Sein Fein parades itself

In the Newsletter and in my local papers, it was reported that a parade, which took place in Fermanagh on New Years Day, was illegal. The parade was said to be illegal because no request had been made to the Parades Commission to hold it.

Last year, as the Policing and Justice devolution wrangle was at its height, Sinn Fein vigorously opposed any proposed scrapping of the Parades commission. Both Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams stated that DUP proposals to scrap the commission as a pre-condition of the transfer of Police and Justice was totally unacceptable. What is “sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander,” as they say. Sinn Fein will not be able to find a political excuse for breaking the law, if that is what has happened.

This particular parade is an annual event. Normally, it would not be in the news. Sinn Fein attracted criticism about it because, in furtherance of their politics, they published a report about the parade on their website.

I have been to numerous 12^th July parades and St. Patrick’s Day parades. This was the first time that I had witnessed a purely republican parade. I had been invited to it by a friend of mine, himself a republican. I decided to go, with a view to learning from the experience.

The location of the procession was in a remote area of the Fermanagh countryside, known as Moane’s cross, near Roslea. It is highly unlikely that there would have been any bystanders.

The story of the failed attack by the IRA on an RUC barracks more than 54 years ago is legendary within the republican movement. It formed part of the IRA border campaign of 1956-1962. Two of the attackers, Sean South and Fergal O’Hanlon, were killed in the incident. There is a well known song about the incident called “Sean South from Garryowen.”

South was from Limerick. When I was in my teens, I lived with my family in Limerick. I have sung the song many times. It was not until I came to live in Fermanagh that, years later, I became aware that the song referred to an incident within living memory.

At the site where South and O’Hanlon were killed, located by the side of a road, is a monument. The procession began from a distance of about 150 yards and ended at the monument. When the procession ended, the commemoration continued in front of the memorial. The ceremony included the playing of Amhrán na bhFiann (the Irish national anthem) by a solo flautist, a speech by Sinn Fein Councillor, Sean Lynch and another speaker saying the Rosary. The use of the Rosary on such an occasion would have offended many who are of the Catholic faith. It also provided a stark illustration of how Sinn Fein uses sectarianism to promote its politics.

The concluding speech by Sean Lynch began with a mention of previous IRA campaigns. The results of those campaigns were presented as a triumph. There were no surprises there. Then the “Elephant” (the dissident IRA) swam into my mind. As you would expect, the dissidents were not mentioned in any of the speeches. However, they must have been in the thoughts of some of those present. Even the most tongue-artful republican would find it very difficult to distinguish the current dissident IRA campaign from previous IRA campaigns.

The last part of Lynch’s speech was about Sinn Fein’s future political prospects.  Lynch discussed the general election on the horizon in the Republic of Ireland and the Assembly Elections in Northern Ireland, emphasising his party’s credentials as the only “All-Ireland” political party. He finished with a plea to young and intelligent people to come forward to join Sinn Fein.

After the ceremony, we went to the local hall where tea and food were waiting. In the hall were exhibited three old weapons of the sort used at the time of the 1957 attack. These included a Bren light machine Gun and a Thompson Sub-machine gun

It was an enjoyable and insightful afternoon.

The Project to bring about normal politics will go on, whatever the election result

Some 10 months ago, I argued on this blog that the Conservatives and Unionists should extend their pact to regional elections in order to promote a more stable alliance.   

That suggestion now looks very much like an understatement.  In truth, the Conservative/UUP pact is probably so unstable that without an extended agreement, it was likely to come apart at the seams very quickly.  As the P & J crisis reached its climax, the cracks started to appear along the fault lines in the pact.   Those fault lines tend to run along unresolved cultural political issues.  Parades, which became a component of the P & J crisis is one of them.  The Irish Language may well turn out to be another. 

As Conservatives and Ulster Unionists lick their wounds over their disagreements on Policing and Justice, the membership of each party will be looking to its leaders for direction on where to go from here.  The General Election is only a few weeks away.  It is all very well to say that the UCUNF candidates will follow the National Conservative manifesto and we can deal with regional politics after the election.  That will not wash with Northern Ireland voters.  They will want to know what contribution the parties have to make together at regional level.  With the disagreements recently emerging over P & J, it will be very easy for the Northern Ireland voter to conclude “not very much.”

