Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2000
MR ALISTAIR
SIMPSON, MR
WILLIAM HAY
AND MR
DAVID HOEY
180. How would you suggest parades should be
regulated, if not the Parades Commission? Do you have any ideas
on that?
(Mr Simpson) No. As I have said previously, it is
up to those who are given the law and order of the land. It is
up to them to do it. But it must be done in the proper manner,
with whatever group is set up to deal with the particular point.
(Mr Hay) The Parades Commission was really borne out
of the North Report, which was certainly very biased against Loyal
Orders. I mean, the Apprentice Boys have always taken the attitude
that we will meet the Parades Commission when it suits us, we
will not go cap in hand, and we continually say to them, "As
far as we are concerned, you should not be here." We see
very clearly it should be a role for the RUC and for the legal
forces to deal with parades. For example, they banned the 11 November
parade in the Ormeau Road because of something that the Bogside
residents said to them, because the Bogside residents met them
and said, "We will threaten violence to the 2 December parade
in Londonderry if, more or less, you do not ban their Ormeau parade."
I mean, if you look at the Determination, the Determination says
that, very clearly, "Because of the threat of violence from
the Bogside Residents Group they have decided on this occasion
to ban the Ormeau Road parade." And then they tell us on
the other hand that they treat every parade individually and they
treat every parade on its own merits. I mean, it is difficult
to understand where they are coming from.
181. But you did say that you meet the Parades
Commission when it suits you. What success have you had? Have
you had successes from those contacts with the Parades Commission
that you can point to?
(Mr Simpson) The success that we have had is to do
with the Apprentice Boys themselves and the attitude that they
have taken when the Parades Commission has made its determination.
We have proved to the whole of Northern Ireland and to everyone
else that the Apprentice Boys do keep within the law. We are law
abiding people. As I said previously, I live on the west bank,
on a small Protestant estate. If I allowed the Apprentice Boys
to get out of hand on the parades, it would be an absolute failing
to the people that I live with in the west bank immediately afterwards.
So, although we may not agree with what the Parades Commission
are doing, we will keep within the law. But the Parades Commission
do not always come out for the sake of law and order. If the Bogside
Residents Group or any other group threaten violence—they
do not have to do it, it is just a threat—immediately the
businesses in Londonderry suffer and I have gone on the media
and said that I want to see the businesses being kept open and
a good day for all.
(Mr Hay) The very fact is that we as an organisation
have said, "Right, we will keep within the law," no
matter how difficult it is with the Parades Commission's determination,
but, unfortunately, the Parades Commission has used that, because
the residents group who threatens violence and in fact shows violence,
they come down on the side of that group. That is what the problem
is in Northern Ireland. It is very, very clear.
Mr Robinson
182. I wonder if, before I ask the question
I intend to ask, I can give you the opportunity to respond to
a comment that was made earlier by previous witnesses. We were
looking at the problem that arises with some of the parades, antisocial
problems: urinating in the streets, drunkenness, etc. One of your
parades was given as an example. I think I am right, Chairman—though
I may not be—in saying that it was the Shutting of the Gates
commemorative event (as opposed to the Relief—which might
have been more suitable!). At any rate, do you think that was
a fair comment? If it is a fair comment, what can you do about
it?
(Mr Simpson) Yes, it is a very fair comment, but can
I tell you that previous to me becoming Governor of the Apprentice
Boys—this is about 10 or 11 years ago—I actually reported
to the General Committee about the behaviour of Apprentice Boys
and bandsmen and followers, how they were using the Fountain Estate
as toilets, urinating all over the place. I accepted that and
I told them at that time that if they continued on the way they
were doing that it would not be the Nationalists that would be
putting them out of the west bank but it would be the Protestants
in the Fountain that would turn round and say, "You're not
welcome here any more." Now, having a large number of people
coming into the city on that day—and we have on the parade
as between bandsmen and Apprentice Boys anything up to 15,000
people—it is very hard to stop everyone, but we do provide
toilets. We get the Derry City Council, who work hand in hand
with us, to provide toilets in different parts of the area and
I can assure you that, although it may not be wiped out completely,
it has got to the stage now where people are saying it is an improvement.
But anyone who is found urinating that belongs to our Association
or the bands that are there, is severely dealt with. We have in
the past put people out of our organisation because of this behaviour
either one way or the other.
