Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 February 1998 vol 585 cc864-73

3.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Dubs.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS [The page and line refer to Bill (101) as first printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT 1 Clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and protest meetings")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1. It may be helpful if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13.

The amendments reflect considerable discussion both here and in another place about the need for balance in the Bill. I know some have suggested this Bill is aimed exclusively at the traditions of one side of the community. The Government do not believe that that is the case, but have recognised the strength of feelings the issue arouses, as well as the wide degree of support expressed for the balancing measures introduced by the Government during the Bill's passage through this House.

After considerable reflection, the Government put down further amendments during the Bill's progression through the Commons. They introduce a notice requirement for those organising protest meetings against public processions, and extend the coverage of the code of conduct to deal with the conduct of those participating in protest meetings as well as processions.

The amendments are not simply designed to address perceptions of the Bill, however. The Government believe they are useful in their own right. I do not think anyone could object to the introduction of a notice requirement for protest meetings. It is clearly important that the police and the commission have as much information as possible in dealing with possibly contested parades.

We have not chosen to go so far as to put protest meetings under the jurisdiction of the commission. For one thing, that would represent a major increase in the commission's workload; but nor do we think it is necessary.

The police already have sufficient powers to deal with protest meetings under the public order order. When they pose a problem, as they sometimes do, it is usually a public order one which the police are in the best position to deal with.

There will however be close co-operation between the police and the commission. The new clause provides for the commission to receive copies of the notice as soon as it is handed in to the police. I am confident the police and the commission will be able to co-ordinate any actions necessary to minimise the difficulties which a contested public procession and related protest meeting might cause.

Similarly, the Government have recognised the weight in the arguments put forward both here and in another place about the need for a code of conduct for counter-demonstrators as well as marchers. A code of conduct could be useful in itself. In addition, for the sake of balance we think it is important that when assessing any past breaches of the code of conduct by marchers, the commission should also be able to take account of the behaviour of counter-demonstrators, for example to judge the level of provocation there may have been.

These measures were discussed during the Bill's passage through this House. No doubt some of your Lordships feel these amendments could have been made at an earlier stage. However, I am confident that they will be supported. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the Minister has rightly anticipated the general support for the amendments in this group. The amendment with which we are dealing, Amendment No. I, requires the commission to keep itself informed of protest meetings. I should have expected it to do that in any event but it is no had thing to have that provision on the face of the Bill.

The next two amendments in the group introduce the code of conduct in relation to protest meetings. I am sure that that is right, too. As the Minister stressed, it is extremely important to achieve the right balance with this Bill. In my view, as I said before at earlier stages, the balance of the Bill was not right when it came before us originally and this measure helps to correct it. By extending the requirement to have a code of conduct applying to protest meetings, we are improving the balance of the Bill and it is right that we should do that.

The main new clause introduces the requirement to give notice of protest meetings relating to public processions. I believe that 14 days' notice is the right period to choose. Clearly there needs to be 28 days' notice in relation to public processions and the 14 days is to follow after that.

The only difficulty is in connection with the definitions of what is a "related protest meeting". The Government have tried to tackle that, particularly with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. So far as I can see, they have not made a bad fist of it. However, I was rather surprised that it took two bites at the cherry as it were. The matter is complicated because the definition of "related" is in a different clause from the definition of "protest meeting". But I do not complain too much about that. It is helpful to have that new clause and those provisions generally in the Bill.

Our consideration of the matter has not been made easier by the speed with which the amendments have been brought before your Lordships' House. Last week there was an indication that we should be dealing with these matters today but the papers were not available when the House rose at the end of last week. They did not become available to noble Lords generally until this morning. That is an unsatisfactory way in which to try to unravel the complexities of the wording of this matter. This House is a revising chamber but it needs the opportunity to consider words in order to get the revisions correct.

However, I am quite sure that the thrust of the amendments is right in order to improve the balance of the Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 2 Page 1, line 21, leave out ("mediate, or")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.

This amendment would remove from the face of the Bill references to the Parades Commission engaging in direct mediation, while retaining references to its power to "facilitate mediation".

