JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT debate -
Thursday, 19 Jan 2012

Ex-Prisoner Issues: Discussion

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Raymond McCartney, Ms Rosie McCorley, Mr. Jackie McDonald and Mr. Colin Halliday. The Good Friday Agreement put in place measures for the accelerated release of up to 500 republican and loyalist prisoners, mostly in Northern Ireland but also in this jurisdiction. In addition to the provisions on early release, the section of the Good Friday Agreement dealing with former prisoners contains the following commitment:

The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, retraining and-or reskilling and further education.

This committee is responsible for considering issues arising from Ireland's role as a signatory of the Good Friday Agreement. In that context, members of the joint committee are keen to hear the perspectives of former prisoners released under the terms of the Agreement and any specific issues arising for ex-prisoners. We would be very interested in hearing the thoughts of the delegation today.

Before I ask the delegation to give us its thoughts, I want to advise it that is it protected by absolute privilege in respect of its evidence to this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving making remarks on a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only comments and evidence connected with the subject matter of today's meeting is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside the Houses person or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her easily identifiable.

Mr. Raymond McCartney MLA

I thank the Chairman. I welcome that we have been asked to make a presentation to the committee today. This is a very important committee and the work it carries out is important in terms of examining aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. By means of introduction, I am a former political prisoner, and a member of the Northern Assembly and the justice committee. I am also the chairperson of Coiste na nIarchimí, the umbrella organisation for republican ex-prisoner groups.

In his opening remarks, the Chairman brought us to the core of our presentation today. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement there was an accelerated release programme which played a significant part in the rolling out of the Agreement. I am speaking on behalf of the republican constituency. Key to the Agreement was the fact that both Governments committed themselves to ensuring that measures and processes would be put in place to assist the reintegration of prisoners being released and the impact imprisonment had on them as individuals and on their families.

In terms of any examination of the subsequent period, it would be fair and objective to say that the record of both governments to date has been less than impressive. The reason I say that is because when one examines the aspects of imprisonment which have not been addressed, one finds there are issues around citizenship. A person who has a conviction finds himself or herself in a position where he or she is excluded from many job opportunities. Many employers feel that convictions, as laid out in any employment opportunity, prevent political ex-prisoners from applying and can be used by employers to prevent a person from being employed.

There are insurance issues. Many ex-prisoners find it difficult to get house, car or other insurance cover. Travel opportunities are also reduced, particularly to the United States, Canada, Australia and places like that, which has an impact on individuals and families. There are some aspects worth pointing out. There were issues in the North around people who have access to public services vehicle licences. What we consider it to be a landmark decision was made by Brian Kerr who became Lord Chief Justice in the North. When a person appealed the refusal of a public service vehicle licence he ruled that, in his opinion, the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement in acknowledging that prisoners should be released and the fact they were being treated differently from other prisoners meant that society in general should also give some recognition to that. We found the experience from that judgment, in particular, has been very good. Ex-prisoners are no longer automatically debarred from obtaining a licence on the strength of that ruling.

The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, OFMDFM, a number of years ago, through the auspices of Sir George Quigley, set up a working group to examine the experience of ex-prisoners, in particular in regard to employment. We found those guidelines excellent. The work of Sir George Quigley provided a template and framework to deal with many of the issues which the committee expressed here today. Some of the issues and concerns of society and employers can be addressed. Unfortunately, the guidelines lack legislative teeth. If the judgment of Brian Kerr and the guidelines were married and given some legislative expression that would point the way forward.

Political ex-prisoners would argue they want to be treated as equals, therefore when they are applying for a job or want to be part of any aspect of society they want to be tested on their experience and skills, not the fact that they have a conviction. If that is addressed through the guidelines having some legislative teeth we can find a solution to this problem.

My colleagues, in particular Ms McCorley, will examine other aspects of the issue.

Ms Rosie McCorley

Go raibh maith ag an choiste as an seans labhairt leis inniu ar son na n-iarchimí pholaitiúla. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today about ex-prisoner issues. Mr. Raymond McCartney has framed the context in which we make these arguments. It is important that we follow through on the commitments made under the Good Friday Agreement and the other commitments made in the guidelines of the OFMDFM, and Lord Chief Justice Brian Kerr.

I see the way ex-prisoners are treated as an anomaly. The political nature of the conflict and of the release of prisoners are recognised. That is not argued anywhere. We have an acceptance that there is a difference between political ex-prisoners and prisoners who might have other convictions which employers and other people might find objectionable. What we are seeking is that we would all be able to achieve equal citizenship in a new society. That is the direction in which we are trying to move.

However, there are a number of ex-prisoners who do not cope well and who find the barriers too great, so that their lives are severely impacted upon. What is happening is that ex-prisoners continue to be punished every day of their lives because of the barriers that are placed in their way. Notwithstanding that, there are several ex-prisoners who have managed to surmount the barriers and achieve success. We must bring everyone along. We must bring all of our society along and recognise the role ex-prisoners have played and continue to play within our communities in the interfaces. They play a positive role in maintaining peace and in ensuring that we move forward with the peace process.

Those are the remarks I would like to make. I will be happy to answer any questions after that.

Chairman

Thank you, Ms McCorley. Mr. Jackie McDonald has appeared before the committee before. You are very welcome back today. We will be interested to hear your comments on this issue.

Mr. Jackie McDonald

Thank you, Chairman, and I thank the committee for giving us this opportunity. What Mr. Raymond McCartney and Ms Rosie McDonald have said covers all prisoners. I am not going to have a different story, coming from the loyalist background, because it is the exact same as what Raymond has described. What our people have gone through since they came out of prison is the exact same.

There has not been a good feeling about the Good Friday Agreement. It just has not happened for our people. They have come out of prison divorced and with no family or home. After the experience they have had, they want to fit into society, get a job and get themselves into some sort of lifestyle and routine, but it just has not happened. It is not available for them.

