Statement by TUV North Down Westminster candidate and member of the Loyal Orders William Cudworth:
“Comments in recent days from the DUP on the parading issue will be met with suspicion by anyone who recalls the “graduated response”.
“For months TUV kept pressure on the executive Unionist parties to do something and follow through on their promises to respond politically to the North Belfast decision. In the end we discovered that despite both DUP and UUP pretending they had not even negotiated on parading, the separate Stormont Castle Agreement, which was secret till flushed out by TUV, exposed their deception by revealing that not only had they agreed new structures but sought the funding for such. Such duplicity typifies why so many have lost confidence in these parties.
“Those who now – again – make grand promises about what they will do for the Loyal Orders will be viewed with more than a little scepticism.
“TUV wants to see the Parades Commission abolished but that should not be seen as an end in itself. Replacing the Parades Commission with another quango which makes the same decisions leaves us no further forward.
“The proposals which came out of the Stormont House talks on the parading issue are totally unacceptable. They make it clear that “meaningful and sustained local dialogue” will be at the heart of any new regulatory system. Tellingly, Stormont House suggests that legislation on setting up a new body will be brought forward in the month after the election.
“TUV rejects this underhand treatment of the electorate. We believe that the voters should be fully informed on this issue when going to the polls. What have the parties – particularly the Unionist parties – got to hide?
“With regards to our own position, TUV believes that the starting point of any legislation ought to be a statutory affirmation and protection that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is paramount. This would give primacy to this fundamental human right in any balancing exercise necessary in determining between competing rights, with the resulting onus on those wishing to displace the fundamental right.
“Legislation ought to specifically declare that where a parading route is historically traditional such will be a strong material consideration in reaching any determination. Likewise, in pursuit of the concept of shared space, the legislation should specify that arterial routes, which are substantially non-residential, should carry a statutory presumption in favour of parading.”