Wednesday, November 30, 2005
New Parades Commission members
Once again the BBC pre-empts an official announcment, expected tomorrow, to report that the new Parades Commission Chairman, taking the place of Sir Anthony Holland, is to be Roger Poole, a former trade unionist who was involved in the formation of Unison. In addition they report that a former candidate for the Woman’s Coalition, Ann Monaghan, has also been appointed to the Commission, along with two other women, out of a total membership of six commissioners and a chairman. As the Press Association, via UTV, also report, one of the new commissioners is the former District Master of Portadown Orange Lodge, David Burrows
Also named as new members of the Parades Commission in the BBC report are -
Don McKay, who in the past stood as an Ulster Unionist for Craigavon Borough Council, has also been appointed, as has former SDLP MP Joe Hendron.
Which leaves 2 commissioners still to be named.
Update Vilma Patterson and Alison Scott-McKinley have also been appointed to the body.
And Secretary of State for Wales and Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, has issued a statement - “I am particularly pleased that two people with personal understanding and experience of the Orange Order and the cultural importance of parades have been appointed to the Commission.”
Here are the brief biographies of the new commissioners, as provided by the NIO -
Brief summary of appointees’ career
Mr Roger Poole: Currently a director of Social Enterprise London and Business Link for London. He is also a visiting fellow at Warwick University.
Roger Poole has had a long career in Trade Union movement and was the former Assistant General Secretary of NUPE and of UNISON. He was responsible for national negotiations in the NHS, Local Government, Water Industry and Higher Education. The public face of the ambulance dispute of 1989/90, he was the Chief Union negotiator and frequently appeared on the media. He was one of the senior trade union officials responsible for negotiating the terms of the merger between NUPE, COHSE and NALGO to create UNISON. In 1999 he joined the team which had been established by the Prime Minister to look at the future of the Co-operative movement.
Mr David Burrows: In engineering management for the past 10 years. He was also a district officer for Portadown LOL No.1 for over 10 years and served as District Master resigning in July 2005. He has a certificate in marshalling and was involved in Drumcree negotiations over the years.
Dr Joe Hendron: A GP for 40 years, Dr Hendron was an SDLP MP for West Belfast, from 1992-97. As an MLA, he chaired the Assembly’s Health and Social Services Committee. He visited North Korea in 1998 as part of a Trocaire charity delegation looking at famine.
Mr Donald MacKay: A senior fire officer in the Fire Service for 26 years. Mr MacKay was also a local councillor in Craigavon for four years (1993-97). He is a member of the Royal Black and Orange Institution (member of Portadown ex-servicemens Orange Lodge). Mr MacKay holds a variety of personnel and management qualifications from a BA (Hons) in Business Studies through to an MA in Human Resources.
Ms Anne Monaghan: A Community Relations Manager in the University of Ulster since 2001. She has an MA in Peace and Conflict studies from University of Notre Dame, Indiana and an LLB in law and politics from Queen’s University Belfast. She is now an Independent member for Belfast’s District Policing Partnership.
Mrs Vilma Patterson: Has spent 20 years as the Finance and Administration Director at a company called John G Duff (Annadale) Ltd, a sports ground contractor. She is currently a member of the Independent Monitoring Board for HMP Maghaberry (for nine years) and Chair of Northern Ireland Association of members of Independent Monitoring Board (for three years). She is also the former Chair of the Women in Business Network.
Mrs Alison Scott-McKinley: Currently employed as Urban Area Development Officer in the Magherafelt area since 2004. She was previously employed by Portadown YMCA as a Family Youth Work Development Worker. Formerly an independent member of Magherafelt District Policing Partnership from 2002-05, she has also been a Lay Magistrate since 2005.
Pete Baker @ 05:03 PM
Should make for an interesting July. Eastwoods have cut the odds on the Orange getting down the Garvaghy Rd.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 07:24 PMLike the way you tried to down play the main story Pete by adding Burrows as a footnote in your intro…
This is another sop to unionism. ‘Packing the court’ with orangemen is not a surprising development, given the antics of the British government recently.
However, I would be very surprised if this were to result in any unexpected developments on the parading front.
Any clear-minded individual would know that a parade down the Garvaghy- or indeed Ormeau- roads would set back community relations a decade- not to mention put the SDLP’s involvement with policing on a life support machine.
We should all hope that the non-Orange appointees are up to scratch on this one, or I confidently predict this commission will blow this place apart next summer.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 07:58 PMLooks like the DUP have their wish. Paisley said in Spetember that “the commission is anti-unionist and anti-Orange and we left the Secretary of State in no doubt that it is part of the problem and cannot remain.
“We will be presenting him with a paper to deal with these issues in the coming days.”Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 08:02 PMLike the way you tried to down play the main story Pete by adding Burrows as a footnote in your intro…
More imagined bias. Sheesh.