As was said earlier, the prisoners released under the Good Friday Agreement are not teenagers. They are moving on in life. If there are any opportunities for them they are going to have to arise very soon. They need a job in the workplace and they need identity. They need to be given back some sort of self-esteem. Given the treatment they need is lacking that is not happening. They now have children and grandchildren and they are feeling very vulnerable and inadequate. Whatever reason they were imprisoned - our people will say it was for our cause while Raymond's people will say it was for their cause - they are wondering what was it all about. They do not want a reward for what they did, but everybody is entitled to earn a living and to supply food for their family's table. Everybody is entitled to have an identity. That is what we all need. It is part of the Good Friday Agreement that we can all move on and fit in.

Many ex-prisoners and ex-combatants have played an essential role in the peace process and many are trying to do so, but it is just not working out that way.

Mr. Colin Halliday

Thank you, Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to attend this committee. It is my first chance to be here. I am a former loyalist political prisoner. I was released in 1996, so it was before the Good Friday Agreement but since then I have been involved with ex-prisoners who were released under the Agreement. I find our work now is more important and more dutiful towards them than in the years 2001 and 2002. In those years there was a bedding-in process. Ten or 11 years later, we are now engaging more pro-actively with people who are struggling to come terms with being denied the things we have all mentioned. This does not just affect republicans or loyalists, it is a universal issue for all political prisoners.

The issue goes deeper. We have heard of the sins of the father. Given that we have moved on and are getting older, we now have children and grandchildren. In certain cases they are being burdened by being blacked from employment because of the conflict that took place.

I welcome the opportunity to attend this committee to try to get things out into the open and to see if pressure can be put on - whatever that entails - to bring the issue more to the fore. From a loyalist background and working and dealing with loyalist ex-prisoners, I know they feel very isolated and do not feel good about the Good Friday Agreement. It has not delivered for them.

Chairman

Thank you. I will now invite comments and questions from members of the committee.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I too am an ex-political prisoner. From having worked with former combatants, I am very conscious of the situation in the fourteenth year on from the Good Friday Agreement and of where we are now.

In many areas of the Twenty-six Counties one finds examples of ex-prisoners applying for a taxi licence and being unable to get one. It is impossible to get a permit to drive a long-distance lorry outside the country. If an ex-prisoner applies for a mortgage, for example, everything refers back to the years when he or she was involved in the conflict. I know of situations where family members died in America and ex-prisoners were unable to go to be with their grandchildren because of the restrictions placed upon them as ex-prisoners. The same is true of Australia and Canada, as Raymond mentioned, where there are huge difficulties. I am fortunate in having been able to get out of the country, but under stringent measures and strictly in relation to promoting the peace process. My wife is Australian and I cannot visit her family, and so forth.

This is the situation 14 years on, although during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement and St. Andrews Agreement verbal commitments were given that outstanding issues would be dealt with, recognising the fact that prisoners involved in the conflict were arrested under special powers and sentenced by special courts, and that their cases would be dealt with in relation to that.

We also have situations where prisoners who were repatriated from England find themselves released but on licence. Even though they had been imprisoned and released in Ireland, the criteria of the jurisdiction where they were originally sentenced apply to them and they are different from those operating here.

We need to wipe the slate and give people a chance to get on with their lives. The witnesses mentioned the children and grandchildren who were involved in the conflict. When I spoke to Mr. Jackie McDonald earlier he spoke about the identity of being an ex-POW and not a person in one's own right who is looking for a job, and so forth. All of that needs to be dealt with.

I would like the witnesses to tell us how the situation since they were released has personally affected them. I refer to a person who was imprisoned with me in Portlaoise Prison who, a few years after his release, seemed to withdraw from society. He did not socialise or mix with anybody and initially he found it impossible to find employment because this was in the period before the Good Friday Agreement. That person took his own life because of the sense of isolation and his experiences. I welcome any comments with regard to specific circumstances in which people find themselves as a result of, what I would argue, is the inaction on the part of both Governments to deal with the outstanding issue regarding prisoners.

Chairman

Before I ask for a response from our guests I will take questions in groups of two. On behalf of the committee I thank Deputy Ferris for organising today's meeting. He was instrumental in helping to put the programme together and I express our gratitude. I invite Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP, to give her response to the questions.

Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP, MLA

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I am pleased we are discussing this issue today. The contributions from the four people on the panel have been very positive. My work includes the areas of fostering and adoption. These are particular issues for women who had been incarcerated during their 20s and 30s and who may not have had the opportunity to be parents. Those who have not been released under the Good Friday Agreement or who have served their time in prison, cannot foster or adopt children. In the North, there are hundreds of children who are not able to be placed with families. We do not have a sufficient number of families willing to foster children. I am hopeful that the health Minister will bring forward a far-reaching adoption Bill for scrutiny by the health committee.

Some of the panel members referred to their children and grandchildren. They are fortunate to have children. It must be noted that in the case of women, fertility is much more limited in time than men and this must be taken into consideration with regard to prisoners. This is a punishment that lasts every day for the rest of a person's life never mind the case of a woman former prisoner who is unable to have her own children and is also denied the opportunity to be a parent when released. This anomaly needs to be addressed. There may not be a need for a response now but I would like to have it included as part of any future lobbying by this committee to rectify some of the human rights issues affecting our ex-prisoner population.

Chairman

I invite panel members to respond if they wish.

Ms Rosie McCorley

I can identify with Ms Gildernew's comment because I and many other women fall into that category. I was released from prison when I was more than 40 years of age but my situation did not allow me to have children. I have now spent 13 years outside prison and I feel that I could have helped some child or children if I had been permitted to foster or adopt. I know other people in the same position. Being an ex-prisoner I have been prevented from doing that. I know this issue affects people and it affects some people very deeply. I would argue that it affects some of the needy children in our society who could benefit from a home provided by someone who is prevented from adopting or fostering children.

