garvaghy and ormeau rd. nationalists respond to assembly working party on parading issues...

8/9/2019 Garvaghy and Ormeau Rd. Nationalists Respond to Assembly Working Party on Parading Issues Consultation Paper

1/24

Other relevant papers are available along with photographs and a history and analysis of Orange parading at

http://orangecitadel.blogspot.com/

Consultation

On The Draft

Public Assemblies,

Parades and Protests Bill

2010

Joint Response

By

Lower Ormeau Concerned Community

AndGarvaghy Road Residents Coalition

JULY 2010


2/24

1

CONTENTS

Summary: The Draft Bill -Unfocussed and Disproportionate 2

Submission - outline 6

The limited nature of the right to freedom of assembly in respect of

contentious marches.

8

Quantifying the discrete issue of contentious marches. 10

The failure to treat contentious marches as a discrete issue. 12

The failure to publish the report and recommendations of the Parades

Working Group in order to fully comprehend all those factors taken into

account and which influenced the current consultation.

14

The shortcomings of the current consultation. 16

Appendix 1 18


3/24

2

The draft Bill - Unfocussed and Disproportionate

The Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill released for public consultation on April

20th purports to offer a solution to the problems created by contentious loyal order parades

in areas such as the Garvaghy Road, Portadown, and the Lower Ormeau Road, Belfast.

Far from solving the myriad of issues caused by contentious parades in Portadown, south

Belfast and elsewhere, it is our collective view that the draft Public Assemblies, Parades and

Protests Bill merely creates a whole new range of problems while ensuring the

perpetuation of old ones.

The draft legislation will bring any and all public gatherings of fifty people or more within

the scope of the law a recipe for potential disaster and a far cry from the panacea it

alleges to offer.

The solution to the vexing and long-standing problem of contentious parades lies not in

complex legislation or through the application of multiple bureaucratic structures.

Rather, the solution can be found in a common sense approach of using viable alternative

routes to take the small number of disputed parades (less than 3% of the total number of

parades) away from sensitive locations where they have a long history of causing

disturbance.

Instead of specifically dealing with the minority of marches that are problematic, the draft

legislation proposes to treat all parades and outdoor gatherings as if they were the same.

The legislation potentially encompasses contentious and non-contentious loyal order

parades; public meetings and trades union rallies; community protests against racist attacks;

parents protesting against the closure of schools or public services. Even sporting activities,

like road bowls, will potentially fall under the remit of this legislation.


4/24

3

Organizers of all of these dissimilar events will have to jump through identical administrative

and legal hurdles, creating an unnecessary bureaucracy and burdening a range of local

organisations.

The solution is to focus on the real problem - a small number of contentious loyal order

parades that can be resolved by obliging the organisers to take an alternative route.

The re-routing of contentious parades is neither new nor radical. The European Convention

on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights recognize that restrictions,

including route restrictions, can be placed on parades to protect the rights of others or to

prevent disorder. Such restrictions have been upheld by the domestic courts.

Nationalist residents are not seeking to have parades banned. Rather, it is about

guaranteeing the right to assembly in a proportionate and balanced way taking into account

the range of human rights violations which can occur when marches are forced upon certain

communities.

When a loyal order parade, with a long history of causing sectarian trouble, seeks to pass

through a nationalist area, there is a solution which reasonably respects the rights of both

the marchers and the residents: the use of a viable alternative route. That is the only

solution which achieves a balance of rights.

If the primary purpose of the parade is to go from A to B, that purpose may equally be

satisfied by a number of alternative routes.

Unfortunately, we have seen a number of loyal parades over the years that have a shameful

secondary purpose - to march through a nationalist or Catholic residential area for the sole

purpose of sectarian triumphalism.

The Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill proposed a statutory Code of Conduct for

parades which was due to be circulated for public consultation in early May and which was


5/24

4

eventually published on 23rd

June. That Code is the subject of a separate consultation and

will, therefore, be responded to through a separate and appropriate submission.

