Examination of Witnesses (Questions 579
- 599)
WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH 2001
RT HON
MR ADAM
INGRAM, JP, MP AND
MR DAVID
WATKINS
Chairman
579. Minister, we owe you an apology. Apart
from one happenstance in Belfast when for about two minutes, due
to people leaving the room with slightly greater speed and frequency
than they should have done, we did have to go into suspense for
two minutes, until today, when we are three minutes late starting,
this is the first time we have ever had a quorum problem, which,
I say on behalf of the Committee, it is a good index of the morale
of the Committee that we have only had these two accidents. It
is very good of you to come here, Minister. You know the circumstances
in which you are coming. We are in the process of composing our
report, so it is particularly good of you to come at this particular
moment. You know our ground rules, that if there is anything you
want to gloss you should, either now or later, and if there is
anything we want to follow up on we will in a supplementary question.
Can I go first, unless there is anything you want to say—
(Mr Ingram) Just to introduce again Mr David Watkins.
580. We are delighted to see Mr Watkins. What
has actually prompted this exchange is the provision by the Northern
Ireland Office, in response to the Committee's request for sight
of the Northern Ireland Office Review of the Parades Commission,
of a rationale behind the recommendations rather than a copy of
the Review findings or a summary of them. Sheer curiosity causes
us to ask why that particular exchange should have occurred.
(Mr Ingram) Can I say that the background to the Review
we may want to touch upon, as to why it happened, and clearly
you ask questions about the way in which it was conducted and
the outputs from it, but it was always seen as being an internal
review. It was set up on the basis of giving advice to Ministers
and it was based upon a whole range of influences really. One,
we were two marching seasons into the Parades Commission's formal
activity after it had been fully established under the Act. Two,
we had the pending change in the composition of the committee;
a number of members, including the chairman, had indicated they
did not wish to continue to serve, so we were reforming the Commission.
We also had wider experience to draw upon. For those reasons,
notwithstanding any other influences which were there, influences
from others outside the purview of government who were critical
in many ways of the way in which the Parades Commission had been
operating, and questions had been asked about the way in which
it had been established, the reason for the establishment of it,
and the criticisms which were out there—it seemed appropriate
therefore, with all those influences that we should consider the
way in which the Parades Commission had been functioning. We therefore
decided to do an internal review of that, which we hoped would
give assistance to the new Commission which was going to be formed
with a new chairman, and we could then, as I say, draw upon the
experiences of the previous two marching seasons and all that
flowed from that. So it was never our intention to publish the
full report, although we did ask everyone who had expressed a
point of view or we deemed were interested in this area to let
us have the benefit of their wisdom and their views in all of
this. I must say the very extensive range of responses received
helped us to come to the conclusions which we did. Ministers then
made judgments based upon the views of the officials which were
then published, the conclusions of that, and then it was taken
forward on one specific area, the early application of the Human
Rights Act, which was due to be applied in October of that year;
it was February we are talking about when this was being considered.
We then reconsidered all of that again. So there was transparency
in it inasmuch as everyone who had expressed a view was given
an opportunity to have an input on the basis of the terms of reference
and the outputs were published by way of recommendations, and
the Parades Commission have sought to take them forward as best
they can in any given set of circumstances.
581. You have in that answer explained why you
decided to carry out the Review of the Commission two years after
the Commission started work, indeed after the first two seasons.
How far—and I apologise if you are going over ground which
to a degree you have gone over already—had concerns been
expressed to you about the operations of the Commission up to
the point when you decided to carry out the Review? I understand
why you decided to carry out the Review when you did.
(Mr Ingram) There was a whole range of influences.
