EC/09/9/8

EQUALITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL REPORT OF COMMISSION INVESTIGATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 10 OF SCHEDULE 9 OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1998

PAUL BUTLER & CITY COUNCIL October 2009

INTRODUCTION

This investigation arises from allegations that failed to comply with its approved Equality Scheme as a result of the involvement/participation of its then Lord Mayor, (subsequently referred to as the Mayor) at an eleventh night beacon event in Stoneyford in 2008. The complainant is a Sinn Féin Councillor on Lisburn City Council and it appears that an election poster bearing his image was burnt on the beacon. The complainant alleges that the Mayor’s involvement in this incident has the potential to seriously damage community relations and equality of opportunity in the Lisburn Council area. The complainant instructs that the Mayor attended the 11th night beacon at Stoneyford, organised by the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee, in his role as Mayor of the Council. He states that a Sinn Féin election poster bearing his image was placed on top of the beacon, and the Mayor lit same with the poster being burned. He further instructs that the Mayor has subsequently publicly stated that he was aware that a Sinn Fein election poster was placed on the beacon when he lit same.

The Commission has conducted an investigation of whether the events on the night in question, and the Mayor’s involvement in same, were such as to constitute a failure by the Council to comply with its commitment at Section 1.3 of its approved Equality Scheme to fulfill its s75 obligations as set out in the preceding Sections 1.1 and 1.2, to;

 have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity across the 9 s. 75 groups, and

1 EC/09/9/8

 have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

The Council’s position

The Council’s position is that the incident in question has no implications for its Equality Scheme because;

 the Mayor attended the event following a personal invitation from the organisers, and  the Council was not supporting the event in any way.

Information obtained during the course of this investigation seriously undermines this contention.

Firstly the Mayor himself, both in correspondence sent to the Commission prior to the authorisation of this investigation, and when formally interviewed as part of the investigation, has categorically stated that he attended the event in question in his mayorial capacity. He explained that on 27th June 2008 the Council had written to the Stoneyford Memorial Committee offering it 75% of the funding it had originally sought for the event. The correspondence indicated that the Committee should confirm acceptance of this offer by 4 July, and stipulated conditions of offer including a requirement that certain officials, including the Mayor, be invited to the event.

The Mayor’s instructions on the status of his attendance at the event

The Mayor indicated that he first became involved in the issue on 8th July 2008 when he was contacted by the Chief Inspector PSNI Lisburn Area Commander. The Chief Inspector indicated that a potentially dangerous situation was developing in relation to the 11th night event at Stoneyford, and that he wanted the Mayor’s help in relation to same. He asked the Mayor to attend a meeting he was having that day with a Mr Harbinson, an influential figure on the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee, and the Water Service (the Stoneyford bonfire had traditionally been staged close to Stoneyford reservoir). The Mayor attended the meeting as

2 EC/09/9/8 requested, along with a UUP colleague,. It transpired that the Chief Inspector was worried that the event would involve breaches of a Parades Commission determination that bands were not to march in particular estates in the Stoneyford area. The Chief Inspector indicated the operational steps that would be necessary to ensure the Parades Commission determination was complied with, and to avoid any possible breaches of the peace. He advised however, that a heavy handed approach could be avoided if:-

 The reservoir site where the bonfire was normally lit was cleared (the Water Service had refused permission to the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee to use this land because of damage and pollution caused previously).  An environmentally friendly beacon would be used instead of a bonfire.  The Parades Commission determination was followed.

It was also suggested that a fireworks display and a band parade would be held, and that a more festival type approach generally be adopted.

Mr Harbinson from the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee in turn indicated that the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee could not go ahead with an event of the nature being suggested on the basis of the funding that was being provided by the Lisburn City Council. (The Committee had initially applied for £2450 to run this type of event. Initially the Council refused any funding, but subsequently changed its mind and offered the Committee £1812 towards the event). Mr Harbinson was basically indicating that the planned event (ie the beacon type event) could not be progressed without the outstanding £600 plus shortfall in funding, and as a result the normal bonfire would go ahead instead.

