Debate contribution: Parades Commission: Public Confidence
Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on .
- MLA
- Mr Justin McNulty
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 7 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- Parades Commission: Public Confidence
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5669534
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The recent legal action concerning Drumcree has clearly raised questions about the process followed by the Parades Commission. Those questions should be taken seriously. Where issues have been identified, they should be properly examined. Lessons should be learned, and confidence in the process maintained. We should, however, be careful not to allow questions about one determination to become an excuse to undermine the entire system. We should remember why the Parades Commission exists. Drumcree represents a horrible period in our recent history. It was a real low point for community relations, when confrontation spilled on to our streets, communities were divided and innocent men, women and children lost their lives. My heart goes out to the people of the Garvaghy Road, many of whom will be traumatised by the ugly Drumcree situation rearing its head again. For almost three decades, the Parades Commission has provided an independent process for adjudicating on parades and placing conditions on them where necessary. Thousands of parades take place across the North every year. The vast majority pass off peacefully and without controversy, with the commission's decisions accepted and respected. That is worth remembering amid some of the rhetoric of recent weeks, because there is something disturbing, sad and backward about seeing Drumcree forced back on to the present-day political agenda. There are those who want to turn it once again into tribal warfare, reopening old wounds, stoking grievance and dragging people back to some of the worst days of our past. It is hugely disappointing to see political parties fall in behind that. There are voices from across the community, including people with a long history in and a deep connection to the marching tradition, who recognise the danger of where that leads. It does not need to become another unionist/nationalist battle. Political leadership in 2026 should be about helping people navigate the challenges of the present day and giving them hope for the future, not about constantly dragging them back to the divisions of the past. Our health service is struggling, families cannot find homes and schools are under enormous pressure, and the Executive cannot even agree a Budget. People are entitled to expect political parties to have some strategy and some vision for addressing those challenges. It is harvest time in Armagh. Growers are bringing in the apple harvest and getting on with the work that sustains families and communities across our Orchard County. They deserve politicians who are focused on their future, not ones who are more interested in harvesting old grievances and dragging us back to the divisions of the past. Bríd Rodgers, who knows better than most the enormous human and political cost of Drumcree, was straightforward when she said, "Let sleeping dogs lie". There is wisdom in that. I ask Members here and the lodges this: what is the Christian thing to do? Remember that you reap what you sow. What we need now is responsible political leadership, cool heads, measured language and the determination not to stoke tension for short-term political advantage. We have spent nearly 30 years moving away from the politics that produced Drumcree.
Our responsibility is to keep moving forward, not to drag people back.
531 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: 0.13 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.21 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.30 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.05 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.75 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.20 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| 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.