APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by the Northern Ireland
Office
INTRODUCTION
1. The Committee requested, in preparation
for its inquiry into the Parades Commission and the Public Processions
Act 1998, a memorandum from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO)
on the parades issue.
Background
2. The Independent Review of Parades and
Marches 1997 (the North Review) was established in August 1996
to review arrangements for handling public processions and open-air
public meetings and associated public order issues in Northern
Ireland. The review took place against the backdrop of the serious
disputes which had arisen over a number of parades, including
those at Drumcree, Newtownbutler and the Ormeau Road in Belfast,
and which had resulted in widespread public disorder and the exacerbation
of community tensions. Policing this disorder had placed significant
demands on police and army resources (for example, policing Drumcree
alone cost an estimated £22.5 million over the three years
1997-2000):[1]
but the costs were not, of course, only financial—the economic,
social, human and political impact was also significant.
3. The North Report made 43 recommendations,
the principal one being the establishment of a third-party mechanism
to reach conclusions in relation to disputed parades. This took
the form of the Parades Commission, which would operate independently
of the Government and the police. The Government accepted and
implemented the main North recommendations.
Operation of the Parades Commission
4. The Public Processions (NI) Act 1998
established the Parades Commission and set out its statutory functions.
These are to promote and facilitate mediation, and to make determinations
on contentious marches. In making determinations, the Commission
has to take into account a number of specified factors that go
beyond public order alone and address the effect on the wider
community.
5. The Commission has pursued its statutory
duty to promote and facilitate mediation as a means of resolving
disputes, working with those on both sides of the disagreement.
An internal NIO review carried out in 1999 concluded that the
Commission's duty to encourage local agreement wherever possible
had contributed greatly to the improved atmosphere in the previous
two marching seasons.[2]
It also recommended that the Commission do more to heighten awareness
of mediation, including its own network of local authorised officers.
The Commission has taken that work forward; its Annual Report
for 2002-03 comments, "The work of the authorised Officers
has really matured during the year to the extent that their ability
to work on the ground in difficult areas and to provide valuable
insights to the Commission on the state of community relations
and the prospects for progress has assumed ever-increasing importance."[3]
6. The level of disorder associated with
parades has gradually reduced. The marching season of 2003 has
been the quietest in recent years; parades have mainly passed
off peacefully with only minor incidents occurring at a small
number of locations. In each of the past three years, disorder
occurred at less than 1% of parades.[4]
The number of contentious parades has steadily decreased, as the
following table demonstrates.[5]
|
| Number of parades
notified
| Number of contentious
parades
| Number upon which route
restriction placed [6]
|
|
| April 98-March 99 | 3,211
| 203 | 119
|
| April 99-March 00 | 3,403
| 297 | 152
|
| April 00-March 01 | 3,440
| 235 | 130
|
| April 01-March 02 | 3,301
| 220 | 152
|
| April 02-March 03 | 3,280
| 191 | 137
|
|
QUIGLEY REPORT
7. The commitment to carry out the "Quigley review"
emerged from the Weston Park talks. The relevant extract from
the Governments' joint statement of 1 August 2001 is as follows:
In order to help create greater consensus on the parades issue
and a less contentious environment in which the new police service
will operate, the British Government will review the operation
of the Parades Commission and the legislation under which it was
established. The Government believes the Parades Commission has
had four successful years of operation against a difficult background.
But this review, which will take place in consultation with the
parties and others with an interest including the Irish Government,
will consider whether there are any changes which could promote
further public confidence on all sides, respect for the rights
of all and the peaceful resolution of disputes on parades. Any
legislative changes would take effect after summer 2002.
8. Sir George Quigley, who was appointed to carry out
the review, submitted his report to the Secretary of State on
27 September 2002.[7] The
Government is very grateful to him for the work he has done. He
suggested a number of changes to the way in which parades would
be regulated. His proposals were, in summary, that two new bodies—the
Parades Facilitation Agency and the Rights Panel for Parades and
Protests—should replace the Parades Commission. Where disputes
over parades arose, the protagonists would first try to reach
agreement, using the Facilitation Agency to mediate as necessary.
If no agreement was reached, the dispute would pass to the Rights
Panel, who would balance the right of freedom of peaceful assembly
against the rights and freedoms of others and issue a Determination.
The police would then decide if any further restrictions should
be placed on the parade on public order grounds. The main features
of the proposed system are summarised at Annex A.
9. The report was issued for public consultation on 7
November 2002. Representations were made to the Government that,
due to the complexity of Sir George's report and the radical nature
of some of his proposals, many organisations would benefit from
extra time to come to a clear view on his recommendations. The
Secretary of State therefore decided to allow an extended period
of public consultation, concluding at the end of April 2003. Further
representations were made requesting an additional extension,
which the Secretary of State agreed to consider. To date there
have been 30 responses to the public consultation exercise, though
some key stakeholder groups have yet to submit their views. The
Government believes it would be inappropriate to make decisions
on the way forward without those views. It looks forward also
to hearing the views of the Committee.
