Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 160)
WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH 2004
10 MARCH 2004 MR
DAVID CAMPBELL
AND MR
DAVID MCNARRY
MLA
Q140 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
You will know as well as we do why the Committee is somewhat truncated
and why your leading witness is not here. It is because by the
roll of chance we have a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill and
our Bill. David Trimble has said that he will come if he possibly
can but it depends when he is called. Others, I am afraid, will
come and go for the same reason. It is just part of the crazy
way this House operates. Thank you for coming to help us over
"The Parades Commission and Public Processions (Northern
Ireland) Act 1998". We are trying to get as wide a range
of views as we can. In the memorandum which you have sent us you
noted that last summer was the most peaceful in the decade, and
yet at the same time you are arguing that reform of the regulatory
framework for parades is urgently needed. Do you think there is
a link between the way the existing framework is working and peace
on the streets?
Mr McNarry: We made that submission
in recognition of the peace because we felt it was worth doing
so. We would be very clear in our own minds that the relative
peace, and we would underscore the word "relative",
of the summer had nothing whatsoever to do with the Parades Commission.
It would be wrong of anyone to be feeling that the Commission
contributes to it in any way. That is our clear understanding.
What happened in the summer was a realisation, we understand,
between those who previously would have been acting in a violent
way and we are not so silly to believe that, whilst most of the
good work that was done on the ground was done at a community
level and at the interface level as well, particularly in Belfast
but interfaces just do not apply to Belfast, had the Republican
element in Northern Ireland wished or wanted violence on the streets,
nothing would have stopped it. We also believe that it was part
of their political agenda in terms of switching on or switching
off. In this case they switched off the violence. I am sure that
you would recognise that they are just as capable of switching
it on. Therefore, because of last summer, we also look to this
summer and hope that the relative peace that we had can and will
be maintained.
Q141 Chairman: Others have said that,
after a difficult start, the Parades Commission is beginning to
bed down a bit; relationships and trust are being established.
Do you really believe that had nothing to do at all with things
getting better as far as parades are concerned?
Mr Campbell: As far as the Ulster
Unionist Party is concerned, we very intensively worked with the
Commission from the summer of 1999 through to Christmas of 2001,
primarily on the Portadown/Garvaghy Road situation. It was as
a result of that two and a half years of very intensive work that
we reluctantly came to the conclusion that the Parades Commission
as constituted was fundamentally flawed and primarily biased against
the marching tradition in Northern Ireland. It was as a result
of that that we lobbied Government successfully to put in place
the Quigley Review. I would also say it was in part the maturing
attitude being taken by Portadown District to the handling of
the Drumcree/Garvaghy Road dispute that in many ways impressed
upon the Prime Minister himself the need for a review mechanism
to be put in place for the Parades Commission. The Quigley Review
was in fact the second review. There had been an earlier review,
which I think perhaps the predecessor to this Committee looked
at and commented on. I would re-emphasise David's comments that
the quiet summer this year was in many ways in spite of the Parades
Commission, not as a result of its work. Certainly, as an observer
to my colleagues in the party, knowing the work that they did
on the ground, not least by some of your own Members from constituencies
in Northern Ireland, it was very much a political and community
effort on the ground in Northern Ireland last year that led to
a quiet summer. Unfortunately, the early signs are that that may
not take place this summer again.
Q142 Chairman: You support the argument
that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights should
be affirmed in the public processions legislation. Are there any
other Articles which might equally be affirmed in that legislation
with a view perhaps to improving the clarity?
Mr McNarry: If we may, we would,
particularly on the human rights issue, like to write to you on
that, Chairman. It is an immense subject, which we in Northern
Ireland, I must say, struggle with all the time. It seems that
no matter where you are heading in law, there is a referral somewhere
down the line to human rights. We are still investigating, because
it is an ongoing situation, aspects of the Human Rights Charter.
We have in our submission pointed out instances and occurrences
in other countries, and we feel in many ways that they seem to
have handled protests similar to those we have witnessed in Northern
Ireland over legitimate parades reasonably well without the necessity
for installing a Parades Commission, without the necessity of
making bad law and giving it legislation to operate in the fashion
that it does. It is a great subject in which we are finding new
experts. Three years ago, when you contacted the Northern Ireland
Law Society, you could only find one or two recommendations as
to those who were practising what is known as human rights. We
are now finding that there are more experts coming to the fore,
and I am glad to say some good young lawyers, who are beginning
to specialise in it. With your permission, we would like to detail
that. We have sent quite a lengthy submission in about it but
we take your point about other Articles, which we are currently
investigating.
