Examination of Witnesses (Questions 287
- 299)
MONDAY 26 APRIL 2004
MR IAN
PEARSON, MR
DAVID WATKINS
AND MR
MARK MCGUCKIN
Q287 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister,
gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming again in a different
hat from last time, I think, to help us with our inquiry into
parades.
Mr Pearson: That
is right, yes.
Q288 Chairman: We have had some mixed
views in the evidence that we have taken, which you have no doubt
seen. Some think that the Commission should be wound up and we
should go for the Quigley proposals; some think the Quigley proposals
would be less than helpful; others just want the Commission overhauled;
others think they need more powers. We have had a very, very wide
range of views. I wonder if you could help us with what the Government's
view is, or have you not yet reached one?
Mr Pearson: Good
afternoon. Can I begin by introducing my colleagues, who I am
sure are quite familiar to you. On my right is David Watkins,
who is the Director of Policing and Security, and on my left is
Mark McGuckin, who is the Head of Security Policy and Operations
Division. As you will be aware, I took over ministerial responsibility
for security matters, which includes the Parades Commission, shortly
before Easter. Let me say in direct response to your question
that the Government currently does not have a settled view as
far as Quigley and implementation of the Quigley proposals is
concerned. I think it is fair to say that there has been a diverse
range of views right across the community as to the merits of
the Quigley recommendations. Certainly I would be very interested
to hear of the Select Committee's deliberations and its report
into Quigley. My intention would be to look at the situation following
this year's marching season and then to come forward with proposals
for consultation in the autumn.
Q289 Chairman: Some people have said
to us that last year's "good" marching season was exceptional
and is unlikely to be repeated this year. Has that been reported
to you. Have you taken a view about that? Is there anything you
feel you need to do in advance of it to try to head off any trouble
there might be?
Mr Pearson: Last
year was the quietest marching season for something like six years.
I understand that in some quarters there are suggestions that
it might not be so quiet this year, but there is nothing in the
intelligence to suggest any malevolent intent. My understanding
is that DCU commanders are not picking up any indications that
things are going to be bad. As is the case with these things,
it is always difficult to separate comments made by those who
simply wonder whether this year could be as quiet as last year
or those who might be making some sort of implicit threat. Certainly
we are optimistic that it will be as relatively quiet as it was
last year but we are not letting our guard down and certainly
want to assure the Committee that security forces will have the
necessary resources and will have done all the planning and training
to meet any public order challenge should it come, and of course
we all hope that it will not.
Q290 Mr Pound: Good afternoon, Minister.
You said that you were going to wait and see what happens after
12 July. Do you have any date or possible indication as to when
a decision might be taken?
Mr Pearson: As
I said, I think we would want to be coming up with proposals in
the autumn. I am happy to discuss the merits of Quigley. He does
provide a challenge. There are a number of radical proposals there
and we would certainly want to hear what the Select Committee
has to say. We have found it very helpful to hear from some of
the organisations that have been submitting evidence to you because,
to my mind, there had not been a clear indication of the views
of the Orange Order until very, very recently indeed.
Q291 Mr Pound: What rang alarm bells
with me, and I am sure it is completely unjust and totally unfair
of me to mention it, was when you start talking about radical
proposals on the one hand and talking about extending consultation
on the other, I wonder whether there might be a linkage. Quigley
has said he had no problem in contacting the key stakeholders,
there has been a fairly extensive area of consultation. Do you
anticipate another round of consultation post this marching season
or is this a different area of consultation? To be frank, it seems
to me that we have been almost consulted out Quigley, there has
been no end to the people who have been consulted.
Mr Pearson: Certainly
I take the point about consultation. A lot of people in Northern
Ireland feel that if there is one thing they are not short of,
it is consultation.
Q292 Mr Pound: Absolutely.
Mr Pearson: There
are certain rules which we need to follow obviously, however.
If the Government is going to come up with proposals for reform
I think it is important that we consult on those proposals. It
would be a normal and established part of the process here in
Northern Ireland that we did just that. Certainly my intention
would be to come up with a set of proposals in the autumn which
we would then consult on.
Q293 Mr Pound: I am genuinely not
trying to hold you to a date because I know I would not get away
with it, but are you actually talking about a new consultation
with new consultees or new stakeholders, or repeat consultation
with the existing body of consultees?