CURRENT POSITION
10. In considering the proposals put forward by Sir George,
a key consideration for the Government will be the extent to which
any change to current arrangements would contribute to an improvement
in the situation surrounding parades. Amongst the issues that
arise are:
(a) Local accommodation, Mediation and Rights
The Government believes that the best outcome in relation
to any contentious parade is local agreement reached through dialogue,
understanding, negotiation and compromise. In this regard it notes
the continuing efforts of the Commission (including the developing
role of its authorised officers), and of community leaders, to
resolve issues at a local level. Its view remains that the ECHR
rights engaged in the parades issue are not absolute; that competing
rights need to be balanced; and the rights of all are best enjoyed
in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect. One area for
discussion in considering the kind of model suggested by Sir George,
therefore, is how efforts to reach a solution through mediation
and a rights-based approach would mesh together, and in particular
whether the proposed determination process (particularly were
it to develop an adversarial or legalistic character), would help
or hinder the prospects for successful mediation.
(b) Transparency of Procedures
Transparency can contribute to securing public confidence.
The Government recognises that difficult decisions have to be
made in balancing the desire to make procedures as open as possible
with the need to ensure the confidentiality of the advice and
information submitted to the Commission. The Commission is already
aware of the issues involved and is striving to bring greater
transparency into its methods.[8]
Another issue for discussion is how best this might be done, either
as part of existing arrangements or within the Quigley model.
(c) The role of the police in the decision-making process
Prior to the establishment of the Parades Commission the
police made the decision on whether or not a parade should go
ahead as proposed, based on public order criteria. They frequently,
therefore, found themselves placed in the invidious position of
deciding what restrictions needed to be placed on a parade and
then policing it. The establishment of the Parades Commission,
and the passing of the decision-making function to it, meant that
the police could focus solely on ensuring the maintenance of public
order at the parade. Sir George suggests that the Rights Panel,
in considering whether any restriction should be placed on the
right to freedom of peaceful assembly, should take into account
those factors impacting on the rights of others, and on the risk
to public health or morals, but 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. A key assessment for the Government, as part of
its overall consideration, will be the extent to which any new
arrangements would assist the police in their task of protecting
public safety and upholding the law.
(d) Ensuring that determinations take into account all
relevant factors
In the absence of local agreement, there must be a mechanism
for resolving disputes. Currently, the Parades Commission carries
out that function by issuing determinations. The Commission's
most recent Annual Report sets out Common Principles, which describe
in a general way the approach taken by the Commission. The Principles
include factors such as positive efforts to reach agreement made
by both parade organisers and residents' groups; the conduct of
the parade; and the threat of public disorder, which is not automatically
the only or overriding factor. Through taking a wide range of
factors into consideration, the Commission believes it is able
to come to a view that is based on all the relevant evidence.
The extent to which revised arrangements would permit all the
relevant factors to be considered in a coherent and holistic way
is another key issue to be addressed.
IMPLEMENTATION
11. The Government has not yet reached a view on the
Quigley recommendations. It is not yet possible, therefore, to
determine what legislative or administrative provision would have
to be made to implement any changes.
CONCLUSION
12. The situation regarding parades has greatly improved
since the widespread public disorder witnessed in the late 1990s,
though there is much still to be done. The Government believes
that the Parades Commission's efforts to encourage local accommodation
wherever possible has played an important role. Nevertheless the
Commission recognises the need to review continuously its practices
and structures to ensure that these continue to meet the needs
of those with whom it works; its Annual Report for 2002-03, for
example, outlines the efforts it is making to make its procedures
as transparent as possible and address the issue of human rights.
The Government will wish to consider carefully whether more radical
change at this point would be helpful in achieving greater consensus
around parades. It looks forward to receiving the Committee's
views on the issue, once its deliberations have been completed.
13 October 2003
1
Paragraph 62 of the Second Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee, The Parades Commission, Session 2000-01, printed
28 March 2001. Back
2
Paragraphs 69-71 of the Second Report from the Northern Ireland
Affairs Committee, The Parades Commission, Session 2000-01,
printed 28 March 2001. Back
3
Source: 5th Annual Report, 2002-03, laid in Parliament 8 September
2003. Back
4
Source: PSNI website. Back
5
Source: Parades Commission Annual Reports. Back
6
In each year, approximately one third of parades subject to route
restrictions relate to Drumcree. Back
7
The full report may be downloaded from the NIO website, www.nio.gov.uk. Back
8
See Annual Report 2002-03, page 8. Back
| 
