Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2001
MR DAVID
WATKINS, MRS
MARY MADDEN
AND MR
IAN KERR
Mr Barnes
300. The Parades Commission has operated in
a period of considerable Government activity in stabilising the
peace process. To what extent has the Government maintained contact
with the Commission to seek to ensure that it took full account
of the Government's priorities in this area?
(Mr Watkins) Ministers, and indeed senior officials,
would have contact with the Parades Commission from time to time.
Clearly, for a body which is established by Government under the
legislation, whose members are appointed by the Secretary of State,
and which fulfils a prominent public role, it is right that we
have, from time to time, and Ministers have from time to time,
discussions, particularly with the Chairman and the Secretary
to the Commission. And those discussions would deal with and range
from logistical matters, staffing and finance, through to how
the new members of the Commission are settling in, is it bedding
in in a way which is helpful to the execution of its responsibilities,
right down to the matter of the general policies of the Commission.
If the Chairman requested it, we would offer him an assessment
of the Government's priorities, but I emphasis that it is a matter
at the discretion of the Chairman to invite the Government to
provide that, it is not something that we would be volunteering
or bombarding him with, insisting that he hears the Government's
view on wider political developments, or its wider analysis; if
he asked for such, and he has done on one occasion, we would provide
that.
301. But they have not pursued the question
further from the other side; a bit like interviews on TV, when
you are asked from one point of view, they then ask you from the
opposite perspective, and that was rather like asking, should
not the Government be doing things in order to link in with the
peace process, as far as the Parades Commission is concerned.
But a criticism that has frequently been made in evidence to the
Committee is that the Commission's decisions show inconsistency,
and one witness suggested that its decisions are influenced by
the political considerations of the British Government. What is
your response to this latter claim, and do you detect any inconsistency
in the Commission's decisions, either from Government influence
or otherwise?
(Mr Watkins) I myself am not immediately struck by
any sense of inconsistency, and I would respectfully suggest it
is for the Commission, because it is an independent body and because
the law requires it to take its decisions independently, I think
it is, if I may say so, for the Commission to account for the
consistency of those decisions. I am confident that, I know that,
Ministers attach a great deal of importance to the independence
of the Commission, when it comes to making decisions on parades,
and I do not myself believe that any inconsistencies that may
have been perceived arise from such interference. Certainly over
the period for which I have been responsible for the policy that
has not been the case; it has not been the case.
302. Except the Government are seen as trying
to reconcile incompatible forces; so what they do is maybe they
move on some occasions, in order to make a compromise in one direction,
and move on another occasion to make a compromise elsewhere. So,
if that is right, would this not be reflected maybe in its attitude
towards some of the work on the Commission, on parades, so that
we let that parade go, in a sense, because that satisfies the
Unionist interest, and then we stop another one because it seems
to be giving too much in that area, and now there needs to be
a concession to the Nationalists?
(Mr Watkins) The Parades Commission undoubtedly takes
into account wider issues relating to Northern Ireland society
and to the state of politics, and I think it is legitimate, under
Section 8 of the Act that they should do so, because one of the
factors they have to consider is the effect on the community,
and the community is defined, and this has been upheld by the
courts, as the community at large, not just local communities.
But, insofar as the Commission does that, that is a direct responsibility
and a direct decision of the Commission, it is not responding
to any particular advice or propositions offered to it by the
Government, that is not the case.
Mr Clarke
303. I want to return to comments and questions
in respect of mediation, and you mentioned, earlier on, that the
Parades Commission had attempted to heighten awareness of mediation
and different forms of mediation. I wondered if the Government
has taken a view, or has sought to encourage mediation itself,
outside of the scope of the Parades Commission?
(Mr Watkins) The Act empowers the Parades Commission
to promote and facilitate mediation, as well as making adjudications.