Q143 Reverend Smyth: Quigley suggests
that public order should be considered separately from questions
about the right to parade and whether that right should be qualified.
Is such a separation feasible in practice?
Mr McNarry: It is feasible to
the extent that, if you do not have this overseeing of a Parades
Commission, you go back to where you used to be in terms of parades,
setting aside the aspect, as we have said, that historically legitimate
peaceful parades have been targeted by opponents for political
necessity. It used to be—and there is a grey area over this—that
the Chief Constable was a satisfactory mechanism to solve the
disputes when the disputes arose. The grey area that still exists
there is that we do not think there is sufficient truth coming
from the Parades Commission in that there most certainly is a
clear perception among parade organisers that the other stick
the Parades Commission have to use against a parade is this threat:
if we give a parade, it may be that the police will refuse it.
We are finding again that there is a doubt over that, there is
not the certainty which parade organisers have been led to believe.
As you know, and it may be a turn of phrase, we believe that what
has happened is that the Parades Commission, in the manner in
which they have carried out their operation and handled determinations,
have benefited if not created a rioters' charter in terms of parades,
and that significantly there has been one-way traffic. I think
that what we need to see is far more transparency from the police
in terms of what their reports are. In practice, what happens
is that if you are an organiser and you are before the Parades
Commission, they will tell you what they believe the police are
saying, but you are not allowed to see any reports whatsoever
from the police. We think it would be useful if that came about.
Q144 Reverend Smyth: You think therefore
that it would be reasonable to ask that the police publish details
of their reasoning when advising questions of public order?
Mr McNarry: I think so very much.
Most of the people we are dealing with respect law and order and
have been brought up to do so. Therefore, one would assume that
they have been brought up to accept the report of the police,
having been able to see it.
Q145 Reverend Smyth: May I deal with
the right to parade? Should that right be qualified?
Mr McNarry: I think there is a
necessity to qualify it in terms of where we are in Northern Ireland
now. Sometimes I become concerned about the words "qualified"
and "explanation". I think more needs to be done, and
certainly there has been tremendous work done, in trying to create
more understanding for the objector. Where one could set aside—and
it is very difficult—the circumstances in which they do
not have political motivation for creating a disturbance or a
dispute over a parade, I think more needs to be done in terms
of the Loyal Orders in this case extending themselves and embracing
the other culture, and to that extent you would create more understanding.
There is still a long way to go on that because it is very difficult
to approach that when you are really in a situation of taking
sides or being put on a side. I know, and I think it is to their
credit, that both the Orange Order and the Apprentice Boys have
made approaches to do this and I think they have succeeded. There
is still a long way to go, but I would certainly hope that they
would keep on at that in terms of explaining and educating.
Q146 Reverend Smyth: Does that require
the right to parade to be qualified, and that is actually dealing
with how people handle it, because in one sense public order would
take over completely? Whatever rights people may have, public
order and other governmental reasons in other countries can step
aside even basic human rights. Is that right?
Mr McNarry: I think you are right
because I think in Northern Ireland terms no-one has challenged
the right to parade in its truest sense. People have challenged
and used the law and used the Parades Commission and used the
legislation to dispute it and disrupt it. If we go down the road
of actually re-establishing—which I think would be the correct
term—the right to parade, I think we are just going to create
terrible problems in society. If I may be given latitude to be
a bit romantic, I remember as a young person going to watch Orange
bands with my grandfather and his Catholic friends, and I remember
that it was nothing other than a good day out. I also remember
from country cousins, if you like, that when they went out to
parade as Orangemen, their Catholic neighbours came and helped
them on the farm to milk the cows, et cetera, because it is a
full day. We have been taken away from that and there are people
who would even deny that that sort of thing happened. I can assure
you that it did and it still happens.
Q147 Mark Tami: Looking long-term,
and you have mentioned the Garvaghy Road already and the problems
there, in your memorandum you seem to say that mediation, even
the longer process put forward by Quigley, is unlikely really
to produce solutions to these long-term issues. How do you see
that these can be resolved and how do you really think accommodation
can be found in these cases?
