03/07/2014 The View

The leaders of unionism have decided there is no longer any prospect of

success. The political talks as they stand are now fruitless. We will

play no further part in them. With unionists claiming today's

talks walk-out is an attempt to avoid violence and disorder over

a Twelfth Parade being prevented from returning up the Crumlin Road,

we speak to the man charged with managing the situation

on the streets - the new And with the talks now apparently

dead in the water, we hear from the main parties on

where this leaves efforts to resolve We'll also have analysis

from our regular commentators Alex Kane and Paul McFadden - and

you can, of course, join the debate Those sceptics who held out little

prospect of the new round of talks getting anywhere were

proven right even more quickly than they might have anticipated

when the unionists involved The Parades' Commission's decision

to repeat last year's ruling preventing an Orange lodge

and bands from passing the Ardoyne shops on the evening of the Twelfth

triggered the move. The Democratic Unionists, Ulster

Unionists and TUV joined the PUP and UPRG in issuing a joint statement

saying they're working together to, as they put it, avert violence

and destruction on our streets. With me tonight to discuss this

latest twist are the Alliance leader, David Ford, Jonathan Bell of

the DUP, Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly, Tom Elliot of the Ulster Unionist

Party and the SDLP's Alex Attwood. In the joint statement issued

when you left these talks, you say you want to avert violence,

but surely all you've done is What we have done is provide

political leadership to a process that was fundamentally flawed

because democracy was under threat from republican violence. We had the

threat of catastrophic consequences if a peaceful Orange parade was

allowed. And as a result of those threats of violence, they very

clearly said it was as a result of the threat of violence that they

changed the determination or they made its termination that a six

minute peaceful Orange parade couldn't proceed along and arterial

routes to their home. There was a historical problem, and they thought

there was a danger with allowing the parade go ahead which outweighed

allowing it not to go ahead. The difficulty with your stance is you

have raised the possibility of widespread violence, and that, your

opponent to Mac say, is the height of irresponsibility. I was on the

parade in 2012. Even your BBC journalist walked the route and told

us it was impossible to do, and yet we did it and we did it by using

buses and changing times. We abided completely by the law. The

Republicans opened up with a machine gun, and that has not been shown on

television. And what was the response in 2013? Republican

violence was rewarded and the good, lawful behaviour as the Orangemen of

North al fast -- Belfast was punished. Democracy was under threat

from violence. From all sides. Your major concern is to other violence?

So accept the Parades Commission decisions and stay off the streets.

That would be constructive. We're talking about freedom of basic

cultural expression. We're talking about a six minute parade. We want

any action that goes forward to be peaceful and law-abiding. We want to

avert violence. Four. If you want to say... Don't try to twist words.

Accept the Parades Commission decisions and stay off the streets.

What part of the peaceful and lawful action we are calling for is

difficult? Your colleague Nigel Dodds called for people to avoid

violence on the streets last year, and he got hit on the head with a

brick thrown by a loyalist. Let me go back to where the violence has

come from in 2012. The brick that was thrown at Nigel Dodds was thrown

by a loyalist. Republican violence has been rewarded, and as a result

is that, that might not be the message you want to hear, but as a

result of that, we are looking for a peaceful way forward, but freedom of

cultural expression... And what about the policemen who will find

themselves having to police this? No attacks on the Blues whatsoever.