That means that the Parades Commission does not directly, as members
of the Commission, or staff of the Commission, involve itself
in mediation, but it does at an arm's length and through third
parties, if you wish, articulate, foster, mediation attempts,
either through its own, the Mediation Network's Authorised Officers,
whether through the police, whether through local business leaders,
community leaders, or, indeed, through the Government. Now the
Government has sought to encourage the Commission to promote and
facilitate as much mediation as possible. On the major controversial
march, the Government has itself become engaged in that mediative
process; an attempt, on a number of occasions, under the current
legislation, through the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, the
Prime Minister himself has had a number of meetings. We promoted
an initiative by the Director of ACAS Scotland, called Frank Blair,
to act as a mediator in Drumcree, and Adam Ingram, the Minister
of State at the Northern Ireland Office, has himself led a round
of mediative negotiations, in the autumn of 1999. I am not implying
that the Government was acting at the behest or under the instructions
of the Parades Commission, but what I am trying to say is, the
Government has sought to play its part in the mediative effort
where it believes that it has something to offer, and that is
in relation to Drumcree.
304. Do you feel, therefore, there could be
a risk of the Government almost sending out a mixed message, in
terms of, in some cases, taking on a more proactive role in mediation,
and in others trying to make that mediation the responsibility
of others outside of itself and outside the Parades Commission?
Can you understand what I am saying? Is there not a risk that
the steps taken to widen the mediation process could cut across
the potential initiative of the Commission?
(Mr Watkins) Yes. I do understand that risk, and I
think that risk does exist. If, for example, the Government inserted
itself as a mediator in more than perhaps the most controversial
march at Drumcree, and if it did so in relation to Ormeau, Derry,
Keady, Tour of the North, all sorts, then I think one would begin
actually to get back to the sort of position we were in pre-1998,
though, in that case, instead of the RUC being the mediator, it
would actually be the Government. There is a risk of that. But,
equally, I think Ministers have taken the view that, because of
the scale of public disorder and disturbance associated with Drumcree
in 1995, 1996 and 1998, it was a matter of such striking public
concern that it ought to be directly involved, without supplanting
the position of the Parades Commission, which, unfortunately,
of course, has had to be invoked in its adjudicative role. But
I would certainly share your anxiety if the Government's mediation
were to be replicated across many communities in Northern Ireland,
but I think that is highly unlikely.
305. And I apologise for the length of the question,
Mr Chairman, but just to take Drumcree as an example, when some
members of this Committee visited Drumcree we did hear criticism
from both sides that mediation did not include to as great an
extent as it should do those within the local community, that
it had been taken out of their hands and the decisions were being
made at a national level and not at a local community level. Would
that be fair criticism?
(Mr Watkins) I think there is a genuine question over
whether there is a better prospect of the problem being resolved
if it is left to local influences rather than more prominent influences;
that is a genuine question, which I know Ministers are concerned
about. And it is one of the reasons, to come right up to date,
if I may, why, after the Adam Ingram round, in the autumn and
winter of 1999, the Government has, as it were, left it, and I
do not mean in the abandoned sense but in a sort of delegated
sense, to Brian Currin, as an independent mediator. And, in a
sense, I think that is going towards what you are suggesting,
that a local resolution is perhaps likely to be more successful
than perhaps a more conspicuous one.
306. Now I do apologise for going off at a tangent
and asking a totally different question, but it is one that does
concern me. In evidence given to the Committee by previous witnesses,
it has been suggested to us that the process of reporting a parade,
and/or a demonstration against a parade, being that notification
has to be given to somebody of sergeant or above within the RUC,
is in itself an obstacle to mediation and/or finding a way forward,
or it makes it difficult, particularly in rural communities, where
somebody may wish to give notice of a demonstration but there
would not be a sergeant available. Is that something that you
feel is resolvable, simply, or are there reasons why this rule
of notification to a sergeant or above is there?
(Mr Watkins) Clearly, the process of giving notice
28 days, at least, in advance for a march, or I think 14 days
in advance for a protest against a march, is part of the structure
and it is an inescapable part of the structure of a formal process
being set in train. Indeed, I think it has become rather more
important with the advent of the Human Rights Act, because it
gives time for the Parades Commission to reach a determination
five working days before the event in question, which then gives
time for parties who would wish to take exception to the determination
to test that in law. Other than reading the accounts of the evidence
you have taken, I have to say, I am not aware that there is a
problem over the fact that the notification has to be given to
somebody of sergeant level in the police or higher in the police.
If either the police or the Parades Commission were to bring representations
that the process would work better if it were on some other, different
basis, in other words it could be a constable rather than a sergeant,
of course, I am quite sure the Government would consider that.