There were internal influences inasmuch as there was our own judgment
as to what was desirable at that point in time; there was a good
housekeeping approach in that we had established this new controversial
body—and it was controversial—let us examine the way
in which it was operating and delivering on its functions. As
to representations made to me, I will need to check back in terms
of any correspondence on that but it would be wrong for me to
say there were no representations because Members from Northern
Ireland were raising the issue with me direct, comments were being
made, the Parades Commission had been raised in Northern Ireland
Questions and they may have been based upon individual judgments
of the Commission. I am sure my files would be replete with any
amount of representations critical of the way the Commission had
been operating, indeed the very establishment of the Commission.
That was the climate of opinion. We were also at that time leading
up to the establishment of the Review and the setting up of the
Review. We had just come out of the attempts to try and find a
way forward dealing with the very contentious Drumcree parade,
and then looking at ways in which we could assist the Parades
Commission to mediate and find answers to that. So there was a
whole climate of attitude around which we have had to address,
not least representations from the Loyal Orders themselves who
were closely engaged anyway in trying to find a way forward to
deal with specifically Drumcree, but the wider area of what could
be classed as contentious determinations. I do not know if that
helps.
582. Yes, it does, but can I go one stage further?
There were concerns which were expressed to you, and you have
indicated how and in what form, but in the ultimate analysis was
the Review your decision or was it—and I am not suggesting
you were simply being reactive—prompted by what was being
said to you? In other words, were you under pressure to have one?
(Mr Ingram) Pressure is always there in Northern Ireland.
We could not say we were not under pressure at any time. As you
know from your previous experience, Chairman, pressure seems to
be the order of the day, every day, in different shapes and forms.
It was not a case of bowing to pressure, it was a case of recognising
that there were pressure points out there. There were criticisms
being raised, questions being raised, and it is probably more
accurate to say that the ultimate decision was taken by the then
Secretary of State rather than myself, who clearly as the—
583. Sorry, when I said "you", I meant
"Ministers".
(Mr Ingram) The body corporate. There would have been
intensive discussions at Ministerial level with senior officials
to look at how we dealt with some of the criticisms coming forward,
to see if there was a way of dealing with this in a structured
and helpful way, recognising that by entering a Review hopes would
be raised, not all those hopes would be met, so we were then perhaps
creating further pressures because, again, that is an inevitability
of any review, that someone will be happy and someone else will
be disappointed. But we embarked upon it as a result of all those
influences because we thought it right, it was appropriate at
the time, and we felt that with the new Commission being established
it would assist them in dealing with difficult areas which hitherto
the previous Commission had not yet fully been able to resolve.
Mr McCabe
584. You said a second ago, when you were thinking
about the Review, hopes would be raised and not all would be satisfied.
Is that how you would characterise the response to the announcement
of the Review? Was it generally welcomed or what would you say
the response was?
(Mr Ingram) If I look at one of the strands of influences—maybe
to use the Chairman's words, pressures—which was that the
Parades Commission should be disbanded, any Review should have
that as its prime function, to look at the efficacy of the Parades
Commission, not just in terms of the detailed way in which it
implemented the Act and the powers given to it but the very existence
of that body. Undoubtedly that pressure was out there and that,
of course, had been a very important aspect of the debate when
the body was established in this House and in the other place
as well. So there was disappointment around, there were criticisms
around, no question at all about that, but we had to make a judgment
as to what was right in that given set of circumstances, and not
be seen simply to bow to untoward pressure, although by doing
what we were doing we were taking on board some of the criticisms
and saying, "Let's examine how best we can deliver the governance
of this particular entity, this independent body which has been
set up." So there was great disappointment out there and
I suppose you will have heard some of it in the evidence you have
heard here.
585. Of course. Are you now in a position to
say which bodies made submissions to the Review?
(Mr Ingram) We could probably give you a full list
on this,[1]
Mr McCabe, Mr Chairman, but they were bodies such as the RUC,
the Parades Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Loyal
Orders, the churches, the political parties themselves and other
bodies and individuals. They did not all say the same thing; there
was a wide range of responses all alighting on different aspects,
but in the main probably focusing on the way in which we had set
up the terms of reference. One of the key areas which would have
been considered was the whole question of an emphasis on the rights
base approach, and there was this debate out there that there
was a fundamental right of assembly, ie to march, and that was
being challenged firstly by the establishment of the Parades Commission
and secondly by the way it was being set up and being interpreted.