However, we feel it necessary to state that any legislation and/or Code must, by the nature

of the core issue to be addressed, be fully capable of taking into account the long years of

sectarian conflict and abuse around marches, and not result in air-brushing such events

from history by the introduction of some legislative or arbitrary date-line.

To ignore that history in relation to a small number of contentious parades would make

absolutely no sense and be grossly unfair to those who have suffered years of sectarian

abuse.

To make a decision on any parade without fully taking into account the complete historical

and contemporaneous context; and fully taking into account the impact of a particular

parade upon the local community; the impact of a particular parade upon wider community

relationships and, most importantly of all, the necessity of whether a parade proceeding

along a particular route is, in fact, indispensable for the enjoyment of Article 11 rights in

circumstances where suitable and adequate alternative routes permit the equal and full

enjoyment of that Article 11 right, would be fundamentally wrong and could cause

irreparable damage to wider community relations and to other equally protected ECHR

rights enjoyed by many other persons.

The existing Public Processions Act has led to the Parades Commission making inconsistent

decisions. It is our view that the Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill will lead to

further inconsistencies of approach in the decision making processes.

The Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill is a flawed piece of legislation. It is the

classic case of a "sledgehammer to crack a nut" - a difficult nut, yes, but still a nut.

There are a relatively small number of contentious parades that need to be dealt with

proportionately, so everyone can live free from sectarian harassment as guaranteed in theGood Friday Agreement.


6/24

5

The Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill does not appear to achieve those aims; it

lacks clarity and focus, is disproportionate and potentially is unworkable.

Within the Bill, there is a clear absence of any key primary objectives to be achieved. Those

key primary objectives are clear to many people, with the exception (it would appear) of

those who comprised the Parades Working Group and who assisted and oversaw the

drafting of this proposed legislation.

The key primary objective should have been simple to bring about final closure to the

conflict around a small number of contentious parades which have affected a number of

minority communities for too many decades and too many generations.

Instead of bringing about such closure, we believe that the proposals, structures and

bureaucracy suggested by the draft Bill will merely have the potential to perpetuate that

conflict into new generations.

Those responsible for drafting this Bill should go back to the drawing board to create a

workable solution based on common-sense principles within clearly established parameters

as defined by international human rights conventions, protocols and case-law.


7/24

6

Submission - Outline

The Parades Commission was established in 1997 and commenced its duties in 1998,

pursuant to the recommendations of the Independent Review of Parades and Marches,

which was chaired by Dr Peter North.

The present consultation on the draft Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill, published

on April 20 2010, is the product of the report and agreed recommendations by the Parades

Working Group which are a product of negotiations between political parties at

Hillsborough Castle in February 2010.

We also note that the Parades Working Group was tasked by the First Minister and deputy

First Minister to assist during the drafting process to confirm that the Bill faithfully reflects

and delivers the agreed outcomes.

In relation to this particular consultation, it is noticeable that those agreed outcomes have

not been published.

This submission to the April 20 consultation focuses on the following areas of concern:

1. The limited nature of the right to freedom of assembly in respect of contentiousmarches.

2. Quantifying the discrete issue of contentious marches.3. The failure to treat contentious marches as a discrete issue.4. The failure to publish the report and recommendations of the Parades Working Group in

order to fully comprehend all those factors taken into account and which influenced the

current consultation.

5. The shortcomings of the current consultation.

We believe that the issue of contentious and sectarian marches is a discrete issue, almost

unique to the North of Ireland, and, therefore, in many respects, independent of others inthe wider political process.


8/24

7

We note a contradiction between the widespread, all-embracing nature of the proposed

legislation and the failure to treat the matter of contentious marches as a discrete issue. We

will comment further on these matters later on.

There also appears to have been a failure and/or unwillingness on the part of those

responsible for drafting the proposed legislation to explicitly quantify the nature and limited

extent of those contentious parades they wish the legislation to address. We believe this to

be a matter of concern.

