Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Nov 2013

Ex-Prisoners and Conflict Transformation: Community Foundation for Northern Ireland

Chairman

I apologise to the delegates for the delay in reaching them. Between votes and other distractions, we are behind schedule. I welcome the representatives of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and look forward to getting their insight into the journey from prison to peace and efforts towards conflict transformation by way of bottom-up projects. The bottom-up approach is of particular interest to the committee in its deliberations. I am aware of some of the delegates' work, having recently attended a Prison to Peace conference in Armagh. It was an interesting discussion which gave me a taste of what they were seeking to achieve. I commend them for their work.

The committee does not claim to have a monopoly of answers to any of these issues. Our objective is to have an open door policy which facilitates a variety of opinions and shades of opinions. We respect people's different viewpoints and try to provide a space for their expression. We hope the delegates will find a welcoming forum for their views today and we will also have input from members. I will not go through the advice on privilege which has been circulated to delegates. I am sure they will bear it in mind. I invite Ms Kilmurray to make an opening statement.

Ms Avila Kilmurray

I thank the committee for its invitation to attend the meeting and the Chairman for taking the time to attend our conference.

Before introducing my colleagues, I assure members they are not witnessing an attempted invasion. I am joined by Mr. Paul Gallagher and Ms Teresa Steward from Teach na Fáilte, an organisation which supports former INLA prisoners; Mr. John Howcroft from the North Belfast Community Development and Transition Group; Mr. Philip Deane from the Lisburn People's Support Project which supports former UDA prisoners; Ms Seanna Walsh and Mr. Kevin Mulgrew of Coiste na nIarchimí, an organisation which supports former IRA prisoners; Mr. Noel Large and Mr. Nigel Gardiner of EPIC which supports former UVF prisoners; Mr. Roderic Dunbar and Mr. Sean Curry from An Eochair, a body which offers support to former Official IRA prisoners; and Mr. Ciaran de Baroid, the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland's co-ordinator for the PEACE III programme. This broad representation reflects the membership of the Prison to Peace consortium. In addition, the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland is the lead partner in the conflict transformation programme with the bottom-up consortium, a range of groups north and south of the Border which comprise former IRA prisoners.

The Community Foundation for Northern Ireland has been engaged in its work for many years. We began engaging with political ex-prisoners in 1995 with support from the European Union PEACE I programme and, subsequently, its successor programmes. One of the reasons we are very keen to link this work with the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is the provision within the Agreement for proactive reintegration of former prisoners. We are also very conscious of the important role played by ex-prisoners in achieving and selling the Agreement before and at the time of the referenda, within their particular constituencies and broader communities.

One of our concerns is that we seem to be going backwards to some extent since 2000, in the aftermath of the rollercoaster that was the drive to achieve and implement a peace agreement. We have seen the introduction of the historical inquiries team and other important measures, but, just as significantly, we have also seen an increased stereotyping of ex-prisoners as the ones solely at fault for the Troubles. We have tried in our work during the years with former prisoners, one the one hand, and, on the other, victims and survivors of the Troubles to emphasise that they are not two distinct categories. In fact, throughout Northern Ireland there are many people who were in prison and also were victims and survivors of political violence. The notion of positing one group against the other is misguided.

We began with the aim of reintegration of former prisoners into society, in accordance with the wording of the Good Friday Agreement. In practice, however, the various groups have gone further than this and have been proactively involved in interface work and other aspects of peace-building. The impact of their efforts can be seen in the cross-constituency, cross-community contact made between groups.

Another area of work that has always been very much to the fore is our engagement with young people, our message being that there is nothing glamorous about a return to the Troubles. One of the projects the group has undertaken, with the support of the department of education at Queen's University and the subsequent endorsement of the Northern Ireland Department of Education, is the production of an education pack for schools exploring why people became involved in violence, what life was like for prisoners and why they now support the peace process. The objective is to discourage another generation from becoming involved in violence.

There are two issues that remain of major concern to us. The first is that one of the issues preventing the reintegration of political ex-prisoners as full members of society is the retention of their criminal record which excludes them, for example, from employment in some instances, from obtaining insurance and consideration as adoptive parents. We have campaigned to put legislation in place to address this issue. In the meantime, people are being increasingly excluded by the unconscious application of legislation and policies on criminalisation. This is having a serious impact on former prisoners.

The second point of concern relates to funding. The Community Foundation for Northern Ireland is an independent charitable trust which does not receive any statutory funding. In fact, since its establishment in 1995, we have been left to negotiate funding from the European Union, the support of which has been very generous but not the most appropriate to the work engaged in by the ex-prisoner groups. We are asking where the evidence is of any effort by the government to mainstream some of this work.

