than as an Order in Council. So much of Northern Ireland's legislation is tackled through Orders in Council. This measure was presented as a Bill in order that it could be fully and properly considered. Secondly, it was also a wise decision to conduct the Committee stage in the Moses Room. The atmosphere in the Committee stage was most conducive to discussion not only as regards the environment of the committee but also the participation of all noble Lords who gave considerable time and thought to the measure.

Much thoughtful work was done on all sides. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who participated in a thoughtful, constructive, and at times good humoured way—something that is not often a characteristic when dealing with our problems in Northern Ireland. Of the contributions from Government, the Opposition, the Cross-Benches and colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party, the noble Lord, Lord Eames, made a striking, moving and extremely significant contribution on Clause 3.

I believe that it was a wise decision for the Government to bring the Bill to your Lordships' House first rather than to another place. My experience of much esteemed friends and colleagues in another place indicates that there is a tendency to expand the contentiousness of such matters and such a course might have made it difficult to achieve the consensus and thoughtful and reflective material that has resulted. The Government will be rewarded by taking a better piece of legislation to another place and, it is to be hoped, will find that it has a reasonably smooth passage there.

I have found that there is appreciation in Northern Ireland that the legislation passing through is rather better than when it came to us. It does credit to all of us—the Government, and your Lordships' House. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for his kind words on the small part that I played. I found it a most fruitful piece of work. I think that the people of Northern Ireland will be grateful to us. I only hope that the co-operativeness that was obvious in your Lordships' House will infect other forums in which I operate where we are struggling with the matter of talks and finding a resolution. If that infection from your Lordships' House could travel, goodness knows what the new year might bring for us there. I and my colleagues will support the amendments that the Minister puts forward.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am enormously grateful for all those comments, for the words of support, and for the welcome that the House has given to the procedure that we followed, both by having a Bill on the subject, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, by using the Grand Committee procedure for the Committee stage in the Moses Room. That was the result of discussions through the usual channels. I agree with the noble Lord that it led to an informed, interesting, balanced, reasonable, good natured and helpful Committee stage. I think that the Bill has become all the better because of the atmosphere and the way in which we were able to debate in the Moses Room. It may well influence us when looking at future Committee stages, given the success of this one. But I must not prejudge what my noble friend the Chief Whip will wish to do as regards future Bills. I am most grateful for the support expressed, and for the support for this set of amendments which delete Clause 3. I commend the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Functions of the Commission in relation to other expressions of cultural identity]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:

Leave out Clause 3.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Code of Conduct]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("or a counter-demonstration to a public procession").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 11 are grouped together. Amendment No. 3 would mean that the Parades Commission not only has to draw up a code of conduct for those organising and participating in parades but also for those protesting against a legal parade. When I argued the point at Report stage, the Minister said that the point would be considered further; and that the results of the further consideration would be dealt with in another place. I entirely accept that. I advance the amendment today only to draw attention to the North committee's view on the matter.

During Report stage, the Minister said at column 1195 that the North Report did not believe that it would be appropriate for the commission to have such a code dealing with protesters. I pointed out at the time that I believed that that was not an accurate statement of the position. The Minister may have confused the position with the subsequent recommendations in Chapter 13, paragraph 55 of the North Report which recommends that the police consider a code of conduct for open air meetings. The Parades Commission has nothing to do with those. In fact at Chapter 13, paragraph 40 of the North Report recommends that the commission's code of conduct should cover protesters. It sets out in some detail what might be in that part of the code. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take this clear recommendation of the North Report into account in discussing the matter before reporting their conclusions in another place.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 11 deal with a separate point. They give the Secretary of State the power to ban a counter demonstration. We sought to improve the wording of our amendments between Report stage and Third Reading. I do not think it fanciful to suppose that there may be occasions where counter-demonstrations are expected and the Secretary of State may take the view that the procession should take place, that re-routing the procession is not possible and that the counter-demonstration should be banned. As I understand the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State can only ban the whole procession, thus removing the cause of the counter-demonstration and indirectly banning that. But by doing so he gives way to the protesters themselves.

