HL Deb 16 July 1999 vol 604 cc629-34

11.12 a.m.

Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 30th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the three orders before the House today. Under the terms of the 1998 Act, the Parades Commission is required to issue a code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines. It is also required to keep those documents under review and has discretion to revise them from time to time, subject to the consideration of this House. The three orders we are considering this morning are a consequence of such a review.

The original documents issued by the commission were laid before Parliament on 23rd February 1998, only days after the commission assumed its full statutory powers. The commission has the 1998 marching season behind it and many major parades in the 1999 season have now also passed. With the benefit of that experience, the commission believes that the original documents can be improved upon.

As all your Lordships will be aware, parades in Northern Ireland are the subject of strongly held views on both sides of the community and consequently the commission works in a highly charged environment. Inevitably, it has been much criticised, particularly, but not exclusively, by the Orange Order. Those criticisms are well known and it is not for me to rehearse them for the benefit of the House. Indeed, I consider the criticisms to be ill-judged and ill-founded.

The Government are clear that the members of the commission have an extremely difficult task which they strive to carry out even-handedly in the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland. To put this matter in context, it is important to stress that 97 per cent of all parades proceed without the intervention of the commission. Since 1st April 1998, the Commission has received notification of over 6,000 parades. It has found it necessary to issue route restrictions in respect of fewer than 200.

There were 616 parades notified to take place between 10th and 15th July this year. The commission issued 46 decisions in respect of these, of which only 26 consisted of route restrictions. Those are significant statistics and are usually overlooked by those commenting on the work of the Commission.

The reality is that the commission's first year with full powers was undoubtedly a difficult one. All of us will remember the scenes at Drumcree last year. Particularly tragic was the murder of the three young Quinn boys, which was associated with events at Portadown and Drumcree. Our thoughts are with the Quinn family who, particularly at this time of year, must feel that senseless loss.

In the year that followed, because of the stand-off at Drumcree, RUC officer Frankie O'Reilly was murdered, over 200 other RUC officers were injured and 73 officers were forced to leave their homes. That does not include the four families who had to flee their homes because they had a son or daughter who was a member of the RUC.

Many on both sides of the community in Portadown are prevented from leading a normal day-to-day life and the residents of the Garvaghy Road have had to endure a wholly unacceptable living environment because of the level of sectarian threat against them. The cost in human terms is appalling and is a damning indictment of the actions of a small minority of extremists who do not represent the wishes of the overwhelming decent majority of people in Northern Ireland.

However, against that, many parades passed off peacefully last year, and a different climate prevailed this summer, bringing with it a markedly different outcome. This outcome has owed much to the dignified and disciplined behaviour of the Orange Order and the restraint of the local residents. Having said that, the order still declines to engage with the commission or, in the main, to talk face-to-face with residents.

However, it has, under protest, abided by the commission's determinations and has urged its membership and supporters to uphold the law. That is reflected in the security statistics which, comparing this year with last, make striking reading. Perhaps I may quote a few, covering the period 4th to 13th July 1998 and for this year from 2nd to 13th July, which are roughly comparable periods. In 1998 there were 614 public order incidents; in 1999 there were 43. In 1998 there were 625 petrol bombing incidents; this year there were 17. In 1998 there were 137 instances of criminal damage to homes; this year 29. In terms of baton rounds fired by the security forces, 823 had to be fired last year and one was fired this year.

This outcome is due in large part to the painstaking and responsible way in which the commission, under its chairman, Alistair Graham, carried out its responsibilities, and he and his colleagues have our gratitude. As Mr Graham recently stated, it is important that the peaceful atmosphere so far this year should be built upon for the future.

I turn specifically to the orders before us. In the light of the experience to date, the commission believes that procedural changes are necessary. The orders in front of us give effect to their considered opinion on changes which are designed to enhance their operational effectiveness.

The orders deal with the commission's code of conduct, its procedural rules and guidelines orders and will give effect to the revised versions of the commission's statutory documents which were also laid before this House on 30th June. As the three orders are so closely related, it is appropriate to consider all three together.

I stress to the House that many of the amendments in the revised documents are simply good housekeeping on the part of the commission. As it is under an obligation to review and revise the documents, it has taken the opportunity to update them, where necessary, and make minor grammatical changes which would not, by themselves, merit revision of the documents. I do not propose to take up the time of the House with these changes. However, having said that, there are some important amendments which are intended to streamline the existing system.

For example, changes to the procedural rules reflect the commission's experience of the limitations of the formal evidence-gathering procedure. Considerable effort was expended initially in arranging evidence-gathering sessions, with sometimes only two or three people attending to give evidence. The revised procedural rules provide for this procedure to be retained, but only as an option and where appropriate. The commission will continue to welcome all evidence, information and advice which would assist it in arriving at its final decisions. Those changes of greatest substance reflect the experience of the past year.

Paragraph 4.2 of the guidelines for commission members originally provided that, as a general rule, the commission would regard the commercial centres of towns and cities as neutral zones, and would be inclined to support the case for processions. Experience has shown this to be factually inaccurate. Commercial premises have owners and employees, all of whom come from one tradition or the other, and town centres are evenly balanced in sufficiently few cases for this to be unsafe as even a general rule. Under the revised procedures, the commission will consider the demographic balance among the residents in the immediate area surrounding any contested parts of a route and, if the area is genuinely neutral, its determination will reflect that.

Section 4 of the procedural rules originally provided for the commission to express a preliminary view about parades in a particular location. However, by the end of the 1998 marching season, the commission had issued determinations in respect of all the areas in which contentious parades take place. Its view for each location is therefore known: in addition, its annual report effectively provides a de facto preliminary view. A formal preliminary view, as originally envisaged, is now deemed to be unnecessary.

