Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH 2004
SIR ANTHONY
HOLLAND, THE
REV ROY
MAGEE, MR
PETER OSBORNE,
SIR JOHN
PRINGLE, MR
JOHN COUSINS,
MR PETER
QUINN AND
MR ANDREW
ELLIOTT
Q200 Reverend Smyth: Mr Osborne has
made reference to the fact that you have written to bands for
their views. The Ulster Bands Association have actually told the
Committee that they are still waiting for a response for a bilateral
meeting with the Commission going back to May 2000, and the frustration
that they have had because the Commission feel they cannot work
outside the normal working hours, whereas the band members themselves
do work. Would you like to say something about that?
Sir Anthony Holland: I read that,
with respect, with some surprise, because a lot of the meetings
we have are outside office hours, and have to be, because people
are working during the course of the day. Certainly, to begin
with, when we first started as a Commission, we had enormously
long days and long programmes to get through, and we had to be
quite careful about how we allocated our time. I am bound to say
that I certainly do not expect ever to be working what I would
call normal office hours, seeing people, in the context of the
Commission. In so far as they may not meet the whole Commission,
there is always a member of the Commission or two members of the
Commission who can meet these people. I was, as I say, disappointed,
because I did actually take a lot of time with Mr McAfee on this
issue of the bands, and still would wish to do so. I think he
has moved on now from the Bands Association.
Q201 Reverend Smyth: I do not think
they have moved on. I think they are still waiting. I know there
have been delays in the post, but from May 2000, and we are now
2004, it seems rather strange.
Sir Anthony Holland: I have certainly
seen him since then.
Mr Osborne: If I could add to
that, the meetings and so on that I referred to, probably most
of them, I would think, take place in the evenings in order to
facilitate those that would be coming to them.
Q202 Reverend Smyth: I am speaking
about the Association, which speaks for them all. That is what
they told this Committee, and I am probing just to find out whether
you have an answer to it.
Sir Anthony Holland: I want to
be quite blunt with you. It is just not true that we have not
met them since 2000.
Q203 Reverend Smyth: You did refer
to the fact that the Apprentice Boys had been meeting with you,
and the Committee was told that at a meeting of the Commission
on 20 October 2001, Alistair Simpson said, "Halfway through
the meeting we made a suggestion for a better way forward and
immediately the Chairman turned round and said to us `I do not
take orders from anyone. Meeting closed.'" As a result, the
Apprentice Boys have not officially met the Parades Commission
since.
Sir Anthony Holland: Two things:
I do not recollect saying that, but I would not want to challenge
Mr Simpson if he says I said that, but the more important thing
is that since then, we have met their representatives, because
in fact the Apprentice Boys of Derry have chosen on some occasions
more recently, particularly, to use a firm of solicitors in Belfast
to act on their behalf, and indeed, to ask Mr Hoey to act on their
behalf. So he has come to see us, as indeed have their solicitors.
I might also add that they still do meet the Commission. Again,
I can only say I have met the Apprentice Boys of Derry.
Q204 Chairman: Perhaps, for ease
of understanding, I had better read to you what Mr Kelley said
to us on 10 February. It became quite clear that he did not care
for the change of personnel, if I may put it that way, between
the old Commission and the new Commission. "We met them with
a view to them having an insight into what our mindset was. A
year after we met them they were disbanded and the new Commission
was brought in. We made the same offer to the second Commission.
We wrote to them in February 2000 asking for a meeting. We had
our meeting in May 2000, which lasted for 15 or 20 minutes. Mr
Holland advised us that he would arrange another meeting. We waited
for the date. We did not get one. We phoned and we were told that
only one commissioner was prepared to meet us. We are still waiting
to be contacted by the Parades Commission. When we asked for an
evening meeting we were told `We don't do evening meetings. If
you want to meet us, you will have to come during the day.'"
Sir Anthony Holland: I have actually
read that, Chairman, and I would say two things. First of all,
obviously, there is a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.
We have to meet them, and sooner rather than later. That I will
do. Having said that, I do not accept the accuracy of what is
reported there.