We believe that our comments are reflective of the overall views of those residing within

our respective communities in nationalist/Catholic districts of Portadown and South Belfast.


9/24

8

1.The limited nature of the right to freedom of assembly inrespect of contentious marches.

Article 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights posits a freedom of assembly.

However, Article 11 (2) expressly provides that this freedom may be limited:

No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than

such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in

the interests of national security or public safety, for the protection of

disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protectionof the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the

imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of those rights by members

of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

There is no absolute right to march when one wants, where one wants or how one wants.

This is clear from Article 11(2) above and from a number of rulings made by the European

Court of Human Rights upholding the imposition of restrictions relating to time, place and

manner upon specific assemblies restrictions of the type which minority nationalist

communities have sought to be imposed on contentious parades.

It should be remembered at all times that those who live, work, or carry on business in

those communities affected by contentious parades also enjoy rights and freedoms under

the European Convention.

That includes all those men, women and children who reside in a particular area, along with

workers, traders and businessmen who may work, trade or carry on business within a

particular area, or those who may have cause to enter or leave a particular area in order to

work, trade, seek medical assistance or have other requirements. It is grossly unfair and

unjust to describe such persons, who clearly enjoy protected Convention rights, as merely

being objectors in any proposed or draft legislation or to otherwise lessen the importance

of those persons protected Convention rights.


10/24

9

We note that organisations within the unionist/loyalist community who in the past were

granted the exercise of a particular right as a traditional privilege without reference to the

rights and freedoms of members of the minority community by the northern State still

today refuse to accept that limitations can be placed upon that right.

Once it is established and accepted by all that contentious parades can in fact be legally

limited, one must then also accept that the nature and means of such limitations can

include route restrictions.

It does not appear that any such acceptance of this type of limitation has been forthcoming

from the organising bodies responsible for a relatively small number of contentious parades.

And therein lies the crux of the problem which has plagued many communities over a long

period time - the refusal by organisers of contentious parades to accept that they do not

enjoy absolute and non-qualified rights over and above those enjoyed by their fellow

citizens. In essence, it is the very absence of such acceptance of those limitations that has

led to this present and questionable consultation aimed at replacing, rather than improving,

existing parades legislation.


11/24

10

2.Quantifying the discrete issue of contentious marches.We note that neither the draft Bill or the accompanying Explanatory Notes have attempted

to specify the nature of the discrete issue (contentious parades) which this draft Bill has

been erroneously portrayed as addressing, nor has there been any attempt to quantify the

number of those contentious parades.

In quantifying this issue, we would point out that the Parades Commission received

notification of 3801 parades or processions of various natures, including vintage car-rallies,

in the year from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009. Of that total, just under one third (31%), or

1201, related to those organised by trades unions, community groups, charities, etc.

Three per cent of that total, or 111, related to parades which could be viewed as originating

from within the broad nationalist/republican community. A total of 2483 parades, or 65% of

the overall total, originated from within unionist/loyalist community.

Of the 3801 total number, only 221 parades were classified as contentious of which 163

required the imposition of restrictions in relation to time, place and/or behaviour.

Furthermore, if one disregards the 51 weekly notifications relating to Drumcree/Garvaghy

Road, these figures reduce to 170 and 112.

In short, over 97% of all parades and various processions in the North of Ireland proceed

without any restrictions being imposed whatsoever. Additionally, 2371 out of a total 2483

unionist loyalist parades proceeded unhindered.

We would point out that nationalist communities, particularly in those areas where there

has been a long history of conflict over the parading issue, have sought merely to have route

restrictions imposed upon that small number of contentious parades and marches which

impinge upon the rights and freedoms of citizens residing, working, or carrying out business

in those areas (which are by and large predominantly nationalist, working class, residential

areas) affected by these contentious marches.