In introducing this amendment, the Government have taken account of the strong feelings expressed both here and in another place that there might be a clash for the commission engaging both in direct mediation, and in being the ultimate decision maker on contested parades.

Facilitating mediation will of course be a prime responsibility of the commission, and a lot of good work has already begun to that effect. The commission will seek to encourage dialogue through a network of "authorised officers" who will seek to encourage local agreement.

I am sure that the Parades Commission will learn from its experience on the ground both last year and in the coming marching season. The amended power will still be flexible enough for them to put what they see as best practice into operation.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I am not sure that there is as much difference as has sometimes been represented between engaging in and facilitating mediation. If people are gathered around a table discussing a particular matter and trying to arrive at a conclusion, the point at which it goes from facilitating mediation to being mediation seems to me could give rise to difficulties.

Nevertheless, the amendment cleans up the wording a bit without interfering too much with what we all want to see the commission achieve—that is, mediation to assist people to arrive at agreement about how parades can properly take place.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

My Lords, I believe that the amendment is probably more important than it may seem. For the commission to have been responsible for the mediation at the same time as carrying out the determination would, I believe, have been quite impossible. Perhaps I may speak also to the amendments in general. Although we have had only a very short time to study them—in my case, only about an hour—I recognise that, together, they make a considerable improvement and will reduce the difficulties which will arise from the Bill as it is enacted in Northern Ireland.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

• 3 Clause 3, page 2, line 10, after ("procession") insert ("or protest meeting")
• 4 Page 2. line 12, at end insert ("or protest meeting")
• 5 After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROTEST MEETINGS RELATED TO PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

1. (".—(I) Where notice has been given under section 6 in relation to a public procession, a person proposing to organise a related protest meeting shall give notice of that proposal in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of sergeant by leaving the notice with him at the police station nearest to the place at which the meeting is to be held.
2. (2) Notice under this section shall be given—
   1. (a) not later than 14 days before the date on which the meeting is to be held; or
   2. (b) if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to give such notice.
3. (3) Notice under this section shall—
   1. (a) be given in writing in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and
   2. (b) be signed by the person giving the notice.
4. (4) The form prescribed under subsection (3)(a) shall require a person giving notice under this section to specify—
   1. (a) the date and time when the meeting is to be held;
   2. (b) the place at which it is to be held;
   3. (c) the number of persons likely to take part in it;
   4. (d) the arrangements for its control being made by the person proposing to organise it;
   5. (e) the name and address of that person;
   6. (f) where the notice is given as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2). the reason why it was not reasonably practicable to give notice in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection; and
   7. (g) such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary for, or appropriate for facilitating, the exercise by the Secretary of State or members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of any function in relation to the meeting.
5. (5) The Chief Constable shall ensure that a copy of a notice given under this section is immediately sent to the Commission.
6. (6) A person who organises or takes part in a protest meeting—
   1. (a) in respect of which the requirements of this section as to notice have not been satisfied; or
   2. (b) which is held on a date or at a time or place which differs from the date, time or place specified in relation to it in the notice given under this section.
   shall be guilty of an offence.
7. (7) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (6) it is a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know of, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, the failure to satisfy the requirements of this section or (as the case may be) the difference of date, time or place.
868
8. (8) To the extent that an alleged offence under subsection (6) turns on a difference of date, time or place it is a defence for the accused to prove that the difference arose from—
   1. (a) circumstances beyond his control:
   2. (b) something done in compliance with conditions imposed under Article 4(2) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; or
   3. (c) something done with the agreement of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of inspector or by his direction.
9. (9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be 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.")

6 Clause 7, page 5, line 14, leave out ("or any previous procession") and insert ("or any related protest meeting or in relation to any previous procession or protest meeting")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.—(Lord Dubs.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 7 Clause 10, page 7, line 14. at end insert ("and")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. It may be helpful if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 remove the Secretary of State's duty under Clause 10 to consult the Public Order Committee of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland before making an order prohibiting a public procession. Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 are consequential. These amendments reflect the setting up of the Parades Commission and the changing responsibilities of the police authority as a result of the Police Bill which is at present being considered in the other place.

