Examination of Witnesses (Questions 267
- 279)
MONDAY 26 APRIL 2004
ASSISTANT CHIEF
CONSTABLE DUNCAN
MCCAUSLAND,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
SEAMUS HAMILL
AND INSPECTOR
AMANDA COOKE
Q267 Chairman: Good afternoon to
the three of you. I can hardly see you from this distance. We
are usually a little more intimate in our committee rooms. Thank
you very much for coming to help us in our inquiry into the Parades
Commission. What is your relationship like with the Parades Commission?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
Thank you, Chairman. If I could introduce my two colleagues: Chief
Superintendent Hamill, who is currently in charge of the Operations
Department, and Inspector Amanda Cooke, who is our permanent liaison
officer with the Parades Commission. I am the Assistant Chief
Constable for, as it is now, urban region, or Belfast as it was
before. Since the inception of the Parades Commission the Police
Service of Northern Ireland has appointed a full-time liaison
inspector, and currently it is Amanda who is dealing with the
Parades Commission. That officer is responsible for providing
the Commission with what we would describe as a quick link between
the districts and the Parades Commission and for obtaining and
checking all of the correspondence in relation to contentious
parades. We have built up a very professional working relationship
and we hope we are able to iron out any or all issues or any problems
that potentially come about, and there have not been that many.
The Commission have dealt very professionally with the police,
treating all of our correspondence with confidentiality, and this
trust we feel has been very important and has allowed us on many
occasions to share sensitive information, including, I would say,
Chairman, intelligence where required. The Commission are very
aware of the operational difficulties and will often go through
various different scenarios with the police before issuing a final
determination. District commanders have a very good working relationship
both with the Commission and their staff. Once a year for the
past three years, a joint Police/Parades Commission seminar has
been held where views and ideas have been shared. We feel this
is a very important opportunity to build on the relationship and
the useful contacts we have. For example, Chairman, this year
it will be 6 May when we will carry out the seminar.
Q268 Chairman: Thank you. How successful
do you think they have been in performing their function?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
It would be our view that overall we feel the Commission are performing
a very worthwhile task. Going back to pre-Commission days, the
police had to both make the decision and decide in effect whether
the parade took place and police out the event. The work of authorised
officers on the ground is really the most important feature of
the Commission, we feel, and they can often gather information
which would be more difficult for the police to have access to.
We would recommend that the number of authorised officers should
be increased and that they should be perhaps working more continuously
in an area, not only in the run-up to a parade. We feel that building
up that contact and that relationship with the community is very
important. The codes of conduct which the Commission have produced
provide a very strict set of guidelines for parade organisers
and participants. The code is not contained in legislation and
we would like to see, if possible, that it could be reflected
in something like the Highway Code. We would suggest new legislation
to give standing to the codes which would back up the creation
of a compliance branch to deal with breaches.
Q269 Chairman: Sometimes the Commission
have told us that they reject advice which you provide in relation
to the public order implications of a parade. How does this affect
your relationship with them?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
Chairman, obviously if they do reject the advice, which they are
quite open to do, we have the right, as you know, to appeal to
the Secretary of State if we feel that the determination is going
to create major difficulties. If our advice is rejected we have
been able to reopen negotiations and discuss it in detail with
them. We have always taken the line that we will police the determination
but, as you aware, in terms of the legislation we do have the
right up to 24 hours before to decide on public order grounds
if the parade will or will not take place. At this moment in time
we have not had to exercise that right and on all the occasions,
and I look at my colleagues, we have policed the determinations
as given.
Q270 Chairman: Have you ever had
to go to the Secretary of State?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
I am not aware. No, I do not think we have, Chairman.
Q271 Chairman: The last time this
Committee reported on parades we noted that protocols had been
put in place to promote better co-ordination and understanding
between the police and the Commission. Are those protocols still
in place?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
Yes, very much so.
Q272 Chairman: What sort of effect
have they had?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
With your permission, I would like, if possible, to ask the inspector
who deals with the protocols if she could specifically answer
that question.
Q273 Chairman: Please let any of
your team feel free to answer the question which is in their area
of expertise.
Inspector Cooke:
Chairman, the protocols are there and they are basically how we
deal on a day-to-day basis with the Commission. They set out the
forms that are to be used, the contact between outside police
officers comes through myself and goes to the Commission and certain
evidence is then looked for by the Commission. Everything is contained
within those protocols and sets out clearly what everyone has
to do at each stage of the parade process.
Q274 Mr Swire: How effective has
the Commission been in making decisions on public order? What
difference does it make to the PSNI not having to have that responsibility
any more?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
I think it has been critically important not to have that responsibility
any more. We are not seen to be judge and, to a certain extent,
the person who carries through the result. I do not want to use
the word executioner, but the person who basically decides and
then has to police it out. There is a separate body now that makes
the decision and I think that has been very important. The Commission
can reflect not just on the public order aspect but all other
aspects of community impact in terms of making a decision and
I think that is important, to be able to balance all of those
before coming to a final conclusion as to the issue of a determination.