They are inexcusable and wrong. So what I am calling for is the

Unionist leadership will act to protect against the threat coming to

it. I don't know where to start. The question to be asked of Jonathan is

what is he talking about? There is a threat of violence from republican

quarters, that is what he says. I assume the violence you are talking

about this year is from loyalists? Are you talking about the violence

this year? You say you are trying to avert violence. Are you talking

about the violence this year? What he is talking about is the fact that

the Parades Commission has Maister determination based on concerns that

they could be violence from nationalists and/or Republicans. The

people in those talks are hiding behind violence, that is what he is

claiming. Are you hiding behind violence? I am not. It is a complete

nonsense. Let me finish. The second thing is that we are now told by the

leader of the DUP that the institutions are under threat from

the Parades Commission. Now how do you stand over statements like

that? Why would you put that burden on them? They have nothing to do

with it. If you want leadership, stay at the talks. We are supposed

to be working this stuff out. And throwing the dummy out and calling

that leadership makes my mind boggle. Why all the institutions

under threat from the Parades Commission? They said they have

changed their determination based on the threat of violence. And where

did that come from a smack the threat to bring thousands of people

out onto the street. What is that got to do with bringing down the

institutions? It was the Deputy First Minister who dropped of

catastrophic sequences if the parade was allowed to go ahead, so it was

the Deputy First Minister... What has that got to do with the

institutions collapsing? What is the connection? The threat of republican

violence perverting democracy. We have to abide by the democratic

process. So your answer to that is to walk out of the talks? The

determination is based on the fact that the Republicans threatened to

bring thousands of people onto the streets. We have acted to protect

democracy. Tom Elliott, what is the connection between the Parades

Commission ruling and the future of the institutions Stormont? I didn't

hear anybody say that the institutions were in danger. He just

said that they are in peril. Are they in peril or not? Are they about

to collapse or not? I didn't use the word in peril. What I have said is

that democracy is under threat from the risk of republican violence full

top are the institutions under threat? I am saying that

democracy... top are the institutions under

threat? I Are the institutions under threat? Are the institutions under

threat? What part of our the democratic process is under threat

are you not getting? What part of all the institutions under threat

are you not getting? We will work instructive lead take Northern

Ireland forward. Right, OK. Tom Elliott you acting to protect

democracy? Is that what walking out of the talks was about today? What

we want to see is a better Northern Ireland. We want to make sure there

is no violence in the next two or three weeks. People accused us in

the past of no political leadership will stop people said last year if

we had an more, it is the political institutions and leaders that could

have done more. What we are trying to do is give leadership. Nobody has

ever from the Ulster Unionists' is effective, what we want to see is a

positive outcome. Why not talk about these controversial issues? DS --

the SDLP, Sinn Fein, others, we are there ready to talk about the

issues. Are you going to ratchet things up in the days and weeks

ahead? The media will no whatever body else knows. There are plans

ahead, and I can tell you, you will hear about them in the next days.

Does it involve bringing people out onto the streets? I wouldn't call

people out onto the streets. It may entail protests. That doesn't mean

protests on the street. I protested today by coming out of the talks,

but that doesn't mean I am out on the streets protesting. Protests can

take many forms. Would it not have been easier, frankly, to allow the

six minute parade to go up the Crumlin Road and be done with it? It

has been confirmed by Jonathan, by Nigel Dodds, they are now exploiting

people's worst fears. They are saying to people, across Northern

Ireland, not just in Belfast, they are saying very clearly, your worst

fears are justified. Democracy now is under threat. And at the same

time, rather than sending the message which has to be the biggest

message of all those who are responsible, the parties, the

churches, the communities, rather than sending the message that you

have to accept the commission, there are talking about escalating Ings

over the next ten days. And what they need to do, and they need to do

it very, quickly, unless you accept the Parades Commission

determination, you could lead to chaos, and unless you tell people

that their worst fears are not justified, even though they don't

like the Parades Commission determination, then you will not be

able to put this back. Unionists say, and Jonathan Bell has said it

clearly, this determination is a reward for violence. How do you

respond to that? Heidi persuade him that that is not the case? First of

all, too many people have talked with forked tongues. It is not that

long ago that the Woodvale Parade, the last Saturday in June, saw

loyalist gunmen firing shots from rooftops at the police. And yet a

few months later, a second parade was allowed. So I think unionism and

oranges need to be very careful when they talk about violence and the

Parades Commission, because violence was used to influence the Parades

Commission in the past. He says that anybody demonstrating should do so

peacefully. That has been said time and again in today's joint

statement. But in previous times, Orangemen and Unionist have

benefited from the threat of violence to get their own way. The

Parades Commission last year said that a big factor in determining

whether a parade would be allowed this year was the quality and

character of dialogue. All disputes about parades are actually disputes

about relationships, and resolving relationships needs sustainable

dialogue. Front and centre in its commission determination was that

the dialogue had been piecemeal. That is the biggest factor, in my

view, when it comes to this determination. As the Alliance party

leader and the Minister of Justice, how angry are you at today's

development? I am frustrated and angry. I wonder what determination

Unionists read. I wonder if they even read it, given that they pulled

out of the talks so soon. I read it this afternoon, and it related to

the issue of engagement and the quality of engagement. Piecemeal.

And reaches of determinations with the multiple parades and protests

that there have been in the Woodvale area since last July. So it wasn't a

threat of republican violence, it was in response to the failure of

unionism to behave it self, and Jonathan can shake his head if he

likes. It is not true. It is exactly what the determination says, and I

suggest you read it. It might have been a good idea to read it before

you rushed out. The point is that it says more than that. You are picking

one line. The critical issue was a determination by the Unionist parade

on the basis of the behaviour by those who paraded, who also have

been breaching determinations all year.

