Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 320)
MONDAY 26 APRIL 2004
MR IAN
PEARSON, MR
DAVID WATKINS
AND MR
MARK MCGUCKIN
Q300 Mr Beggs: The Human Rights Commission
suggested that if further provisions were to be added to Article
11 these should also focus on other issues, including an obligation
to tolerate the expression of opposing views and cultures. Do
you think this would be a useful addition?
Mr Pearson: I think
that is what happens at the moment when you look at the way the
Parades Commission make their decisions. Article 11 itself is
not just to be read one way, it is about the right to protest
but there is also a right to march as well. I think both of those
are covered as part of Article 11 and as part of the processes
by which the Parades Commission currently judge whether a parade
should go ahead or whether it should have restrictions placed
upon it.
Q301 Mr Beggs: I think the Human
Rights Commission has argued that if further provisions are to
be added to those in Article 11 they should be more directly focused
on two issues, namely an obligation to tolerate the expression
of opposing views and cultures and, secondly, an obligation to
refrain from any form of provocation or harassment. Would that
strengthen legislation?
Mr Pearson: I am
aware, certainly, that those are their views. I think there is
a discussion that needs to be had on the whole language of rights
and whether we should be moving to a system which is based entirely
on rights and, if so, which rights or whether the way that we
really resolve the situation is moving beyond rights. Certainly
I think there are other factors which need to be considered other
than just a legalistic interpretation of whether somebody has
a right to do something or not.
Mr Beggs: I welcome the
Minister's response. I too would like to see more emphasis on
responsibility at least equally with that of rights.
Chairman: Noted.
Q302 Mr Bailey: Can we move on to
the issue of public order. We have had a number of concerns expressed
in relation to Quigley's recommendations to give the police power
to implement decisions on public order. What assessment has the
Government made of this recommendation?
Mr Pearson: I must
admit I am very wary of this recommendation. Even if you accept
Quigley's argument that a rights panel should not allow public
order issues to form part of their consideration, I think obliging
the police to make the decision would not be appropriate. In a
matter as contentious as parades, there might well be a problem
with a single body, such as the Police Service Northern Ireland,
having responsibility for making a decision and then having to
enforce it. That was very much the view of the North report, which
is one of the reasons why we had this separation with the establishment
of the Parades Commission and the police having a responsibility
for implementing their decisions but not taking the decisions
themselves. Certainly I am aware that there have been some very
strong reservations expressed by a range of organisations about
this particular recommendation in the Quigley report and, as I
say, I am certainly wary of it myself.
Q303 Mr Bailey: A third option, which
does not appear to have been considered by Quigley, is whether
to give the power to the Secretary of State. Have you considered
that?
Mr Pearson: With
a caveat of saying that we do not have a settled policy at the
moment and will be responding with proposals in the autumn, let
me just give you some observations. My view would be that by far
the best way to tackle the issue of parades is to have local solutions
to the problem and that should be the objective. I think trying
to do things at a Secretary of State level would create problems
in its own right. I do not believe that the Secretary of State
should be routinely involved in making decisions on parades. I
think that is correctly a matter for a separate body, currently
the Parades Commission. Every indication from what I have seen
is that over the last number of years they have been doing a very
good job. I think those factors need to be borne in mind when
we are looking at the Quigley report recommendations.
Q304 Mr Bailey: Thank you. That seems
to be a fairly definitive approach. Can I just follow on from
that. Earlier you made the comment in response to the conjecture
that this year's marching season, the next marching season, could
be more problematic by saying that you did not think it would.
What steps have been taken by the Commission to, shall we say,
pre-empt any problems in the next marching season?
Mr Pearson: Let
me be clear in what I said. I said that we do not have any intelligence
which indicates that this year's marching season is likely to
be more difficult than last. Obviously you need to ask the Parades
Commission themselves in terms of what steps they are taking.
Clearly their authorised officers are involved in dialogue on
a regular basis in areas where they anticipate that there are
likely to be potential problems in the coming months, so they
have in place the established body of work to try to ensure that
they take early action where there are likely to be potential
difficulties.