This morning, in his piece in the Sunday Times, Liam Clarke has written very much “below the belt” and put the boot in to UCUNF, happily exposing disagreements within the Conservative Party about the pact.  He has included the views of Sir Patrick Cormack, who is due to retire as an MP at the General Election.  Of course, Clarke has never had an optimistic word to say about our project since its inception. 

Whilst I would agree, painfully and reluctantly, with most of what Clarke says, there is one comment which I can cheerfully disagree with. He says this:

“If Empey’s party gets no seats, Cameron will drop it like a hot potato and the DUP will revert to its old policy of crushing it into the ground.”

Clarke has read Cameron quite wrongly in this regard.  The idea that he would want to throw away two years of hard work just because of a poor showing in Northern Ireland at the General Election is totally inconsistent with all that I know about David Cameron and his commitment to Northern Ireland.  In the event that UCUNF win no seats, there will undoubtedly be internal enquiry and debate but the two parties (who both want normal politics) will conduct it together and try to reach a consensus on the lessons to be learned and the way forward. 

Whatever the outcome of the General Election, the effort to bring about normal politics will continue and David Cameron’s weight will be behind it.

Lord Mandelson accuses Cameron of Playing politics with Northern Ireland

In the Politics Show today, Northern Ireland became part of the battleground between the Conservative and Labour Party.  I have transcribed below what was said in both interviews.  Firstly, Jon Sopel (“JS”) asked questions of David Cameron.

 JS       I want to talk about Northern Ireland as well which is an issue that has come up.  Why do you think it would be a good idea for your Northern Ireland spokesman to have…to have …been involved in a secret meeting. involved in …seem to be involved in setting up some pan-unionist front for the election?

DC      Well because what we want to do is to promote, particularly amongst the unionist parties the idea that the devolution of policing and justice is vitally important for completing devolution and for putting this on a stable footing and I think that’s actually a positive role that the Conservative Party can help to play and I think it is…you can see

JS       How can you be even-handed in dealing with all the parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the SDLP when you’ve been sitting out trying to form a deal with the Unionist Parties?

DC      I don’t think that it’s a problem at all.  The Conservative Party has a relationship with the Official Ulster Unionist Party.  We’re going to put up joint candidates in Northern Ireland.  That’s been announced and is well known.  The Labour Party has a very close relationship with the SDLP members of Parliament.  They take the Labour Whip.  They sit with them in the House of Commons.  They vote and work together.  SO if your making accusations that I can’t be even-handed you8 have to make the same accusations against the Prime Minister that he can’t be even-handed.  Frankly, both accusations are wrong because the Prime Minister and I both support full scale devolution, including Policing and Justice.  We want that to happen.   There’s no difference between us on that.  When it comes to actually negotiating the Policing and Justice devolution where there is a very substantial potential bill for the British taxpayers the Conservative Party could not have been more helpful or more accommodating.  We’re one of the most supportive oppositions when it comes to Northern Ireland than we’ve had in our history.  I’m very proud of that because I want to see devolution happen.

JS       So what do you say to the charge that at best you’ve been naïve and at worst you’ve acted dangerously and jeopardised things.

DC      I think its just wrong.  I think everyone can see from the difficulty that’s taking place in these negotiations – that the difficulty is frankly between Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Democratic Unionist Party on the other – and they are having problems agreeing what is absolutely vital.  Now the question I ask myself is, “Is the Conservative Party playing a constructive role in encouraging – particularly the Unionist Parties, the ones we have frankly a closer relationship with in the House of Commons.  Are we playing a constructive role in encouraging devolution to take place?  Yes we are.  That’s a good thing

 Later in the programme, Jon Sopel interviewed Lord Mandelson who said this.

“They’re playing politics in Northern Ireland.  They’re seeking electoral advantage for the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland at the expense of the peace process and the devolved Government.  It’s very irresponsible and I suggest the all desist.

“They’re playing politics between the Unionist Parties and in doing that, they’re going to undermine the cohesion amongst unionists and thus undermine their confidence in making pretty tough decisions about where the peace process goes from here.  So I think they need to stand back – not seek party advantage and support the peace process.

Mr. Paterson, will you please clear the air for us

Last Weekend, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson, held a “secret” meeting with leaders of the DUP and the UUP.

At first sight, such a meeting would have seemed logical and sensible. With Sinn Fein threatening to bring down the Executive over Policing and Justice, seemingly more likely as a result of the Iris Robinson scandal, it would make sense to have these meetings to enable Mr. Paterson to be on top of his game when he assumes office as the New Northern Ireland Minister.  