Chairman: OK.
Q205 Reverend Smyth: Can I then move
on to another side of the issue? We note you wrote to the Grand
Lodge of Lodge suggesting ways in which transparency could be
improved. Two questions: have you had a reply yet, and secondly,
what in essence were your proposals?
Sir Anthony Holland: We wrote
to the Grand Lodge on 6 February 2003. I do not believe we have
had a reply to that letter. What we were proposing in that letter
was another way of tackling this issue of transparency. One of
the issues that arises out of what we would call a lack of transparency
is understanding by reference back to what happened in the previous
parade, what went wrong and what went well, and also the grounds
on which we may be being urged by those who are opposed to the
parade to not allow it to take place in its proposed form this
time round. One of the ways forward we thought would be to set
up a compliance and post mortem department within the Parades
Commission, and examine how we could operate a basis of examining
what happened on the previous occasion, taking proper evidence,
which would not be in confidence because it would be a separate
issue arising not from a new determination but from a past determination,
and therefore that would not have to be confidential. That is
what we had in mind.
Q206 Reverend Smyth: I appreciate
those are the after-effects. There are those who believe that
sometimes the Commission could at least advise those who are organising
parades not necessarily of who the objectors are, but of what
the objections are, before the Commission takes its decision so
that they could answer.
Sir Anthony Holland: We do in
fact do that, sir. I can recollect only last week or the week
before sending a detailed letter to the solicitors for the ABOD,
setting out exactly what the grounds were by the LOCC in relation
to the Lower Ormeau Road. We do it all the time. It is in our
interests to do it, for a start. The authorised officers, where
we do not actually have direct correspondence, operate as our
conduit for that very purpose. It makes absolute sense that those
who are trying to organise a parade do know what the problems
are. They may not be able to address them always. Sometimes there
are problems with bands and supporters and so on. That is a separate
issue. We try to be as open as we can within the bounds of the
issues of confidentiality that we are bound by under the legislation.
Q207 Mr Clarke: Sir Anthony, last
year's marching season was relatively peaceful, but during the
course of this inquiry we have had it suggested to us that this
year's marching season will be less peaceful. Do you agree with
that view, that there may be trouble ahead, and if you do agree,
has the Commission taken any action to try to prevent a return
to some of the agitation that perhaps we have seen in the past?
Sir Anthony Holland: Last year
was a good year, and I know some have said it was in spite of
the Commission rather than because of the Commission. I do not
want to deal with that, because everybody can make up their own
minds. I would not claim it was because of the Commission in any
event. I think we help, like a whole raft of other matters have
helped, including politicians and the people who deal with affairs
generally in Northern Ireland. It is a team solution rather than
individual effort. So far as what I think will happen this year,
I do not actually subscribe to the view that has been promulgated
by a number of people that this year is going to be, for some
reason, difficult. The only certainty about Northern Ireland,
of course, is that nothing is certain. To that extent, therefore,
I do realise that one can never anticipate what will be happening
in the immediate future in terms of parading, but we have worked
incredibly hard this winter—far harder, in fact, than we
do in the summers at the moment—in trying to put together
various packages, various meetings, educational packages and so
on, because there is no doubt that it is the work we do in the
winter that can make the most difference, for instance, in Springfield
last year: because we had actually sent people to South Africa,
that made a contribution to what was already happening in Springfield.
If I were not an optimist, I probably would not be doing this
job anyway, but I am actually optimistic, as always, and I do
not believe that it will be a particularly bad year. I could be
wrong, obviously, and I am not sitting here and saying it will
not be, but if it does happen, it will not be because of anything
the Commission has not tried to do in the winter.
Q208 Mr Clarke: It has also been
suggested to us that the ability to keep the peace is often linked
to the quality of the authorised officer working in a particular
area, and there have been some concerns that the quality of the
work of authorised officers is variable, and that some have been
very successful, some have been less successful, and some have
seen little success. Does the Commission take any steps to monitor
the work and to try to provide a benchmark or training, or to
make sure that the work of those authorised officers that is celebrated,
the experience and the good practice, is shared amongst those
who are not having success?
