Meath Peace Group
Parsonstown
Batterstown
Co. Meath
Republic of Ireland
24 March 1997
The Secretary
Parades Commission Project Team
Northern Ireland Office
Unit 2, Stormont House
Belfast BT 4 3ST
Re: Independent Review of Parades and Marches - Public Consultation
Dear Sir,
Over the past 4 years, our group has worked to promote understanding of the various traditions and viewpoints in Northern Ireland. As part of this work, we have held 24 public talks, including 3 on the parading issue (October and November 1995 and October 1996). Speakers at these talks included 6 members of the Orange Order (Grand Lodge), 4 members of the Garvaghy Road Residents Group, the SDLP, a representative of the British Embassy, and 2 researchers from the University of Ulster (Dominic Bryan and Neil Jarman). We have also had several follow-up discussions on the issue with groups and individuals in Northern Ireland.
Last Autumn we made an informal submission to the Review Body, comprising copies of reports of the 3 public talks we held on the issue, along with some general points for consideration put forward by our group. We welcomed the publication of the Review Body report and, in response to your advertisement seeking views on certain sections of the Report, we now put forward our views on Recommendations 2-5 (attached). We also include the "points for consideration" which we submitted to the Review Body, as well as a summary of the main points made by the various speakers in our latest public talk on the issue. If you would like copies of the full reports mentioned, please let us know.
Wishing you well with your deliberations,
Yours sincerely
Julitta Clancy
(on behalf of the Meath Peace Group)
Meath Peace Group
Submission: Independent Review of Parades and Marches - Public Consultation
We broadly welcome the recommendations of the North Review Body.
Ideally we feel that there should be a separation between the mediation and adjudication processes. However, as that is not recommended by the Review Body, we feel there are additional steps that should be included in sections 2-5 of the Recommendations. These suggestions are put forward here in order to promote the maximum of dialogue between parade organisers and objectors/protesters, and in order to involve the wider local community.
Recommendations 2(c) and 3(c) [pp. 205-206]:
We are concerned about the criteria that will indicate when mediation fails. What happens in cases where one of the parties is obdurate? Do 2 (c) and 3(c) invite obduracy? Could there be more definitive checks and balances?
We suggest the following stages once a parading dispute has been notified to the Commission:
1) Mediation between the parade organisers and objectors/protesters (to be facilitated and promoted by the Commission);
2) If this fails, then a wider local dialogue should be implemented, involving as many local interests as possible - e.g. elected representatives, clergy, business community, community workers and community associations in the area, in order that the opinions of the wider community be heard. This should lead to further mediation and dialogue.
3) If agreement cannot be reached at this stage, both sides should be invited to submit to a binding arbitration by the Parades Commission. This determination to be valid for one year.
4) If either or both parties refuse to agree to binding arbitration, the Parades Commission must then make its own determination. In this case, the determination of the Parades Commission will be valid for three years, subject to compliance with the terms of the determination and any other requirements.
All parades which have been brought to the attention of the Parades Commission, regardless of outcome of the dispute, will be subject to monitoring that year, and any breaches of the determination and/or the Code of Conduct will be taken into account in the following year.
Meath Peace Group. 24 March 1997