(Mr Hay) To follow on—
183. I am sorry, Mr Hay, maybe you could respond
to the supplementary, which is: Have any instructions or guidelines
been issued to clubs on this issue?
(Mr Hay) We have done a number of things, but, the
Governor is right, we were very conscious of the situation and
what we have done is we would meet with police. We have said to
the Chief Constable who we met a week ago: "Wherever the
buses are leaving from across the Province, you search those buses.
You go into those buses, if you find a can of beer on those buses,
not only do you prosecute the person with the tin of beer but
you return the whole bus." So we were saying to clubs very
clearly, "If you bring a band with you and if that band brings
drink onto the bus, not only is that bus returned but also the
bus belonging to the club is returned." We have made that
quite clear. We have been saying to the police that drink must
be confiscated before it reaches the city. I think last year and
the year previous we have now got a handle on this. There is more
work to be done to it, but very clearly we worked hand in hand
with the RUC, and, wherever buses are leaving from in the Province,
they search those buses in the morning to make sure there is no
drink coming into the city. Also we talked to licensed premises.
We indicated to licensed premises when they should be opening.
We have put a number of issues into place in the hope—in
the hope—that we can keep drink out of the city. I think
last year we were reasonably successful in doing that. In fact,
the Parades Commission commented last year—because they
had two people last year in the city looking at the parade—and
they said, "Yes, drink last year was not a problem in the
city at either of the parades."
184. Chairman, so as not to try your patience,
I will ask this supplementary on the same subject rather than
the question that I was going to ask, because I think this an
important issue. You might have some directional control over
Apprentice Boys clubs and their members. However, those of us
who have been involved in parades will know that the bands can
cause difficulties in some cases as well. I assume that there
is some responsibility placed upon the Club over the band. Is
that how it is carried out?
(Mr Simpson) Can I reply by saying that the General
Secretary, who was unable to be here today because of business
commitments, last year wrote out three individual letters of correspondence
the week before the August parade, to branches and bandsmen that
were coming to the city on parade, putting these points forward.
But, although we have no jurisdiction over a band as such, the
Branch that brings that band in has a jurisdiction over them,
and, therefore, if the band steps out of line, the General Committee
deals with the Branch Club concerned. And we have expelled bands
from our parades in the City of Londonderry and we have expelled
Branches and we have expelled individual members over the last
five/six years. We have acted because I will not have anyone come
to my city and use it as a toilet and go away again because I
expect anybody who comes into my city, no matter where they are
going or where they are from, to treat my town the same way as
they would treat their own. We have very strict rules on that
particular subject.
Mr Clarke
185. Good morning, gentlemen. In March 1999
there were press reports of meetings and discussions between the
Apprentice Boys and the Commission which at the time were designed
to improve the working relationship between your two bodies. What
became of those meetings?
(Mr Simpson) I am sorry, the Parades Commission are
you talking about?
186. Yes. There were press reports in March
1999 that there had been meetings between the Apprentice Boys
and the Commission.
(Mr Simpson) Well, the same thing as happened to all
the meetings that we had with the Parades Commission, when even
the Alistair Graham was in charge. They were meaningful discussions,
they were meetings that proved positive, but at the end of the
day they did not always bring a satisfactory answer to the problems
that we had.
187. Would it be fair to say that the intent,
which was to improve working relationships, was met?
(Mr Simpson) Not entirely, no.
(Mr Hay) I think the intent was very, very clear,
to say most clearly to the Parades Commission what we have said
on a number of occasions, that at the end of the day we can do
so much on the ground, we can meet and talk to people who want
to talk to us, we can convince people it is our right to celebrate
our culture in the city, but also then we say to the Parades Commission,
"It is very important that you come down on the side that
is right, that you are not always taking a decision on the threat
of violence." This is the point we were trying to get over
to them, that they were continually taking their decision because
of a threat of violence from people, whoever they come from. We
were trying to say that to the Parades Commission. Unfortunately,
I do not think that message has still got through to them.
188. Just moving on and trying to deal with
the consequences of that violence, earlier on you stated that
it was for others to keep law and order—I think you said
that it was a role for the RUC. I think you would accept that,
unfortunate though it is, for whatever reason some parades are
controversial and there is a real risk of damage to persons and/or
property. In those circumstances, what should be done? Should
the parade proceed, leaving the RUC and others to deal with the
consequences, irrespective of what they would be?