But I have to say that neither the police nor, to the best of
my knowledge, the Parades Commission have made those points to
us. If I may say so, it was only on reading the evidence to this
Committee that I was aware of that concern. If it is a widespread
concern, I am sure Ministers would be prepared to consider it.
Chairman
307. Before I call Mr Robinson, let me ask just
one supplementary myself to the questions which Mr Clarke has
just asked. We understand that from April this year the Authorised
Officers will come under the direct control of the Commission
rather than the control of Mediation Network. Will this change
the role of the Commission itself in relation to mediation?
(Mr Watkins) I hope it will not. It is a decision
that the Commission has quite deliberately taken, and it informed
us of the decision in the autumn. The way in which the Commission
operates is very much one that we would leave to the Commission;
but I think Ministers would have grounds for becoming concerned
if they felt that if that development were to bring, as it were,
the Authorised Officers closer to the Commission, the perception
might arise that the Commission itself was becoming directly involved
in mediation, rather than doing it through third parties, at arm's
length. If that perception arose, I think Ministers might want
to look at that issue, but I think I would want to test out whether
such a perception arose; if it did, I think it would be unfortunate
and Ministers might want to think about ways of resolving it.
Mr Robinson
308. In relation to Drumcree, did the Parades
Commission at any time ask the Prime Minister, the Secretary of
State, the Minister of State, or the Prime Minister's Chief of
Staff to act in a mediation capacity?
(Mr Watkins) No, they did not; they did not actually
actively ask.
309. When the Parades Commission was set up,
I think you yourself indicated that effectively there were two
principal roles that it had to discharge, one was the adjudication,
the other being the promotion and facilitating of mediation. Can
it therefore be implied that there is a criticism on the part
of the Government of the way that the Parades Commission has handled
the mediation role, when they decided, without being asked by
the body that they set up specifically to promote and facilitate
mediation, they decided to do it themselves?
(Mr Watkins) I rather think not. Drumcree, in 1995,
1996 and 1998 was the scene of widespread disorder, and, indeed,
that disorder was not, at least in 1996, confined to Drumcree.
It was a matter of widespread concern across the community of
Northern Ireland, and indeed more widely. I do not believe that
the attempts of the Government to mediate a solution then meant
that it no longer had any faith in, or should be taken as an implied
criticism of, the Commission, it was simply a very large, very
pressing issue, which the Government could not, I think, simply
deal with at arm's length. There were also those, of course, who
were very anxious that the Government should be involved, not
least the Loyal Orders themselves, who were not, at that stage,
and indeed are not still, prepared to work alongside the Commission
itself. And in the absence of the Marching Orders working alongside
the Commission, whereas they were prepared to work with the Government,
Ministers decided that they had no alternative but for the Government
to become involved directly.
310. Come on, Mr Watkins. We have a situation
where the Government sets up a body, specifically tasks it with
the responsibility of promoting and facilitating mediation and
then leaves it to the side and does it itself, and you tell us
that is not a criticism?
(Mr Watkins) Yes. The Commission's role, I would suggest,
in that circumstance, would have been greatly facilitated if the
Commission was in a position to do business directly with the
Marching Orders, but by a decision of the Marching Orders that
is not the case. And, secondly, I think, Ministers took the view
that it would have been a dereliction of duty to allow what in
previous years had been a source of widespread public disorder
simply to go untreated, as it were.
311. That is a very good reason why maybe they
should not have given them that power in the first place. But,
I wonder, could I ask you, what is the reporting system that takes
place after Government Ministers have had contact with the various
factions, if we can call them that, in relation to a parade?
(Mr Watkins) The only factions that Government Ministers,
or those acting on their behalf, are involved with is in relation
to Drumcree. I am not aware of any other marches where the Government
has been involved in any such effort. We have normally agreed
with both sides, the residents and Portadown District, as to what
might subsequently be said to the Parades Commission, and that,
indeed, was part of, for example, Mr Ingram's round in the autumn
of 1999, which devoted some effort to precisely what might be
subsequently, after each meeting in that round, reported to the
Parades Commission, and that has been the subject of agreement,
was the subject of agreement, in that round, was implemented by
agreement with both sides. So we have reported, in that instance,
very regularly, we reported to the Parades Commission the progress
of developments.
312. Before you go on, I want to explore a point
you are making. You are saying that any report that they get is
agreed by the parties to the discussion?