Hang on, Jonathan Bell. I want to ask another question. You said today

that the Unionist walk-out raises questions about fitness for

power-sharing Government. Is that not unhelpful? Do you not think, at

a time when we sat down to engage in what was agreed by unionists to be

important, six days of intensive discussions, to look at the key

issues around not just the parades, but also flags and emblems, the

critical thing is that we hear plenty of concern for victims from

the Unionists, but they betrayed their concern in that by the way

they walked out. Whatever Tom says, this was not about the party is

taking over the function of the parades commission to determine on

individual parades which would be determined over the next day or two.

This was about an overarching arrangement. I want to ask you how

you would persuade Tom Elliott and Jonathan Bell that the culture they

feel a part of and our political representatives of is under threat?

That is what they say. They see it on flags, parades, and they think

that you and your party particularly, is at the heart of

driving that agenda. How do you persuade them that they have got it

wrong? I don't know if I can. I will try and do it in this way. I will do

it briefly. We have statistics out now that the number parades have

increased, doubled, and loyalist bands have also doubled. So instead

of the culture actually diminishing, it seems to me that it is motioning

to that amount of other cultures, but that's fair enough. I see it as

a myth, and they are peddling it to people on the ground, and somebody

said about it, the Justice Minister, it was, we need to go back to their

homes to know. These are working-class people who are living

in the shank Hill Road, Allwood Bill or other Protestant areas -- or

would Bill. -- would Bill. The contradiction of saying you are an

electric representative -- elected representative... How are you trying

to persuade us? What has that got to do with parades? They are named

after an IRA member. They are twin sides of the same coin. Let him

speak and I will go back to Jonathan Bell. The contradiction is saying

that you are showing leadership and then walking out of talks which were

trying to deal with the three toxic issues which people want us to deal

with, and then threatening... I didn't walk out. You shouldn't have

come to the talks in the first place. If I can get through this

without being interrupted, and then saying that the institutions, so

you're talking about those, then threatening them, how do you work

the logic out in that? How can anybody out there take your

leadership as anything else but winding the situation up? Two

points. The justice minister has failed to explain to people why, in

2012, when a peaceful, legitimate Orange possession, no matter how

difficult the circumstances were, created peacefully and lawfully came

under attack from a republican gunmen and the reward for that was

to damage the people who acted in the law and to punish them, to

reward republican violence. The SDLP give lectures here, and then go into

the other playpark. It's an absolute disgrace. So, that was wrong. What

have you done to change it? We will work to change it. We have said

publicly that what we did was wrong. Is it wrong to report -- reward

republican violence and then in children's playgrounds, hides a gun

from the Kingsmill massacre? If it is wrong for us to have named a park

after someone involved in a terrorist organisation, then people

over the next ten days have to be on the right side of democracy, the

rule of law and doing the best for people especially. A final sentence

from Tom Elliott. Alex, we need to leave it. The point we need to clear

up, is that those Orangemen have not done enough from last year. They

have engaged in talks and consistent talks and it's an absolute

fabrication to say that they have not. They have, and they followed

the road maps set out by the commission. They followed the road

map that the parades commission set out last year. That is not what the

determination says. The Minister of Justice does not have a role in

defending the commission's decision, because the Parades

Commission is the body established to adjudicate on parades and protest

because we can't agree anything different. Their rulings should be

accepted as the ruling of course should be accepted, whether you like

them or not. It is the you to accept them until -- and for the Orangemen

to accept them. How threatened do you think Stormont and devolved

institutions are by today's developments question it has not

done the issue of devolution any good. As we face financial

difficulties because of welfare reform, we are failing to deal with

the fundamental issues of the past. We need to leave it there folks.

We're out of time. I don't think we have seen a meeting of minds there.

We will leave at for tonight. Thank you all very much, gentlemen.

Well, he's been in the job for just four days

and now the new Chief Constable, George Hamilton, finds himself

having to manage the outworkings of yet another political crisis.

Mr Hamilton joins me now for his first in-depth interview

Thanks for joining us on the programme tonight.

Let's talk about the politics of where we are first.