According to a report by Henry McDonald in the Observer today, three of our prospective parliamentary candidates have resigned from the Party nomination because the talks were about entering into a political pact.  That is certainly a loss to the Conservatives and to the Northern Ireland electorate.  Of the three, I do know Sheila Davidson.  She would have made an exceptionally good candidate.   In response to the Observer report, Ian Parsley, who was present when the three resigned their nomination, has denied that the withdrawal of these three were anything to do with a prospective pact with the DUP.   Two of the three were Catholics.  That seems to be nothing more than an unfortunate co-incidence.   Perhaps Henry McDonald will have egg on his face for latching on to an assumption. 

I find it difficult to believe that Northern Ireland Conservatives are calling for Mr. Paterson’s head.  Mr. Paterson has done so much good work to give meaning to the Conservative cause in Northern Ireland.  He would not throw all that away in a “sectarian carve up.”  However, there is no doubt that Conservatives in Northern Ireland have been unnerved by the talks with the DUP. 

A statement from a conservative spokesman did indicate that the Conservatives would not be entering into any sectarian pact. I quote from the Observer report

“We remain absolutely committed to putting up 18 Conservative and Unionists candidates at the next general election to offer the people of Northern Ireland national, non-sectarian normal politics. Nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours deflects us from that,” the spokesman said. “We are absolutely clear that we will not be entering any sectarian pact. We remain committed to our existing pact with the Ulster Unionists, but David Cameron will do absolutely nothing that undermines political stability or puts the peace process at risk.”

So what exactly have the Conservatives agreed with the DUP that might be so unpalatable?   What does the last phrase in that statement mean exactly?

An agreement over the contesting of seats at the General Election? – The Conservatives have always consistently stated they would field 18 candidates.  They will not change that position.  It has been suggested that the DUP have offered not to field candidates in two of the seats in return for something else.  This is unlikely.  It would amount to a sectarian pact by the back door.    

An agreement not to vote against the Conservatives in the Commons if there is a hung Parliament?

There is nothing wrong, in principle, with negotiating terms with another party given this scenario, so long as the price is right.  If the price means adopting a policy which is inherently sectarian, such as the DUP position on parades (see below), it most certainly is not.

An agreement over the terms for devolution of Policing and Justice? – It is worth noting that as the UK Government, the Conservatives will have to take a neutral position on P & J with the object of bridging the gap between the DUP and Sinn Fein, if that is possible.  However, if Assembly elections are imminent, the Conservatives and the UUP are going to have to declare their hand in relation to the terms under which P & J should be devolved.

No matter how reasonable the Ashdown proposals may sound to people who do not live in Northern Ireland, they do not justify the abolition of the Parades Commission on merit.  The Commission now has years of experience and expertise behind it.  Support for the Parades Commission has grown within the Unionist community as they note its contribution to peace on the streets. 

Thirty seven of Northern Ireland’s 54 MLAs are members of the Orange Order.  The DUP policy on parades (and probably that of the UUP) has the stamp of Orange influence.  It is not a policy which is beneficial to Northern Ireland.  Furthermore, adoption of such a policy would be perceived as being sectarian.  The Conservative Party can not afford to be associated with it.

An agreement not to go into the Northern Ireland Government if Sinn Fein are the Largest Party at Stormont?

It is now possible, perhaps even likely, that the UUP will once again be the largest unionist party at Stormont after the Assembly elections but not necessarily the largest party.  The OFM and ODFM are equal in terms of power.  It does not surprise me that the DUP would refuse to nominate a DFM but what about the UUP?   If that is the UUP policy, it is wrong.  The Conservatives should be above that kind of childish nonsense.  They can not afford to be seen to support it.  In any event, it would be inconsistent with advancing the peace process. 

There are now rumours that the UUP is to enter into a compact agreement with the DUP in order to ensure they are the largest “party” at Stormont – thus preventing Sinn Fein from being able to nominate First Minister.  Well, that one would also have to go through the Courts, including the Appeal Courts and could fail in them.   Such an agreement, even if legal, would be the most sectarian of sectarian agreements.  If that is what the UUP want to do, it is hard to see how the Conservatives can enter into any agreement with the UUP on assembly elections. 

Has the Conservative leadership sold its soul in order to get more seats or buy an insurance policy for a hung parliament?  Without the information in the public arena, it is too early to judge but Owen Paterson now needs to answer those questions in detail in order to clear the air.