Sir Anthony Holland: I will make
a few comments and then ask Peter Quinn to address that, for reasons
that will become apparent. We have actually spent a lot of time
on the issue of authorised officers. They are not the same ones
that were in place when we first arrived, and Peter will explain
to you how that has happened. They are absolutely fundamental
to whatever success we may have and are able to claim, because
they work on the ground. I should add that they are not employees;
they are actually independent contractors who are contracted to
provide what we have to provide by statute, which is to facilitate
mediation. Their primary role is not mediation; it is pre-mediation,
being a conduit to the Commission and so on. Peter can deal with
it in more detail.
Mr Quinn: Our authorised officers
receive ongoing training and have done since they were appointed.
The original AO team ceased, as our team, just over a year ago,
and we went out to tender again. The majority of those who were
chosen had been AOs under the original cohort of AOs but there
were a number of new ones added. Both cadres have been receiving
training on a consistent basis. We employ an outside agency to
provide that training, and indeed, we have used an agency from
outside the country, where we thought that they might have something
to offer. Essentially, they are trained for two purposes. One
is to gather information and make that information available in
a constructive way to the Commission and the commissioners, and
the other is to act in a mediative role—not as formal mediators,
but in a mediative role. They do that, and the bulk of the training
is in that area rather than in the information collection area.
They have problems in the mediation role because they have difficulty
in some circumstances in getting people to engage with them but,
by and large, they are successful, and people who will not engage
directly with the Commission have been engaging with the AOs,
and that has contributed massively to the communication between
the Commission and the band organisers and the loyal orders and
the people who are involved in the parading culture. We would
be very happy that our AO team is improving all the time. We recognise
that there is a degree of variability because when you have a
team of 12 people it is inevitable that not all of them will reach
the same standard. We are very happy with the standard of the
better ones, and we are trying to improve the standard of the
others, and we will, if necessary, go out and recruit again if
that becomes necessary in the medium term.
Q209 Mr Clarke: Can I just probe
a little bit further? We can provide the best quality training
but find that we still may have individuals who are not performing
at a level that would be acceptable. In your evaluation and monitoring
systems, is there a point at which you would suggest to an authorised
officer that he was not making the grade and that it may be in
the best interests of the community for him to consider withdrawing
and for you to bring other authorised officers into play?
Mr Quinn: Yes, we have had to
do that in the past. We have a dedicated member of staff who liaises
with the authorised officers on an ongoing basis, and in the past
we have had to inform an AO that they were not cutting it, to
use the "in" expression. That person is no longer an
authorised officer.
Reverend Magee: Could I just refer
to what Mr Clarke asked on the first occasion? I think I would
have wanted to slip into that that one of the major players in
the progress of parades last year was the Orange Order themselves.
I think they played a major role during the last marching season
and I think credit must be given to them for it.
Mr Clarke: I think our concerns were
that some of the people suggesting to us that this year may be
less peaceful have links to the Orange Order. That made us think
perhaps things were not as bright as we would want them to be.
Q210 Mr Pound: Our work in this area
has led us down some esoteric, philosophical byways, particularly
in the area of competing and conflicting rights and freedoms.
It has been put to us by some people that the public order issue
takes precedence in your determination over the right and freedom
to march. Is that a fair comment?
Sir Anthony Holland: I do not
think so. Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I? I do not think
so, because obviously, first of all, we are not allowed to. We
have to take a whole batch of things into consideration. I know
for a fact that there are some times when we have made decisions
which go against the advice of the police on the public order
issue. On quite a few occasions we do that, and it is a calculated
risk on our part, because there is a basic right to parade. If
we were purely rubber-stamping the police advice, we really would
not be doing our job in any way that would be helpful, or indeed
give any job satisfaction. Plainly, the advice of the police has
degrees of gradation. They may say it could go either way, all
the way up to saying it would be a disaster. I think there have
been few occasions where we have taken risks at the top end. Thirty
per cent of what the police have sent to us as parades that are
deemed contentious do actually go ahead without any determination
on our part. That is a straightforward case of us saying, despite
what the police think of this being a contentious parade, we think
it can take place quite safely and we do not make a determination.
