Debate contribution: Parades Commission: Public Confidence
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- Parades Commission: Public Confidence
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5669528
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Many constituents watching the Assembly proceedings today will be asking themselves whether they have woken up in 2026 or 1996. I am fortunate, thankfully, to be of a generation that is too young to remember the pain and suffering of the Drumcree dispute, but I am wise enough to know that Drumcree was an utterly grim period in our history. It ruptured community relations; roadblocks and disorder were common; people were denied service in shops on the basis of their community background; and many in our community tragically lost their life, including the three young Quinn boys. I think of that family today. It is not surprising that, in the absence of any vision for the present or, indeed, the future, some will seek to hark back to some of the most painful and divisive episodes of our past. It is less picking at an old wound and more something akin to picking at a scab with a chainsaw. There are no winners in seeking to go back to that hellscape. I do not disagree with other Members when they say that the Parades Commission's latest determination was flawed: the court is clear that it was. I am as frustrated as anybody else that such a sensitive issue has so clearly been mishandled, and it is right that the Secretary of State launch an independent review. However, that is not an excuse to seek to relive the past simply for the hell of it or to rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the fact that there has been progress in Portadown as a result of the Parades Commission's determinations over 28 years. I was at a good relations event with people from across our community in the People's Park just off the Garvaghy Road a matter of weeks ago. That is a sign of the progress that has been made in that community. Some 93% of parades can now happen in Northern Ireland with no conditions at all, so it does not have to be a simple zero-sum game of winners and losers, and none of us should wish to jeopardise that progress. I have consistently said that it would be far more powerful for Portadown district to state that it believes that it is entitled to march down the Garvaghy Road but will forgo doing so in recognition and respect of the deep wounds that are yet to heal across our community. Just this summer, we saw what a blueprint for positive and not provocative cultural expression can look like. The fleadh created space for everybody, regardless of their background, identity and tradition, to come together and express their culture positively. That is the conversation that we should be having in Portadown in 2026, not reopening the wounds of the past. Most of our constituents today want to focus on the future. We owe it to them to be respectful and sensitive about the past, not to relive it but to live generously in the present and, crucially, always have our eyes trained on the future.
512 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.12 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.78).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.36 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.43 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.22 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.64 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.28 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:12 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.