Chairman

Thank you, Ms Kilmurray. I now invite questions from members, beginning with Deputy Frank Feighan.

Deputy Frank Feighan

The delegates are very welcome. The committee wants to be helpful and we are anxious to hear their concerns. We have already had discussions in the committee on the criminal record issue which is affecting people who, for instance, apply for a taxi licence, house insurance and so on. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The issue of historical crime is causing a great deal of concern at this time. We have spoken about this issue with Marian Price and, on the other side of the divide, Bobby Rodgers. What is the delegates' view on how we can seek to address the issue?

Reconciliation and commemoration issues are important and of concern to the committee. It is important to remind ourselves that this is a powerful committee which can access areas not easily accessible to others. It is a stark reality that in the past two years no representative of the Unionist or loyalist parties has attended a meeting of the committee. Members of Sinn Féin and the SDLP have come down and articulated their case, but we have not heard the argument from the other side. The message must go out that we are anxious to hear from the Alliance Party, the UUP and the DUP. That engagement is happening via other channels, but these voices need to be heard at the committee.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I share a good deal in common with them as I am a former political prisoner. I find it very annoying at times when people refer to people's past in terms of they having a criminal record. I do not accept that and I never will. All my actions, and I assume all the actions of people who were involved in and combated the conflict, were politically motivated. People who have been prisoners as a result of the conflict who wish to travel to America, Australia or to leave the country find they are prohibited from doing so and this is a major issue. In the current circumstances that prevail in this country, people who are still relatively young have to remain unemployed because they cannot access work outside the country in many areas as a result of their having been involved in the conflict. That was emphasised legislatively in this House in the recent past and as a result people cannot even get a job as a taxi driver because they have been former prisoners of war, POWs. In the Six Counties special political advisers were discriminated against because they had been prisoners in the conflict. I would strongly argue that in respect of the Good Friday Agreement, all the negotiations on it and the goodwill towards it, a great deal of convincing of people of its value came from the prisoners and former prisoners who worked within their communities to ensure it was acceptable across this island.

I would like to think, and I expect Deputy Frank Feighan or any of the Deputies here would support me on this, that if Sinn Féin was in government down here and if I was part of the Sinn Féin team, either as a political adviser or as an elected representative, that there would be no doubt that my position would be accepted. I find it insulting that people like Mary McArdle and Paul Kavanagh have found themselves outside the pale as a consequence of opportunistic political reasons motivated by one party trying to embarrass another. I would like to get the delegates' views on that. I hope we will make a strong argument in favour of getting rid of the "records", as they are called. I think this committee should make representations to the Government regarding legislation that has come through that effectively categorises former political prisoners in the same category as child abusers, rapists and so forth. I think that is terrible.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Ferris for that. Does Mr. Kevin Mulgrew wish to lead in the response to those questions?

Mr. Kevin Mulgrew

I am chairperson of Coiste na nIarchimí, a group that supports former provisional IRA prisoners. Ms Avila Kilmurray set the context for this very well and I will be as brief as possible but I want to cover a number of points on behalf of our constituent part in the Prison to Peace and Conflict Transformation from the Bottom Up network. This is the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and I was heartened by what Deputy Frank Feighan said, namely, that it is a powerful committee. I do not mean to be smart but 15 years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, I have to ask why has it not been implemented and why a number of the promises made in it and in the St. Andrews Agreement have not been implemented. The Good Friday Agreement stated: "The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration - I have an issue with the word "reintegration" - of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, re-training and/or re-skilling, and further education." A Bill went through these Houses which denies work to republican ex-prisoners. A Bill, to which Deputy Martin Ferris alluded, went through Stormont which provides that somebody can be a Minister but cannot be a special adviser. There is a great deal of nonsense about this.

I wish to comment on a few issues that were raised. We have written a fairly length submission to the Haass talks, the details of which I will not go into as it has been forwarded to them. The submission set out clearly the political, historical context of colonialism. We make no bones about that, that is where the conflict arose, but whether people can agree or disagree with actions, that is a different day's work.

Ms Avila Kilmurray prepared a paper which is very helpful. The number of republican ex-prisoners, and indeed loyalist ex-prisoners, vary from 15,000, as some people have said, to 40,000, as stated in some reports. The figure of 40,000 comes from the British Home Officer and that excludes the period up to 1971 where there would have been several thousand people involved. It is a massive number of people. As Ms Avila Kilmurray stated in her document, when the families are taken into account, we are talking about a constituency of more than 200,000 people. That is a massive constitutency of people affected by political imprisonment.