Mr. Jackie McDonald

Ms Gildernew has raised a very important point. The other point of view is that many people went to prison who lost their children because the children had to be put in care in view of the family background and circumstances. These children had subsequently been adopted or fostered with the result that the parents cannot get them back and they have lost touch completely. This is all part of the cycle of getting people back into society, giving them back their self-esteem. In some cases, the children and grandchildren do not wish to recognise their parents because of their background and their status in society and because they have not been able to fit back into society or have not been allowed to do so. The extended family suffers and they should not suffer the sins of the father.

We have spoken to Hugo Swire and to other people about the very same situation. They have reminded us, although not flippantly, about the sins of the father. This is not fair. There was a special set of circumstances in society in the North during the past 40 years whereby people did things that were neither natural nor normal. A lot of things happened in those years which ordinarily in a normal society would not have happened. The children or the grandchildren should not bear the pain or the suffering for this. A family life is probably one of the best ways to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again.

I refer to the interaction within families and also the interaction within communities which must surely be significant for the future. People should be enabled to get their family life back together. I was divorced and when I got out of prison all I had were the clothes I stood up in. I had been divorced when I was in prison. I had to stay in a friend's house. I was fortunate that I was able to get my family, children and grandchildren back together again but I was also lucky because I am able to sit here and talk to people like the committee members. I found a different identity, a different profile in life. This has allowed people to identify with me and to allow my own children accept that what I was is not what I am. However, not everyone has this opportunity. Family life is a very significant part of our future.

Chairman

Mr. McDonald referred to the breakdown of relationships. How easy is it to access relationship counselling or personal counselling? Are people encouraged to avail of such counselling?

Mr. Jackie McDonald

We encourage them but again, sometimes there is a macho image associated with being a former political prisoner. One is supposed to be this tough guy and it is not the done thing to be seen talking to a counsellor. However, counselling is a very significant part to enable us all to move on. People have their demons. Sentenced prisoners can relate to a counsellor and explain their problems resulting from the crime committed but there are also people who were never caught for what they did and they cannot confide in anybody. Their demons are more of a danger to them. We have been talking to people to see if we can do anything about the provision or use of counselling because it is so important.

Senator Martin McAleese

I welcome the panel to the committee meeting. I thank Paul Kelly for his work over the past number of meetings and also I wish Ms Bridget Doody well in her recent appointment as clerk to this committee.

It has been 14 years since the Good Friday Agreement. I wonder when will ex-prisoner groups stop being regarded as groups for ex-prisoners. I would have thought that in the journey towards a normalised society, there probably is no place for an ex-prisoner group because this would be an anomaly in a normalised society. It is sad that we are in this position, that the provisions set out in the Good Friday Agreement have not been followed through. A case could be made that it is the responsibility of civic society - maybe even of individuals - to help integrate and to welcome back people so that they can become part of community and part of society again.

I would like to hear the views of the panel members. Such groups have a strength and a leverage which helps ex-prisoners get things done and make representations in a stronger way than would be possible as individuals. The panel has described the obstacles with regard to car and house insurance and to employment issues. I wish to tease out the reasons for the existence of the ex-prisoner groups and when the groups foresee the disappearance of the need for such groups. It suggests an issue of equality. There are bodies overseeing equality in both the North and the South.

Perhaps we might invite representatives of the new Human Rights and Equality Commission to make a presentation to the committee in order to assist us in defining these issues, outlining the obstacles and perhaps suggesting a way forward on an equality basis. Finally, there is scope for both Governments, through the North-South Ministerial Council, to address these issues. Above all, we do not want a situation where in another 14 years, we are still seeking to understand the failure of the roll-out of the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and still discussing ex-prisoner issues.

Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA

I welcome the delegates to the committee. The tea and scones we shared before coming here were very enjoyable. There is a huge irony in the fact that ex-prisoners have become Deputies, Senators, MPs, MLAs and councillors, both North and South, but they cannot obtain a licence to drive a taxi. Together with Deputy Martin Ferris, I had a particular responsibility during the negotiations on the Good Friday Agreement in regard to the question of the date of release of prisoners. At the first meeting I attended, one of the senior British civil servants suggested a timeframe of 20 years. When he asked for my view, I said they should all be released the next morning, before acknowledging that if we kept going like that we would get nowhere.

Mr. Justice Kerr had the sense of it when he found there were commitments given by both Governments - in my view, genuinely given - that they would deal with all of the issues that presented following the release of prisoners. Somewhere along the line, however, they have taken their eye off the ball. It is this committee's responsibility to refocus their attention. I do not necessarily believe they have any bad intent in this; it is merely that they have failed to place a focus on the issue. If we achieve anything, we must succeed in refocusing both Administrations on their commitments in this regard.

It is very noticeable that while republican ex-prisoners have become Deputies, MLAs, MPs and councillors, that is not so much the case, or perhaps not at all the case, within the loyalist community. The delegates commented that there is not a good feeling towards the Good Friday Agreement within the loyalist community. Will they elaborate on that? Is there anything we can do to relate to that issue?

Mr. Raymond McCartney

I will respond to Senator McAleese's remarks. As I said, I am chairman of Coiste na nIarchimí, the umbrella group for republican ex-prisoners. One of the first appointments we made was that of Mike Ritchie as director. He was not a republican ex-prisoner, his background being in the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and he was appointed in a legal advocacy role. At the launch of Coiste na nIarchimí in the Linen Hall Library in Belfast, he posed the question of when an ex-prisoner stops being an ex-prisoner, which is essentially the same question the committee is asking. His answer struck me at the time and has stayed with me since. He said that people stop being ex-prisoners when the society in which they live stops treating them as such. That is the key.

We would not be here this morning - I certainly would not - if there were no obstacles in the way of ex-prisoners in seeking to live their lives out in an ordinary way. We are aware that the issues we face must be seen in the context of the issues others face as a consequence of this conflict. However, we, as a group, are not asking for too much. We are merely asking to be able to insure a car without having to go around every insurance broker; to secure a mortgage without having to see every financial institution; to be able to apply to adopt a child without being automatically deemed ineligible. These are the issue we are talking about. Unfortunately, the legal basis in terms of convictions makes no difference. In other words, no account is taken of the fact, as we would argue, that we were arrested under emergency powers, convicted in special courts and held in specially built prisons. Subsequently, many of us, including me, have had our convictions overturned. That is the key to our position.