You've listened to 20 minutes of five politicians agreeing on very

little. What are your thoughts

on the debate you've just watched? I am an eternal optimist, but I

heard some things in that debate that were serious issue. In the

middle of lots of disagreement, I was hearing consensus that any

activity should be lawful, from the DUP, and the Ulster Unionist party

are saying they are not calling people onto the street, and that is

critical, because once people are called onto the street it becomes

very difficult to have any influence or control over their behaviour. I

am hearing pleas across all five parties that people would not resort

to violence, no matter how aggrieved they feel. That is important. The

trick in this is to get it from the political level down to a community

level, even down to family level. Since the start of the flags protest

we have arrested, charged or reported almost 700 people, many of

them people with a 97% conviction rate, nearly 700 people with

convictions who did not need to have them. It's important that influences

brought to bear, not just from the political commentary we just heard,

and there were some please for no violence and peaceful and lawful

protest. We need to find a way to get that down to community level so

that parents and people with influence can ensure that young

people don't become criminalised through this. Those are the

positives you take out of the discussion, and your right to draw

attention to the fact that those points were made. Protests should be

peaceful and not brought onto the street. What about the possibility

of mixed messages in what has been said since lunchtime today?

Unionists have said that the determination from the commission

rewards of islands. Could that not be interpreted, by some people --

rewards of violence. Or should I say misinterpreted by people to take it

onto the streets, and engage in violence and see violence rewarded

in the process we have in Northern Ireland? I think all of this, in

civic and political life, we need to be circumspect about the language

use when tensions are raised. That is a general principle and I think

it is good, common sense. It's not the meat to lecture politicians on

the language they use -- it is not for me. They are accountable for the

language they use, and they need to be clear about the role of the

police, which is to keep people safe, our poll the rule of law --

our poll. The conversation here is to dip -- uphold the determination

of the commission and we deal with the aftermath. Would it not be

helpful for politicians to say we did not like the determination and

we think it is flawed, we think it's a mistake, we fundamentally disagree

with it, but we have to accept it? Because it is a lawful body, an

independent body, it has looked at the evidence and made its decision,

and people should not do anything to protest against it. They might not

like it, but they need to accept it. But that is not what politicians are

saying. It is not what I am saying, but I won't move into the space

where I tell politicians what to say. I need to be clear. The role of

the police is actually very simple and straightforward in this, albeit

in a hugely challenging operating environment. The role of the police

is to uphold the rule of law, and the determination. When people

breach that and become offenders, we collect evidence, where appropriate

to arrest them, take the evidence to the prosecutor and they end up

before the court. We don't want to do that with our young people. The

people have choices to make. Groups, families, communities, they have

choices to make about how people will behave on the streets. You

don't want to do that, but will you do it if necessary? Absolutely. Let

me be unequivocal. The job is to collect evidence and lock up people

who break the law. That is what we will do. We will uphold the

determination. Do you think, perhaps, in the past, maybe last

year, in the way you dealt with some of the difficulties on our streets,

the PSN I adopted too much of a softly softly approach? That is a

commentary that has been made. The Court of Appeal has validated the

approach we took last year. All of us have lessons to learn how to

learn out of how the flags protest was handled. We will look at that

and we will look at it again, but let's be clear, people who breach

that determination and people who involve themselves in disorder will

have evidence again then collected, they will be appropriately arrested,

and the determination will be upheld, and people, by breaching it,

will find themselves before the courts. Are we going to see a

tougher approach on the part of the police under the new chief

constable? This chief constable will exercise the law within the human

rights framework. We want to be sensitive but we want to be robust.

It is clear that the determination has been issued. People don't like

it, and I understand they feel aggrieved, but my job is to ensure

that the determination is enforced and that is what we will do. Can I

ask you about the main Unionist leaders signing a statement today

alongside two smaller parties which have links to loyalist

paramilitaries. You have made it clear, and he spoke to the policing

board today, you believe the paramilitary organisations are

active and engaged in breaking the law. Is that appropriate for our

politicians, to be signing a statement with the political

representatives of those groups? I'm not going to get into lecturing

politicians about who they should associate with or who they should

talk to. I would say this. I would seek -- rather see senior

politicians embrace dialogues with groups who have influence at

community level so order can be maintained, rather than leave them

to run free and end up fighting with the police or other communities. It

seems to me that talking is always better than fighting. I would

encourage them to do that. What preparations have you made to access

additional support from GB police forces if things turn nasty on the

streets over the marching season? That was something done last year.