12/24

11

It is important to state that those same nationalist communities have not sought to have

restrictions imposed upon the vast majority of unionist/loyalist marches. It is also important

to state that neither LOCC nor GRRC have sought to have restrictions extended to

encompass a wide range of public assemblies, particularly those viewed as normally non-

contentious, static outdoor public meetings and pickets.

It is equally important to state that nationalists in Portadown, South Belfast and elsewhere

have also declared their willingness to accept alternative, less contentious routes which still

provide members of the Orange Order to exercise their right of freedom of assembly.

While we insist that the loyal Orders right to assembly be limited in respect of contentious

parades, particularly those through areas where the overwhelming demographic make-up

of the local community would be the opposite of those parading, we do respect the right of

assembly as originally intended by Article 11 of the ECHR.

Indeed, we would point out that in Portadown and south Belfast, the loyal Orders rights to

freedom of assembly have been consistently upheld. There have been no complete or

outright bans recommended by the Parades Commission or imposed by the British

Government, even in view of the extensive violence which had emanated from members

and supporters of the Orange Order.


13/24

12

3.The failure to treat contentious marches as a discrete issue.In bringing forward a draft bill on public assemblies, parades and protests, it would appear

that the open ended remit given to the Parades Working Group ensured that, rather than

deal specifically with the issue of contentious parades, it permitted the Parades Working

Group to develop proposals aimed at bringing forward legislation of a more far-reaching and

all-encompassing nature than anyone, outside of that Working Group acting in conjunction

with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, had ever envisaged.

As such the proposed legislation fails to treat, or adequately deal with, those matters

relating to contentious and/or sectarian parades as a discrete issue.

We would argue that this is a wrong approach.

Indeed, to support that viewpoint, we would refer to previous legislation enacted at various

times in the recent period to deal with other discrete matters in the North of Ireland.

As examples we would refer to:

Fair employment legislation specifically enacted to the address the specific issue of

discriminatory workplace practices which had led to open religious bias against

citizens, particularly Catholics, within the North of Ireland on the basis of their

beliefs. Such legislation was required because of previous failures of past measures

to address religious discrimination.

Various legislative reforms, including 50/50 recruitment to the PSNI, introduced

because of previous failures, human rights abuses, political bias and other short-

comings, many of which were unique to the North of Ireland.

The current political and legislative institutions in the North of Ireland which were

established because of the failure of previous institutions to properly deal with

factors unique to the North of Ireland.


14/24

13

The long-term history behind the issue of contentious marches can be traced back to the

early 19th

century. In many respects, the issue is not only unique to the North of Ireland, it is

also unique because of the way that, for much that period since the early 19th

century, such

marches were conferred by the state, or by influential elements within the state, upon a

section of the wider community as a privilege.

Events, particularly in Portadown and South Belfast in the mid-nineties, led to the

establishment of the Independent Review of Parades and Marches, under the chairmanship

of Dr Peter North in late 1996. The Report of North Review (the North Report) was

published in early 1997, and led to the establishment of the Parades Commission (the

Commission).

Since then there have been a number of reviews of the Commission and associated

legislation. In 2001, it was announced at Weston Park that a review would be held into the

operation of the Commission and the legislation under which it was established. However,

the aim at Weston Park was to link the marching issue to outstanding issues in the wider

political process and, in particular, to the issue of policing.

It could well be that the outworking of this years Hillsborough Agreement in relation those

matters under consultation was to re-emphasise a connection between the marching issue

and other outstanding issues in the political process, rather than to deal with the issue on its

own.

This appears to be contrary to the logic behind the North Report of 1997.

Why did the parties choose this path? The Hillsborough Agreement document fails to

properly explain the reasoning behind the inclusion of the marching issue.

We believe that the marching issue concerns the human rights and fundamental freedoms

of local communities, independent of other issues in the wider process. Binding this issue to

conflicting political aspirations would appear to be a very dangerous gamble.


15/24

14

4.The failure to publish the report and recommendations of theParades Working Group in order to fully comprehend all those

factors taken into account and which influenced the current

consultation.