I hope that between now and consideration of the Bill in another place that possibility will be considered so that the Bill can be amended along the lines of Amendment No. 11 in particular, but also of Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I believe that there is a strong case for accepting this modest amendment in line with the recommendation of the North Report in particular to deal with the situation which will arise when the date and details of a traditional procession will be known many months in advance. A protest group perhaps organised by a military body—such groups are nearly always organised by such bodies—launches notice of a counter-demonstration, usually with no justification whatever except to create trouble. Clause 4 requires the commission to issue a code of conduct regulating the conduct of organisers of a public procession, but inadvertently your Lordships are denying the commission the power to act in a similar role with regard to organisers of a protest demonstration designed, as the Bill states in another clause, to break up a legal procession.

The Minister stressed the need for balance between sections of the Northern Ireland community. In line with the generosity he showed earlier, and his capacity to influence his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, I hope that he will recognise the need for balance between legal behaviour and illegal activities.

Lord Monson

My Lords, Clause 3, which we have just consigned to oblivion, was originally conceived by the Government as a means of achieving balance between what we must now call the traditions. Subsequently, it was realised by almost everyone that Clause 3 went too far and, moreover, that it might well lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. Accordingly, it has rightly been deleted from the Bill. However, we are still faced with a need to achieve balance between the traditions. This group of amendments goes some way towards achieving that end.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I should like to deal separately with Amendment No. 3 and Amendments Nos. 5 and 11. They deal with substantially different points, although I appreciate that at first sight they seem to cover the same issue.

In regard to Amendment No. 3, the point at issue has already been discussed at both Committee and Report stages. As I said on Report, the Government feel that further consideration of this point would be more appropriate in the other place. However, I wish to take the opportunity of clarifying a point that the noble Lord made at Report stage, on which he has subsequently tabled a Parliamentary Question and to which he referred in his comments a few moments ago.

I accept that there is a certain amount of ambiguity about the North Report's recommendations on the code of conduct and counter-demonstrations. This Bill, which implements the report's recommendations, would treat a counter-demonstration as an "open-air public meeting". It would therefore fall to be regulated by the police under the public order order. The North Report recommended that the police, give serious consideration to preparing a Code of Conduct in relation to such meetings similar to that prepared for parades by the Parades Commission". At the same time, however, the report recommended that the commission have ownership of a code of conduct covering the behaviour both of participants and protesters. That is slightly curious, particularly as the form the code of conduct is recommended to take clearly covers matters such as the organisation of a parade and behaviour on it, which are subjects on which the police rather than the Parades Commission can impose conditions. Moreover, while the North Report makes clear that past breaches of the code of conduct can be taken into account in future determinations on contested parades, it is hard to identify a corresponding sanction which could apply to counter-demonstrators.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government believe it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue when the Bill goes back to another place. The police and the commission will have their own views, and I do not believe we want to introduce hasty amendments at this stage. I would be grateful, therefore, if this amendment could be withdrawn, and we will report back in the other place as to our conclusions on this matter.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 11 deal with the power of the Secretary of State to ban processions, whereas Amendment No. 3 deals with the power of the Parades Commission to determine matters relating to processions, such as the route. As I made clear in Committee and on Report, we are content that the Secretary of State already has sufficient powers to deal with the disorder, disruption etc. resulting from counter-demonstrations. Those powers are contained in the public order order, as amended by Schedule 3 to this Bill.

The amendments introduced on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would not have had the effect that he sought. The amendments tabled for debate today are, however, technically defective in a different way from those that he introduced on Report. I am sorry to have to say that; I remember, when in Opposition, I was frequently stung by being told that my amendments, both in this House and the other place, were technically defective. However, that is the truth, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it.

The first problem with these amendments lies in the concept of a "counter-procession". That is nowhere defined in legislation. Indeed, a counter-procession is presumably simply a public procession. If local residents or anyone else sought to oppose a public procession by holding another one in protest, that "counter-procession" would itself fall to be regulated by the commission and could be banned by the Secretary of State, if necessary using her powers under Clause 11 as currently drafted.