Have you made the same preparations this year? There are similar

preparations in place, but the tactics will be different. We have a

contingency in place that if there is disorder for a prolonged period

of time, and if we start to have fatigue and resilience issues with

officers, in the worst-case scenario we have a in place to bring in

officers to add to the resilience of the public order resources. But I am

confident we have sufficient resources to deal with this parade

and the determination on the 12th of July. Can I clarify one thing? Last

month on this programme we reported that there were loyalist putting up

flags and if they repeated it would be deemed as a breach of the peace,

and the same thing happened on the Lisburn Road and no action was

taken. What is the policy on flags going to be under your leadership?

The policy on flags is broader than me, the police service and my

leadership. We have a role to play in this, but flags is one of the

issues that the Richard Haass initiative was meant to tackle and

they did not achieve consensus. The all-party talks this morning were

meant to tackle that and they were unable to do it. For the police,

this is a mess around flags because there is not the framework in

place. We need a multi-agency response. The flying flags in itself

is not a criminal offence. Taking down flags by the police will not

happen unless there is a serious risk to public safety or there is a

clear commission of an offence by an individual putting up a flag. A

final question about resources because I need to move on. You say

it is difficult and there is a challenging situation on a number of

fronts, and you're already having to make cuts in the force and I

understand during discussion with the Justice Department about a

further ?10 million of saving. Can you do the job properly with the

resources you have? We are getting to the point we are getting

stretched thinly. We took ?47 million out of the budget for this

financial year, and because of the lack of consensus on welfare reform,

a further ?15 million had to come out. The Department of Justice has

asked us to look at another ?10 million because of an overspend on

health. That will have an impact on service delivery and an impact on

staffing levels and officer numbers. I need to flag that up with the

politicians, but we will do the best with what we've got to keep people

safe. That is what we are here for. Four days into the job, no regrets?

Not yet. Thanks for joining us tonight.

Did you take anything polyps -- positive out of this, Alex Glashan

observing the body language there were times when it was

extraordinarily difficult to believe that these five men represented the

five parties. It is not simply a case that they don't like each

other, they clearly don't trust each other and don't have a common vision

and don't see anything in common. When you ask Jonathan about whether

the institutions were in jeopardy, they might be not from what is

happening tonight, but because audiences watching this will be so

disconnecting, so disengaged, so disbelieving in the capability of

these guys are providing government or any solution. They are the people

switching up from politics, not the other way round. Has the political

temperature just been raised dramatically since lunchtime today?

It is undeniable that the temperature has certainly been

raised. I think the chief constable was being quite measured and trying

not to be alarmist for understandable reasons, but I think

we saw an extraordinary thing today. I don't think anyone is surprised

that the Unionist parties ended up walking out of the process, but to

walk out of one that addresses flags and parades on the second morning

was as an extraordinary thing. I had a sense of quite an extraordinary

thing happening at the moment, not only throwing the toys out of the

pram, but in the same movement almost threw the baby out with the

bath water. A quite extraordinary occurrence. Alex, you come from the

unionist background a quite extraordinary occurrence. Alex, you

come from the unionist background and you come from the unionist

background a new word for the UUP, so do you see the distinction

between the commission and the desire to walk out of talks and

discussion about where we go now as far as devolution is concerned? Is

there a link? There shouldn't be a link because the Unionist wanted

these talks. Peter Robinson said they wanted them. I am not

surprised. I'm a pessimist, so I'm not surprised they walked out, but

I'm surprised they walked out so quickly and did not give it a day

and discuss the issue separately and maybe bring in and Henderson or the

chief constable, talk it over before making the decision, but what is

interesting is that this is a return to the Unionist forum of January 20

13th which at the PU page, and that broke down in a matter of months

when they were tearing strips out of each other and after a general

election they are back to the same, circling the wagons and assume

everyone is against them. It's stupid. Some commentators are

suggesting that this is part of a choreography that will lead us to

the collapsing of the institutions. Some people absolutely disagree, but

some people say they are getting the bits of the jigsaw to start to fit

together to reach that conclusion. Is that a possibility? You have to

concede it is a possibility. Jonathan Bell was at pains not to

say that the commission was broken. The institutions were in danger. He

didn't use the world -- word imperilled. No, but he said there

was some issue. It was interesting to hear Jonathan Bell talking about

the line repeated frequently, that this is about a six minute walk down

a row. We need to leave it there. That's it from The View

for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics

at 11.35pm here on BBC1. One, two, three, four,

here they come. Patton strikes, it's there!

Oh, what a goal! Sturridge is in the middle.

Good ball from Rooney. Away we go, and it's a good start

from Hamilton.