Q305 Mr Luke: Minister, transparency
has been an issue which has been referred to quite often in this
inquiry. Indeed, in the Committee's previous report on parades
in the 2000-01 session, it was recommended that "the Government
and the Commission consider urgently whether the Commission's
procedures need to be improved by greater transparency" especially
before the determination stage and, if that was necessary, "to
put the necessary steps in hand" to improve this. Has there
been any detailed consideration of this on the part of the Department
and the Parades Commission?
Mr Pearson: My
understanding is that since the Select Committee's report there
have been some changes and that the Parades Commission now produces
more information than it did previously concerning its decisions.
I accept and understand the frustration of some groups, particularly
parade organisers, on the issue of transparency. This is a difficult
issue because on the one hand we need to maintain a degree of
confidentiality because of the likelihood of intimidation but
in itself we would like to see decisions being transparent, that
is commonly accepted as a good thing to do. The issue of whether
we have got the balance right, I think it is something that we
need to keep looking at and that is something that will be part
of our considerations that we will be wanting to make over the
coming months.
Q306 Mr Luke: The Commission in its
evidence also indicated that they see the benefit of a compliance
and post mortem department for the marching season and also, where
necessary, for determination in future seasons that the band could
be allowed to be given some idea of what objections had been placed
before the Commission. Taking the steps that obviously confidentiality
was retained, do you see the benefit of this?
Mr Pearson: Quite
simply, yes.
Q307 Mr Tynan: The Parades Commission
have argued that existing arrangements for mediation and for determination
work very well, but some of the witnesses that we have spoken
to say there should be a greater focus on mediation. Have you
considered whether the Commission's powers in relation to mediation
should be enhanced or not?
Mr McGuckin: First
of all, let me say that the Quigley report proposes, as you know,
a parades facilitation agency which will be designed to build
mutual trust and confidence by promoting mediation. That is obviously
something that we would need to consider and it is very much an
interesting proposal. I am aware that currently in the way that
it operates, the Parades Commission's authorised officers do get
involved in some mediation but they are not principally mediators
themselves. I do think it is a real issue about whether more local
mediation would be useful. That is something that we would be
very pleased to talk to the Parades Commission about, particularly
if they have any proposals that they want to suggest to Government
in that regard. If I could just say something about the level
of mediation. I think maybe a principle of localism is important
here. By far the best way of tackling the problems that inevitably
do arise during the marching season is if things are done locally.
If they get elevated to a higher level and we bring in some well
respected person from wherever, I think there is more likelihood
that the parties are less prepared to compromise and you do not
get the outcome that everybody would want to see. My instinct
here would be to ensure that things are done at as local a level
as possible as often as possible.
Q308 Mr Tynan: The point is at this
point you have not made an assessment of whether we should move
to mediation on the basis of splitting it from the determination,
you are currently looking at the situation but you have not come
to a firm conclusion?
Mr Pearson: I think
it is fair to say we have not come to a firm conclusion on the
Quigley proposals for a parades facilitation agency and a separate
rights panel. Given the relatively peaceful marching season we
had last year and given the track record of the Parades Commission
over recent years, we need to be careful that we do not suddenly
drop a system that by and large has worked reasonably well in
favour of something that is untried and untested. We need, I think,
after this year's marching season, to sit down and look very closely
again at the Quigley recommendations and I am sure your report
and your consideration of the Quigley proposals will be very useful
when we undertake that exercise.
Q309 Mr Swire: It seems that the
authorised officers have a critical role to play in the parades
and a number of our witnesses have suggested that the standard
of all of them, of course, varies and there is a need for them
to be better resourced. Sir Anthony Holland, when we took evidence,
referring to the Parades Commission said we still have ideas as
to how we want to develop that. What are your ideas on this?
Mr Pearson: As
somebody who took over responsibility for this just before Easter
certainly I would want to listen to those who are directly involved
and have expertise in this matter. I am very well aware that the
practice in the whole area of authorised officers is very much
still evolving. Certainly I would like to pay tribute to the work
of the authorised officers. I know the Commission sets great store
by the work that they do and, indeed, they say that they are absolutely
fundamental to the success of the Parades Commission; I believe
that to be the case. So what I am really saying in response is
I would be very interested to hear any firm proposals that Sir
Anthony Holland wants to put to me about how authorised officers
should work in the future and, indeed, any proposals which will
be put forward in due course which deal with the issue of mediation
and increasing the availability of mediation in disputes.