So I just do not accept that there is this obsession with public
order on the part of the Commission, because, as I say, it would
give us no benefit to do so, and certainly, it would destroy confidence
in the Commission. There may be those who say there is not much
confidence in the Commission. I happen to again disagree with
that. I think there is almost a grudging acceptance now that we
try to get it right—we do not always get it right, but it
is not on the grounds that we put public order first and foremost.
Mr Quinn: Could I just add something
to what the Chairman said? We take as our starting point the right
to assemble under the European Convention on Human Rights. That
is why we are called the Parades Commission, because our objective
is to allow as many parades as possible that we can have peacefully
and for the betterment of society. But the right to assemble is
not an unfettered right. There are competing rights. There is
the right to live in peace; there is the right to life, and freedom
from fear; there is the right to privacy and a number of other
rights. We have to try and do a balancing act between the right
to assemble and the right to celebrate culture and identity and
religion, and we have to balance that against other things. We
also have to take other factors into account, and among the other
factors that we take into account are the effect on community
relations in the area and more widely, the effect on the wider
society, which is very important, because a parade in one area
can have an effect that pervades a very much wider area; we also
take into account traditionality, which is a requirement; and
we take into account the potential for disorder by both paraders
and protesters. I would not subscribe to the view that I know
has been presented to you here that in the process we support
some form of rioters' charter. We do not do that. In fact, if
I were trying to prioritise, human rights and the effect on community
relations and wider society certainly take a much greater profile
in terms of the weighting that we attach to them when we are adjudicating
on an application for a parade, but we do not ignore the potential
for public disorder, and we know that some people react to that
and see us as doing what the police would otherwise have done.
That is not our role and that is not what we do.
Mr Osborne: May I add something
as well? I again agree with everything that has been said so far,
and the importance of those criteria, which are obviously part
and parcel of human rights legislation, but the impact on community
relations in an area is an extremely important issue to consider.
It is a system at the minute that the police are reasonably comfortable
with, and obviously we do take their advice seriously, but along
with a number of issues that we actively consider. I think it
would be a dangerous step to move to a situation where public
safety or public order was separated out from that to what has
been suggested, and I think the police would not want it either.
Q211 Mr Pound: You are anticipating
another question I am going to ask in a minute. Following up what
Sir Anthony said, would you accept, sir, that there is a perception
that the public order issue takes primacy over the right to assembly?
If you deny it, I have nothing to say. If you accept that there
is such a perception, how can this be countered?
Sir Anthony Holland: Given the
evidence you have received, which, of course, I have read, that
perception is plainly there, and I would be a fool to deny it.
We can only repeat the message, which we do all the time, and
of course, occasionally, people realise that we have actually
given a determination which allows a parade. They will realise
that we have actually not paid that much attention to the police
advice about public order. So in effect the proof of the pudding
is what we actually do. I can give you a number of illustrations,
if you wish, where we have taken decisions which on the face of
it did surprise those people who were allowed to have their parade,
sometimes even against their wishes in the end. We took the view
that we have to make a decision occasionally that does demonstrate
that. Furthermore, there is a right to assemble.
Q212 Chairman: When you say you take
a decision in order to establish that, is that a good reason for
taking a decision?
Sir Anthony Holland: Perhaps it
was badly expressed. We want to make it crystal clear, and we
have said it on more than one occasion, that the police advice
is advice and no more. We can accept all of or not accept all
of it, and we do on many occasions not accept it all in the way
we arrive at our determination, not only in the route that we
allow but in the details of that route. They may say "You
should go down this street and not that street" and we will
ignore that piece of advice. We will perhaps follow another part
of the advice they have given us, but inevitably it must be clear
to anyone who studies the parading issue very closely that we
cannot possibly follow the advice on all occasions because the
police are not always fully happy with some of the decisions we
make.