I blogged the story as it emerged.. and linked not just the BBC report, but the Press Association report - which focuses on Burrows appointment - as well as the NIO statement.
Btw the footnote, as you call it, is actually part of the main text of the post - rather than the extended section. And, rather than being a mere footnote, the positioning of the link to the Press Association report emphasises Burrows appointment, whose previous role I spelt out in full.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 08:11 PM*Posted by Pete Baker on Nov 30, 2005 @ 09:11 PM
More imagined bias. Sheesh.
I blogged the story as it emerged….. *You led with the appointment of a trade union official who had worked on the founding of Unison. This appointment makes sense in light of the presumed negotiating abilities involved in creating a large union and couldn’t be seen as controversial.
Then there’s the mention of the member from the Woman Coalition, which could be considered a cross community element to the deviscive parades issue.
Lastly you mentioned that there was also an appointment of one of the leading Orangemen from one of the most militant lodges which encompasses Portadown (scene of the annual Drumcree disgrace). Therefore the most newsworthy piece is left ‘til last of three – a classic case of horse before the cart or are you just parrotting the propaganda from the NIO.A Portadown Orangeman on the Parades Comm – isn’t that like the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Funnier still is that Pete Baker doesn’t think that this might be a lead item on a NI blog and defends his post by saying ..well the Beeb and the NIO reported things like I did…!??!
You can’t see this but I’m shaking my head in dismay.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 10:52 PMNiall
As it emerged is how it emerged. If you think that the linkage between Burrows and the Orange Order is in some way hidden you’re mistaken in both what you think and what everyone else can see. All the relevant information is there and no report is neglected in the post.
For example, you’ve conveniently missed the one quote I did pick out from the NIO statement, by Peter Hain -
“I am particularly pleased that two people with personal understanding and experience of the Orange Order and the cultural importance of parades have been appointed to the Commission.”
Seriously guys, this is becoming boring. Take issue with what I say if you want, but leave your own prejudice at home.
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 11:19 PMOur very own martin is very put out that he wasn’t asked :)
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 11:53 PMLOL,
Posted by on Nov 30, 2005 @ 11:58 PMAs far as Im concerned FYU,Bertie and myself should BE the parades commission.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 12:00 AMA Portadown Orangeman on the PC means something rather different to me.
Peter Hain this am talked about appointments made on merit. The appointment process is usually in such circumstances drawn from a list of people who collectively contain the qualities needed of the Commission (or public body) as a whole.
While it is a merit order process, someone with certain highly desirable qualities might not be in an appropriate position on a list to be chosen if the order was 1,2,3..from the point of view of wanting the PC to move to a different role and concilaite between the OO and the Gravaghy Residents, what better person than Burrowes to appoint?
I would take those lower Eastwoods odds.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 09:06 AMDavid Burrows is/was one of the more progressive Orangement. He attended a parades commission sponsored jaunt to South Africa and nearly got the lodge banned - by the Orange Order itself - from marching at Drumcree as a result: http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=535896
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 09:42 AMNiall: A Portadown Orangeman on the Parades Comm – isn’t that like the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
It’s a bit like getting SF onto the Police Authority, isn’t it? Oh - wait - that’s intended to improve acceptance of the PSNI. The OO has spent ages complaining about the Parade’s Commission - this could help.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 09:49 AMIrishman
“This is another sop to unionism. ‘Packing the court’ with orangemen is not a surprising development, given the antics of the British government recently.”
The political community with the largest mandate may have been listened too oh dear how terrible.
Maybe now you’ll take Unionist concerns over exclusion on the NIHRC and Equality Commission a little more sympathetically now.
No Unionist is jumping for joy over this. It is still bad law whoever is expected to implement it and people have the good sense to realise that one set of commissioners who may have more understanding can be replaced next time with people who don’t so the core issues need to be addressed.“roads would set back community relations a decade”
Community relations have deterioriated in the last decade so going back a decade would be an improvement;)
“I confidently predict this commission will blow this place apart next summer. “
I trust you are not suggesting there will be nationalist violence against Parades commission decisions after all every nationalist contributor on here went boogaloo over such activities around the Whiterock parade.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 10:01 AMThis is what the DUP asked for however like the rate relief on Orange Halls there is a sting in the tail. Commenting on the new way the Commission will operate Peter Hain has made it clear that the Institution will have to engage with residents. I wonder what the Institution’s attitude will be when the DUP appointed Pararades Commission ban a parade.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 10:06 AMsteve48
1. It isn’t what the DUP asked for. They asked for fundamental changes to the Parades Commission (see below).
2. David Burrows and Donald McKay have a much closer relationship with the UUP than the DUP.While I understand why the UUP is copying the DUP strategy during its period of opposition of blame everything on the agreement and the UUP this claim doesn’t work. The UUP have managed to wrongfoot the DUP on a number of occasions since Christmas but this has been when they took a positive step e.g. Empey putting parades centre stage (Campbell sheepishly copied him about six weeks later) and the UUP handling of IRA decommissioning.
