WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1980
2
IN HIS OPINION, THE BILL REPRESENTED A FAIR BALANCE BETWEEN COMPETING INTERESTS. BUT BECAUSE THE BILL DEALS WITH THE LIBERTIES OF PEOPLE, HE SAID IT HAD BEEN DECIDED TO HAVE A LENGTHY PERIOD OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON ITS PROPOSALS.
THE MAIN CHANGE THE BILL PROPOSES RELATES TO PUBLIC MEETINGS.
UNDER THE PRESENT LAW ALMOST EVERY PUBLIC MEETING, WHATEVER ITS PURPOSE, REQUIRES TO BE LICENSED BY THE POLICE. UNDER THE PROPOSED LAW THE LICENSING SYSTEM IS REPLACED BY A SIMPLER REQUIREMENT THAT THE POLICE MUST BE NOTIFIED OF THE INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING, AT WHICH MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ARE TO BE DISCUSSED, SEVEN WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE.
MEETINGS EXCLUSIVELY FOR SOCIAL, RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY NOTIFICATION- NOR WILL MEETINGS, EVEN THOUGH TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WHERE THE ATTENDANCE IS LESS THAN 20 PEOPLE IN A PUBLIC PLACE, NOR MEETINGS IN PRIVATE PREMISES WHERE LESS THAN 200 PEOPLE ARE ABLE, OR EXPECTED, TO ATTEND.
MR GRIFFITHS SAID THE BILL DOES NOT AFFECT THE EXISTING POWERS OF THE POLICE TO TAKE PREVENTIVE ACTION ON THE SPOT+ IF ANY PUBLIC MEETING BECOMES (OR IS LIKELY TO BECOME) UNRULY,
+COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ALREADY UPON THE DEFINITION OF MEETING, AND IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT IS OR IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST', HE POINTED OUT.
HE SAID HE INTENDED IN COMMITTEE TO MOVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THAT SLIGHTLY SO THAT THE BILL WILL PROVIDE ■
+MEETING MEANS ANY GATHERING OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS
CONVENED OR ORGANISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION OF ISSUES OR MATTERS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR A SECTION THEREOF, OR FOR THE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS ON SUCH ISSUES OR MATTERS, AND INCLUDES
MR GRIFFITHS STRESSED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE BILL IS NOT TO FRUSTRATE PUBLIC DISCUSSION BUT ONLY TO ENSURE THAT SUCH PUBLIC EXPRESSION CAN TAKE PLACE CONVENIENTLY AND WITHOUT THE DISRUPTION OF THE LIVES OF OTHERS.
HE SUGGESTED THAT WHERE ANYONE WAS IN DOUBT WHETHER OR NOT A MATTER FELL WITHIN THE DEFINITION, OR WAS OUTSIDE IT BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, IT WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR SOCIAL OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, THEN THE RESPONSIBLE COURSE WOULD BE TO PLAY SAFE AND NOTIFY THE POLICE OF THE MEETING.
+1 HAVE NO DOUBT SUCH MEETINGS WOULD NOT BE BANNED, HE SAID,
MR GRIFFITHS NOTED THAT UNDER THE PRESENT ORDINANCE IN 1977 OF 59 APPLICATIONS FOR MEETINGS ONLY TWO WERE REFUSED, AND IN 1979, OUT OF 30 ONLY ONE.
/3