So submissions from all those bodies alighted on that particular
area, on other areas as well, and assisted us in our consideration
of those issues. All of them were given very serious consideration
because they were coming from authoritative bodies, maybe from
diametrically opposed points of view but nonetheless we had to
weigh their views in the balance.
586. I think it probably would be useful if
we could get the list at some stage, it would be helpful to our
final Report, but would it be fair to assume that you were broadly
satisfied that those who made submissions were representative
of the range of relevant interests in Northern Ireland?
(Mr Ingram) Absolutely. I do not think there is any
question at all that of the wide range of people we asked and
the responses we received, they were representing the broad spectrum
of views which were out there.
Mr McGrady
587. As far as the Northern Ireland Office Review
is concerned (it may almost be deemed to be a Northern Ireland
Office in-house review) as it were, I assume many recommendations
were made to you, or to the Secretary of State rather. Were they
all accepted by the Secretary of State? Were some rejected? If
so, what areas or recommendations were rejected and why?
(Mr Ingram) In many ways to answer that too directly
would indicate the policy that goes up to Government Ministers
should then be exposed and there then be a debate about what was
and what was not accepted. There is the old tradition that that
type of advice is not publicly exposed, for good reason, so that
officials—I do not need to go through the full ramifications
of this—can feel free to express any point of view they
want on a subject and that hopefully allows Ministers to examine
the full range of issues and bring to bear their own thoughts
on the process as well. I think it would be fair to say that in
general terms the terms of reference were specific and limited
to certain areas, and there was a debate on the issue relating
to the early application of the Human Rights Act and whether it
should or should not be proceeded with, and the decision at the
end of the day by Ministers—at the end it is always Ministers
who make these decisions—was it was decided to proceed on
that. I do not recollect any major conflict of views between officials
and Ministers on that but, again, to answer you precisely I would
need to go back into the record and expose those matters which
hitherto Ministers do not usually expose.
588. In other words, Chairman, it is not worth
my while pursuing that particular avenue of questioning.
(Mr Ingram) You can try and march down that road but
I do not think we would get very far. I have tried to re-route
it!
589. We do know one of the Review's conclusions
was that there should be, "an early application of the Human
Rights Act to the Public Processions Act". I think you would
not be betraying a confidence or creating a precedent if you were
to let us know what bodies supported that conclusion and what
bodies did not, and particularly for those bodies which did, not
what rationale had they for not supporting the application of
the Human Rights Act to the Public Processions Act.
(Mr Ingram) ******
590. ****** Even in general terms, could you
not indicate to the Committee what was the reasoning or rationale
behind those bodies who made representations to you that the Human
Rights Act should not apply?
(Mr Ingram) I cannot speak for those bodies and that
is why I would hesitate slightly and I would not want even to
seek to interpret in a shortened version the way in which they
came to their conclusions on this, it is a matter for them. But
the Parades Commission—and, remember, this was a newly constituted
Parades Commission—took the view that they did not wish
this to apply because they were then hard up against their first
determinations and they felt this would not be appropriate, if
I am remembering correctly the view adopted by them. The Human
Rights Commission also took the view we should not proceed to
the early implementation. You may have had a written submission
from them or you may even have taken evidence from them, forgive
me for not following the detail of that, and they may have set
out their reasoning behind all that. We could only take their
ultimate decision, I could not necessarily explain the reasoning
behind that without going into all the correspondence relating
to it. So those are two very important bodies which took that
particular view.