On the assumption that this amendment is intended to cover counter-demonstrations rather than counter-processions, however, the noble Lord's amendments would still not have the desired effect. The amendment does not make clear that the revised Clause 11 is intended to cover both public processions and protesters to it. But unlike the amendments laid at Report stage, the factors which the Secretary of State must take into account have not this time been amended. That would mean that the Secretary of State could theoretically permit a public procession to go ahead but ban a counter-demonstration, only taking into account the likely disorder or disruption which the original procession might cause, rather than disorder or disruption as a result of the counter-demonstration which is being banned. That may seem perverse, but it is an inevitable consequence of the amendment as drafted, because, as it stands, the Secretary of State has no power to consider the likely effect of the counter-demonstration in deciding whether to ban it. I therefore urge noble Lords to reject this amendment.

Indeed, I should welcome a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as to his intentions regarding Amendments Nos. 5 and 11. As I said, the fact that counter-demonstrations are not covered in this clause is by no means a sign that the Government do not believe they can be just as much a source of trouble as the original procession. Rather, the Secretary of State has equal powers to deal with both the original procession and the counter-demonstration, but those powers simply happen to be set out in different places in the legislation.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 3, I am grateful for the Minister's comments. If he refers to paragraph 13.42 of the North Report, which sets out the possible elements in a code of conduct for parades, he will find that Part III sets out quite clearly suggestions as to what might be included in a code of conduct in relation to what is described as, General behaviour for anyone participating in lawful protest against a parade". That is what the amendment seeks. However, I am happy to leave the matter to be settled after further consideration, and for it to be dealt with in another place.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 4: Page 5, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert ("on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.").

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

We have been faced with a difficult choice, one shared by noble Lords who at different times have put down amendments, some proposing the one course, others the opposite. Nobody should be under the illusion that the offences in these clauses are not serious ones. The authorities are absolutely determined to maintain the rule of law and to see that decisions of the Parades Commission are not defied. But, equally, the choice lay between levelling up sentences under the Bill or levelling them down. This Government do not believe that the rule of law is necessarily best maintained by the threat of draconian penalties. Rather, we want to see even-handed and effective enforcement of the law. And levelling sentences in the Bill up to a maximum two years would seem disproportionate in the case of offences which need not involve violence or even the threat of violence. In addition, in the past the authorities have found the magistrates' court system adequate to deal with offences under the order, and we are confident that the same will apply in the future.

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

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for moving this amendment, and we support it.

Lord Monson

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 6: Page 6, line 35, after ("any") insert ("serious").

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

The Secretary of State will only be able to take into account disorder, disruption, and so forth, if they are themselves serious. But even that will not be enough, unlike in the existing public order order. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to be convinced that there is a danger of serious disorder, disruption, and so forth. He or she must also believe that, in all the circumstances, banning a parade would be necessary in the public interest. In European Convention terms, this would mean demonstrating that the step of taking a ban was both necessary and proportionate.

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

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

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

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

Lord Cope of Berkeley

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

Lord Dubs

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 10: Page 6, line 35, after ("or") insert ("serious"). Page 6, line 37, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 6, line 39, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 6, line 41, after ("any") insert ("undue").

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

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 22: Page 7, line 3, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 3, after ("or") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 6, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 8, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 10, after ("any") insert ("undue"). Page 7, line 18, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 18. after ("or") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 20, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 7, line 22, after ("any") insert ("serious"). Page 7. line 24, after ("any") insert ("undue"). Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert ("on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 16 [Regulations and orders]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 23: Page 10. line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

("( ) A statutory instrument containing any regulations under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. ( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. ( ) A statutory instrument containing— (a) an order under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 made without a draft having been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament; or (b) an order under section 7(5)(b) or 12(1) or paragraph 2(2) or 12(6) of Schedule I, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment might look somewhat indigestible on first sight but its practical effect is quite simple. It takes up the very useful suggestion made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on the procedures to be adopted for subsequent amendments to the code of conduct, guidelines and procedural rules. In the Bill as it stands, the first issuing of these documents will be approved under affirmative resolution procedure. Subsequent amendments, however, would be by the negative resolution procedure. The committee accepted that the negative resolution procedure was an acceptable route for subsequent revisions to the statutory documents, while calling on members of both Houses to be aware of proposed changes and to pray against them if they considered that they required fullest parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee also suggested, however, that the Government consider the option of having a choice of either the affirmative or negative procedure.