(Mr Watkins) That was my recollection of the case
in the Ingram round, yes. If I may, I will refresh my memory,
but that was my recollection of that round[5].
May I give you another instance?
313. Just before you leave that one, the reason
it interests me is that I would have assumed that part of the
rationale behind a Parades Commission adjudication would have
been the flexibility or willingness of the various parties to
reach agreement in any mediation that takes place. If you had
one party that was being deliberately awkward or obtuse in the
matter then that might be a factor that the Parades Commission
would take into consideration. But if it is required that there
is an agreed account of the mediation given, well then we are
never really going to get that message over to the Parades Commission,
are we?
(Mr Watkins) There was a very sustained attempt in
what I call the Ingram round to do that, and I think it was at
least partially successful. It is interesting that, flowing from
the review of last year, the Parades Commission, in its Annual
Report, last April, or whenever it was, actually did set out what
they meant by engagement; and, indeed, Chairman, I referred to
this earlier on. And among the definitions that they offered was
that engagement should represent a real attempt to address legitimate
concerns of others and preparedness to accommodate those concerns,
the dialogue, or the engagement, needed to be sustained and genuine,
not ticking boxes, and made the point that residents groups could
not have a veto. Now they had to make a judgement, on the basis
of the information that we provided them in the Ingram round,
as to whether those criteria were met, and their judgement must
have been that they were not sufficiently met. In terms of other
reporting to the Commission, I do recall that, in July 1999, under
the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, he and a number of us on
the Government team were invited down to see the Commission, as
part of their evidence-gathering process, in relation to Drumcree,
in 1999, so that Jonathan Powell was formally asked to give oral
evidence to the Commission as part of, as I said, its evidence-gathering
process, and that was given, and other evidence doubtless was
taken from residents and others. So there has been a reporting
mechanism, so as to, as it were, properly give the Parades Commission
its place as specified in legislation.
314. Is the Government presently satisfied with
the nature and extent of mediation being carried out by the Parades
Commission?
(Mr Watkins) It is. It is, save in the ideal sense,
that I referred to earlier. The ideal outcome is if mediation
resolved all problems, and no adjudications were necessary.
315. I am not asking about the outcomes, the
outcomes are beyond the Parades Commission, in many ways, but
in terms of are they applying it to the right number of issues,
in the right way, using the right people?
(Mr Watkins) We believe so. This is inherently, if
I may say so, very difficult to test, but I would suggest that,
the figures that I have are provisional, for the period from last
April to December, there were something like 2,200 Loyalist marches,
and restrictions and conditions were imposed on 156, and indeed
a third of those were related to Drumcree. Now that suggests to
me that mediation is having the effect, the impact, that it is
expected to have on the vast bulk of parades. So I think, on that
sort of test, the Government would be broadly satisfied. But one
of our recommendations was that more effort might go into this,
so we would like to see further success there.
316. Are there any plans on the part of the
Government to be involved in any mediation in the future?
(Mr Watkins) Not currently.
Mr Pound
317. Thanks very much indeed, Mr Watkins, we
are grateful for your evidence so far. Can I just ask you, I suppose
you are the Government, as far as we are concerned, today, whether
the Government believes—
(Mr Watkins) That would be bit scary for the Government,
if I may say so.
318. I find it rather reassuring, to be perfectly
honest; a comparison so invidious. The parades problem, is it
a local issue or is it a generic issue, because we tend to refer
to parades by their geographical location; in your opinion, is
it local or generic?
(Mr Watkins) I think it is both, if I may say so.
319. An excellent answer.
(Mr Watkins) There are clearly certain localities,
and I know that ACC McQuillan, when he met you last week, referred
to a number where there are particular local problems, and he
specified a dozen or so; and, in that sense, it is local. In that
sense, for example, Drumcree has perhaps a particular edge which
might reflect wider community relations in that area; some argue
along those lines. On the other hand, it is also a general issue,
in this sense, that the issue of parading is often seen as a proxy,
or a barometer, for the confidence of one community as against
another, at any particular time, and can often reflect, indeed,
the shifting relationships in wider politics. And, in that sense,
it is a general issue as well. I am not sure whether that sheds
much light on your question, but I think that is my best answer
there.
5 See also Ev p 99. Back
|