Mr Cousins: I think it is also
worth saying that on those occasions, and there are quite a number
of them now, where we have gone against police advice, where we
have said for example we accepted there was a risk of disorder
but the parade is going ahead, the decision has been proved right
on every occasion. We as a Commission represent the broad community
at large, apart from the fact that we do not have any women members
on the Commission; that is not within our gift. But our decisions
have been proved right, and of course, the police have the right
to go to the Secretary of State if they want to set aside any
of our determinations, and I think that has only happened once.
Sir Anthony Holland: It may have
been threatened but never happened.
Q213 Chairman: I was going to ask
you a philosophical question. In the end, it is a political decision,
with a small "p", is it not? Do you think you are the
right people to do that, or do you think that your job should
be to look at all the facts, establish all the details and routing
and all of this, but in the end, if it is a political decision,
and there is a conflict between your wishes or advice and the
Chief Constable's wishes or advice, someone else should make the
final decision?
Sir Anthony Holland: I am conscious
that I am English, but actually, I have a great affection for
Northern Ireland. If I can be philosophical as well for a minute,
when I accepted this role, I had no knowledge at all of Northern
Ireland. I have gained a lot, and the first thing that I have
gained after four years is an intense appreciation of the subtleties
of the North Report. It is subtle because it is pragmatic. It
does not come down in a way that would have the place infested
with lawyers—and I say that as a former lawyer. It would
be so easy to have the whole thing taken over by lawyers, which
would be to no-one's advantage. It is also, I think, quite subtle
in the way that it takes us to the wire on associating mediation
with arbitration. Any purist lawyer will say to you never mix
the two. If there is mediation going on the ultimate arbitrator,
the judge, never knows about it because otherwise it can affect
the attitude of those involved in the mediation exercise, and
it can also affect what they say and how they approach it. We
actually get a lot of information from the authorised officers,
which takes us almost up to the wire of being contaminated by
the mediating process, but because we are not mediating and merely
engaging in an exercise of trying to make minds meet in terms
of knowledge, information and acting as conduits, we avoid that
trap. That is why the North Report is so subtle and why the Act
probably works as best it can at the moment. It is not there for
ever; it cannot possibly be, but for the moment I think that this
Commission, given its experience of four years, is probably getting
the best out of what is a difficult situation, and we can probably
do so for another year or so. It will sometimes need to be re-examined,
but I do not think now is the time, as it happens.
Mr Quinn: Could I add to what
our Chairman has said? In the most intractable of all the locations,
which is Drumcree and Garvaghy, it would be arrogant of us to
say that we have all the answers or that we are the best, as individuals.
But could I say that the structure that we operate has been more
successful than a number of other mediation attempts. Could I
just take you through the attempts? The first one was chaired
by Jonathan Powell, whom all of you presumably know. The second
one was chaired by Frank Blair from Scottish ACAS, who packed
it in after about a month, and proved that the commercial approach
which has been advocated by others did not work in this particular
location, in this particular dispute. The third one was chaired
by Adam Ingram, who proved himself an outstanding negotiator and
yet did not get the result. The fourth one was chaired by Brian
Currin, a lawyer from South Africa, and it did not deliver anything
either. We have just gone through a process where some of the
people involved in that dispute went to South Africa, met a number
of people, held a number of discussions, and we see that, which
is our initiative rather than an initiative in mediation, as having
more potential to bear fruit—in fact, it cannot have less
because the other four failed—than any of the four previous
attempts or indeed than anything else that has happened in that
location in a long time.
Mr Osborne: May I add something
to that? You asked whether we are the best body of people to be
taking these decisions at the moment. At the end of the day, we
are people who are representing civil society in Northern Ireland,
doing our best under difficult circumstances with difficult issues
to reconcile some of the issues that are there. The Commission
has not discussed this, but I will express the personal view that
ultimately more direct political accountability, which I am taking
is part and parcel of your question, is desirable in Northern
Ireland, and the accountability through the United Kingdom parliament
as there is at the minute. There are some other areas where there
is more direct political accountability and I think there has
been discussion around Scotland. South Africa is another example.