That has up till now been a fairly unusual approach, mainly associated with European legislation; but we believe it is a helpful suggestion, and highly appropriate for this Bill. We do not believe it will be a good use of parliamentary time to require a debate on any revision of, say, the commission's procedural rules when these may be entirely technical; but, equally, we accept that there is at least a potential of fairly substantial changes to the guidelines, for example.

Your Lordships may ask how the Government will decide which option to use. I cannot, of course, set out any fixed rules, but I can assure your Lordships that each case will be considered carefully on its merits. Our commitment to the fullest possible scrutiny has been demonstrated by our decision to use a Bill procedure rather than an Order in Council, and we shall not be seeking to smuggle major changes through without appropriate scrutiny. Depending on what we perceive to be the gravity and significance of the changes, we shall decide which procedure is appropriate. And, of course, if any noble Lord or Member of the other place believes the changes are significant and should require a debate and a vote, it is open to them to pray against an order which has been laid by the negative resolution procedure.

I believe that this is a pragmatic and helpful amendment, and I urge acceptance of it.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the whole of today's proceedings have demonstrated the wisdom of the Government in bringing forward these proposals as a Bill rather than as an order, as the Minister said. I am grateful to the Minister for proposing this amendment, which we culled from the Select Committee and advanced to him earlier.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Interpretation]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 24: Page 10, line 38, leave out ("Commission established by section 1") and insert ("Parades Commission for Northern Ireland").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 25: Page 11, line 13, at end insert (", whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to introduce this amendment, which I think largely speaks for itself. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has discussed on several occasions the disturbance which politically inspired processions or cavalcades of motor vehicles can cause. Such vehicle processions have been covered by legislation up till now and I believe that it is important that they should continue to be so covered. I accept that the present drafting of the Bill does not make that sufficiently clear and I believe that this amendment, which restores the wording of the 1987 public order order, does what is necessary to provide that reassurance.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the careful and sympathetic attention that he has given to this problem. I know that his decision will be welcomed throughout the community in Northern Ireland, with the exception of certain evil-doers, who are not the main concern of your Lordships.

On Question. amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 [Short title, commencement, transitional provision and extent]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27: Page 11. line 23, leave out ("etc."). Page 11, line 25, leave out ("and to section 3(5)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall take Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 28: Page 15, line 4, leave out paragraph 5.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Amendments]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 34: Page 15, line 29, leave out ("etc.").

Page 15. leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—("The Parades Commission for Northern Ireland."."). Page 15, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—(""The Parades Commission for Northern Ireland."."). Page 15, line 45, at end insert— ("( ) In Article 4(6) for the words from "liable" to the end there shall be substituted the words "liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a tine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."."). Page 16, line 16, at end insert— ("( ) In Article 5(6) for the words from "liable" to the end there shall be substituted the words "liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."."). Line 3, leave out from ("of') to end of line 4 and insert ("the Parades Commission for").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Perhaps I can briefly say a word of thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to the discussions at all stages of this Bill, both in the Moses Room, at Report stage and again today. We have demonstrated that the procedure adopted by the Government to introduce a full Bill to deal with this difficult and vexed issue was fully justified in the event. We have made the Bill a better Bill on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

I am grateful for the good tempered and positive way in which noble Lords responded to the issues. They are extremely difficult issues, as we saw last year and in previous years during the marching season. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will see this as a positive move forward; that they will accept that the Parades Commission is an even-handed body which will do a useful job in conciliation and in making determinations as necessary. I hope that we shall have better marching seasons in the coming years than in the past years as a result of the Bill.

I end on the note I mentioned earlier; that is, that 12th July is a momentous day in the marching season. It is also the day of the World Cup Final and I hope that that also sends a positive message to the people of Northern Ireland.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Forward to