An opportunity for the UUP?

Sometimes politicians are faced with pivotal decisions.  They know that it they get the decision right, they will gain huge political credibility.  If they get it wrong, they will have done themselves terrible damage.   It is the equivalent of walking into that fantasy room with two doors.  One leads to Glory.  The other leads to underachievement or disaster. 

In the last couple of months, the main political theatre has been the negotiations between the DUP and Sinn Fein, with the Government acting as honest broker over the devolution of Policing and Justice.  In my previous post on this subject, I wrote a sketch about the DUP aeroplane which was in trouble.   All the main political players were in that sketch, except one – the increasingly frustrated and discontented Northern Ireland electorate.

A few days ago, the Belfast Telegraph reported on an extraordinary poll which was about the popularity of politicians.  Unionist politicians have not commented about that poll officially.  They will have been shocked and appalled to learn that not only is Martin McGuinness the most popular minister.  Some of his popularity is coming from the Unionist side.  By contrast, Peter Robinson is one of the most unpopular politicians.

I have argued before that we need more opinion polls in Northern Ireland because they do help to drive political thinking.  In fact, I would be quite happy to excahnge Government money spent on one of the useless Northern Ireland quangos with research into popular opinion instead.

Putting together this poll and the TV coverage of workshops which discuss the views of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, there seems to be a clear (cross-community) pattern emerging of frustration that politicians are not able to do business together under the power-sharing arrangements.  

The unpopularity of politicians such as Peter Robinson and Catriona Ruane are the result of perception that they are intransigent and unwilling to compromise.   All politicians in Northern Ireland ought to take these developments very seriously.  The poliltical party on the Unionist side that grasps this nettle the fastest is the one most likely to prosper in the medium and long term future.

So where does this leave Peter Robinson? 

Two days ago, the Newsletter published an article by Liam Clarke.  The Article was a sketch depicting a “Dear Peter” letter to the First Minister.   It may have been mockery but it seemed to cut like a knife through butter.  The following soundbite could haunt Robinson for a long time

“You are like a chess player who takes every pawn you can, forgetting that that isn’t how the game is won.”

Clarke has reached the view, as I have, that Peter Robinson, having previously handled the P & J negotiations very well, has now lost ground.  He has ”over-cooked” his conditions for allowing the devolution to happen. 

Peter Robinson is no fool.  He will have calculated that he needed Sinn Fein to cave in on parades before he could count P & J devolution as a gain.   Tactically, he was right.  Strategically, he was wrong.   If he had not insisted on the abolition of the parades commission, he may have faced heavy fire from the right and from Jim Allister.  However, he would have been able to present himself as a Unionist politician that gets the business done.  

The UUP is in a difficult position at the moment.  Their policy on parades has hardly developed since the days of David Trimble and Drumcree.  Not much has been published about parades by the UUP lately with the exception, perhaps, of the fleeting reference by Sir Reg Empey at the UUP party conference speech.  He indicated that in the negotiations, parades had to be dealt with.  He did not elaborate. 

The UUP’s policy on devolution of P & J has until now been as sceptical as the DUP.  That must now change, as a matter of urgency.   With Gordon Brown having agreed to more funding, there is no security issue remaining which justifies the obstruction of the transfer of these powers.

I am fully aware that the Parades Commission is not the most popular official body with many in the UUP.  At the moment, the role of the Commission is being considered by Lord Ashdown’s committee on the strategic review on parading.  Furthermore, an interim report has recommended abolition of the commission with their powers to be replaced by local councils.

I am not going to write a lengthy article here about the merits of the UUP’s policy on parades.  With the Ashdown review not having completed its work, now is not the time.  I will just say that for the moment –  pending the outcome of that report and giving full consideration to it – I retain an open mind. 

I am not therefore going to suggest, at this stage, that the UUP change its policy in relation to the Parades commission.  However, I would ask its leaders to consider putting clear blue water between itself and the DUP.   It can decide that there should not be a negotiation linkage between the Parades issue and devolution of the transfer of Police and Justice powers. 

The DUP position is that it will not transfer P & J without the Parades Commission becoming abolished.  That stance is ridiculous.  It has no chance of being agreed by the Nationalists.  If the Ashdown recommendations are going to have any credibility with Nationalists, they firstly have to demonstrate that they have considered possible reform of the Commission in order to address whatever shortcomings they find with it.  Secondly, those findings have to overcome the argument that decisions would become compromised as being subject to political interference if decisions are given to Council officers.  That will be an uphill struggle for Ashdown but let us leave that argument for another day. 