The Mayor decided that he should intervene to try to ensure that the beacon event went ahead, rather that the traditional bonfire, with all its potential for trouble. He therefore indicated that he would seek to find the outstanding 25% funding if the Committee went ahead with the planned beacon event, and on the terms put forward by the Chief Inspector (as set out previously). The Mayor intended to try to obtain the outstanding funding from the Community Relations Council, and phone calls took place with the CRC during which both he and the Chief Inspector explained the nature of the event being planned. CRC indicated in principle that

3 EC/09/9/8 it would offer funding, and explained that a written application for funding would have to be completed.

The Mayor explained that he had previously campaigned that a beacon be used in the Ballymacash estate rather than the traditional (huge) bonfire, and he had appeared on television describing that bonfire as a disgrace. As a result his own posters, and charactatures of him wearing a Celtic jersey had been burned on that bonfire. He saw the present situation as an opportunity to encourage a more festival and family orientated beacon event in the Stoneyford area ,and one that would be better for the environment, which he could use to continue to encourage this type of approach more generally.

The Mayor explained that the offer made by Council was subject to a condition that he as Mayor be invited to the event. The offer was dated 27 June with an acceptance to be returned by the 4th July. The Mayor together with Robert Knight who was at that time acting Director of Leisure Services, and David Mitchell the Council’s Good Relations Officer met with two representatives from the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee in the Mayor’s parlour on the 9th July. The purpose of this meeting was to help those representatives fill in the necessary Community Relations Council form. Robert Knight left the meeting briefly and returned stating that he had received a call from Councillor indicating that the DUP would not be supporting any funding being given to the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee. Whilst this was not an official decision, the Mayor realised that in all probability the Committee would receive no funding from Council. As a result he contacted the Community Relation Council again to explain that the Committee was now seeking 100% funding from it. Both he, and in a separate telephone conversation the Chief Inspector, spoke with the Community Relations Council. Again funding in principle was agreed, although at Mr Mitchell’s suggestion, the Committee was also required to agree to undertake good relations training, which the Mayor viewed as another success.

It was at the latter meeting that the acceptance form and invitation to the Mayor and others was handed in. Mr Harbinson had advised the Mayor that the offer was only received on the evening of the 3rd July, and he had to arrange a meeting with the band to decide if it should be accepted. As a result the acceptance form was submitted on 9th July. The Mayor decided, given his

4 EC/09/9/8 involvement in the matter and his desire to facilitate a beacon event rather than the traditional bonfire, that he would attend the event. He was not aware of any instruction to remove the invitation from his diary because of the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee’s failure to return the acceptance form by the date stated.

Information on status of Mayor’s attendance

Relevant members of Council staff were questioned about the status in which the Mayor attended the event as part of this investigation. Initially staff indicated that the decision to attend the event was a personal one, and therefore, presumably, the Mayor attended as a private individual. However, this position was not maintained when explored in more detail, and indeed some staff accepted that, whether or not the event was being funded by the Council, the attendance of the Mayor, wearing his ceremonial chain of office, meant that the Mayor was attending the event to represent Lisburn City Council in his capacity as its Mayor.

Commission’s findings on status of Mayor’s attendance

The Commission does not accept the Council’s central contention that the events on the night in question have no implications for its equality scheme. In coming to this conclusion it noted the following;

 The initial offer of Council funding was subject to a condition that the Mayor be invited to the event.  The Stoneyford Jubilee Committee returned the necessary acceptance form on 9th July, confirming that the Mayor was invited to the event.  The Mayor knew at this point that it was very unlikely that funding would be given. However, such a decision would have to be made by the Council, which did not meet again until late July. In those circumstances he felt obliged to attend the event.  In any event it became apparent during the course of the investigation that the Mayor’s attendance at events (in his capacity as first citizen) is in no way dependent on the event in question attracting Council funding.

5 EC/09/9/8

 No Council official contacted the Mayor to advise that in the circumstances it would be advisable that he should not attend the event.

Accordingly, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to consider the events that occurred on the night, and whether the mayor’s participation in same could constitute a failure to comply with the Council’s commitment at Section 1.3 of its approved Equality Scheme to fulfill its s75 obligations. The Commission is disappointed that the Council choose not to contribute to this substantive issue in either the original complaint made to it, or during the Commission’s subsequent investigation, choosing instead to rely on a narrow argument that the Mayor’s actions had no implications for its equality scheme.