It is important to realise that in terms of the actual number
of parades we have had in Northern Ireland, if you take over the
last three years, in 2001 we had 3,400 of which only 170 determinations
were issued, reflecting 2002 we had 3,300 of which only 160 determinations
were issued and last year 3,270 parades of which 130 determinations
were issued. I think that is a statement in itself that the determinations
as such are like a last stage when negotiation has failed. In
many instances we are able, and have been able, with the Parades
Commission to negotiate a successful agreement where determinations
have not been needed. I would suggest that would reflect the reduction
in the public order problems that have been there as a result
of the Parades Commission being there and in the police policing
their decisions.
Q275 Mr Swire: In paragraph 30 of
your memorandum it says that you are concerned about Sir George
Quigley's proposals in relation to public order—that is
corroborated by a number of witnesses—and that you would
be reluctant to reclaim any responsibility for either making or
enforcing public order decisions. What do you think would be the
main consequences if responsibility was restored to PSNI?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
At the moment Sir George proposes, if you are specifically referring
to the creation of the rights panel, in our opinion dividing out
the application of Article 11 of the Human Rights Act in so much
as under Article 11(1), the rights panel would make a decision
based on that but ignore Article 11(2) in terms of the aspects
of public order. We feel that it is very important that everything
is taken into account. To specifically come to your point about
how would it place us in difficulty, again we would be coming
back to the point which I made earlier that not only would we
be deciding in relation to the policing of the parade but we would
be deciding after the rights panel had made its decision based
on public order and the rights panel would not have made that
decision with that information. We feel it contradicts the current
position and restores us back to where we were in 1998 when the
police, in effect, made the primary decision.
Q276 Mr Swire: I would like to turn
now, if I may, to the marching season. There have been various
reports from the Chief Constable and others that this year's marching
season may not be as quiet as last year. Can you explain or give
the Committee some indication of the sort of signals that you
have picked up which suggest that this might be the case. If this
is the case, what steps are you taking to deal with this possibility?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
I think the present political vacuum, which unfortunately we are
experiencing, creates a potential and opportunity for those factions
in the community wanting to disrupt it. However, we have no indication
that the parades season will be any more contentious than the
previous year, bearing in mind that this vacuum does exist. There
is an unease within the community fostered by this vacuum and
it is this which provides an opportunity for disorder to occur
if people want disorder to occur. I can say categorically—and
I have said it here and I have said it, also, to the policing
board and the Chief Constable has reiterated this—at present
we have no specific information or consultation that would say
there is a threat of disorder during the forthcoming marching
season. However, as you would appreciate, we continue to plan
and prepare for whatever consequences may come about. Again, I
would emphasise that the vacuum which is there creates the potential
that if people wish to fill that vacuum with public disorder they
can but we are working extensively with various aspects of the
community to ensure that as successful a marching season as there
was last year takes place this year.
Q277 Mark Tami: In your evidence
you talk about the cost of policing the parades and you describe
those costs as massive. Could you quantify what massive means?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
Yes, Chairman. I have figures before me which I can put in writing
to the Committee if you so wish but I will read them out in general
now. We are looking at the marching seasons for 2001-02, 2002-03
and 2003-04. The headline figures would be, for 2001-02, around
22.5 million, for 2002-03 it would be 28.3 million—I would
draw some reluctance in quoting that figure because there are
other aspects built into that in relation to public order which
occurred around the Holy Cross dispute—and then 2003-04
it dropped to just over 18 million. The headline figures I have
given to you, I am more than happy to put in writing the specific
public order figures so that Members of the Committee can peruse
them at their leisure.
Q278 Mark Tami: You talk also about
the possibility of cost recovery. Could you perhaps elaborate
on how you might go about that or what method may be used?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
We would be very keen potentially to explore the issue of cost
recovery but we feel the cost of policing parades could be reduced
significantly by the presence of more trained marshals without
even going into the issue of cost recovery. This may well justify
making the provision of trained marshals, we feel, a condition
of parade applications and would allow, also, parade organisations
to be aware and organisers to be aware of the issue of health
and safety requirements that could be included in relation to
the training of marshals. As I emphasised before, a person organising
a parade must be conscious of the responsibilities of bringing
large numbers of people together. The numbers of marshals then
required, therefore, would be proportionate to the size of each
parade. In effect I think one of the best ways that we could suggest
to reduce the necessary overheads in terms of policing would be
potentially introducing trained marshals and making it part of
the requirement to have said when you are organising a parade.
Q279 Mark Tami: That is obviously
reducing cost but it is not recovery cost. Do you have any proposals
in actually recovering the cost rather than just reducing the
cost?
Assistant Chief Constable McCausland:
I would relate potentially the effect of trained marshals in Northern
Ireland in relation to the policing of football. A few years ago
there was a heavy commitment and an extremely large cost to the
police in policing football matches across Northern Ireland. With
the introduction of trained marshals we have virtually been removed
from that role which has led to a significant saving from that.
However, if we use the football example, and you look at the rest
of the country, there has been use of cost analysis and being
able to go to various football organisations and have a proportion
of it paid back. That issue could be explored with organisers
but I think the balance in Northern Ireland, a slightly different
balance in relation to parades, has to be realised, that there
is a public order policing element which as police officers we
have to judge. What I would not want to be getting into would
be negotiating with parade organisers as to how many police officers
we would provide against such a cost because there is the public
order and the public responsibility aspect.
| 