In both of those examples, having seen them firsthand, the political
involvement is minimal, and actually, the management and administration
of the parading decision is taken by officials within the local
authorities in both of those examples, but within the accountability
framework of the local authorities. So I think there are useful
lessons potentially to be learned from areas like that. Maybe
Northern Ireland is not quite at that stage, and maybe we all
hope it is going to be at that stage some day.
Mr Cousins: I just wanted to make
the point that we have been looking at different structures. They
may look superficially attractive, but if you gave people in Northern
Ireland the choice of picking one set or another, the middle ground
disappears, so anything which is of the nature, say, of a tribunal
approach, with which I am very familiar—I work in equal
opportunities—if you took that approach, you would institutionalise
sectarianism rather than resolve it, because people will just
choose sides. As was referred to earlier, the fact that we can
work across this whole area enables people who are in the most
danger, and that is people who come in, in confidence, to disagree
with their own side. If we went to an open tribunal type of approach,
they would just disappear because there is no way they could come
into an open forum and disagree with their own side. They would
be physically in danger.
Chairman: Point taken.
Q214 Mr Pound: Continuing the theme
of fructification that was introduced by Mr Quinn, Quigley seems
to suggest that you actually consider the rights issue first and
the public order issue after you have made the initial determination.
We have had a lot of discussion about this, because in many ways
the centrality of the matter we are discussing has come within
the ambit of this area of questioning. What are your thoughts
on the Quigley suggestion?
Sir Anthony Holland: It seems
a nice, logical suggestion but it would just mean that you would
spend a lot of time going all through the procedure and then at
the end somebody would say no, on public order grounds. Of course,
to go back to your question, Chairman, if I may, just for a minute,
the ultimate political input is from the Secretary of State, who
can overrule us.
Q215 Chairman: Only if asked.
Sir Anthony Holland: He could
technically, I suppose, say "I think on all grounds this
is a bad idea." If we were to suddenly say a parade can take
place in—I will choose a neutral point—in Cornwall,
where I come from, Camelford or somewhere, that would be overruled
as being inappropriate.
Sir John Pringle: Regarding human
rights before public order, it is an individual approach, and
I personally look at the whole thing at the same time. I do not
think they can be separated, and certainly the Chairman has never
said "We will now consider human rights before public order"
or the reverse. No system for approach has been laid down, and
we all take our own course, and I suspect as a group it is all
the rights together with public order. I think we all lump them
together.
Mr Pound: I have heard the word "balance"
a few times.
Q216 Reverend Smyth: The Chairman
did refer to the subtleties of the North Commission and I am not
going to take that up, but I agree with him. Can I raise the issue
of perception raised by Mr Quinn, especially when he talked about
this recent visit to South Africa. It is just a perception some
of us had from the paper that the folk who started the problem
are actually settled now, that Drumcree has been settled and they
were not going to South Africa.
Mr Quinn: That is a view that
has been taken by the GRRC. That is not a view that is shared
by the Commission, and the Commission certainly do not consider
that Garvaghy is a done deal in any direction. We will be considering
Garvaghy, as they do every week, but really the big consideration
will be the one in July and we will consider it on its merits.
We will certainly not be influenced by the fact that there are
those who tell us that it is done and dusted and it is no longer
an issue, because that is not true.
Mr Osborne: Can I say something
on South Africa as well? I know John was also there. I think it
was an extremely valuable exercise. I certainly learned an awful
lot when I was there, not just about the institutions in South
Africa and the conflict resolution processes that the South Africans
have found successful. I learned an awful lot from the other participants,
and the Orange representatives who were there, for example, made
a very significant and very useful contribution to the event.
I learned a lot more about the issues that are important to that
institution and to those people who were there. I think it shows
the value of dialogue and communication like that, which I think
we would like to see more of, and hopefully everybody who was
there learned more about how the Commission does its business
and how the Commission would like to see things progress in the
future. Just for the record, I think it was a very useful exercise
indeed.