Press Statement of 8/11/05
A Democratic Unionist Party delegation comprising Deputy Leader Peter Robinson MP MLA, Nigel Dodds MP MLA and David Simpson MP MLA, has today met with the Security Minister Shaun Woodward to discuss issues surrounding parades and the Parades Commission. Speaking after the meeting at Stormont Castle, Peter Robinson said,
“There can be few people in Northern Ireland who believe that the Parades Commission is not part of the problem in parading and is certainly not the solution. This unelected and unaccountable quango has made inconsistent determinations, punished those who obey the law by banning their parades and thus reward those who engage in violence and has encouraged dialogue and then thrown it back in people’s faces. The Parades Commission does not and never will enjoy the support of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.”
Nigel Dodds added,
“Solving the parades problem is key to establishing stability in our society and making political progress. This issue must be comprehensively resolved in a satisfactory fashion immediately. It is no good tinkering around the edges. Fundamental root and branch reform is what is required. Today we made this perfectly clear to the Government.”
David Simpson concluded,
“The performance of the Parades Commissions has left it totally discredited and it cannot form the basis of a way forward on parading. Tinkering around the edges will not achieve the sort of changes that are required to resolve this most important problem.”Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 10:18 AMI was doing some work a fortnight ago with a group heavily involved in facilitating mediation and the parading issue. They were suggesting that this was the DUP’s wish list since removal of the Commission was not an option. I understand from news reports that Donald McKay is now a member of the DUP. The fundamental change appears to be that those engaging in positive dialogue will be rewarded.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 11:26 AMsteve48
So Mediation Network or someone of that type told you what the DUP’s position was. Hmmm.
“The fundamental change appears to be that those engaging in positive dialogue will be rewarded.”
Hain’s comment about cross-community consensus in the Irish Echo interview would put a question mark over that claim.
http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=17426You also seem to have changed somewhat - your first posting said it was simply appointments to the PC is what the DUP wanted now a different approach was asked for too.
There is also an outstanding review where change can be achieved.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 12:16 PMUnionists should learn to live with the current rate of only around 0.5% of Loyalist marches that are banned, and 4.5% that are re-routed. That still leaves 2,550 that are neither banned nor re-routed, according to PSNI website figures.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 03:25 PMNationalists should learn to walk the walk of human rights instead of talking the talk.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 03:29 PMI, and the majority of the Loyalist community do not recognise any unaccountable Charades/Parades Commission which denies our community fundamental basic human rights. If the appointment of David Burrows was an NIO ploy to garner Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist support and respect for the Commission, it has failed miserably…
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 03:37 PMFair_Deal, there is no absolute right to take an anti-Catholic parade into a Catholic area.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 03:37 PMBB,
Give me examples of anti-Roman Catholicism at parades, because I don’t hear it…Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 03:49 PMBrian Boru
Only one absolute human right exists and that is not to be tortured or subject to degrading treatment.
I have yet to read any human rights document that identifies “Catholic” areas as subject to any special human rights protection - maybe I’ve missed it and you can provide it. Areas do not have human rights, human rights protection lies with the individual.
There is no limitation on article 9, 10 or 11 of the ECHR on the basis an individual or collection of individuals disliking the individuals or collection of individuals seeking to exercise them. In fact the reverse the presumption of human rights is that the price of enjoyment of rights is not to deny them to others.
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 04:08 PM“BB,
Give me examples of anti-Roman Catholicism at parades, because I don’t hear it…”The OO banners emblazened with Oliver Cromwell, who called the Irish “Barbarous wretches” and slaughtered os sold into slavery 400,000 of them. Here in Wexford, he rounded up at least 700 men, women and children in the Bull Ring area and put them to the sword.
He passed a law banning Irish Catholics living west of the Shannon i.e. most of the island. And he executed Catholic clergy.
So now you can understand why Cromwell-emblazened banners might be a little offensive....
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 05:26 PMBB,
How many hundreds of years ago was this? Time to move on me thinks, by looking forward and not back.But to humour you I will address your point. Am I not right in saying that Cromwell came over AFTER Roman Catholics committed the first ever sectarian killings in Ireland, murdering thousands of Protestant “heretics” at Portadown (I believe the figure was 30-40,000), by burning, drowning and/or butchering them?
I’m not saying I believe in an “eye for an eye”, but before Cromwell came over from the Irish Sea, Protestants here were the persecuted, repressed peoople…
Posted by on Dec 01, 2005 @ 06:20 PM