Mr Pearson: Let
me try and be as clear as possible on this. What I am saying is
that if there is going to be change then we need to come up with
proposals, and those proposals will have to be consulted on, particularly
if they are going to require any form of legislative change, which
some of the Quigley proposals clearly do. As a result of that
we would follow the normal process of consulting with a wide range
of organisations and individuals. Clearly the major people who
have an interest in this would all have to be consulted as part
of that process. The normal way these things would happen is we
would publish a document which would be sent to all the relevant
organisations and generally there would be a three month consultation
period on the proposals before taking firm steps thereafter.
Q294 Mr Pound: I would say you have
form in this Committee as being an excellent adherer to timetables,
and you have been publicly and privately praised for that, which
is why to hear you say that is reassuring. Can I ask one final
very brief question. Has there been a meeting now between the
Northern Ireland Office and the Commission to discuss potential
areas of improvement?
Mr Pearson: Can
I ask David to answer that.
Mr Watkins: There
is continuing dialogue between officials and the officials of
the Commission and if the Commission want to raise issues of that
or any other kind with us they can in that environment. Also,
we did have a meeting with them in January or February where we
discussed the working of the Commission but in very broad terms.
We tend to allow them to make the running with us, as it were,
because there is a fine point between talking about generalities
and then getting into individual issues where we do not want in
any way to be seen to compromise their independence.
Q295 Mr Pound: So there have been
a series of meetings but there has not been a specific improvements
headed meeting, has there?
Mr Watkins: Unless
my memory serves me wrongly that is so.
Chairman: I think the
point of the question is—
Mr Pound: —should
there be?
Q296 Chairman: —the Parades
Commission told us that under the 1998 Act they are obliged to
liaise with you about areas of improvements but they tell us they
have not yet done so because they are being subjected to all these
reviews. Is that a misunderstanding as to what a meeting is or
what liaison is or talking about improvements? Do you agree with
that statement of theirs that while they are obliged to under
the Act they have not yet done so?
Mr Pearson: If
that is the Parade Commission's view then I am sure it is correct.
Q297 Chairman: I am not trying to
put you on the spot because you are new but Mr Watkins was saying
"Yes, there have been lots of meetings". What is the
difference between you being available to them and them carrying
out their obligations under the 1998 Act to liaise with you?
Mr Watkins: None
save that the obligation is on them to raise matters with us.
In response to Mr Pound, we have not had a meeting billed an Improvements
Monitoring Meeting or anything of that kind. What we have
is sufficient interaction with them on a working level and from
time to time with the Chairman and the secretary at which they
may, if they wish, raise matters of procedure. They have not formally
done so to my knowledge in recent months at any rate.
Mr McGuckin: If
I may just add to that. An example of ongoing work along with
the Commission where changes do occur was a review that we did
with them collectively along with the police in relation to the
11/1 form which is used as part of the procedures. That form was
amended and updated. I think that illustrates the value of the
continuing engagement between the Department and the Commission.
Q298 Mr Beggs: Sir George Quigley
recommends that express reference be made to Article 11 of the
European Convention on Human Rights in the Public Processions
(Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Is there a need for the 1998 Act
to include reference to Article 11 when the Parades Commission,
as a public authority, is already subject to the Human Rights
Act 1998 and to the European Convention on Human Rights? Or, if
there is not a need, is it desirable?
Mr Pearson: My
understanding of the situation is that everything is subject to
conformation with the Human Rights Act. The Parades Commission
themselves pay particular close attention to Article 11 of the
Act. I am aware, certainly, that other organisations have raised
legitimate concerns as to whether other Convention provisions,
in particular Article 8, in respect to privacy, should be given
prominence as well. Certainly at the moment the Parades Commission
makes decisions in the round, it does not just look at Article
11, it looks at other factors as well when coming to a judgment.
That was one of the things that clearly Quigley took issue with
and we will have to consider as part of our response in the autumn.
Q299 Mr Beggs: Have you considered
whether the 1998 Act should also refer to other articles of the
Convention?
Mr Pearson: What
I can say on this is that we are still in a process of considering
our response to Quigley overall so we are not in a situation where
we have got firm proposals that, as I said earlier, we will consult
on. We do hope to be in a situation in the autumn when we have
firm proposals and that would consider whether it would be appropriate
to amend legislation at that point in time.
| 