"Reintegration" is not a word that republican ex-prisoners would use. We understand people use different language and that is their language. We would see ourselves as part of communities who have returned to communities. While we have certainly settled back in again, "reintegration" is not a word that republicans would use.

I wish to comment on some of the issues mentioned. With regard to political imprisonment and conflict-related convictions - again, this is language we use, and it is not criminal- but conflict-related convictions - this is included in employers' guidelines. A committee in Stormont had to draw up guidelines for employers. They have not been adopted by all employers, although some have adopted them. Therefore, there has been some progress and that is the language used.

Anyone who has had a political conviction will have issues around employment, education, voluntary work, financial services even up to including pensions in that if a person is in jail there is not a continuance of his or her contributory pension. The issue of ageing poverty has arisen. Republic ex-prisoners, and I am sure the same applies to loyalist ex-prisoners, constitute an ageing population; they are in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. That is the reality of the numbers involved and of the issues.

On the issue of travel, political ex-prisoners have been refused travel. I know some of this is outside the remit of this group but it should be lobby on this issue. The USA, Canada and New Zealand will refuse travel to political ex-prisoners. We met representatives of the Australian Embassy and we had a positive response from them. The irony, as we pointed out, is that the their founding fathers were political prisons and that argument was not lost on them. We had a good meeting and they have been very positive since it.

Ms Avila Kilmurray has also touched on adoption and fostering. Licences are also an issue, people can be arrested again and it can be written on their licence without any due regard to any evidence. It is crazy and it is causing untold problems in the North. If there is evidence against people that is one thing, but where people are arrested and no evidence is shown, that is creating problems and giving succour people who are opposed to the Good Friday Agreement.

Some of the issues on which I have touched are outside the remit of this committee but most of them are within it. I cannot understand some of the provisions of legislation that has been introduced in the past 15 years and neither can our group understand it. We are fully behind the process. The war is over. We are treated differently from former combatants. Former combatants are not asked where they were during the 1970s or 1980s - they can travel, but we cannot. We need to deal with those issues.

With regard to some of the things we have asked for in the Haass talks, and we are very clear about this, we have said that there needs to be an expunging of convict-related convictions. The war is over, it is over and let us deal with it. Not only are political ex-prisoners refused travel, their partners - we have documentation on this and we would be happy to pass it on to the committee - were refused travel because they were on the same ticket, children have been refused travel and in the last week grandchildren have been refused travel because of their parents or a parent having been sentenced as a result of the conflict in the North in the 1970s. That is the time to which the sentence date back. We are calling for the expunging of convict-related convictions. We are also calling for - dare I use the word - an amnesty. The expunging of records deals with those who have been in prison and an amnesty deals with those who may face prison. We heard the latest comments yesterday from the Attorney General in North which caused concern, but the reality is that there has been a de facto amnesty for British forces. Five of them went to prison and three of them are still in the British Army. There is a disparity in how former combatants are dealt with.

I wish finish on this note as I know others want to speak. There is a process called "DDR2", demobilisation, demilitarisation and reinsertion. It is used in most conflicts around the world. It is a process that is used before those involved proceed to elections and the working outs post-conflict. It did not happen here. I understand it did not happen here because the Good Friday Agreement probably would not have been negotiated had that been pushed but that is what is used in countries. There have been 550 plus amnesties granted since 1945 across the world. There were amnesties granted in this State after the Civil War. There has been a history of amnesties having been granted; it is not something new. There was a recent provision in respect of the UN which states in regard to amnesties that an amnesty cannot be a blanket amnesty as that is illegal but if an amnesty is tied into weapons being put beyond use and tied into demobilising armies, then it is that. There is detail on this. These are the hard questions. I know people say "amnesty" and then shy away from it but the reality is that the British state, the other side of this conflict, has had de facto amnesty.

Chairman

Does anybody else wish to comment on the issues raised? If not, I will take questions from Deputy Smith and Ms Gildernew.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I welcome the witnesses. I have a question or two for Ms Kilmurray in particular. The PEACE IV programme will soon come on-stream. The European Parliament has finalised its budget for the coming years in recent days. Reference was made to the lack of continuity for schemes depending on such programmes. Such funding will be critically important given the challenges facing governments in terms of funding. When we know the parameters of the new PEACE IV programme we should be in a position to support any programmes Ms Kilmurray puts forward for financial support. She indicated that from the mid-1990s the European Union has been supportive of different peace building projects. I recall very well meeting with officials from the European Commission at the time when Albert Reynolds was Taoiseach. There was a particular drive at that time to ensure that the European Union supported the peace process. Could Ms Kilmurray elaborate on the work of various groups with young people in terms of highlighting to them that there is no glamour attached to going back to violence? Such information would give an indication of the value of the work.

