Examination of Witnesses (Questions 196
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH 2004
SIR ANTHONY
HOLLAND, THE
REV ROY
MAGEE, MR
PETER OSBORNE,
SIR JOHN
PRINGLE, MR
JOHN COUSINS,
MR PETER
QUINN AND
MR ANDREW
ELLIOTT
Q196 Chairman: Good afternoon, Sir
Anthony and gentlemen, and thank you for coming to help us with
our inquiry into the Parades Commission and Public Processions
(Northern Ireland) Act 1998. The memorandum which you kindly sent
us says that you perceive a general acceptance of the remit you
have as a framework for the resolution of parading disputes, but
the parading organisations that we have spoken to tell a slightly
different story, that they lack confidence in your organisation.
What evidence would you want to give us to show that your work
is generally accepted? The first time you speak, would you identify
yourself by name so we have it recorded.
Sir Anthony Holland: If I can
introduce those here, we are one member short, who is in Australia
on leave. On my far left is Peter Quinn, John Cousins, Sir John
Pringle, Peter Osborne and the Reverend Roy Magee. Also, behind
me is the secretariat of the Commission. Unfortunately, I do not
have with me the authorised officers, who do an enormous task
in what I can only describe as pre-mediative and confidence building
measures behind the scenes. In many ways, they are the real heroes
of the hour as far as this Commission is concerned. You asked
me what our evidence is for what we do as being at least relatively
successful. We have been here four years, and during that period
we have doggedly kept going, facing sometimes quite serious issues
which we were not able to resolve, and knowing that we did not
have the answers that we perhaps would have wished. There is no
suggestion, from this Commission at least, I know, that we have
all the answers. We have a piece of legislation that we try to
work to. It is not easy. It is the product of the North Commission.
I think actually it is a typical product of Peter North in the
first place; it is very intellectual, but it does work, in a pragmatic
way, which is not always easy in some of the situations in which
we find ourselves. We have never had to take a vote. We do have
a very good way of working together, we think. The evidence, I
suppose, is that although we hear about 3,200 parades a year,
we do not, of course, look in depth at all those parades. Some
are deemed contentious on the basis of police advise, some are
deemed contentious by information from other sources, some on
the basis of information obtained by our authorised officers.
We look at roughly 200-250 a year, and of those, less than half
are subject to conditions, and the rest, after examining them,
we say "Despite what the advice from the police may be, we
prefer not to make a determination." The volume has gone
down; there is a lower proportion now that we actually impose
conditions on. So we do feel that we have made good progress.
That is not to say that there are not problems; of course there
are; nothing is beyond improvement but, as a whole, taking what
has been a very difficult situation for the people of Northern
Ireland, we feel we have made a useful contribution, albeit it
is always one that can be improved.
Q197 Chairman: You also say that
given more time, you think the existing Commission model could
become more effective than it is at present. Would you like to
elaborate on the areas where you think improvements can be made
and how long you think they will take.
Sir Anthony Holland: When I first
accepted this role—and I am sure I can speak for the other
commissioners in that sense—we did not think it was a short-term
Commission, and the reason that we have been here four years is
because we have taken that view and still in one sense continue
to take it, because we are here for a further two years, so we
will do in the end six years. It is a long-tem problem, parading
in Northern Ireland, but it is one that in fact is worth resolving.
It is part of the culture of Northern Ireland and it is the kind
of event that a lot of those who live in the province enjoy. Therefore
it does behove us, I think, to work hard at it, and trying to
do it in a short space of time, then having a whole fresh Commission,
I do not think would produce the right solutions. If you keep
pulling up a plant by its roots, it does not flourish, and we
have endured quite a number of reviews. This is the third time
we have been before this Committee, and we have had the Quigley
Review, but we do believe that by doggedly carrying on, persevering,
we have made steady progress, and it is that steady progress we
feel we can build on. There must come a time when, frankly, we
must recognise that there are some issues that perhaps are insuperable
by this Commission. We do not think we have reached that point
yet.