(Mr Simpson) We did say at the very beginning that
you do not always have 100 per cent of the people behind you in
agreement with the parade, but are the people who cause the violence
allowed to dictate to the rest of the population of that city
or town, wherever the parade is? Are the people of violence allowed
to dictate whether or not democracy should go ahead? I believe
they should not be. Those people are out solely to create violence
-and it has been proved. Last year the young Nationalist thugs
in the city did £5 million worth of damage to property and
businesses; the year before they did £4 million worth of
damage. It was in their own area, it was their own people, it
was their own people they were putting out of work. Can I be held
responsible for the damage that is done by thugs who are determined,
no matter what happens, that your civil rights should be corroded?
189. Is there an indication there then that
there is trouble irrespective of whether or not the parade does
or does not proceed? In those circumstances, even though the Parades
Commission had made a determination, there was still violence.
(Mr Simpson) The Parades Commission were told that
if they allowed a parade to go ahead and a small minority disagreed
with that, that there would be violence. That is why the business
people of Londonderry, every time there is a threat of violence,
close their shops. They do not have to carry out the threat, they
just have to threaten, and that is enough to cause the city damage.
But, I mean, as individuals and as a citizen of the city, I feel
that we have the right, provided we keep within the law, to commemorate
in whatever way we wish, and no-one, no matter if it be a Protestant
or a Roman Catholic, should have the right to turn round and say,
"You're not doing that," because that is where your
civil rights and your civil liberties and all the rest come from.
(Mr Hoey) If you read the papers, in and around the
city of Londonderry, you will find—and I am sure Mr Hay
can elaborate further on it if you would like—that there
is a problem with violence, casual violence, on the streets in
any case. Any Saturday afternoon there is a problem of juvenile
and youth crime within the city and that has to be dealt with.
You may be looking at it on a parade day because there is a justification
or a better excuse or whatever the reason is, you cannot sort
of say that this is just a problem on parade days; there is a
wider social problem within the city and that has to be dealt
with. That is not for the Apprentice Boys to deal with, but we
have to live with the consequences of that issue not being dealt
with in the longer term. On the issue of violence—and there
is a copy of this determination in the pack that was circulated—in
their efforts to deny the freedom of assembly under the Human
Rights Convention to the small parade along the Lower Ormeau,
the Parades Commission used Article 8, which is the freedom to
a peaceful family life, and suggested that that must be protected.
The people who were from that community coming out on the street,
disturbing and bringing disorder to the street, bringing people
from all over Belfast, as we saw before—because, of the
people arrested and convicted at the previous violent encounter
on the Lower Ormeau, very few of them came from the Lower Ormeau
community themselves. But in doing all that, somehow freedom of
assembly is denied because the people who are coming out are not
at home to have their family life disturbed, are not at home to
be the reason why this right over here is going to be denied.
I mean, it raises a serious point about what is the use of the
Human Rights Act. Is it there simply to cover up disorder and
cover up things in other ways? Or is it there for the issue of
freedom of assembly? I think you have to start looking at what
are the issues at hand. We are not saying violence is not an issue,
but it has to be taken within its own context and dealt with within
its own context and you have to at some point stand up to violence.
Yes, if there is a risk, you may have to take that risk, but the
Apprentice Boys I believe are a responsible organisation and are
cognisant of the risk and cognisant of the circumstances on the
day. People also have to trust organisations to be responsible
in their community and in society but not to protect us from our
responsibilities the way that they are protecting others from
their responsibilities—or their irresponsibilities.
(Mr Simpson) Last Saturday in the city centre there
was a bomb scare and it closed down businesses in the city centre.
If it happens this Saturday, during the Apprentice Boys' parade,
the Apprentice Boys will get the blame for it, but it is happening
on a regular basis in the city.
(Mr Hay) A controversial parade can be anywhere in
Northern Ireland. If a Republican group decides to set themselves
up besides that group is headed by a Republican, and was to indicate
very clearly to the public that this parade is controversial,
it will be controversial. That is the problem in Northern Ireland.
It could be anywhere. It does not have to be Londonderry,
190. I think my only point was that it as an
organisation you would be happy to allow the RUC to deal with
such problems if they arose.
(Mr Simpson) Certainly.