There is no reason, as I have argued previously, why parades should be devolved at the same time as all other aspects of P & J.  I have suggested already that Sinn Fein could be asked to merely commit itself to giving consideration to the Ashdown proposals when they are finally published (without committing them). 

I would now like to see the UUP come out with a new policy statement.  That statement would make it clear that they can see a way in which the impasse can be broken.  In doing that, they would turn heads amongst the public.  Suddenly, they would become the party that can do buisiness with the other side.  That would be taking the door to glory.

For Peter Robinson, conceding on parades might be the lesser of two evils

Imagine a passenger aeroplane which is in deep trouble.  Three out of its four engines have ceased to function.  The fourth is badly damaged and could also malfunction soon.  The plane was originally on its way to a different airport but had to be diverted because of a bad winter storm but it might never reach its diverted destination.  Weather conditions are still very bad and the storm is threatening again.  At the moment, visibility is poor.  The pilot can not even see the ground.  Things are rather desperate.  If they can not land soon, they risk losing that last engine followed by disaster and tragedy.

Now let’s call that Aeroplane “the DUP”.  Had it flown to its original flight path, it would have topped the poll in the Euro Election and landed safely at its originally planned destination airport.  As it was, a storm broke out which we call “the TUV.”  As well as preventing the plane from landing, the storm caused the damage to  the plane’s four engines after it was diverted.   The pilot wishes desparately to land.  There is only one airfield nearby.  The airfield is called “police and justice.”  If they can land there, get time to refuel and fix the plane, they could all survive.  But there is just one other problem.  The airport has been taken over by a group of gangsters called Sinn Fein.  Sinn Fein want the DUP to land at their airport but they will only allow them supplies and time to fix their plane if they agree to certain conditions. 

All right, I am not the most talented story-teller when it comes to inventing make-believe and drama description.  However, this analogy does highlight a number of real political incidents that are happening to the DUP.  The certainties in this drama are that the DUP has been damaged but not yet finished.  It still holds out a slim hope of a recovery and being able to weather the TUV storm.  Much of that hope is now dependent on getting Policing and Justice devolved in a way which satisfies the majority of hard-line unionists.

A month ago, Liam Clarke wrote an article in the Sunday Times entitled “First Minister has played his cards right.  If you read it, you would think “hey presto, Peter’s done a blinder and can look forward to the spoils.”  However, within a week of that article, it was obvious that it was flawed as well as written prematurely.  Consider particularly these comments:

“The DUP is now in a position to push for a series of side deals under the guise of measures to build confidence among unionists. These include the abolition of the Parades Commission, the retention of the PSNI full-time reserve, a more relaxed regime on the issuing of personal protection weapons to retired members of the security forces, and a gratuity package for members of the RUC’s former part-time reserve.”

Well, we now know that the full-time reserve will not remain and that Jeffrey Donaldson is still snarling.  We also know that Parades Commission is still a huge sticking point.  In fact, it is looking increasingly as though the lack of agreement on parades could be the sole reason that this crisis is not resolved.    

Why mention Liam Clarke’s article at all then?  Clarke should have waited until there was a formal announcement that the negotiations had concluded.  However, in many respects, Clarke’s article was right.  Peter Robinson had indeed played a ‘blinder’ on almost all aspects of the negotiations up to that point.  Even now, if he can put together a package which satisfies most of the unionists (including most hard-line unionists) he could well survive to see off the threat from the TUV. 

Unfortunately for Peter Robinson, the old proverb “a miss is as good as a mile” applies appropriately to his good work on Police and Justice.  If he fails on this, his failure will be absolute.  

His prospects of success do not look good.  The issue of parades seems to be one which the parties will not be able to resolve between them.  In the larger scheme of things, the DUP’s demands are unreasonable at the present time.  A lot of good and difficult work has been carried out by the Parades Commission.  Many streets and communities are safer and many parades are now peaceful because of its existence.  In an earlier post on this subject, I argued that Policing and Justice could be devolved without parades and that the latter could be devolved at a later time to give the best chance for public confidence in the new ministry to build.  Perhaps that is a concession that Sinn Fein could agree to.