It is noticeable that prior to, or coinciding with, publication of the draft Bill and the

commencement of the public consultation, a decision was taken not to publish the Report

and Recommendations of the Parades Working Group.

This would appear to be at odds with previous processes relating to the contentious parades

issue.

As mentioned above, the Independent Review of Parades and Marches, under the

chairmanship of Dr Peter North and established in late 1996, published its full report and

recommendations in early 1997. The terms of reference for that Review were announced on

24 July 1996 and submissions were then invited from interested parties, organisations or

individuals regarding their proposals for the future handling of parades. The closing date for

submissions was 15 October 1996, and over 300 submissions and letters were received.

Following the Weston Park political negotiations in 2001, it was announced on 27 November

2001 that Sir George Quigley would conduct a Review of the operation of the Parades

Commission and the legislation under which it was established. Approximately, 110

submissions were received. That report and recommendations were published in

September 2002. The Quigley review was preceded by an internal NIO review in 2000.

The establishment of the Strategic Review of Parading Body was announced in February

2007 and the appointments to the Review Body made in April 2007. The Body held its first

meeting in May 2007. Although no final report was published, it did publish an Interim

Report of its recommendations (which did not include recommendations relating to either

the Garvaghy or Lower Ormeau Roads) in April 2008. It received over 100 written
http://www.nics.gov.uk/press/nio/240796.htmhttp://www.nics.gov.uk/press/parades/280896.htmhttp://www.nics.gov.uk/press/parades/280896.htmhttp://www.nics.gov.uk/press/nio/240796.htm


16/24

15

submissions, and met with 130 organisations and individuals (most of whom had made the

written submissions).

We note that the proposal to amend and extend existing legislation to include all public

assemblies first emerged in that particular Reviews Interim Report.

In contrast, the Parades Working Group was established on 8 February 2010 and met for the

first time on 9 February 2010. It submitted its report and recommendations to the First

Minister and deputy First Minister fourteen days later on 23 February. That report and

recommendations remain unpublished. Neither has anything been published to indicate

from which organisations or individuals the Parades Working Group received submissions,

or with whom it met.

We would contend that such a situation contravenes basic principles of public life including

those relating to openness, transparency, proportionality, and independent public scrutiny.

Without being able to view the overall context and agreedconclusions which the Parades

Working Group arrived at and presented to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, it is

difficult for anyone to then understand the overall logic of the chosen direction taken in

framing the draft legislation.

Furthermore, we completely fail to comprehend the conclusions reached by the First

Minister and deputy First Minister, as stated in correspondence dated July 2nd

2010 in

relation to a Freedom of Information request, that it is not in the public interest to disclose

the report of the Working Group on Parades.

We can only ask why?


17/24

16

5.The shortcomings of the current consultation.The draft Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill was published for consultation on 20

April 2010. Much of what is contained within the draft bill is intricately linked to the Code of

Conduct. This had been due for publication in early May but was only published on 23rd

June. That Code is the subject of a separate consultation and will be responded to

accordingly.

As the legislation relating to contentious parades is essentially being published in two parts,

and is subject to two separate consultations, this presents major difficulties for all those

wishing to respond to the current consultation.

Therefore, we must question this procedural methodology adopted by the First Minister and

deputy First Minister lest there be any doubt that a failure to respond, or an inability to

comprehensively respond in detail, to the current consultation on the draft Bill could be

construed or interpreted in any way as acceptance of the proposed bill in its entirety.

In relation to the current consultation process specifically relating to the draft Public

Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill published on 20th

April, it is our view many individuals

and organisations will be simply unable to respond to those elements on which the FM/dFM

have sought comments and views. It is an additional source of concern that many

individuals and organisations appear unaware of the publication of the draft Code of

Conduct or the fact that the period relating to that second and separate consultation has

now commenced.