(Mr Hay) I think at the end of the day the RUC is
the lawful authority. None of us has any choice but to allow the
RUC to deal with them
Mr Beggs
191. Good morning, gentlemen. May I first of
all declare my membership of the Apprentice Boys Club whose members
went on parade and whose accompanying band is on parade at all
times with responsibility and has never caused any offence at
any time. Having said that, gentlemen, do you consider that in
principle the same body, namely the Parades Commission, can espouse
both mediation and legally binding determinations? Do both functions
have a role to play in reducing difficulties with the parades
in Northern Ireland?
(Mr Hoey) I think there is a severe problem with having
two roles such as that. I think the example on the Ormeau Road
this year has been one where the Parades Commission was warned
that, by setting up a further process on the Lower Ormeau, there
was a severe threat to the process of dialogue that was going
on between the Belfast Walker Club and the residents group. That
had been, I think, 10/12 meetings over a period of about 10 months
at that time. They were told, "Do it and you are going to
create a risk, because you are going to have people walk away."
And they went ahead and did it anyway. And it has created difficulties
with dialogue, because it has created a circumstance whereby there
is no need to sit down directly across a table now and talk to
the Apprentice Boys because now there is another process, and
that process has been delayed awaiting instructions, and it has
not processed well because the actual terms of reference were
delayed and the Parades Commission did not seem to know what it
was doing in the first instance, and all sorts of hassles that
were created. I think if you take the mediation role you are in
there, you must be at the end of the day standing back and saying,
"This at the end of the day has nothing to do with me, I
am here to help both parties come to a discussion and come to
some sort of accommodation at the end of the day." You cannot
then put on another hat and turn round and say, "Well, basically,
this is how it is and I am making a legal determination and saying
that this side is then wrong and right." There does seem
to be in the determinations a reluctance actually to objectively
review exactly what has occurred in periods of discussion and
dialogue. I think we have a problem with that, in that whereas
the Commission up to February 2000 was prepared to evaluate and
objectively set out its determination in a rational format, this
current Parades Commission just has not. Whether that is because
they wish to have a greater role in mediation, in which case that
is conflicting with their notion of actually being a quasi-judicial
body, it is hard to say. It is very hard to say with this Commission
what it thinks, to be perfectly honest. We found the last decision
we got on 9 November—and again that is in your pack—to
be generally incomprehensible. We just do not understand it. The
problem with the Commission is that we do not know where it is
going. We do not know what role it has at the moment. Is it a
quasi-judicial body? Is it a mediation body? Has it got a role
in mediation or has it not? On the one hand it says it has, and
wanted a greater role; on the other hand it would stand back and
say, "Mediation Network is there, other people, Authorised
Officers, to actually help facilitate that, and we have put it
out to other people." So the Parades Commission will not
themselves become involved in mediation and have other people
doing it. It just lacks clarity, and I do not think this Commission
is at all helping itself in actually saying what its role is because
it seems to be prepared to go in and try and fix things that frankly
may be in difficulties but that is not necessarily the time to
interfere and say, "That is not working, we will go to another
process ."
Mr Barnes
192. It is quite clear that you have been dissatisfied
with a number of decisions of the Parades Commission. How many
decisions have you therefore challenged in the courts and what
has been the success?
(Mr Hoey) There has been no challenge in the court
whatsoever. The reason for that is that taking a judicial review
of the determination will end up, as we have seen with other organisations,
with the courts largely saying, "You may not have got to
your determination the right way. Think about having done it this
way and go away and decide whether it was the right decision after
all," and so the Commission goes away and says, "Yes,
it was the right decision." I think, again, when you were
talking to Mr Holland, those issues were very clear with regard
to Kilkeel and also with regard to the Lower Ormeau issue at that
time as well. So it is a matter of taking each as it comes in
terms of determinations.
193. Presumably you do not rule out entirely
on any occasion the possibility of a legal challenge because your
attitude seems to be that if you have a judicial review it is
not likely to be a very fruitful avenue to pursue.
(Mr Hoey) We would never rule out a legal challenge,
but it has to be the right legal challenge and for the right reasons
and at the right time, and therefore it is one of those options
that would be under review and constantly under review but not
something that we feel we have to jump at or feel that we have
to use the courts as the only option. I think we also would say
that it is about actually trying to find solutions amongst the
parties concerned first, and recourse to the courts is really
not a preferred option. It is almost like the very last option:
When all else fails and when you are just so frustrated, there
is not any other way to go, throw your hands up and go to court.