Mr Campbell: I think in some cases
it is probably impossible to find an accommodation and it is probably
a pipedream to think that you can. The process we went through
with the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition was one in which the
District did its best within the guidelines and within the policy
of Grand Lodge to encourage as much engagement as possible with
the residents. The residents, unfortunately, through their political
manipulators, prevaricated at every opportunity. Our submission
catalogues the efforts that were made over a period of two and
a half to three years to give effect to the maximum amount of
engagement that could be considered. The end result, which was
the current process, conceded that the Portadown District would
engage actively and face to face with the residents once a positive
determination was given. At the end of the day, as David has said,
when you are dealing with a protest that is politically motivated,
it is difficult, in our view, ever to find an accommodation until
the politics have been sorted out.
Q148 Mark Tami: You do not see a
role for mediation there to try to resolve these issues?
Mr Campbell: We have acted as
mediators and others have acted as mediators in this dispute and
it still remains unresolved. Until a stick approach as well as
a carrot approach is adopted, it never will be resolved. To give
you an instance, since 1998, the Portadown District have submitted
some 300 determinations seeking the conclusion of their parade.
In every one of those determinations the rights of the residents
have been upheld. Not once has effect been given to the rights
of Portadown District. I think that has to go some way to showing
the concern we have that you will never get any reciprocation
from that type of residents' group as long as you have a structure
and a Commission which is biased on its behalf.
Q149 Mark Tami: Looking on the positive
side, and I know perhaps that really has not come through, do
you see the possibility, if you can reach some solution, of that
being a longer term solution rather than just an annual event
that you just keep returning to this matter? Obviously that is
something that Quigley would like to see.
Mr Campbell: Yes, one would hope
so, and where we were finding favour with Quigley is, first of
all, to go back to Martin Smyth's question, that although we accept
there can be no absolute right, it was encouraging that Quigley
was making a distinction between traditional church service parades
and perhaps other parades which may be more political in nature.
We would hope that, with some goodwill on both sides, an accommodation
could be reached. If a different approach had been taken by the
Parades Commission, we would contend the Garvaghy Road situation
would have been sorted out at least three years ago.
Mr McNarry: May I add this? Your
document seems to be a bit more condensed than ours; we have had
our submissions re-printed. Quoting from the submission and referring
to a meeting hosted by a Government Minister, Adam Ingram, may
I read: The meetings failed to secure from the Garvaghy Road Residents'
Coalition an answer to this question: What was wrong with Orangemen
leaving church on a particular Sunday and walking peacefully along
the Garvaghy Road? In the end, those talks were called to an abrupt
end with him refusing to give an answer to that question. The
Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition leader led a walk-out of his
delegation, voicing loudly, "The meeting is over. We will
never attend another meeting chaired by Brits". That is part
of the problem in terms of the way you are dealt with in mediation
and dialogue. May I add briefly that we have been very critical
of the Parades Commission as to the manner in which they have
seriously set aside mediation in terms of their own remit. They
have generally formally come down heavy on adjudication. They
have an obligation to act very carefully and to encourage mediation,
and we find great fault with the Parades Commission because they
have not done that and have failed to do so.
Q150 Mr Bailey: Continuing on the
same theme, you express reservations about Quigley's recommendation
on engagement and the requirement on parties to go through mediation
in good faith before proceeding to a determination. Can you just
expand on that?
Mr McNarry: Thanks to your Committee,
you have brought the Quigley Report back into the public domain.
We feared it was gathering dust on some shelf. It is like something
that is topical at the moment, and that is the Truth Commission
in our part of the United Kingdom, in that there is clearly a
feeling abroad that it is very difficult for people to tell the
truth. One of the concerns we have had with the system operated
by the Parades Commission has been that they generally have believed
only the protester or the disruptor but never the parade organiser.
As David Campbell has been pointing out, in one instance in the
Garvaghy Road, over 300 times that has happened and it happens
quite regularly. Therefore, there is a shortcoming in it.
Q151 Mr Bailey: What do you think
could be done to encourage a genuine engagement between the parties
prior to a parade?