Q217 Mr Bailey: Exploring this issue
of mediation and determination, from what you have just said,
you would presumably welcome changes which promote a greater degree
of dialogue between the interested parties. How best might this
be accomplished? You may disagree; I do not know.
Sir Anthony Holland: The essence
of what we are about ultimately is determining whether a parade
can take place with out conditions or not, and the more you get
involved in the mediation processes, the more you tend to contaminate
the insularity of the arbitration process. The reason why I say
we have gone as far as we can and almost up to the wire, if you
like, is the way we use authorised officers. In the Quigley Report
it is very interesting, because in fact what is proposed there
is a number of stages, one of which, of course, is a full-scale
facilitation or mediation process which, if it is successful obviously
means the end of that particular consideration of a parade. If
it is unsuccessful, it is suggested in the Quigley Report that
it will be the source of further information given to the rights
panel, but of course, as soon as you actually have that as part
of the process, it affects the nature of the mediation, because
first of all those involved in the mediation will know that their
attitude, their responses, how far they were to blame or not to
blame, will be part of the account of what happened in the mediative
process, or if it is done in the form of a report written by the
mediator or the chairman of the facilitation panel, his approach
would be tainted by what he encountered during the process. So
it is in a way worse for the parties because they do not know
what is in that report—they may see it if they are lucky
but they may not—and it does not stand up. That is, as I
say, why North was so subtle as to realise that trap, and to say
what will happen is the authorised officers, through the Parades
Commission will be facilitating mediation but not actually doing
it.
Mr Cousins: In that sort of process,
how do you decide who represents people? It is quite clear that
the person or the group that notifies of their intention to parade
are defined, but on the residents' side, how would you define
residents? If a group came in and went through the process, and
another group said "They don't represent us. We don't like
this," just in practical terms it could not work, because
you could not define who could represent people.
Sir Anthony Holland: We are working
on this now. I do think we need to have our authorised officer
operation better resourced. We have seen what it can achieve;
better resourced, it could probably achieve a lot more. We still
have some ideas as to how we want to develop that. We have not
put forward these ideas because obviously there have been so many
inquiries and references to us that we have tended to say we had
better wait and see what happens, but certainly we are here for
two more years, and that is one of the high profile jobs on our
agenda.
Q218 Chairman: In that regard only,
have you applied for more resources?
Sir Anthony Holland: My Secretary
can probably tell us.
Mr Elliott: We are working up
some ideas now.
Q219 Chairman: You are not having
any problem with the Northern Ireland Office about resources?
Sir Anthony Holland: No, I could
not pretend that. We have to put a firm programme in, and cost
it.
Mr Quinn: Can I come back to Mr
Bailey's question on mediation? We view mediation in two ways.
First of all, it may be a vehicle that will in itself produce
a resolution. We know that will not always happen. We also see
it as a vehicle which will lead to engagement, and we have indicated
what we mean by engagement. We have gone public on that in two
annual reports. We wrote a letter to a parade organiser, or an
adviser to a parade organiser, in which we detailed exactly how
we viewed engagement and the different levels of engagement, and
indicated very clearly that engagement would be valued by the
Commission even where it did not produce a resolution in itself.
So we are looking at mediation as having two possible types of
outcome. Both of those outcomes ultimately should lead to some
form of resolution but neither of them lead to resolution immediately.
Mr Cousins: Just in terms of how
we achieve engagement or seek to get to it, one of the things
we do is try and think of different or novel ways in which to
get people together. That was the reason for the South African
trips. I think we can point to the one last year where we took
the group from north and west Belfast, protagonists from both
sides, a very difficult parading issue, and went to South Africa
and partly as a result, over last summer, the White Rock/Springfield
Road situation has eased. In fact, we can point directly, in terms
of benchmarking, which was mentioned earlier, in that the Chief
Constable can look at the security costs over the parading season
and they said they were significantly reduced. That is what we
were trying in South Africa with the latest trip: finding novel
ways of people to come to deal with these very difficult issues
in ways and in environments where they feel comfortable.
|