Those points aside, the original consultation document relating to the draft Public

Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill was published on April 20 and comprises a total of 67

pages. However, the actualdraft legislation contained in that consultation paper extends

only to twenty two pages comprising 49 sections of that document.

Many areas can readily be identified within the draft legislation where, in the absence of

further information, it is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to the consultation.


18/24

17

Fifteen such areas are listed in Appendix 1 (attached) as examples of this need for further

information and concise interpretation to be provided to the public. We would point out

that this list is by no means exhaustive, but has been compiled to illustrate and reinforce

this point regarding lack of clarity and lack of information.


19/24

18

Appendix 1

Among those areas which can be readily identified as requiring further information are the

following:

(i) The draft Bill proposes inter alia that notification requirements for publicassemblies, the adjudication bodys remit, the Chief Constables role and other

associated mediation and monitoring procedures be extended beyond

contentious parades (and counter protests as they are described within the draft

Bill and Explanatory Notes) to encompass a large range of other static

assemblies, including, as stated in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the draft

Bill, protests by a community group against the closure of a local sports facility.

However, this latter aspect would seem to be in contravention of Article 11 of

the ECHR which also protects the freedom to associate with others, including the

right to form or join a political party or other group or association, or the right to

belong to a trade union, for the protection of ones interests. In the absence of

publication of the report and recommendations of the Working Group, no

rationale has been given by the Working Group or by the FM/dFM for proposing

this extension to regulatory framework. In the absence of further information, it

is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to this central aspect of the current

consultation document and, therefore, those wishing to do so are placed at a

disadvantage.

(ii) No evidence base has been established or made public by the Working Group orby the FM/dFM to demonstrate that such an extension of the regulatory process

on public assemblies is in keeping with European Convention on Human Rights

view of measures that are necessary in a democratic society; nor has it been

demonstrated the Working Group or by the FM/dFM that the proposed

measures contained within the draft Bill are proportionate to meeting the

interests of national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime,

the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms

of others. In the absence of further information, it is not possible to respond, or


20/24

19

fully respond, to these aspects of the consultation and, therefore, those wishing

to do so are placed at a disadvantage.

(iii) Section 8 of the existing Public Processions Act sets out guidelines to which theParades Commission is required to have regard. These include, inter alia :

- any disruption to the life of the community which the procession may cause;

- any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the

community.

The majority of people in communities (particularly those people in

predominantly Catholic/nationalist communities, and more specifically, those

residing in predominantly Catholic/nationalist communities along or adjacent to

the proposed contentious march routes) affected by contentious marches would,

in our view, consider these as major determining factors in deciding whether or

not a contentious parade should be permitted to proceed without the imposition

of restrictions relating to time, place and manner. Nothing within the current

draft Bill or Explanatory Notes (presently under consultation until 14th

July 2010)

explains why these criteria have not been included in the proposed legislation. Asno explanation or rationale has been issued by the working group or the FM/dFM

in respect of the omission of these criteria, it is difficult to counter the reasoning

behind this omission and in the absence of further information, it is not possible

to respond, or fully respond, to this and other aspects of the consultation and

therefore those wishing to do so are placed at a disadvantage.

(iv) Although the draft legislation lists at Section 2 (3) a number of factors to be takeninto account by organisers, no reference is made of any obligation being placed

on the organisers to prove that usage of a particular route, particularly one that

has a history of contention, is necessary for the enjoyment of their Article 11

rights. As no explanation or rationale has been issued by the working group or

the FM/dFM in respect of the omission of this important factor, it is difficult to

counter the reasoning behind this omission and in the absence of further


21/24

20

information, it is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to this aspect of the

consultation and therefore those wishing to do so are placed at a disadvantage.