Mr McNarry: Again, it is a question
of what is genuine and what is engagement. Since the Parades Commission
was set up, we have found it very difficult to understand what
they wish to interpret as meaningful and genuine engagement. They
have as yet been unable to give a definition of what they consider
proper engagement which would meet their criteria because they
will actually encourage you into engagement on the basis of saying,
"Through engagement the parade organiser should be able to
make his case better and he could be rewarded with a parade".
As yet, they have failed in the mediation role that they have
but they have yet to give a definition. If you could produce a
definition from the Parades Commission of what they mean by "meaningful
engagement" which somebody could take as a blueprint and
adhere to in order to establish that a parade would be allowed
to proceed, then we would all be very grateful for that. In terms
of what people want, it is very difficult, and I suppose obviously
people are human as well. We have something in Northern Ireland
called "thranness"—awkwardness. Take the Loyal
Orders, if you belong to an institution which has a great tradition
and a great history, you will find that there is an obstacle thrown
in to stop what you have been doing for many years and what you
want your family to take on from you and inherit as well. All
of a sudden, there are no terms of engagement, there are no terms
of mediation except that people come on to the road and stop you
and provoke a riot, a stand-off and disruption. In many cases
they do this in the terms that they are offended by this procession
passing by their door. Very few parades in effect pass by anybody's
door, particularly on the Garvaghy Road, which passes by maybe
five or six doors. In saying that, the toleration factor is such
that people cannot tolerate something that has been going on unhindered
as a tradition without provocation and in a very peaceful manner.
People cannot for as short a time as three minutes, or maybe a
longer time of seven minutes, tolerate and respect that tradition
when a parade passes their door once or twice a year. It is very
difficult to establish mediation in the midst of confrontation.
I would go back to what I said to the Reverent Martin Smyth, that
of course there is room for greater education but with that comes
respect for a culture. I have attempted, and I only speak personally,
to hold meetings in public, against some people's wishes, with
the leader of the Garvaghy Road Residents' Association. I felt
threatened, I felt great hostility in the atmosphere, and I felt
rather insulted when the tradition that I was trying to speak
for was referred to as "nothing short of the Klu Klux Klan".
I find that reprehensible, but indeed that is part of the propaganda
that goes against the tradition we are talking about.
Q152 Mr Clarke: Gentlemen, earlier
on you mentioned transparency and both in your submission and
today in talking of transparency you say that there needs to be
greater transparency about the grounds on which a determination
is made. Quigley also calls for more openness, wider transparency,
and in fact he goes as far as to say the system should be entirely
open as it is, for instance, in Scotland. Do you have any fears
that that degree of transparency in determinations within a Northern
Ireland context could lead to vulnerable individuals being put
at greater risk?
Q153 Mr McNarry: There is always
that fear in Northern Ireland. Even going about your business,
there is always the fear. We would welcome the openness and the
transparency because we believe it would deal with the secrecy
in the decisions that the Parades Commission arrives at. Whilst
they issue a determination and whilst they go to great lengths
to tell you how they arrived at it, without wanting to repeat
ourselves, on the Garvaghy Road situation they have issued the
same determination for five years repeatedly once a week. What
they are admitting to is that nothing has changed in five years,
whereas situations and circumstances have changed. Transparency
is very important in terms of—
Q154 Chairman: Over the Garvaghy
Road dispute what has changed?
Mr McNarry: The residents are
no longer on the street blocking the parade. The residents are
not, in the manner in which they previously tended to do, creating
and looking for support in other areas of Northern Ireland in
support for their particular cause. Portadown itself is a quieter
place. The District Orange Lodge goes to church every Sunday and
processes down to a roadblock with one policeman now. The Orangemen
do not break the law. They ask the policeman for permission to
proceed. That one policeman says, "No, you cannot because
the Parades Commission says you cannot"; there is a small
service held there and they walk back. The difference is, Chairman,
that only 12 months ago there would have been probably 15 Land
Rovers in the background and probably 20 or 30 policemen there.
The marked difference to everything, and where the change has
not taken place, is that at the traditional service at the parish
church in Drumcree to commemorate the Battle of the Somme we all
know that basically what we have are massed barricades manned
by Her Majesty's Security Forces and the police. To have such
a thing in the United Kingdom is a disgrace. There is no need
for it. If a band of men can walk down last Sunday and next Sunday
and be greeted by one policeman, then the whole thing is hyped
up for this particular time of the year, for 7 July, by the Republicans.