Paragraph 1.2 of the introduction to the guidelines lists factors to which the commission shall have regard in determining whether or not to impose conditions upon a parade. A new paragraph inserted after that list reflects an Appeal Court ruling that the commission is not restricted to having regard exclusively to those factors.

Having produced its amendments in draft form at the end of January, the Parades Commission engaged in an extensive consultation exercise. It was originally intended that Parliament should consider these orders in April of this year. The commission, however, agreed to defer submission of its documents at the request of several of its consultees so that they might give a fuller response. We believe it is now appropriate to take forward the revisions to these documents. One factor is the considerable increase in the number of parades, being notified.

On average the commission has recorded a 50 per cent increase this year over last. Between 1st April 1998 and 31st March 1999, the commission received notification of 3,211 parades. Already this year since 1st April there have been over 2,900 parades notified to take place. If that trend continues, it can expect to receive notification of approximately 2,400 parades in the period between 1st August this year and 31st March next year.

These documents provide for a system which is even handed and impartial, to the benefit of both sides of the community. As many of the amendments are designed to streamline the system, they will be of benefit both to the commission and to those who organise and take part in parades. It is in everyone's interest that the amendments are made at the earliest opportunity. I commend these three orders to your Lordships' House.

Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 30th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Dubs, for bringing these orders before us. I entirely agree that the Parades Commission has an extremely difficult task, as he outlined.

A few years ago we debated at some length the Bill) bringing into being the Parades Commission and I am pleased to recall that we cut out some of the peripheral duties suggested and kept it focused on this tremendous task of trying to manage parades in Northern Ireland I must own up to the fact that I had a meeting with the Parades Commission wearing my hat as a member of the Anglo-Irish inter-parliamentary body, so I have had time to discuss its work with its members. I am certain that they are committed to doing the best job they can.

I am sure that Alistair Graham, the chairman, as a trade unionist from the North-East, had a steep learning curve in trying to come to terms and understand the traditions, the feelings and the emotions of the summer season and marching seasons of Northern Ireland. He moved up that learning curve quickly with his team and it is a positive sign that we have these amendments coming through with changes to the codes. I sincerely hope that the commission's learning will increase; that its relations and understanding will continue to improve. I particularly hope and want to put on record that the loyal orders, the Orange Order, will eventually come round to meeting and discussing formally with the government-introduced Parades Commission what it wishes to do. The Parades Commission is part of the democratic process. It is important that the; Orange Order wakes up to that and starts to talk and work with it.

Having said that, I wish the Parades Commission an easier time—I doubt that it will get it. I wish it good luck and all speed in its work.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I echo the sentiments shared by all sides of the House in commending the work of the Parades Commission. Its success must be shown in the decrease in violence indicated. I commend also the restraint shown by the Orange Order at the difficult parades over the past two weeks. I call on its members to heed the call by all sides that restraint should be shown throughout the rest of the marching season.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, does the Minister have any indication whether the number of parades requested will diminish in view of the successful outcome of Drumcree and the Ormeau Road? Many of the parades were going to take place because of the "aggro" occasioned by the banning of the parade in Garvaghy Road.

I want to ask the Minister an important question. So far we have only been able to read about this matter in reports and in leaks that have come out of the so-called "proximity" meetings between the residents of Garvaghy Road and others involved. When legislation was going through this House and even today, we were told that the Parades Commission is an independent commission; that it will take decisions irrespective of the Government's viewpoint. But it has been regularly rumoured since last year's Garvaghy Road incident, that the residents of Garvaghy Road, through their representative Brendan McKenna, have been asking for government assistance to help with the overall economic plight of what he regards as his constituency in Garvaghy Road and Portadown. We heard that many members of the business community and with banking interests met Mr. McKenna. The figure of £30 million and £15 million has been rumoured as a form of blackmail: that he might be prepared to grant permission to the Orange Order provided that money of that order is given over.

I feel that it would be very bad for the Parades Commission to allow itself to be blackmailed into a position of allowing a march by the giving of money. On the other hand, if economic assistance is needed in that area, it should be up to the Government to provide it irrespective of the parades issue.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I wish to make one correction. I referred to the Anglo-Irish inter-parliamentary body; I should have stated the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful for the words of support for the Parades Commission, and particularly for Alistair Graham its chairman. That is extremely helpful and I am sure that in the difficult task the Parades Commission has, it will be much encouraged by the words of support from your Lordships' House for its work. It has been a success story, despite the difficulties and despite the disappointment that there are people in Northern Ireland who ought to co-operate with it—I hope that they will co-operate with it in the future—so that we can move forward in a better and more co-operative manner.

My noble friend Lord Fitt asked whether there were any statistics about a possible decline in parades following the more peaceful marches that took place at the beginning of this month. I have to tell him that I do not have any such statistics to hand, but perhaps I may write to my noble friend if I am able to obtain such figures and give him that information.

My noble friend also asked about economic assistance for the Portadown area. I would certainly refute any suggestion that the Parades Commission is being blackmailed. The members of the commission make their decisions independently; that is to say, independent of other considerations. They work in accordance with the statutory basis under which the commission was established. It is those considerations that the commission takes into account, not any others.

There have, of course, been a large number of parades directly related to the Drumcree protest, but I do not think that there is any validity in the suggestion that economic aid is linked to that. However, there are certainly parts of Portadown which require economic help, as is the case in other towns. The Government will consider that help on the merits of the case for economic health in particular towns, and not on those other factors.

As I said, I am grateful for the support that noble Lords have expressed and commend the orders to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.