The advocacy work we do has ensured that issues concerning ex-prisoners have remained on the agenda. Sometimes, and rightly so, they are not at the top of the agenda, but they are still on the agenda. Meetings such as this are door openers for us, and there is no doubt that there have been advances. Mr. Doherty referred to Mr. Justice Kerr's judgment. We had the ad hoc committee established to examine the security legislation in the North. In the case of those employed as security supervisors, or door men, there would have been an exclusion for those with convictions. Thankfully, however, through the good sense of those involved, an exemption was made for people convicted prior to the Good Friday Agreement and whose convictions were designated as political.

Other positive developments include the employment guidelines that have come through from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Several seminars have been held in this regard and employers seem very open to it. My experience, living in Derry, has been good. It is an overwhelmingly Nationalist town where many ex-prisoners have found themselves working and contributing in all aspects of society; it is not the case that republican ex-prisoners have only found work in a particular sector. I see them at work in every sector of society in Derry every day of the week. It is about opportunity; it is not about trying to put oneself in a place one should not be. We acknowledge that here are many people seeking to address aspects of the conflict. Ex-prisoners are merely asking for equal citizenship and for that to be legislated for.

Chairman

Mr. Pat Doherty raised the issue of a lack of public representation from loyalist ex-prisoners. Would Mr. Halliday or Mr. McDonald like to comment on that?

Mr. Colin Halliday

Mr. Doherty took the words out of my mouth. I had made a note to mention how ironic it is that both North and South, ex-prisoners have become MPs, MLAs and Deputies, yet some struggle to become hospital porters or taxi drivers. From a loyalist point of view, we have not engaged well with politics. If I were a republican ex-prisoner, I could look to the successes of colleagues in the electoral field; we do not have the same success. We do not fight elections because within the Protestant, Unionist and loyalist, PUL, community it would not be seen as the right thing to do. We have three Unionist parties in Northern Ireland chasing the same vote. For us to engage with that, we would only succeed in marginalising ourselves further in a situation where, if a Unionist seat were lost to a Nationalist, we would be blamed for splitting the vote.

We have taken that on board, but it is not to say we will do so forever. The DUP and the UUP have to realise that the next four years will be very important to them and that they must take account of the significant constituency within the PUL community which feels marginalised. In the Old Warren Estate in Lisburn, for example, which comprises 1,200 households, only 28% of voters turned out for the last European elections. Members of the DUP have approached us to see how this might be addressed. For the first time in a long time, former loyalist prisoners are being accepted as candidates by the DUP and UUP, which was not the norm several years ago. Those parties are beginning to accept that we have a very important role to play. The question we would put both to Sinn Féin and to the Unionist political parties is, "Where would we be today without the input of both republican and loyalist ex-prisoners?". However, as elections stand today, we have taken on board the issues to which I referred and are standing off for now.

Mr. Jackie McDonald

Among the republican community the attitude seems to be that the person who did the fighting for us should also do the talking. Within loyalism and unionism, however, there is a division whereby those who did the fighting are not the ones who do the talking. There does not seem to be a correspondence between the two. Many people think it is a class structure. That is a good argument but what would Mr. Colin Halliday, I and even Mr. Raymond McCartney do - although it is slightly different for him coming from a republican background - as ex-prisoners or ex-combatants if we were not doing what we are doing now? People in our communities are treated like ex-prisoners. Many people who have come out of prison have no jobs and no family. They are in receipt of DLA benefit or some other benefit and sit in their flats all day. They may go to the bookie's office to place a bet and then go back to their flat and watch TV the rest of the day. Nobody is saying Jackie is a plumber, a bricklayer or an MLA because he has not had a chance to change his identity, become something else or fit back into society. He will always be known as an ex-prisoner. That is the sort of thing with which we have to identify. This is not just about the Good Friday Agreement, it is about the spirit of it in that we cannot have a peace process in terms of it being a piece process. It must be all-encompassing. The ex-prisoners and ex-combatants on both sides have probably been the most supportive in helping to move the paramilitaries and the ex-parliamentary organisations along, particularly in our constituency. It is the people who have been there and done it who are the ones are saying "go for it". The danger is the younger element coming behind who want to emulate what they saw in the past. There must be other opportunities for them.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Jackie McDonald for that. Would Deputy Crowe like to make some comments?

Deputy Seán Crowe

Looking back to the foundation of this State, we have not been good at responding to the needs of ex-prisoners post the Civil War. There were difficulties and many republicans had to go abroad as they could not get employment. There were employers in this town who would not take on an ex-republican prisoner. I am talking about the 1930s. Guinness, to take an example of one employer, was not renowned for taking on ex-republican prisoners. People mentioned TDs in this context. A former Taoiseach of this country, Mr. Éamon de Valera, was an ex-prisoner, as were many public representatives down through the decades.

There is a general acceptance that we would not have been able to deliver the Good Friday Agreement unless the prisoners had been on board. People actively went into the jails, which was part of the outreach process in regard to it, and people came on board. Commitments were given on what the Governments would do post the Agreement but they have not been fulfilled.

I want to focus on the impact that has had on prisoners, on which some of the witnesses has spoken, and it has also had an impact on their families. In some families there was resentment where a father or mother had gone to jail. That is part of the difficulties with which prisoners have had to deal on coming out of prison. In cases where an ex-prisoner's son, daughter or relative has moved to live abroad, it is difficult for that an ex-prisoner to travel to attend a wedding, funeral or a significant birthday celebration. Whatever about punishing the prisoners, the families in many cases were victims as well. Many of them did not know the people who were involved but they are also being punished. They have been punished from the point of view that the breadwinner in the house, the mother or the father, could not get employment and 14 years down the road, they are still experiencing these difficulties. They cannot travel to attend significant events in people's lives. It comes down to the fact that the commitments given at the time were not followed through.