They are still manipulating the residents. But things have improved
to that extent in that we do not have the weekly occurrences of
trouble.
Q155 Mr Clarke: Just returning to
the vulnerability of individuals, would you be satisfied with
a determination that was not made transparent on the basis that
there was a belief that individuals would be made more vulnerable
by its publication?
Mr McNarry: I would believe that
a parade organiser, if he was made aware of that, in normal circumstances
would be able to accept it, but provided that it did not become
just another weapon of deceit—there is always that concern—and
provided it did not become something that you could hid behind.
There is always a great concern. There is always the possibility
of vulnerability but the parade organiser is vulnerable from the
day that he organises because by law his name has to be submitted.
His name is fully known to everybody. Bear in mind that this is
a cycle. If there is a parade tomorrow that is a traditional annual
parade, the next day that parade organiser on behalf of the organisation
would be putting in a notice for the following year in his name.
There is that vulnerability. The objector does not have to do
the same. The objector does not have to submit anything in his
or her name until close to the time that a parade is to take place.
Q156 Mr Clarke: Could I move on to
another aspect of your submission when you talk about those offering
evidence to the determinations panel should be vetted on the relevance
of their evidence. This suggests a further step whereby somebody
will have to pass judgment on the relevance of evidence that is
submitted before the determinations panel. Could you talk us through
how this would work in terms of who would be responsible for vetting
the relevance of evidence? Does that mean we just have another
panel that needs to be set up before evidence can be presented
to the determinations panel in the first place?
Mr McNarry: I hope you are not
majoring on that point because it is something that we were dealing
with in terms of trying to have a perfect solution. We would go
back to our preference, and in fact what we put in our submission
is that you replace this commission with a tribunal-based process.
Through the tribunal-based process, it seemed that there would
be an element of vetting, as you would have in most tribunals.
We wanted to emphasise through the tribunal aspect that what we
were wanting to do was to embody a rights-based approach through
that. That seemed a key element for us because we believed that
that would negate this current system that we have, which encourages
last-minute applications and lobbies by objectors seeking re-determinations
or overturns of decisions. What we are trying to get through is
that in our opinion there is no substantial or careful vetting
at this last minute, which is normally politically driven. There
is no vetting of that at all in terms that people are putting
at the last minute what they believe. We see their objections
taking another turn. The clear knowledge, from the experience
of it, is that, irrespective of what the Parades Commission says,
if they give a parade, there will be a protest. If they turn one
around and then reverse that, there will be a protest. Basically
there is a vehicle being used all the time that invariably falls
back on to the street. What we wanted to do with the vetting process
was to try to ensure that nobody could just come along here and
say, as they do to the Parades Commission, "We object",
that there needed to be more vetting of who they were, what they
were, and what they were putting forward. Invariably all it needs
is a knock on the door of the Parades Commission and, "I
object". It is as easy as that.
Q157 Mr Clarke: Finally, we started
talking about transparency in terms of having a process that is
very open but if we have a vetting procedure which decides which
evidence should be put forward and which should not, then, by
its very nature, the transparency is less. I wondered if there
would be more happiness if the determinations panel considered
all the evidence so that none was vetted but the relevance of
the evidence was weighted by the determinations panel, rather
than vetted, in terms of what should be public.
Mr Campbell: Weighting may be
a better terminology than vetting. I think that is a point well
made.
Mr McNarry: We wanted to simplify
it.
Q158 Mr McGrady: Gentlemen, in response
to the Chairman's first question, you made a very determined distinction
between the more peaceful environment which you had in Northern
Ireland and the work of the Parades Commission. In fact, you stated
categorically that there was no connection between the ensuing
of peace and the work of the Parades Commission in terms of parades.
In fact, you went on to say that the peaceful summer that we have
just had was in spite of the Parades Commission. Could you elaborate
on the evidence of that?
Mr McNarry: Our belief is that
it appears to us too often that the determinations, and sometimes
one would use the words "determinations of the Parades Commission
in making their determinations", have contributed to violence
on the streets of Belfast and on the streets of towns and villages.
Again, we find them culpable in their failure in that they have
not embarked on anything other than making their rulings and their
approach to their rulings always adversarial and always on the
basis of adjudication. They have not involved themselves in mediation.
