| 1. | Although we understand that at first the government extended the consultation process to give some organisations more time to respond to the report by Sir George Quigley, the process has been running since November 2002 and was then 'left open'. This has been an excessive consultation period. That a response from the government in an extremely important area of policy has taken two years so far and has still not emerged despite the Minister's evidence to us in April that the government intended to issue its response for public consultation in the Autumn, is deeply unsatisfactory. We urge the government to respond to the issues raised by Sir George Quigley in his report without further delay. (Paragraph 23)
|
| | |
| 2. | Our inquiry uncovered considerable evidence that the Parades Commission has made steady, if slow, progress in difficult circumstances. (Paragraph 29)
|
| | |
| 3. | The evidence we received indicates that the work of the Parades Commission has been broadly successful in 'holding the ring' in contentious parades. Others have been involved in helping to ease the tensions surrounding parades, especially at local level, and this has been stressed by several of those who gave evidence to us. However, this does not detract from the Commission's contribution. Replacing the Commission with new organisational arrangements for which there is no broad consensus could undermine progress and place at serious risk the fragile stability which appears to have developed. The relative peacefulness of the 2003 and 2004 marching seasons is solid evidence that disputed parades are increasingly being resolved without recourse to violence. While the achievements to date should not be overestimated, we believe that the Parades Commission has made encouraging progress, and that retaining it offers the best hope for developing the peaceful resolution of disputes. (Paragraph 36)
|
| | |
| 4. | We believe that the Parades Commission's role of promoting the understanding of parades to the general public is vitally important but is one of extreme difficulty where sensitivity, patience and high qualities of imagination are required. Success in this work will help foster mutual understanding and a lessening of tension which, in turn, makes voluntary local solutions to disputed parades more likely. There are unlikely to be any easy or quick gains for the Commission here, and it will require to demonstrate a creative approach if it is to avoid merely reinforcing entrenched positions. The Committee was told of a "learning venture" involving representatives of both communities which took place under Commission auspices in South Africa. While solutions for UK problems need to be forged in the light of local circumstances, the willingness to look at the parallel problems and solutions of others should be encouraged where relevant. The Commission needs to redouble its efforts in discharging its responsibility to promote understanding about parades to help assist the community as a whole to work towards the achievement of the peaceful resolution of disputes. (Paragraph 38)
|
| | |
| 5. | We believe that the Orange Order's policy of not engaging wholeheartedly with the Parades Commission has hampered the Commission in promoting and facilitating mediation and has hindered the prospects of achieving resolutions to parade disputes. The importance of the Orange Order engaging in direct dialogue with the Commission cannot be overestimated, and we call upon it again to do so. (Paragraph 39)
|
| | |
| 6. | We warmly welcome the creation of the North and West Belfast Parades Forum and the Parades Dialogue Group which demonstrates a willingness on the part of the local residents from both main traditions to engage in dialogue. We believe that co-operation between the Parades Commission, the North and West Belfast Parades Forum and the Parades Dialogue Group is vital to achieving resolutions to parade disputes in Belfast, and also provides a highly relevant model for dispute resolution throughout Northern Ireland. The Commission's continuing commitment to these arrangements will be extremely important. (Paragraph 40)
|
| | |
| 7. | The Parades Commission is already required by Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 not to act in a way that is incompatible with the Convention rights including the right to freedom of assembly. We believe, therefore, that amending the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 is unnecessary, would overemphasize Article 11, and detracts from the other Convention rights which should be balanced with it. (Paragraph 48)
|
| | |
| 8. | We do not support Sir George Quigley's recommendation that responsibility for determining restrictions on parades should be divided between the police and the rights panel proposed in his report. We believe that dividing the Article 11(2) restrictions on the right of freedom of assembly between the two bodies would be likely to risk unnecessary complexity and potential confusion without offering clear advantages. The implementation of any such change could also be time-consuming and this risks a loss of impetus in the work of facilitating parade disputes at a time when it is important that the existing efforts are increased. (Paragraph 49)
|
| | |
| 9. | Opinion we heard was divided sharply on whether the same body should have responsibility for decisions about parades and protests. On balance we recommend that the same body should be responsible for such decisions, but government should consider the arguments and take a view on whether or not changes to the present arrangements could assist in lessening the tensions surrounding parades. (Paragraph 50)
|
| | |