There are two main reasons why it is no longer necessary for the Secretary of State to consult this committee. The first is that establishing the Parades Commission has provided a forum for the sort of community representation work in this area which formerly fell to the police authority.

The establishment of the Parades Commission will lead to extensive consultation taking place across the community in relation to contentious parades and we hope that it will lead to a more brokered local accommodation. Where the Parades Commission has to issue a determination on a parade it will do so in full knowledge of the views of all sides of the community. Clause 10(5) will require the Secretary of State, where practicable, to consult the commission before making an order prohibiting a parade; and the commission will, as a result of its consultation exercise, be well placed to advise the Secretary of State of the community's views of the parade in question. In the circumstances, we believe that consultation with another body with community representation responsibility is no longer necessary.

Secondly, the changes that the Police Bill will bring about in structures governing policing mean that the police authority will no longer have responsibility for day-to-day resource issues. Resource issues would of course have been one of the main reasons for consulting the committee of the police authority under the old system. That is not to say that the police authority will have no interest in the policing of public processions and counter demonstrations. Indeed, the chief constable will remain accountable to the authority for the policing of such controversial events on the ground.

I believe that these amendments represent a significant improvement over existing legislation in terms of the information which would be available to the Secretary of State about the views of the community on a contentious parade, in circumstances where she is considering making a prohibition order.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, as the Minister said, the amendments anticipate the Police Bill with which we shall deal in due course. When these amendments and those like them were discussed in another place, the view was expressed—I believe correctly, although it was expressed rather more strongly than I would have done—that the cutting out of the police authority from this particular loop would expose the RUC a little more politically. I am sure that that is not what we would wish to do. However, in any event, it seems to me that the Secretary of State and the RUC, especially in cases where a procession is actually being banned, will be in the front line in such disputes. We discussed that aspect during the earlier stages of the Bill. Therefore, I am content for the amendments to be put in place.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 8 Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("Constable") to end of line 18

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Dubs.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 9 Clause 11, page 7, line 40, after ("court") insert ("or other body or person")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. The amendment deals with the Secretary of State's powers under Clause 11 to make an order introducing a registration scheme for bands. Clause 11 provides that, should the Secretary of State make such an order, the scheme to be introduced would be court-based. The amendment would increase the Secretary of State's flexibility in that it would provide that an order made under Clause 11 could provide for applications for registration to be made either to a court or to such other body or person as may be specified in the order.

Noble Lords will recall the debate that we had in Committee about the issue of bands. I pointed out that the North report recommended that the Government "give active consideration" to a registration scheme for bands and suggested that a court-based scheme along the lines of the scheme for clubs in Northern Ireland might be appropriate. As I explained in Committee, the Government consider that the commission should have sufficient power to deal with the mischief caused by some bands. It will be able to impose conditions on parades which may cover which bands may take part in the parade, or set conditions as to their conduct.

Clause 11 should, therefore, be viewed as very much a reserve power. However, if it did transpire that it needed to be activated, it makes sense for the Secretary of State to keep her options open as to the type of registration scheme which would he most appropriate, court-based or otherwise.

Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, the amendments are diminishing in importance. However, this one about the registration of bands is most interesting. Certainly, the Government do not intend immediately to register bands, but they are taking power to enable them to do so. At the time of the earlier discussion on the Bill in this House, the only thing that the Government seemed certain about was that if they did do that then it should be done by the courts. Now they have decided that they are not even certain about that aspect. Indeed, I am only slightly surprised that they have not deleted the clause from the Bill. I believe that that would still enable them to introduce such a scheme by order under other legislation. Nevertheless, they have decided to leave it in, and I shall not argue the matter any further.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 10 Clause 16, page 10, line 27, leave out ("or other")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. The amendment refines the meaning of a band in the public processions Bill. It has the effect of restricting the meaning of a band to cover only those playing musical instruments, rather than the strange "other instruments" mentioned in the previous draft. I hope that we are not creating too big a loophole for the creation of dustbin lid bands or possibly the skiffle bands, which some noble Lords may remember from the dim and distant past. Where legislative provision is meaningless or unclear, this Government have no hesitation in dispensing with it.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assist me. Apart from bagpipes and flutes, can the noble Lord say what other instruments are classified as being musical? I missed this discussion during the earlier stages of the Bill, so can the Minister give me some indication as to what is defined as music? Noble Lords will be aware that people have differing views in that respect. To myself, a Scot, and to those in Northern Ireland bagpipes are most attractive, while flutes may be equally attractive to one section of the community in Scotland. Can the Minister give me and my noble friend Lord Cope some assistance in that respect?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, no one with the name Johnny Cope is going to argue about whether or not bagpipes constitute music; indeed, that would be much too dangerous ground for me to cover. As far as I am concerned, the amendment is something of a relief; otherwise, the courts might have been in danger of registering a group of klaxons or something of that nature. I support the amendment.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I do not think that I shall be tempted too far down the path that the noble Lord tried to lure me down. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I apologise for saying, from a sedentary position, "feel free". The afternoon is ours but I shall wait.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I still do not wish to be tempted too far or I might get into difficulties. I do not think the noble Lord would want that to happen. I should have thought that in any commonsense approach bagpipes and flutes are clearly the kind of instruments played by bands.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

• 11 Page 10, line 38, at end insert— (""protest meeting" means an open-air public meeting (within the meaning of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987)—
  1. (a) which is, or is to be, held—
     1. (i) at a place which is on or in the vicinity of the route or proposed route of a public procession; and
     2. (ii) at or about the same time as the procession is being or is to be held; and
  2. (b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on that route or proposed route;").
• 12 Page 11, line 2, at end insert— ("(IA) For the purposes of this Act a protest meeting is "related" to a public procession if the purpose (or one of the purposes) of the meeting is to demonstrate opposition to the holding of that procession on its route or proposed route.")
• 13 Clause 18, page I I, line 25, at end insert ("or protest meeting")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13.—(Lord Dubs.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 14 Page 11, leave out lines 33 to 36

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, which removes a privilege amendment.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Dubs.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT 15 Schedule 1, page 12, line 16, at end insert ("(3) The Secretary of State shall so exercise his powers of appointment under this paragraph as to secure that as far as is practicable the membership of the Commission is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.

I am sure that this House will agree that it is desirable that the Parades Commission should be representative of the community in Northern Ireland. While this Government have sought balance in the existing commission and will continue to do so, we are also legally obliged to appoint on merit. There cannot be a quota for certain parts of the community. We must appoint on merit first of all.

However, following the provision in the Police Act relating to the Police Authority, this amendment has the effect of making it a duty for the Secretary of State to ensure that the Parades Commission is, as far as is practicable, representative of the community in Northern Ireland. I believe this is a useful amendment.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, this is an important amendment in that it declares the necessity for the membership of the commission to be representative of the community. We always thought that it would be in general terms, but it is a good thing that it should be written into the Bill in this way. My only question—which was raised in another place but which I do not think was answered entirely—is whether the amendment would have the effect that no one from another part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere could be a member of the commission because he or she would not be representative of the community in Northern Ireland? It is difficult to think that someone from elsewhere in the United Kingdom could be regarded as being representative of any part of the community in Northern Ireland, although that is not impossible. However, I would not like to think that was so, particularly as I understand the present chairman of the Parades Commission does not live in Northern Ireland.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, the noble Lord has posed a question and indeed he has answered it. The chairman of the Parades Commission is not a Northern Ireland resident. It would be quite proper for the Parades Commission to have among its membership people who are not from Northern Ireland. However, in so far as they come from the six counties, it is appropriate that one should attempt to seek balance, subject in the first instance to having achieved appointment on merit.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

• 16 Schedule 3, page 15, leave out lines 23 to 26
• 17 Schedule 4, page 16, line 25, at end insert— ("1970 c. 9 (N.I.). The Police Act(Northern Ireland) 1970. In Schedule 1, paragraph 15(2) to (4).")
• 18 Page 16, line 31, column 3, at end insert— ("Article 5(2).")
• 19 Page 16, line 36, column 3, at end insert— ("In Schedule I, paragraph 4.")

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 16 to 19.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 16 to 191.—

On Question, Motion agreed to.