Events on the night in question- Mayor’s version of events

The Mayor’s version of events significantly plays down his contribution to the incident, which he describes as regrettable, and also suggests that his involvement in the event was motivated by a desire to help prevent public disorder, and to seek to promote a more community orientated and environmentally friendly event. He explained that he arrived to meet the Committee members in Stoneyford at about 10.15. A photograph was taken of him and about 5 others holding the pole which was subsequently used to ignite the beacon. After this he was shown to the beacon, a tall metal pole with a basket on top filled with 4/5 pallets by a cherrypicker earlier that day. He was dismayed to see that an election poster had been attached to the beacon. He could not see the picture of the poster as it was bent in two but from the colours it was clear to him that it was a Sinn Féin election poster. He stressed that he did not actually light the beacon. He did not consider that it would have been a realistic proposition to seek to have the poster removed before the beacon was lit. The poster was at quite a height and the cherrypicker vehicle used to fill the beacon was not on site. By this point about 300 people, some of whom who would have consumed alcohol, were waiting for the beacon to be lit.

Investigation Findings

6 EC/09/9/8

The issue to be determined by the Commission is whether the actions of the Council’s then Lord Mayor were such as to constitute a failure by the Council to comply with its approved Equality Scheme commitment to fulfil its obligations to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity across the nine s. 75 groups, and regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

This is the first occasion the Commission has authorised investigation of a complaint based on alleged infringement of the general s. 75 duties. The view has been that Schedule 9 is designed to allow the Equality Commission to investigate complaints that specific commitments contained in approved Equality Schemes have been breached, for example in relation to screening and EQIA. Investigation based purely on alleged infringement of the general statement of and commitment to the statutory duties contained in an approved Equality Scheme is however appropriate if the public authority is potentially acting in an extreme or clearly unacceptable manner, for example if it acted in an overtly sexist, racist, homophobic or sectarian way. At face value a Mayor publicly burning a representation of a political adversary appears extreme, and as a minimum should have been explained by the Council. On the basis of the allegations made by the complainant, and the Council’s failure to deal with the substantive issue of the propriety of the Mayor’s action when the complaint was raised with it, the Commission took the view that investigation of the Mayor’s role in the matter was needed to establish if his actions breached the Council’s commitment to the statutory duties.

Investigation of this matter would suggest however that the Mayor only became involved in this issue at a late stage at the bequest of others, and sought to assist the Stoneyford Committee with the aim of securing a less contentious and environmentally-friendly type of event (using a beacon rather than a large bonfire), with less potential for public disorder, and to improve the prospect of a related Parades Commission ruling being observed by the band attending the event. Investigation also indicates that the Mayor has had a history of campaigning against bonfires generally, and of supporting the use of beacons in their place.

7 EC/09/9/8

The incident that occurred on the night in question is more than regrettable, and cannot be condoned in any way. It would appear that the Mayor was let down by the Stoneyford Jubilee Committee who he had been seeking to help. The Mayor had decided to attend the event as detailed earlier in this report. He had no knowledge of the presence of the Sinn Féin election poster until he was directed to the beacon site shortly before it was lit. It is arguable that the Mayor, dressed as he was in his chain of office, should have insisted on the removal of the poster, or left the event at this point, but he accepts that he remained, although he emphasised that he did not in fact light the beacon, as alleged in this complaint, and reported in the press. The local police commanding officer has also praised the Mayor for his role in the matter, which he suggests was instrumental in avoiding public disorder.

It would appear therefore that the Mayor became involved in the matter for good reasons, and was let down by those associated with the Stoneyford event in much the same way as the Council had itself been let down when it had supported a similar beacon event in Stoneyford in the previous year. The previous year’s event had been supported by the Council because a beacon was to be used, and a less contentious and more family-orientated event was promised. Council officials indicated that on the night however speeches were made which they considered to be inappropriate and that a related Parades Commission determination was breached. It is disappointing therefore that the Council has not sought, during either its handling of the initial complaint to it, nor during the course of this investigation, to explain its former Mayor’s participation in this matter, instead alleging that his actions had nothing to do with its approved Equality Scheme

The Commission finds that the Council has not failed to comply with its commitment at Section 1.3 of its approved Equality Scheme to fulfill its s75 obligations as alleged in this complaint.

8