There is clear evidence that the Parades Commission itself has
not been involved in mediation. They have rather chosen to get
other people involved in it, such as Brian Curran from South Africa,
and local people as well. There has been no real product from
that. In spite what they were doing, because they had not greatly
changed their minds from any previous years, those parades in
many instances passed by relatively peacefully. A number of the
parades, particularly in Belfast, were still subjected to violence.
Violence comes about in different ways in that there is also the
threat of the violence. Where you have an incident that may have
been created at the start of a procession or a parade, say
at 10 o'clock in the morning, that is fuelled right through that
day and probably for the next few days. I have nothing to
commend the Parades Commission for in terms of last summer. I
have nothing that I could say leads me to believe that anything
that they did contributed to that, but I do go back to what I
said. Orange parades themselves do not cause violence. Orange
parades are attacked and the attackers decided last summer as
much as anybody else that they would not attack. The plea of most
people this year is: if you could turn it off last summer, then
why can you not do it this summer and for future summers? I can
see you are ready to question me on what I have just said but
may I defend what I said? I do not believe that Orange parades
or Loyal Order parades cause violence in Northern Ireland. They
are attacked because of the culture that they stand for.
Q159 Mr McGrady: The tenor of the
weight of your evidence was mainly concerned about the Garvaghy
Road and you say there were 300 applications last year out of
a possible 3,300. In many of those determinations of the other
3,000 the Parades Commission endorsed the right to parade against
the wishes of the local community. That is the first point, for
which you do not appear to be giving any credit. Secondly, are
you seriously saying that an Orange parade or a parade with an
Orange participation has never attacked a community, because I
have seen it? I have seen it on several occasions in my own time.
That is not a true reflection of the facts, I am afraid.
Mr McNarry: With the greatest
respect, I can only disagree with you. I have nothing to comment
on your experiences.
Q160 Mr McGrady: That is not just
my view but the view throughout many other communities. However,
I will give you an easier wind-up question perhaps. The Quigley
Report does make a number of minor or lesser recommendations concerning
the importance of the enforcement of conditions relating to parades
and, allied to that, the necessity for communication—he
calls it—between parade organisers, police and monitors
or surveyors, whatever you call them. Have you any further or
additional comments to make on those add-ons, if you like, to
the central themes which we have been discussing?
Mr McNarry: I do not want the
Committee to lose the sense of what we are talking about when
we talk about the Parades Commission and the Public Processions
Act (Northern Ireland) 1998. There is tremendous emotion in what
we are bringing to you through our experiences, and those experiences
have been documented. They were real experiences David and I have
lived through those experiences. Our approach to things that we
find in living those experiences was entirely on the basis that
parades of any nature would pass by peacefully in Northern Ireland,
that people would not resort to violence in any form to stop those
parades from happening, that they would not attack the culture
and they would not disrespect the men and women who participated
in them. The most difficult thing for people associated with Unionism,
because it is a broad spectrum of Unionism that participates either
as a walker or as a viewer in the parades, and a side issue, is
that most of us I think would share that that parade on 12 July
could attract much needed revenue for Northern Ireland as something
that people from the whole world would come to see and enjoy as
a tourist attraction similar to attractions in other countries.
It is a very vivid, colourful spectacle, and particularly when
the Orange family, which is worldwide, comes together with representatives
from the other countries in that family, it is spectacular and
it is wonderful. I would not want anybody to think that in criticising
the Parades Commission we do that for any other reason than that
we strongly and firmly believe that they have not solved the problem;
they have added to it and they have contributed to it. We want
to change that and we want to help them. We have put out ideas.
We believe that Sir George Quigley has taken the general view,
and certainly our view, that the Parades Commission can no longer
stay in business. What we have to do is find out how we replace
it, if it is necessary to replace it, which is another question.
Mr Campbell: On the specific point
on enforcement, I think all reasonable people appreciate that
reasonable enforcements should be supported. For example, there
should not be the taking of alcohol associated with parades; there
should not be the display of paramilitary illegal emblems; there
should not be the playing of insensitive or party tunes. I think
the Loyal Orders as a whole are subscribing to that type of enforcement
within the voluntary charters they have established with bands
and parading bodies. In terms of that specific issue, I think
we would support the thrust of those recommendations.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed. It is has been helpful, although not entirely without
controversy. Thank you for coming to us.
|