(v) The draft legislation refers to a Code of Conduct being designed to ensure that allparties take measures to prevent the sectarian harassment (meaning harassment

on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion), or other harassment, of

any person in the vicinity of a public assembly (whether or not the person is

participating in the assembly). However, no definitive interpretation of the term

sectarian harassment is provided within the draft Bill or Explanatory Notes. Nor

does the draft Bill explain if the prevention of, as yet undefined, sectarian

harassment applies only to such harassment experienced by citizens as a result

of a public gathering involving 50 or more people, or whether such protection

will be extended to include all citizens, irrespective of whether or not, those

citizens are the victims of sectarian harassment by individuals or by groups of

people numbering less than fifty. In the absence of such information within the

draft Bill or Explanatory Notes, it is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to

these matters.

(vi) The draft Bill and Explanatory Notes state that the Code of Conduct will have astatutory basis. Legislatively, it is highly unlikely that such a Code of Conduct can

be applied retrospectively. This, therefore, poses a question as to how the

adjudication panel (the PAPPB) can or will take into account any previous

sectarian behaviour; any previous breaches of the law or provocative and

inciteful behaviour associated with a particular contentious march; or any

previous disregard for legally binding decisions issued as a result of Parades

Commission determinations by parade organisers and participants; or any

widespread infringements upon the human rights of residents/citizens who

happen to reside within or adjacent to the route of a contentious march by

members of the states forces. Neither the draft Bill or Explanatory Notes

provide any answer to these questions. In the absence of such information being

contained within the draft Bill and Explanatory Notes, it is not possible to


22/24

21

respond, or fully respond, to this aspect of the consultation and therefore those

wishing to do so are placed at a disadvantage.

(vii) The draft Bill and Explanatory Notes state that the First Minister and deputy FirstMinister may revise the Code of Conduct from time to time. No explanation or

criteria are given in the draft Bill and Explanatory Notes relating to the

circumstances that may give rise to such a revision. In the absence of further

information, it is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to this aspect of the

consultation and therefore those wishing to do so are placed at a disadvantage.

(viii) Neither the draft Bill, nor Explanatory Note accompanying it, states how theappointments by the FM/dFM of the four-person Appointments Panel are to be

regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is equally unclear if

such an Appointments Panel will be recruited through an open, transparent and

public recruitment process, or through secondment from existing government

departments, or as a result of political appointment. Non-compliance with the

provisions of the Code of Practice on Public Appointments played a central part

in the House of Lords ruling setting aside appointments to the Parades

Commission in the Duffy case. In the absence of further information, it is not

possible to respond, or fully respond, to this aspect of the consultation and


(ix) The draft Bill states that the functions of the Office of Public Assemblies, Paradesand Protests are to be set out in guidance issued by the FM/dFM. In the absence

of such information being contained within the draft Bill or Explanatory Notes, it

is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to this aspect of the consultation and


(x) The Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Appointments Panel is to be theadjudication and decision-making body, replacing the Parades Commission, with

its members selected by the Appointments Panel. The status of the PAPPB, for

example as a Non-Departmental Public Body, is not made clear in either the draftBill or in the Explanatory Notes. In the absence of such information, it is not


23/24


24/24

secondment from existing government departments, or as a result of direct

political appointments. In the absence of further information, it is not possible to

respond, or fully respond, to this aspect of the consultation and therefore those

wishing to do so are placed at a disadvantage.

(xv) It is most striking and noticeable that the draft Bill and Explanatory Notespublished on April 20 and which are subject to the current consultation failed to

include any proposed or draft interpretation chapter/ or clauses. As a result, it is

extremely difficult for anyone to correctly understand in distinct and clear legal-

and lay-terms exactly what is meant by phrases contained within the various

sections, sub-sections and paragraphs within the draft Bill. An example of thisdifficulty and uncertainty can be found in those questions raised previously at (v)

of Appendix 1 in this submission to the current consultation on the Public

Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill, published on April 20 2010. In the absence

of any proposed or draft interpretation chapter/ or clauses, or further such

specific information, it is not possible to respond, or fully respond, to most

aspects of the present consultation and therefore those wishing to do so are

placed at a disadvantage.

garvaghy and ormeau rd. nationalists respond to assembly working party on parading issues...

Documents