A key question is what impact does that have on the process and on the witnesses' communities? Politicians gave a commitment but did not deliver on it. I remember the proposals in respect of taxi drivers being changed in these Houses. I recall going to the late Mr. Seamus Brennan at the time and speaking about the impact of the proposals. That legislation was changed on foot of media coverage of concerns regarding people driving taxis who had been convicted of sexual offences and of concerns regarding vulnerable children. We needed to change the legislation but, we, the politicians at the time were not thinking in terms of republican prisoners or other prisoners. That was not what the legislation was about but the legislation went through regardless of that. In the context of the goodwill shown by the politicians, they were not thinking in terms of the broader legislation but its impact in terms of the aspect to which I referred. Legislative changes need to be made to take on board the changes that have happened.

The peace process would not have made the strides forward that have been made were it not for the important part played by ex-prisoners. A large number of ex-combatants and ex-prisoners played a central part in building peace. Delivering on the commitments given in this respect at the time is one of the pieces that in missing in the process. All who were involved in the process at that time have a responsibility to live up to those commitments. Many of the central players have moved on in that they have retired. However, there is a responsibility on those who are left to bring about those positive changes. Historically, we have not done that well, but we can learn from the mistakes of the past and bring about a proper inclusive society. That is what people want. The majority of people who were involved in the conflict and were in jail would not have been in jail only for that conflict. That is accepted by all sides. We need sensitivity in regard to victims and that is taken as a given. If we said we would try to move the process forward and have a new beginning, we need to meet people half way in regard to the commitments we made and, clearly, we have not done so in this respect.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the Chair and apologise for not being here for the start of the meeting. I had to attend a presentation on another matter in which I have a particular interest. I welcome the witnesses.

Following on from what Deputy Crowe said, I am the grandson of an ex-prisoner who fought in the Civil War.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Yes. He escaped from jail and was on the run during the last the week of it and was then put back in. He became a customs officer, bizarrely, having being an anti-treaty prisoner. I always thought that was kind of funny. Our family has always had a romantic view of that period. What has come across in many of our discussions at this committee is the new generation and their romantic view of the Troubles, the murals and the stories. Some of that has come from the tales of what happened inside prison. I remember watching a documentary once because coming from Dublin I feel very removed from what happened in Northern Ireland in that period. In that documentary one ex-prisoner said he missed being in prison because of the comradery, togetherness and sense of identity and that he was lost on the outside.

I have two questions for the witnesses. What can ex-prisoners do to guide the new generation who are becoming as entrenched and as sectarian in their views as possibly any generation previously? That has come across at every meeting we have had with any group anywhere, that the new generation of 16 and 17 year olds are just as entrenched in these views as any generation previously and there is a sense that they missed out. There seems to be a conflict in that there is a sense of identity in the context that there was a turf war and something in which they could have been engaged but they missed out on that period and they are almost trying to relive it. How can ex-prisoners be part of the process to ensure that there is a level of understanding that it was not so glorious and that being in prison is not so romantic and there is a huge price to be paid?

I was not here for the first part of the meeting to hear the witnesses' presentation I accept that being in prison is a part of somebody's life and it does not contextualise the rest of their existence. I hope to God that my five years' here will not contextualise the rest of my existence and that I will be able to go back into normal society and live a normal life at some stage. This place, Dáil Éireann, has been described as an open prison. The question is how we reconcile what we are all trying to achieve for ex-prisoners with how the victims' families feel. Their emotions can still be raw. It is difficult to marry these two expectations. Families of victims feel they are still imprisoned to some extent, given that family members are missing. This must be balanced with the justified expectation that someone can move on, gain employment and live a proper and fulfilled life in society.

Ms Rosie McCorley

I wish to respond to some of the issues raised by Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin because I deal with them on a daily basis, as I am a member of the district policing partnership in west Belfast. It forms another part of the work I do.

We are faced with activities engaged in by groups which oppose us. A group of dissident or dissatisfied republicans came to our last district policing partnership meeting and created a very tense and uncomfortable atmosphere. What we need to do is take away the argument that there is still a conflict that needs to be addressed in that way. How we do this is prove that the peace process is working, that the Good Friday Agreement is delivering and that the commitments given in the agreement are being adhered to.

The commitments for ex-prisoners are part of the outstanding issues that have not been delivered on but which can so easily be delivered on. There is a simple way to do it. One could expunge the records. However, some consider this approach to be too simplistic, but I disagree. One could include a footnote for persons making applications for mortgages and insurance. One could refer to relevant political convictions. There are easy ways around these issues if one looks for them and talks to those who deal with them on a daily basis. I would like to see more movement and lines drawn in the sand indicating that this is the end of the ex-prisoner issue in terms of the problems they face being addressed and that they can now move on. Other issues arise that require to be dealt with, but that is one good argument among others for addressing the ex-prisoner issue.

Mr. Colin Halliday

I work with the From Prison to Peace Partnership which has three working groups on conflict transformation, the social economy and citizenship and working, of which I am chairman. In June 2009 we launched a resource pack which involves all five of the main groups connected with the From Prison to Peace Partnership. It covers all of the armed groups which were involved in the conflict - the Provisional IRA, the UVF, the UDA, the INLA and the Official IRA. We issued the pack to schools. It is rated level 4 and does not glamourise violence in any way. In fact, it deglamourises it. We also visit schools when we are invited to do so. We have visited many schools both north and south of the Border. Sometimes five us of attend but at other times there are only two, one loyalist and one republican. We work with schoolchildren aged from 15 to 17 years who are prepared for the visit. We do not go to schools without first doing preparatory work. It can be easy to address adults such as in the committee, but when one is in front of up to 50 16 year olds, they are not naive when it comes to asking questions. The resource pack is sent to the school and then we visit to give a warts-and-all talk. We have worked in Protestant, Roman Catholic and mixed schools. We give a resource pack to every school in Northern Ireland and many in Border counties because they are also involved. The schools prepare the children, after which we are invited to speak to them. We show a video in which five people speak about their experiences, where they come from, their prison experiences and where they are now.