| 10. | The PSNI made it clear to us that they have no desire to be perceived as having responsibility for making decisions about parades based on public order considerations. (Paragraph 53)
|
| | |
| 11. | We understand that Sir George Quigley's proposal is not intended to duplicate the pre-1998 position in which the police were responsible for determining restrictions on parades and for implementing them. Nevertheless, his proposal that responsibility for decisions on any restrictions to be imposed in the interests of national security or the prevention of disorder or crime should revert to the police risks placing the police in an extremely exposed position. It already appears to many who gave evidence to us that this proposal involves the resumption by the police of their previous role. In our view it is an essential condition of further progress in the peaceful resolution of parades disputes for the police to be perceived as occupying a neutral position in decisions about parades. (Paragraph 55)
|
| | |
| 12. | We also think that there continue to be great potential benefits from a single body examining all the relevant considerations before a decision is taken on whether or not to place restrictions on a parade. These benefits could be much greater if the reasons for decisions were set out more plainly than at present. We are also concerned that there would be additional problems of co-ordination between the police and any rights panel under the proposals made by Sir George Quigley, and such a fragmentation of responsibilities would introduce further complexity and potential confusion. (Paragraph 56)
|
| | |
| 13. | We received no evidence that Ministers should be involved routinely in the determination of parades. The fundamental function of the Parades Commission is to facilitate local solutions to parading problems. The involvement of the Commission itself is a necessary 'half way house' to encourage and develop local solutions to local problems. We consider that the government is right to be wary of becoming involved in the determination of parades. This would be likely to be widely perceived as a backward step. While we consider that the Secretary of State's present 'last resort' powers of determination are sensible, it would in our view be inappropriate for routine decisions about parades to be perceived as being politically directed and we recommend that there should be no change to the status quo. (Paragraph 58)
|
| | |
| 14. | There is a lack of clarity about the status of followers which requires immediate consideration. The government needs to ensure in its review of the existing legislation that there is sufficient clarity about followers in advance of next year's marching season. (Paragraph 62)
|
| | |
| 15. | We believe that the objections being raised about parades need to be made much clearer to parade organisers, including public order considerations where appropriate and possible. We recommend that the Commission include in its determinations fuller explanations and greater detail about the objections being raised in relation to particular parades, the potential impact of a parade on community relations, and the conclusions it reaches on human rights and public order. (Paragraph 71)
|
| | |
| 16. | People objecting to a parade should have the opportunity to register their objections formally and to make them available to parade organisers. However, the personal safety of those registering objections must never be put at risk, and their identity needs to be protected fully. (Paragraph 72)
|
| | |
| 17. | We welcome the Commission's proposals to develop a "compliance and post mortem" unit to provide parade organisers with feedback on the key issues brought to the Commission's attention, giving them the opportunity to resolve these issues in advance of the next marching season. We recommend that the Commission considers implementing this proposal quickly and in time for the 2005 marching season. (Paragraph 73)
|
| | |
| 18. | The existing guidelines on parades determinations appear to be operating adequately and we do not believe that a sufficiently strong case has been made out for completely new guidelines. However, the Commission should continue to keep its guidelines under review, as required by the 1998 Act, and should encourage wide debate on how they might be improved. (Paragraph 74)
|
| | |
| 19. | It is difficult to see how the Parades Commission could be properly informed in the absence of the reports of the Authorised Officers. (Paragraph 76)
|
| | |
| 20. | The functions of mediation and determination need to be clearly distinguished. All the parties involved in these processes require to understand the part each has to play, the procedures involved, and the way in which these interact. Everyone must have confidence in the fairness and high quality of the processes and their outcomes. Mediation is the route by which local people may be assisted to resolve parade disputes themselves. While we are fully aware of the extreme difficulties in reaching voluntary agreements, and the continued need for parades determinations, such agreements are intrinsically more satisfactory than imposed solutions and must be encouraged by all means at the Commission's disposal. We agree with Sir George Quigley's view that the "underlying, long-term issues" between the communities of Northern Ireland will be solved only when a way is found to "live with difference". This objective is realisable only when local people join together to solve disputes on a voluntary basis. (Paragraph 78)
|
| | |