Mr McGrady: I thank you, Minister, for supplying
that and look forward to the further possible explanations or
information which you may wish to give to us.[2]
Mr Barnes
591. As I am going to spread the net a bit wider
than Mr McGrady, there might be the same problem about information
being supplied. He was asking about the Review's conclusions on
the early application of the Human Rights Act and what the reactions
were to that. Could I ask generally, beyond that area, about the
outcome of the Review. What reactions were there generally to
it? What nature of reactions were taking place?
(Mr Ingram) I think those who wanted a fundamentalist
approach and adopted that as the complete disbandment of the Parades
Commission would not have been happy with the outcome of the Review
and were not happy with the Review anyway. Just casting my mind
back to when we announced it, there were even questions within
the Parades Commission itself as to why we were proceeding with
this, that was this a reflection on the work of the Parades Commission,
and we went to some lengths to explain to them, no, that was not
the case and the reasons I gave in my opening answer encouraged
them—that was the previously constituted Parades Commission—to
recognise this was a constructive examination and may be helpful
at the end of it. The new Parades Commission, of course, then
were given the responsibility of implementing that, so in a sense
I am sure they would have welcomed the outcome of it because it
was a fine-tuning of the way in which they approached their business.
But most of the attention would have been on the issue which we
have just been discussing in terms of the early implementation
or application of the Human Rights Act, and that was what the
big debate would have been about, was it right or was it not right
and, if so, why not in those cases. We then got into a very significant
round of discussions with interested bodies into all of that,
examining the recommendation that it should proceed, which ultimately
became the decision not to proceed.
592. I think the Committee will appreciate what
the likely responses were of those who generally are opposed to
the operation of the Commission and therefore how they would take
the Review, and the human rights aspect has been dealt with. I
was wondering if there were any other bits and pieces contained
in the Review which were gaining responses from others as to what
it was the Government was taking up?
(Mr Ingram) The Parades Commission itself, in the
area relating to the suggestion there should be a list of mediators
published and that there should be a clearer approach on the way
in which this was handled, took the view not to go down that road
and publish the list of mediators. Again I suppose it was because
they would feel those mediators could then come under undue influence.
All of us understand Northern Ireland society, that where people
are acting in goodwill it is not always welcomed by a minority,
a very small minority, who then try and exercise influence on
them, usually by intimidation and violence. So there was that
reasoning, I think, they did not want those names to be too exposed,
and we respected the view of the Parades Commission on that. One
of the other areas which has not yet been fully implemented is
on the recommendation of Outreach and the public awareness approach
on this. The Parades Commission is working up a strategy at the
present time, so it has not fully implemented all of those areas,
perhaps because they have been so focused on having to deliver
judgments on so many disputed parades and they may have left that
to a later date outwith the marching season. Again that is a matter
for them. We have not pushed them too hard on those areas because
we respect their judgment. They are delivering a very difficult
task on behalf of all of us and certainly on behalf of Government
and we have to judge how best they go about their business.
Mr Beggs
593. A full marching season has now elapsed
since the Review concluded. What assessment can you now make of
what was achieved by the Review?
(Mr Ingram) Last year, Drumcree aside, would have
been deemed to be a quiet marching season in the sense there was
less violence. There was still a lot of tension about but nonetheless
it was better handled by the various parties who were in dispute
over marches and whatever else. The lessons we have learned are
that, one, the review was the right approach, it was a healthy
approach, it gave indications to the Parades Commission how best
to move forward, they have sought to implement those recommendations
as best they could. We have now got the Human Rights Act in place
anyway and that obviously has impacted upon that key area that
a lot of people focused on. Indeed there has been one court judgment
as a result of a challenge under the Human Rights Act from someone
who was opposing a Parades Commission determination. I do not
know whether as a committee you are aware of the details of that,
but again that can be made available to you. It is a court judgment,
not a judgment of the Parades Commission and not a judgment of
Government, but it does show that benefits can be gained from
that type of interpretation of the legislation, and probably in
retrospect it was right to let the courts be in existence for
the whole of the Act rather than just focusing in on the Parades
Commission and the Public Processions Act as it stood. If hindsight
tells us anything, perhaps we rushed to judgment a wee bit in
saying we should have the early implementation of it; the wiser
counsel, with all the criticisms around at the time about not
proceeding with it or seeking us not to proceed with it, proved
to be right, and now we have the Act in place with judges and
everyone else better trained and a better knowledge of that piece
of legislation. So it was one of those judgments of Government
which could have been better judged at the time but wiser counsel
prevailed and the right decision was made at the conclusion of
our considerations.