The process is the result of a project on which I was working in which we dealt with 15 year olds who were seen as problematic. Many of them had never spoken to republicans previously, but we gave them that opportunity. I asked one what he aspired to be in the future. His aspiration was to be a loyalist life prisoner, which knocked me back. I have been working with that young man for five years and he no longer aspires to go to prison. Approximately 30,000 have gone through the prison system and I have never met one person who has told me he or she was glad to have been in prison. I have tried to get this across to the young man in question and transmit to him the facts on the families affected which have been devastated. In a survey we carried out within the prison system of UDA prisoners, 90% of families and relationships had broken up. That is a big number. One has to tell people about the friends and families of those who have not made it to this point as they are no longer with us as they are dead and buried. The young fellow in question is now doing a course to become a youth leader. That is one example but there are several others where people have had similar ideas. We show them the resource pack and discuss the issue. One can see in the resource pack some of the questions the children ask and some of the responses of ex-prisoners. The video indicates a genuine wish to resolve the issues involved. We say to young people that we do not want any more of them to die or go to prison. That is how we are trying to move things on.

Mr. Mark Durkan, MP, MLA

I apologise for missing Mr. McCartney's opening remarks.

Mr. Raymond McCartney

I can understand that; I know the road.

Mr. Mark Durkan, MP, MLA

I came here from London this morning. Last night Mr. Martin McGuinness addressed a fine assembly at St. James's Palace at an event organised by Tourism Ireland.

The point has been made on commitments, that the logical outcome of what is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement has not been delivered. Deputy Seán Crowe has made the point that politicians have failed to deliver. Reference was made to both Governments in this regard.

I wish to make a point because sometimes these things are forgotten or just ignored. In the period after the Good Friday Agreement when I found myself as a Minister in the Executive in the North, first as finance Minister in negotiating the PEACE II funding arrangements, one of the things we did was design and defend the continuation of measures specifically aimed at ex-prisoners. I am not trying to say there are not other ways and headings, but we made this absolutely clear and explicit in the terms. Even when there were problems subsequently under some of the funding schemes such as when arms were found in the ex-prisoner interpretative centre, EPIC, project, we defended the process in the Assembly and sorted things out with the European Commission and others on the basis that if the rest of us were going to expect prisoners on release to make a positive contribution, they had to be enabled to make that contribution in dealing with all sorts of issues, many of which we were only learning about because they were only coming out of prison and discovering certain problems in terms of relationships and employment.

It also became apparent to some of us that within the limits of the funding allocated to the schemes to support ex-prisoners we could only go so far in providing support, guidance, advice and training programmes, that there were wider issues in terms of barriers in the system. Some were administrative barriers in respect of which people did not seem to be able to take on board the particular needs or circumstances of ex-prisoners, and others were legislative barriers in respect of which we heard people were disqualified absolutely in certain circumstances. At that point, one of the individuals who identified these issues strongly was the Minister for Employment and Learning, Mr. Sean Farren. We got agreement from Mr. David Trimble, the then First Minister, that there could be an initiative led by the Minister to consider some of the wider issues affecting ex-prisoners, but he insisted that the overall scheme would have to be capable of dealing with all prisoners, not just those of the conflict.

Mr. Sean Farren, as Minister, was quite clear he was able to provide a format such that the initiative, which he was to lead, which was to cross government and in respect of which I, as Minister for Finance and Personnel, was putting up money to follow through, would deal with all prisoners, although not all those of the same class. It was to deal with them in terms of various issues and some of the barriers that existed. The problem was that it was not agreed by the Executive and never happened because the then Sinn Féin Minister was seeking measures that dealt only with prisoners of conflict, with no reference whatsoever to, or parallel provision for, other prisoners, even if they were to be dealt with on a different level. Mr. David Trimble and the UUP would not agree to that because they said they could not defend it in the Assembly. This was a step we were trying to take in 2001 and 2002 but it did not happen. Sometimes we can say all the politicians failed but it was sometimes the politics that failed when politicians were trying to stretch themselves and follow through on initiatives of the kind in question.

It was stated legislation is needed to weed out many of the barriers and impediments. Has anybody been able to determine whether it would be simple sweeping legislation with just a couple of clauses or heavier legislation that would weed out the barriers one by one? Short of legislation, could further progress on the Quigley report be made on the basis of an explicit and articulate resolution in the Assembly that applies to all Ministers and Departments and which, with the support of the Executive, would oblige Ministers and Departments to follow through? Perhaps such a resolution could oblige all the Ministers to consider legislative issues that arise in respect of their remits.

Taking up Senator McAleese's point on some of the North-South aspects, perhaps this is an area that could usefully be remitted to a cross-sectoral format of the North-South Ministerial Council. It is a format that is provided for in the agreement but never really used. With regard to some of the issues that cross departmental and territorial jurisdictions, it may be an avenue to be explored. I hope it would result in better outcomes than some of the work on obstacles to mobility done under the council. It is a matter of using the same principle to find where the problems are with a view to determining how to navigate ways around or over them.

Mr. Jackie McDonald referred to where people have adjusted to becoming dependent on certain benefits and living thereon. How concerned are the delegates that welfare reform will mean many of those who have become used to living on or coping with benefits, owing to the lack of employment opportunities, age, etc., will now have to face new problems as they potentially lose benefits under review mechanisms? I refer to circumstances in which their existing benefits will be cut short and subject to review. Is there potentially a new twist for those who may have given up on the idea of being able to work in that the lifestyles they have been able to attain will be hit?