| 21. | We are extremely concerned that mediation as practiced currently appears insufficiently rigorous and challenging, and is perceived by some as a "box-ticking" exercise in which parties engage simply to achieve the result they want. Such a process is fatally flawed and will not achieve lasting resolutions to parade disputes. We urge the Parades Commission to review and develop its approach to promoting and facilitating mediation as a matter of urgency. It is vital that the contribution to mediation offered by the Commission should be of the highest possible quality and capable of making a substantial and progressive contribution to the peaceful resolution of parades disputes. We therefore welcome the Parades Commission's commitment to strengthen its work to promote and facilitate mediation on the basis of existing good practice. (Paragraph 79)
|
| | |
| 22. | We acknowledge the vital work carried out by the Authorised Officers of the Parades Commission in gathering information about the attitudes of people living in areas where a parade is due to take place and exploring the prospects of parties to a parade dispute reaching agreement. We welcome the Commission's proposals to widen the pool from which it selects Authorised Officers as a means of strengthening its commitment to successful mediation. We also recommend that the Commission considers increasing the number of Authorised Officers in designated areas. (Paragraph 83)
|
| | |
| 23. | We believe that the case in Sir George Quigley's report for extending the period of notification of a parade has not been made out, that there is considerable evidence that the existing notice period of 28 days is reasonable, and that extending the period could raise serious practical difficulties for parade organisers and the Parades Commission. (Paragraph 87)
|
| | |
| 24. | We note with concern the disruptive effect of some band parades and the lack of formal oversight arrangements. The Commission should make its proposed discussions with the police about the register of bands a priority. When these discussions are concluded, the government should consider exercising the power available to it under section 12 of the 1998 Act to introduce a scheme of registration for bands. (Paragraph 90)
|
| | |
| 25. | A key aim of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 is to encourage parties to a parades dispute, through the Parades Commission, to reach a local accommodation. Our inquiry has demonstrated that the Parades Commission has made progress in achieving that aim. While the overall number of parades has grown, the number of contentious parades in Northern Ireland has shown a steady decline, and there are positive signs of a greater willingness in parade organisations and residents groups to engage in direct dialogue to resolve disputes. (Paragraph 91)
|
| | |
| 26. | It is our strong view that the responsibility for decisions on restricting parades based on public order considerations should not revert to the police. If this were to happen, it is likely that the perception would grow that the police were again directly involved in the parades determination process. This would undermine the recent strides made to provide Northern Ireland with a police force anchored securely in all parts of the community. It is our view that greater openness on the part of the Parades Commission about the grounds of determinations, including public order considerations on which the advice of the police will have been taken, will assist in achieving the increase in police accountability which is quite properly demanded of a modern force. (Paragraph 92)
|
| | |
| 27. | Replacing the Commission with new organisational arrangements is likely to involve a lengthy period of uncertainty and disruption at a point where there is evidence that the present arrangements are working and there is the prospect of further progress. We do not consider that it is sensible to embark on fundamental organisational change unless there are obvious and proportionate benefits to be gained. Nor do we think it necessary to include the suggestion in Sir George Quigley's report that the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 should be amended to incorporate Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. To do so would have no new legal effect because the Parades Commission is currently required to act compatibly with the Convention rights as a whole, including Article 11. (Paragraph 93)
|
| | |
| 28. | The current activities of the Parades Commission should be improved. We were concerned by the depth of frustration felt by the parading organisations over the lack of detail provided by the Commission about objections to parades. This perceived lack of transparency has contributed to the low level of confidence which the Unionist community has in the Commission. Everything possible must be done to improve that confidence. We recognise the crucial importance of protecting the identity of those raising objections to parades. Imaginative improvements in transparency to make the nature of objections to parades clearer and more accessible to parade organisers need not compromise the security of objectors. By providing in its determinations fuller explanations about the conclusions it reaches on the impact of a parade on community relations, the Parades Commission will do much to help foster cross-community confidence in its operation. Wherever possible, public order considerations should be included in these explanations. (Paragraph 94)
|
| | |
| 29. | We believe that the Commission's involvement in mediation needs to be revitalised. A review of the process needs to be undertaken urgently, and the Commission's Authorised Officer cadre strengthened as a key part of a vigorous, proactive and, we trust, progressively successful mediation operation. The government must ensure that there are sufficient funds available to the Commission for this purpose. (Paragraph 95)
|
| | |