194. Might it be a bit more likely to be used
even as a last option because of the human rights legislation?
Maybe you would like to elaborate a little on what you have said
about Mr Holland and Article 6 because this is presumably the
argument that determinations should be made through the public
hearings.
(Mr Hoey) If there is a Determination to be made—and
that is not something that we would work for—the point,
particularly in the Lower Ormeau, of going into dialogue was actually
to find an accommodation, not to end up with a Determination or
to tick boxes and end up with something that was in your favour.
It was about actually going and trying to find a solution. If
it comes round to a determination, the process of that is that
there is an 11/1 which is put in 28 days in advance of the parade.
It would seem that absolutely anybody can walk into the Parades
Commission and have their say about a parade. What we have argued—and
again you have a copy of the legal note on this particular point—is
that if there is evidence presented to the Parades Commission
that would make the Parades Commission consider issuing a negative
determination, then it is only right that people involved in that,
our club members going to the Parades Commission, should have
a fair hearing and be told of exactly the reasons why on the evidence
on which a negative determination might be made that would basically
overrule their freedom of assembly. That does not happen at the
present time. The Parades Commission will come in in the most
recent case there were hearings beforehand, they were told in
general terms but not specifically any reason why there would
be a negative determination, evidence from the Chief Constable
and from the police was only taken after our members had actually
been in to see the Parades Commission, and our members were not
invited back to hear any evidence of public disorder, which is
the basis of the Parades Commission determination. So we do not
feel that our members have actually been given a fair hearing.
There is talk of disorder and in the press the Lower Ormeau Concerned
Community was saying there was going to be no threat of violence
and from contact with the police they were saying there was no
threat of serious disorder, so we want to know: Where did this
threat of serious disorder come from? We went in on the Thursday
following for a review of that determination—you have a
copy of the Decision based on that. The day before we went in,
we got a letter from the Commission—you have that there
as well—saying that police were not going to be asked back
to provide the evidence at first hand to our membership but that
basically the Commission would give the evidence to the members.
When we turned up for that meeting—and we took a lawyer
because we were so fed up with what was going on—we were
told there was no evidence, only advice, and then they got into
a tautology about the difference between evidence and advice and
they delivered a decision which was incomprehensible. If anybody
can explain to me that decision on the 9 November, I will be more
than glad to have it explained to me because I have no idea what
it is. We do not believe that a fair hearing has been given, and
it is the procedure of the Parades Commission that is wholly wrong
and it is wholly against natural justice, which is a principle
of law that was in English law long before it was in the European
Convention. The European Convention, written by British lawyers,
largely confirms a lot of the rights based on English law, and
yet we are here with a procedure that is wholly against the process
of natural justice, and we just do not think that Parliament ever,
ever had intended that. We certainly think that it is something
at which the Parades Commission needs to look very, very closely.
On the broader issue of human rights, in their Determination of
6 November they used rights just to bounce off and toss against
each other to justify a decision that they had come to. They had
already come to the determination, and they simply used the Convention
to find the right set of rights that would justify what they were
saying and to say, "We are within the Human Rights Act"
whereas in fact they are not because they have not given us a
fair hearing in the first place.
(Mr Hay) For the Parades Commission to ban a parade
because of a threat of violence and then, when you go and say
to them, "Where is that threat coming from?"—and
when you speak to the Chief Constable, who indicated very clearly
that he, as far as he was concerned, would police it no matter
what determination the Parades Commission would take, and certainly
he was making it clear to us he could see no threat, and when
you speak to other people who could see no threat, but still the
determination was very clear that there was a clear threat of
violence—and they are not able to tell us where that threat
of violence was coming from, it is very, very unfair.
(Mr Hoey) I will just finish off on that point. If
you go back to August 1999 when a parade was given the legal authority
to go down Lower Ormeau, the basis of the disorder that was being
considered at that time and presented by the police to ourselves
and also to the Parades Commission was that there may be 2,000
to 3,000 people turn up at the Lower Ormeau. We know from our
own intelligence, if you like, that there were certainly buses
planned to come in from as far apart as Newry, Strabane and other
areas. In the event, 300 people turned up that morning, mostly
from Belfast, including a Member of the Assembly here, I believe,
a Sinn Fein member, and proceeded to block the road, but nothing
like in any way the threat of disorder that was presented in the
first place. The Commission took a risk and allowed the people
there to be responsible in the circumstances and I believe the
Apprentice Boys were responsible in those circumstances. I also
believe the police were responsible in those circumstances, dealing
with a group of people who were blocking a road against the legal
determination of the Parades Commission. This comes back to—and
it is perhaps a point Mr Clarke was making—if the Parades
Commission is not the law for everybody, who is it the law for?
