09 May 2003

Trimble calls for scrapping of Parades Commission

Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble has called on the Government to get rid of the Parades Commission following publication of the Quigley review.

Speaking today Mr Trimble said solving the problematic issues surrounding certain parades was in everyone’s interests and every bit as important as reaching a satisfactory political settlement.

He added: “Bouncing from summer to summer with the potential for community confrontation simply cannot go on.

“Quigley hasn’t got it all together in his review as we have pointed out to the Government in our response to the report.

“However, Sir George clearly agrees with me that it is now firmly established that the Parades Commission must be removed and replaced with a fair and impartial rights based determining body.

“This is something I believe must be a priority of the government as holding back until the NIO timescale of 2005/2006 serves no useful purpose.”

In its response to the Quigley Review of the Parades Commission the UUP strongly criticised the Report's recommendation that the certification and facilitation process has to be completed before the rights based determination commences.

The party said it was possible through this recommendation that every legitimate parade could be subjected to the demands of objectors - thus introducing an effective veto which could not be accepted.

However, the UUP's main response focused on the Garvaghy Road dispute, and the Ormeau Road and Newtownbutler parades. It advised: "Any forthcoming Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland should incorporate the right to parade with specific and limited reservations."

In its constructive criticism of the Report, it added: "The Report falls short in recommending a greater measure of facilitation to deal with parade disputes deemed thus far incapable of resolution.

"It has always had major concerns about anti-parade protests organised to manipulate violent reaction which negates the marchers fundamental right to peaceful association - therefore we have reservations over the Report's engagement recommendations requiring a period of up to nine months in which law abiding parade organisers are obliged to converse with potential law breakers."

In conclusion David McNarry, who compiled the response, said: "The Report has shortcomings and is in need of amendment. Nevertheless, it makes an important contribution by endorsing the crucial requirement to off-load the Parades Commission.

"The steps it takes toward protecting and promoting the right to peaceably assembly are to be welcomed.

"It is now up the Government to move forward quickly rather than in two years time, by introducing the substantive legislation and administrative changes urgently required to secure the right to freedom of peaceful assembly."

(MB)