Platform Piece by Tom Elliott MLA as published in the Belfast Newsletter today:

Following many determinations made in relation to Loyal Order parades, including the recent Twelfth Ardoyne judgement, it is clear that the vast majority of the Unionist community has lost all respect and trust in the ability of the Parades Commission to make decisions which are balanced, equitable or transparent.
 
This puts our police in the precarious position of being required to service and implement these poor decisions and puts localised community relations back by years. The Ulster Unionist Party wants all violence to end, it wasn’t justified in the past and it’s not justified now.
 
It is therefore long overdue that progress is made on replacing this unaccountable body. The imminent cross Party talks which are to be chaired by Richard Haass offer the opportunity for agreement on a replacement.
 
The prospect of a breakthrough should provide an opportunity for positive engagement and attempt to find a lasting resolution. The Ulster Unionist Party will certainly enter these talks with hope and in a positive frame of mind, while being conscious that Republicans will always be demanding the unachievable.
 
However, what cannot be countenanced is a return to the botched proposals brought forward by the DUP and Sinn Fein in the aftermath of the Hillsborough Agreement in 2010.
 
Key stakeholders such as the Orange Order, as well as the vast majority of those who responded to the consultation, recognised many of the fatal flaws within this Sinn Fein/DUP led legislation.
 
Most striking was that it completely failed to recognise the importance of protecting and fostering the right to peacefully parade as inherent in a democratic society. This is something which is of course enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore must be upheld.
 
Further to that, the Ulster Unionist Party has major concerns about the lack of consideration of the outworkings contained within the proposals of balancing of new rights against the protection of peaceful assembly and association.
 
There are also huge concerns about an excessive regulatory approach. The creation of a number of new bodies to replace the Parades Commission, the increased requirements which would be placed on parade organisers and the detailed provisions around dialogue, including the involvement of third persons, should all sound alarm bells for those whose objective is to maintain traditional expressions of cultural heritage.
 
The unique opportunity afforded by the Haass talks must not be lost through using the flawed proposals from 2010 as a starting point in finding a way forward on parading. They simply do not represent a beneficial way forward for Unionism and senior DUP figures privately accepted that at the time.
 
There may now be opportunities to resolve these matters, however that will require goodwill! Let us ensure that whatever arrangement comes forward that it will leave little wriggle room for Republican groups to increase their cultural warfare against the Loyal Orders and put new areas into contention and new barriers in the way of lawful cultural expression.