Q310 Mr Clarke: Minister, on the
subject of engagement, witnesses have had differing views as to
how useful engagement is. Some say that it is simply going through
the motions, some have said that it is a box-ticking exercise
and that you have to be seen to be going through the engagement
and in doing so there is no real intent. What would your view
be on engagement and how successful it has been?
Mr Pearson: I believe
strongly that engagement is a good thing. It is an important and
useful way in which you can get cross community consensus and
achieve, I think, better decisions. Certainly it would be far
better if the Loyal Orders were to engage with the regulatory
machinery. I know that the Parades Commission sees engagement
with the Orange Order as one of its most pressing issues and certainly
it would be far better if the Orange Order did engage directly
with the Parades Commission. It is good to talk and I think the
more engagement that you do have, the better prospect you have
of being able to have less potential difficulties when it comes
to parades.
Q311 Mr Clarke: Certainly the Orange
Order, or one of those groups, did share with us their concerns
over the engagement process, not just in terms of whether or not
it was a box-ticking exercise but also they were concerned that
in arriving at a decision there was not enough transparency of
the evidence given to local community engagement as to what was
said and how much that weighted their decision. Would you agree
with their view?
Mr Pearson: I do
not think I would agree particularly with their view in the sense
that it is very difficult not to participate and then say "Well,
okay, we are not participating because you will not take our views
fully into account". I think the important thing is to participate
so your views can be taken into account and that is really what
I would like to see and what I believe the Parades Commission
would like to see. Clearly when it comes to producing decisions,
as we discussed previously, there might be more that can be done
in terms of making sure that those decisions are as transparent
as possible but within the bounds of needing to ensure proper
confidentiality where that is needed and, indeed, requested.
Q312 Mr Clarke: Whilst accepting
what you said earlier about the desirability of the Orange Order
engaging with the Parades Commission, would you accept that there
is a level of confidence which needs to be raised with the Unionist
community in general in respect of their perception of engagement
and their willingness to accept the current system as being transparent?
Mr Pearson: I agree
there must be a problem with the Orange Order's perception of
the Parades Commission because they feel as if there is a problem
there and we obviously need to address it if that is the way they
feel. I still do have to say that the best way of solving disputed
parades is through local accommodation and that means engagement.
I would like to think that the Orange Order, when they continue
with their reflections on this, will see the benefits of engagement
and that will be reflected in the decisions which are taken by
the Parades Commission. That will be a matter for them ultimately
to decide whether they want to co-operate or not.
Q313 Reverend Smyth: Apologies for
being late. Has the Government made any assessment of the practical
implications of extending the notification period?
Mr Pearson: Sorry,
extending the notification period?
Q314 Reverend Smyth: Correct.
Mr Pearson: As
I explained at the outset, the Government does not have a settled
view on the Quigley report and its recommendations. We do plan
to consider it and to develop proposals and consult on them in
the autumn. Certainly I am aware that there is quite a lot of
opposition from the Orange Order and, indeed, from other parading
organisations to Quigley's recommendations of notification by
October of the previous year. It is something that we will need
to consider when we come up with firm proposals. We need to be
clear what benefits there are, if any, to be derived from notifying
something that far in advance. Quigley suggests that it gives
far more time for effective mediation. Whether it does need to
be that sufficiently far in advance I think is a matter of logistic
debate.
Q315 Chairman: I do not think Rev
Smith was asking your opinion but asking if there are practical
consequences of that position, which I would hope that at least
officials have looked at because there is no use agreeing or disagreeing
with something without having gone into what the ramifications
are. There are two points of view that have been put to us. One
is that it would give the Commission more time to take a measured
view, because so many of them have to be taken at the last minute
because of the bulge of marches in July, but there are serious
practical implications. Has the Office not been looking at them?
Mr Pearson: Certainly
officials have been looking at the practical implications of moving
to Quigley's proposals with regard to this and, indeed, the other
recommendations in the report.
Q316 Chairman: It would be very helpful
to hear what the practical considerations are. Perhaps one of
your officials could just fill us in.