594. Do you have any plans to review further
the operation of the Parades Commission?
(Mr Ingram) The answer is no, there is nothing stimulated
within government, but we do await your Report with interest.
Clearly if you are making recommendations then we are not just
duty-bound but we would earnestly look at what you are suggesting
to see if there are any lessons to be learned from the wide range
of evidence you have gathered on this, and that may change our
position, but at the moment there is nothing in government to
say we should review it.
595. Anecdotally, Chairman, I quite recently
met with an American mayor who, faced with an application for
a parade by the Klu Klux Klan, was well aware there was no support
for it in his community, and the conclusion by himself and the
council was, "Let's get this parade down that street, down
that highway, as fast as possible" and it proceeded without
interruption and without any adverse hostility.
(Mr Ingram) Was there a question mark at the end of
that, Mr Chairman!
Mr Beggs: This was without the implementation
and backing of human rights legislation.
Chairman
596. Insofar as there was a question at all,
I think it was rhetorical.
(Mr Ingram) Okay!
Mr Thompson
597. In evidence we have heard there have been
a number of occasions when the Parades Commission in fact admitted
a determination to re-route the parade and it has taken more policeman
in fact to carry out that determination than if the parade had
been allowed to go on. Is that not rather a nonsensical situation
where it costs a whole lot of extra resources and indeed increases
and causes the antagonism of the Loyal institutions?
(Mr Ingram) My judgement on that would be, no, it
is not. These are very difficult judgments that the Parades Commission
has to make. They do not make it on the basis of the cost element,
but on the basis of what is right in terms of the powers which
they have been given under the Act, and they take into account
the view of those who may be opposed and then the impact of that
in public order and disorder terms. I would not want policing
in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, to
be judged on the basis of what it costs but on the basis of what
is right, and that is the way the Parades Commission seeks to
act at all times and, importantly, the police and those who support
the police would then respond to the rule of law.
598. As you know, when the Bill went though
the House of Commons many of us argued that some parts were contrary
to human rights. If representations were made to the Government,
would the Government be prepared to look at the legislation again?
(Mr Ingram) No matter where it was coming from, we
would always have to respond to those type of requests. If it
was coming from an eminent body such as this, clearly the answer
would be that it would be given heavy consideration and we would
respond in a public way to such a request. But I think the fact
that the Human Rights Act is now in place, the fact there has
now been one judgment on a challenge by someone who was objecting
to a determination of the Parades Commission, means we have now
got a body of law out there which allows the Parades Commission
to make further judgments on that. It gives them surety because
they found in their favour, in a sense; it gives them surety that
they are doing the right thing. They were told that all law-abiding
citizens of Northern Ireland would respect that law and that judgment
and if it was successfully challenged then another body of law
would be in place. But when the rule of law applies, people should
observe it.
599. Has the Northern Ireland Office considered
the judgment that was made, because there were some possible queries
in that judgment about compatibility and other things, and we
have heard from the Commission that they may have to look again
at their guidelines as a result of it. Has the Department looked
at that?
(Mr Ingram) Again, we would take the view that we
would look at it ourselves, we would give consideration to that
judgment, and given the flavour of it and the way in which we
have responded to it I think the Commission—and I do not
know whether you are talking about the Parades Commission or the
Human Rights Commission—
1 See Ev p 186. Back
2
Evidence not reported. Back
|