Q198 Chairman: Could you just tell
us where you think those insuperable barriers may occur?
Sir Anthony Holland: Plainly,
the engagement of the loyal orders is pretty helpful, if not fundamental
to the way the whole process works. One of the reasons that I
have some reservations about the Quigley Report is that it is
predicated upon there being a consensus, which plainly is not
there at the moment. If you have engagement with the Commission
by the loyal orders, a lot of progress can be made. Evidence of
that is the Royal Black Preceptory, the Independent Orange and
indeed the Apprentice Boys of Derry. Obviously, the primary loyal
order, the Orange Order itself, has not engaged with us formally.
We have met members of that order, but in different capacities,
and that, I think, is the single most important issue that we
face at the moment.
Q199 Reverend Smyth: Sir Anthony,
you have shared with us what you feel is your own role and where
things might be improved. Could you actually share with us what
you understand to be the parading organisations' concerns about
the operations of the Commission and what steps the Commission
has taken to address them?
Sir Anthony Holland: I think where
it went wrong to begin with was the issue of the code of conduct,
which was promised by our predecessors to be a matter of consensus,
and certainly consultation never properly happened, and that did
irritate, if I may say so, the Orange Order. We are trying to
resolve that even as I speak. But the more important issue, I
think, is that the loyal orders felt that because they did not
get a full understanding of all the objections to the parade that
was proposed on a particular occasion meant that they could not
respond properly to that. There was this lack of transparency,
the fact that the Statutory Instrument under which we operate
provides that we have to treat the evidence we receive as confidential,
and indeed, the advice from the police. Having said that, we have
made quite a lot of changes since we have been in place. We now
make a clear and firm point of indicating to all the parade organisers
what the objections are, particularly if they come in. If they
do not come in, of course, it is very difficult. We then have
to use the authorised officers as the conduit. That is not quite
the same because once you start relaying messages through third
parties, they can become confused. Certainly, in relaying the
message if they are in front of us, it is much clearer and, as
far as we are concerned, much more transparent. I think we have
to accept the need for confidentiality because sometimes people
will say things to us in confidence which they would not want
to be heard—on both sides that is; both the loyal orders,
if they do come in, individual members, and indeed residents,
will say they would rather we did not indicate what they had said
and how they had said it. That was, I think, one of the main objections,
but others here may want to build on that. Peter, do you have
a view about transparency?
Mr Osborne: I agree, obviously,
with the Chairman's analysis. I still hear, and I am sure other
members of the Committee still hear people who would say that
there is no communication from the Commission with regard to issues,
problems and objections to parades, and that is just not an accurate
reflection of the situation. It is made more difficult when people
do not engage with the Commission in order to have that dialogue,
either verbally or in writing. If people write to us or come and
meet us to talk about parades, they will get the gist of all of
the issues and objections there are surrounding parades in whatever
areas that they want to talk about. We are writing out to organisers
or bands or others involved in parading if there are issues raised
with us in order to receive views back, if possible, from those
individuals and those organisations, and again, the issues are
addressed in those letters. On top of that, the Commission has
organised, facilitated, a range of meetings within the communities
that are concerned: seminars, conferences, the South African experience,
over the last two or three years. There are other examples of
that, where we do discuss with anybody that we can the issues
that are around that do arise, if necessary, and if people want
to, in specific parade locations. The Chairman has already mentioned
the authorised officers, who are continually used on the ground
to liaise with anybody who is relevant in terms of parading in
certain locations, where the issues and objections are discussed
and fed back through to the Commission as well as Commission views
fed through to people. I suppose one of the other issues is over
the number of judicial reviews that have been carried out over
the last few years. None of them have been lost on the basis of
a lack of transparency. That was not an issue that was addressed
in the judicial reviews, but I think the primary issue is that
it is just not accurate to say that there is no communication
about the issues and problems at specific parades or with specific
parades with those who want to communicate with the Commission.
|