Mr Pearson: Let
me say something to start with, Chairman. Most parades are now
long established in the calendar, so it is not as if we are starting
from a blank sheet of paper and we are going to see a lot of new
parades that have never happened before and are suddenly going
to be served notice of a very short period before they actually
take place. With all the major contentious parades, generally
there is sufficient information already available so that people
can actually work on the ground to find acceptable local solutions.
Clearly if you are coming across a new situation and a last minute
notification, that gives practical difficulties and certainly
there is a case for looking at this. The parading organisations
themselves see 28 days as a long enough period for mediation or
anything else to actually take place for agreement. We have to
bear in mind as well that the vast majority of parades are not
controversial, they are not restricted. Out of the something like
3,300 parades last year, there were only restrictions taking place
in 120 cases. You need to bear those factors in mind before moving
to a rigid system of substantially lengthy early notification.
Q317 Chairman: That is all understood,
but at the same time what we are trying to get the feel of is
Sir George Quigley makes a serious suggestion of major changes,
it will be longer to mediate, longer to negotiate, but there are
practical implications which are quite severe and I would respectfully
say if the Office has not been looking at these they have not
been doing their job for you. I am not expecting you to know the
answer to this because we understand you have only just taken
up the reins. Has no work been done on this?
Mr Pearson: I would
just reiterate one of the things that I said. My officials have
been looking at this area as, indeed, they have been looking at
all the other areas of the Quigley recommendations. We are not
in a position where we have proposals, as a Government, to change.
Q318 Chairman: I have been very careful
not to ask you for proposals or your opinions, but what are the
practical implications of a change such as this? What would be
the effect? Surely that is something that officials could tell
us about, is it not?
Mr Watkins: Chairman,
I think the practical implications flow quite directly from the
model one envisages. If you choose the Quigley model then, as
you said in your introduction to the question, you need to work
right back allowing time for the Chief Constable, allowing time
for the rights panel, allowing time for the facilitation agency.
I think that is the logic of Quigley: if you see a lengthy pre-process
then obviously you have to have early notifications. If, on the
other hand, for example, and I am merely positing this as an example,
you had a similar process to the current one but with some greater
emphasis on mediation then you might not need to have six months'
advance notice, you might equally argue that there was a case
for some increase in the 28 days. The time flows from the model
within which you wish to work. There are, indeed, practical implications
and cost is one. The longer you have, the more bodies you have,
the more expensive the process becomes. It goes to transparency.
If you have a quasi-legal tribunal of a transparent kind you need
more time for that and that would equally impact on costs. There
are two other practical implications. One is that longer time
might avoid the accumulation of difficult decisions, or potentially
difficult decisions that the Commission has to make around June
or July. That is one very clear practical point but another one
flows from what the Chairman of the Commission said to you in
his evidence, and this is a point which will be uppermost in the
Chief Constable's mind, I imagine, that circumstances surrounding
one particular parade can change in a matter of weeks, if not
days, before that parade. We can all imagine what they are. I
am sure we can all recall marches where actually it would have
been extremely difficult to take an irrevocable decision more
than X days before the event. That is a very practical point in
terms of a commission of any kind, a body of any kind, making
a decision more than X days before the event. There is quite an
argument for X not being too high a number. Equally, there are
efficiency grounds for making it more than it is at the minute.
It flows very directly from the model that ministers choose to
adopt.
Q319 Reverend Smyth: May I say that
practical consideration was helpful. 28 days was partly introduced
at an earlier stage to make sure that the police were not involved
in extra overtime because they had more time to actually plan
the schedules. Practical consideration should not include, in
my judgment, not only the Parades Commission viewpoint and the
establishment viewpoint but even the parade organisations. I am
thinking, for example, of the Ulster Bands' submission that parading
bands usually go off from October to December and there are no
plans until after that, so if you go for a date in October it
is out. Secondly, you will be aware of the evidence before us
from the Community Relations Council that such a long period might
actually preclude the opportunity for people moving in a more
satisfactory direction. Those are two practical considerations
that I trust the Department will also bear in mind.
Mr Pearson: Yes.
I am not sure that was a question. I am happy to take on board
those points that were mentioned.
Q320 Chairman: I think it was probably
a wish. Minister, thank you very much for coming. Those are all
the questions that we have for you. We will reflect on your answers
and, as you know, report not too long from now. Thank you very
much indeed.
Mr Pearson: Thank
you.
| 