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP, MLA

I thank the Chairman and the panel for its presentations and attendance. It is regrettable that, after almost 14 years, many aspects of the Good Friday Agreement have not been implemented. There is a need for reconciliation in regard to the challenges faced by ex-prisoners. It is but one of many issues associated with the past. To some extent, we can become prisoners of the past and not sort out the future. There are some who believe they can sort it out but the past is having a big impact and will continue to do so until there is considerable reconciliation.

There is a need to separate what can be done from what one would like to see done. Mr. Durkan discussed the broader aspects of this. There are things that might be done here and others that might be done within the Assembly. There are things that might be done at Westminster level but, to some extent, we cannot control or regulate admission criteria to the United States, Australia or such places. States set their own terms for visa and entrance requirements. Setting admission criteria for other states is a little more difficult.

Are the challenges totally similar North and South or are there differences? What changes, short of the more widespread approach Mr. Durkan was taking in respect of all-embracing legislation, would or might be helpful in relieving some of the immediate stresses? Taxi licences, the ability to drive a lorry outside the state and the ability to adopt were mentioned in this regard. What issue is having the greatest impact on people? What could be done relatively easily and quickly, either here or in the Assembly, that might relieve some of the pressure, although not necessarily solving the problem considering that the solution may take a little longer?

On Mr. Durkan's point on differentiation and various categories of prisoners, is there a possibility that this issue could, in turn, be considered with some of the victim concerns that exist? Essentially, it is being said that prisoners are victims in some ways. Is there some way in which there could be wider reconciliation in terms of victims? We have not made much progress on the victims issue. There are still many people who are feeling very bad.

I thank the panelists for their presentations.

Chairman

I had intended to ask whether there are jurisdictional differences. I will ask Deputy Ferris whether there are differences between the experiences of prisoners in the North and South. First, I call on Ms Rosie McCorley.

Ms Rosie McCorley

I would like to respond on one of the issues raised by Mr. Durkan and one raised by Dr. McDonnell. I have grave concerns about the effects of the proposed changes to welfare reform and about how they will affect both our society in general and some ex-prisoners in particular. I make this point because there is evidence to show a higher number than average of ex-prisoners appear to end up getting cancer. I am unsure whether this has been proven scientifically but evidence certainly exists in this regard and people feel that an inordinately high number of ex-prisoners appear to have developed these diseases. Whenever people become ill in this way, they rely on the disabled living allowance, which is one of the benefits that is under threat of being taken away and this raises concerns for me. In addition, I refer to the illnesses that arose from the burning of Long Kesh in the 1970s and the very high number of people who developed particular illnesses thereafter. Some documented evidence is available on these cases and this certainly is an area about which I have concerns.

As for the question from Dr. McDonnell on what simple steps can be taken quickly, I refer to application forms for visas, insurance, mortgages or employment. If one must include references to convictions or terms of imprisonment, they could be termed "relevant convictions", which would allow for political convictions to be set aside and considered differently. This would facilitate disclosure of other kinds of convictions about which people have concerns, such as child abuse cases, in which it is important that employers and others should know whether a person might have such a conviction. There is scope for making such a distinction, which would ease the way and would remove the barrier. This is something which could be done comparatively easily.

Deputy Martin Ferris

An ex-prisoner who wishes to travel to the USA, Canada or Australia is dependent on the security or state departments of each country regarding admission or non-admission. Their rules are set in stone and no political lobbying of whatever kind can set them aside. There is an obligation on this committee to try to ensure the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and the verbal commitments given, albeit in the instance of expunging past records of those who were involved in the conflict specifically, and in absolute terms of those who are currently or were involved in organisations that are not involved in any activities at present. Mr. Durkan cited David Trimble's comments about dealing with all prisoners in the same light. However, this is ignoring the fact that the Good Friday Agreement specifically pertained to trying to find a reason for conflict resolution and to advance a peace process that would deliver a lasting peace in our country. We have gone a long way and it is irreversible, primarily because of the work being done by prisoners on both sides.

Essentially one must make things as easy as possible for people to have a job and be part of society. They should not find themselves discriminated against because they were involved in a conflict that was not of their making. In the Twenty-six Counties, such people find it almost impossible to get a job as a taxi driver or to get a taxi licence. Similarly, it is impossible for them to work as long-distance truck drivers and they encounter huge difficulties in getting a mortgage. All these aspects remain outstanding and I do not believe they can be dealt with individually. At one point, we were assured that were one to go to the chief superintendent, he or she will make sure one will be able to get a taxi licence and so on. However, that was not the case and did not happen. Consequently, while recognition is there and commitments exist, Ms McCorley has made the point that convictions and sentences should be set aside to enable people to get on with their lives. Young people should be allowed to have the opportunity, which they now have, of living in a completely different environment. All members have that responsibility and this joint committee has a significant role to play in convincing both Governments to accelerate this process. We have been lagging behind as this should have been done five, six, eight or ten years ago but has not been done yet. It is within members' gift to deliver this.

Chairman

Does Mr. McCartney wish to add to that?

Mr. Raymond McCartney

Both Mr. Durkan and Dr. McDonnell referred to legislation. Dr. McDonnell asked what would I like to see happen and what would be practical and this is the point at which the debate has taken place to date. The steps to date have been steps towards the objective. The legislation that covered the release programme under the Good Friday Agreement can act as the basis in this regard because it included a qualifying prisoner clause. Therefore it was easy to identify the people who should be released because they came forward and then became qualifying prisoners. Consequently, this legislation provides a basis whereby one only legislates out to see where is the gap. Mr. Durkan referred to it in terms of the Quigley guidelines, which provided a good platform and which dealt with some of the associated sensitivities. There even was a sense whereby the case was made the convictions should not become relevant unless someone was successful in his or her application. At present, one can be debarred simply because one has a conviction. When people ask about sensitivities, the suggestion is the applicant should be allowed to be successful, after which he or she could discuss with the employer whether the conviction in question would prevent him or her from doing the task. It is almost about the attitude and the atmosphere and in this context, I revert to the issue of travel. Coiste na n-Iarchimí has met representatives of the US and the Australian High Commissioner and the subtext of their arguments is that as we have not really dealt with the issue ourselves, we cannot expect the American or Australian administrations to so do. If we can deal with the issue, it will make it easier to take it to the next stage when dealing with the issues pertaining to travel.