That is not how Peter Robinson sees it, and with good reason.  Much of the support that was lost to the TUV in the European elections would be of Unionist voters who regard the Parades Commission with contempt.  Therefore its abolition would certainly be a feather in Robinson’s cap in his competition with Jim Allister.

Abolition of the parades commission is also too much of a concession for Sinn Fein to make.  Speaking to the BBC a few days ago, Martin McGuinness repeated Sinn Fein’s position

“it was “absolutely preposterous” to make a demand on behalf of the Orange Order for the abolition of the Parades Commission”

From its own political perspective, Sinn Fein can not afford to concede to the DUP on parades.  It has even rejected, out of hand, the recommendations contained in the interim report on the strategic review of parading headed by Lord Ashdown.   Taking these two positions together, it seems unlikely that we will see the devolution of Police and Justice during this Assembly – or is it?

Martin McGuinness is now blackmailing the travellers on that DUP aeroplane.  He has given the DUP until Christmas to set an actual time for the devolution of Police and Justice.  It is the equivalent of saying “If you don’t land on our terms within this time limit, you will not be able to repair your plane and you will have no supplies.”  It is still foggy and now a snow storm and blizzards are affecting the runway.  So what does Robinson do?

He really has no choice but to land that plane.   To him, it may be the lesser of two evils.  If he does not, Martin McGuinness will probably carry out his threat to bring down the Executive and force fresh elections.  Robinson could be ousted as first minister within weeks.  It would leave the DUP in complete disarray.

Is Sinn Fein bluffing?  I dont think it is this time.  With the SDLP not knowing who its new leader will be until February, the timing of the ultimatum is perfect.

As we cast our minds back to just over a year ago, we remember Sinn Feins’s boycott of the Executive over the issue.  They were forced to give up their boycott without apparently having extracted any clear commitment from the DUP on the timing of P & J devolution.   They gave up their boycott after calculating that they would suffer electoral damage if they did not get down to the business of government.  So what has changed to embolden Martin McGuinness? 

The answer appears to be the change of the political landscape brought about by the TUV.   Sinn Fein now see a vulnerablility in the DUP which was lacking a year ago.  If the Executive is brought down, that brings fresh elections followed by Sinn Fein becoming the largest party at Stormont with McGuinness as First Minister.  If the Unionist Parties refuse to go into government with a Sinn Fein First minister, who gets the flack?  It would be the Unionists for being intransigent.  Sinn Fein then comes out “whiter than white” within the nationalist community having also gained an electoral mandate to push through P & J.

Peter Robinson is in a perilous position.  Perhaps his best option is to fudge the parades issue by asking Sinn Fein to commit to “considering” the final Ashdown report when it is made.  In practice, it would be no concession at all but it might save Robinson from complete humiliation.  Following that, he would then close his eyes and hope that his party can hold onto most of its existing parliamentary seats at the forthcoming General Election.  That might just give him enough time to get that plane repaired.  However, he still has to negotiate that storm and land it without crashing it!

Should Parades be devolved with Police and Justice?

Yesterday, I was kicking myself.

On Slugger O’Toole yesterday, there appeared two posts relating to the consequences about decisions relating to Parades. I was kicking myself because I had not thought about the impact of evolution of Police and Justice on decisions made relating to parades.

The Powers of the parades commission arise out of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. That Act sets out the powers of the Parades Commission and the Supervisory and Complementary Powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is not difficult to foresee a future Police and Justice Minister coming under attack and flack.  If, following devolution on parades,  a decision by the Commission or the new Minister goes against an interested party, it has the potential to undermine the building of confidence in the new Ministry.  I foresee the Minister being lobbied and pilloried in a stream of attacks at Minister’s question time by MLAs representing either the Orange Order or Resident’s Associations and making sectarian political mischief.

I am not saying that the Assembly is not the appropriate place to air political discord.  It does that already. Indeed, it has the ability to soak up sectarian issues and sometimes clear the air.

My fear is that a transfer of responsibility relating to parades is too much in one go.  It will need a minister of exceptional skill and ability to diffuse difficult issues without the added problems of parades.  I would like to see powers relating to parades being devolved sometime later in the future to enable public confidence in the new ministry to set in. 

Perhaps that proposal is no longer feasible.  Perhaps that would unravel the deal which has been made between the DUP and Sinn Fein to transfer these powers. Perhaps this is another reason why the Government should have included all the parties in the negotiations.

My wish now? – That my fears are unfounded.