If we are talking about the Parades Commission being the legal
authority, it is not just the legal authority for the Apprentice
Boys to abide by, it is the legal authority for everybody to abide
by. That means, if people are told, "You are not to be sitting
across a road and you are not to have a 24-hour parade,"
the night before, and, "You are not to bring people into
that area with the intention of being disruptive," that is
for everybody to abide by. You know we have made our commitment
to abiding by the law and it is about time other people did the
same.
(Mr Simpson) Can I just say that there is one word
in my vocabulary that I will not use, and that is the word "never"
because it might come to the time when we have no option, but
it will be a sad day for the people of Northern Ireland if you
have to start taking court cases against the Parades Commission
for not doing their work properly.
195. If I may try and summarise very briefly.
You obviously have the strongest feelings in this area. You are
making quite rigorous representations, including to us, this Committee,
now, but what you are saying is that using legal challenges as
some potential fall-back might have to be used in this area. It
would be very unfortunate, but you would have to engage them.
(Mr Simpson) That is correct. That is what I am saying.
Mr Pound
196. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you particularly
for the additional documentation you have circulated today. I
have only skimmed it, but it is extremely interesting. Could I
just ask what input you made to the NIO review of the Commission
and what is your assessment of its conclusions? I am asking you
for the record.
(Mr Hoey) We made a submission that basically said,
"You have only just had a review of the Commission that ended
in August 1999 with Statutory Instruments. We do not understand
why you have to go through another review at this stage. We do
not see the point of a second review within that period of time.
We do not think either that the Parades Commission should have
done a review of itself. And we do not think that faceless civil
servants are the people to do a review. If you are going to do
a review that is trusted, do it in public, do it in the open,
do it through the House of Common Select Committee.
197. We are now on the record with that. Thank
you very much indeed. The second point is particularly relevant
in connection with the documentation you submitted in respect
of the Belfast Walker Club. Do you support the Commission's practice
of looking specifically at each parade as a self-contained, unique
event or do you think that in some circumstances these parades
should be looked at in groups, perhaps in geographical terms or
in time terms?
(Mr Simpson) Each parade should be taken individually.
(Mr Hay) Each parade is very important to that community
living in that area. For example, the Ormeau Road. You are talking
about 25 Apprentice Boys with one band, at eight o'clock or 8.30
in the morning, walking down a road. Who could be insulted at
that time of the morning with 25 members in one band?—and
the only flag they carry is the Crimson Flag. Who could be insulted
by that parade?
198. I do not know. I am reminded that a member
of this Committee once said to me that he knew someone who had
walked 28 miles out of his way in order to be insulted!
(Mr Hay) One of the Apprentice Boys?
199. Indeed not. May I say you may have been
sympathetic to the person who made the comment.
(Mr Hay) We say that every parade is very significant
to that community, no matter where it is in the Province, and
that Apprentice Boys clubs should have their right to celebrate
that culture, their culture, in their particular area. That parade
is as important as our parade is in Londonderry.
(Mr Simpson) Provided they keep within the law.
(Mr Hoey) May I add to that. As far as I understand
it, one of the reasons the Parades Commission was set up was because
they wanted to look specifically at community resolution and resolution
at a local level and to deal with that at very much community
level. If you have an issue with people from that community—and
there is no right not to be offended or whatever—but if
there are people there to be dealt with or to come to an accommodation,
I think we have seen in other parts of Northern Ireland where
Uncle Tom Cobbley and everybody tries to resolve an issue and
it is not resolved. I think we have seen in the past few days
a situation where everybody tries to put their oar in and, frankly,
that is not necessarily helpful. If you are going to come to a
lasting accommodation that is both meaningful and is going to
endure, it must be with the local communities. You are not going
to be able to get other people imposing a solution. You are not
going to be able to get other people walking in and heading off
back to another country or back to somewhere else the next day
who frankly are only in there for a job and maybe to get a bit
of a headline in the newspaper. What has to happen is accommodation
at a local level that will last. That is the only accommodation
that is worthwhile.
|