Mr. Colin Halliday

I relate to the point mentioned by Mr. McCartney regarding the legislation by which the Good Friday Agreement allowed for the accelerated prisoner release. If one has been tried, convicted and imprisoned under special powers, this is the legislation that can help along this issue. Reverting to the issue of welfare benefits to which Ms McCorley referred, we are totally opposed to any interference with welfare benefits because over the past five years, we have seen a great increase in Crohn's disease and cancer among those who were imprisoned in Long Kesh and have been released. These conditions are rampant within a large number of those people. I do not know what brought this about but I note the Long Kesh site is being redeveloped at present for whatever purpose and millions of pounds have been spent to clean that site of dangerous and poisonous particles in the ground. I wonder whether this is what brought about the illnesses to those who served there. Moreover, these people are not by any means old. Some of them are in their early 40s or are approaching 50 but who certainly cannot return to the work on which they started because of the illnesses from which they now suffer.

Chairman

Before I ask Mr. Jackie McDonald to make some concluding remarks, Senator McAleese wishes to make a brief contribution.

Senator Martin McAleese

Deputy Ferris stated that ex-prisoners find themselves in a situation not of their own making. Similarly, one could argue that victims find themselves in a situation not of their own making. To what extent can one bring closure on all these issues regarding ex-prisoners without contemporaneously in some way bringing closure in respect of the victims' issue? As groups, do the witnesses engage with victims' groups? Do they perhaps perceive victims' groups as another obstacle, not so much the elephant in the room but one that is not articulated as often as the obstacles in respect of mortgages, car insurance, driving a public service vehicle, PSV, getting a PSV licence and so on? Does such engagement exist or how would the witnesses envisage such engagement with victims' groups in expediting and speeding up the resolution of the issues that have been raised here today?

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Jackie McDonald would like to comment.

Mr. Jackie McDonald

I will just put things into context. We have drawn a line in the sand saying "It's all over, we are moving on" but, unfortunately, in many ways, our past is still ahead of us. That is a problem when people are framing legislation for what might be in the future. The prison peace group was formed not long after the Good Friday Agreement. It was a very uncomfortable zone, as members of the committee can imagine, because the five main combatant groups were in the room together. Individuals were suspecting each other, saying "I think he did that to me" and "He did that to us". However, by working together, appreciating each other and considering the reasons we were in prison in the first place, we made it a comfortable zone. We did a lot of group work together for a long time.

As members of the committee can imagine, in order to get a group like that together in its infancy, it would probably have taken helicopters and limousines to get those people in the room. As time wore on - I am going back three or four years ago - we were struggling to get recognition for the work we were doing and had done. Funding became a real problem. We were calling all sorts of experts in on how to fill in forms and keep the group together. We thought it was going to fall apart until the two soldiers were killed at Massereene Barracks, and unfortunately, Constable Carroll not long after. Once that happened we stayed together as a unit, whereas in years gone by we would have headed in different directions, scurrying into our various rabbit holes. We would have kept our heads down until the dust settled, to see what way things were going. We all stayed together, however, and decided that we were not going to fall into the trap of having a knee-jerk reaction. Some of our people went to Tom Hartley's office, when he was Lord Mayor of Belfast, to let everybody see that people were united. Mr. Colin Halliday and myself went to Constable Carroll's funeral to let everybody see we were united. We spoke to a lot of our constituents in that area and asked how they felt. We kept that unit together to let everybody see that the Good Friday Agreement was not in danger.

There are people who want peace and others who do not. There is no pan-nationalist or pan-loyalist front. There were people clamouring for revenge and asking "What are you going to do about it?", but fortunately both communities stood up and condemned what had happened. The OFM and DFM did the same along with Sir Hugh Orde, but the relevant groups stayed in the room together to ensure that everybody could see things were not what they used to be. That sent a major message to the whole community. It still has to be appreciated that those people are still in the room.

As regards talking to victims groups, we have made overtures and have offered the hand of friendship to many groups, but one can understand the reasons for their not wanting to have anything to do with us. Every day of their lives they miss somebody and are hurting as a result. Without getting into all the implications of that, we can understand it. We have tried healing through remembering. We have got together with ex-security force people, the RUC, victims, former paramilitaries and politicians. Maybe 40 of us have been in a room for healing through remembering. It may not directly deal with the problem, but everybody talks about their own circumstances. By at least being in the same room together informally, everybody can appreciate the situation. It would be very difficult for an ex-RUC member to sit down with a republican, or a Catholic widow with a loyalist ex-paramilitary, to understand all the problems and difficulties. If we are all going to move on, however, we should not be in competition. It should not be a matter of a Minister saying "How can you fund a prisoners' group, but not fund a victims' group?" We are all victims and the whole thing must be dealt with. We all have to work together. As I said, unfortunately our past is still ahead of us. Because of ACT and supergrass stuff it makes it difficult for funders and politicians to become involved. I would not blame politicians on either side of the Border for letting us down; in many ways, the paramilitaries have let themselves down. It is not as if we have crossed that line and everything is okay. There are still problems and the past is still haunting us.

Chairman

I know that many of us have some further comments and questions. We will be sitting together over lunch when perhaps we can continue on with the discussions informally. In the meantime, I want to thank the witnesses for coming along today and sharing their thoughts and experiences with us. We have all found it very educational. I will ask the officials to prepare a detailed report on our discussions today in advance of our next meeting. I propose that we send that report to the various Ministers. It may be something that can be discussed at the NSMC. I also want to provide the report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Owen Paterson, whom the committee will be meeting in a few weeks' time on 2 February. We can give him that report so that he will be aware of the issues, too. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the witnesses once again and we will now move into private session for about 15 minutes.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.06 p.m. and adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until Thursday, 2 February 2012.