Ms Kilmurray mentioned in her publication that the work of the civic forum could be valuable from the point of view of giving another worthwhile forum to various groups to deal with issues outside the mainstream dealt with by parliamentary assemblies. The most recent questions I asked in the Dáil about the establishment of a civic forum appeared to suggest that the process was not advancing. Perhaps that would change if Ambassador Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan produce a report to that effect. I do not know how the forum worked when it was in existence. Did Ms Kilmurray engage meaningfully with the civic forum when it was in place? It should offer good potential to various groups. We spoke earlier about loyalist groups that might not be well represented in political fora, at local authority, Assembly or parliamentary level. Deputy Ferris contributed on the point. Could Ms Kilmurray elaborate on her views in terms of the potential of the civic forum? We could provide support in terms of lobbying the Government and the British Government.

Ms Michelle Gildernew

The witnesses are very welcome. Ironically, we discussed the issue in January 2012. I will be taking the lift today because I broke my leg in this building following the last meeting. I will not take any chances today. Since the last meeting two pieces of legislation have been introduced North and South to further discriminate against political prisoners. Things seem to be moving backwards instead of forwards. It is a double whammy for women who spent their reproductive years in prison. Martina Anderson can be a Member of the European Parliament but she can never be a mother. She is a fabulous daughter who looks after her own mother but she can never know what it feels like to have a child of her own because of the discrimination against political prisoners. It is a huge injustice that any woman would not be given such an opportunity. Adoption and fostering need to be on a par with insurance. Unfortunately, for many women demographics are now working against them and time is against them. Fifteen years on from the Good Friday Agreement it is a sin that the situation is maintained. It is immoral and women in particular are being punished as a result.

Senator Mary M. White

I wish to follow up on the issue raised by Ms Gildernew. She raised the issue previously of adoption for women who have been in prison and we do not seem to have followed up on it. Why can we not take it up and do something about it? Martina Anderson can be an MEP but she cannot adopt a child. For God’s sake. I am sure you remember, Chairman, that we had such a discussion a year and a half ago.

Ms Michelle Gildernew

The meeting was in January 2012.

Senator Mary M. White

What do you think we should do, Chairman? What action can we take on the issue?

Chairman

We can reflect on it.

Ms Avila Kilmurray

I will respond to Deputy Smith’s questions. PEACE IV is very welcome. For obvious reasons, at the moment the emphasis is largely on young people and unemployment. Some focus should be on issues relating to ex-prisoners. PEACE funding is best used for project work. It does not have to require a big budget. Core funding would allow the continuity of groups. That goes back to the Executive. The Community Foundation for Northern Ireland has written on a number of occasions to seek meetings with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister but we have only received acknowledgements not meetings. My organisation has been acting as lead partner for the PEACE programme in terms of the prisoner work. We are getting to the stage where we are not going to do it anymore because we feel we are being used as a comfort blanket for lack of political decision making.

I have mixed views on the civic forum. It is useful potentially as a form of participative democracy. As we heard at the end of the last session, there is lack of representation from a number of areas and a civic forum might be able to address that in an affirmative manner. It would be complementary to politics because a civic forum could look at some issues that it is difficult for the elected parties to address at the moment in terms of trying to tease out some ideas following the Haass report when it comes. I will ask Mr. Deane to say something about the work of groups with young people.

Chairman

There is no pressure.

Mr. Philip Deane

No, there is no pressure. I am not winking at anyone; I have a twitch in my eye. Primarily, the decision made by Lisburn People’s Support Project, PSP, at the beginning of our involvement was that there was a need to de-glamourise the conflict. A large section of young people feel that in many ways they missed out on the conflict. There is an irony which suggests that in many ways it has been glamourised. The work we did in connection with the flags protest is a great example of what we have done. We were lucky in Lisburn that the trouble in Belfast did not spread but it took a lot of work to ensure that was the case. We asked young people about their plans and what they would do if they were pushed off the street. We told them a story about how things would develop. The difficulty with the prison experience and the conflict is that in many ways they have been romanticised. Every single television programme or film made about the conflict refers at some stage to the great camaraderie in prison. That is true, but nobody tells about what happens when the cell door closes and one is alone or one’s family is falling apart.

To develop on the point made by Ms Gildernew, for a man fathering children is an issue as becoming a mother is an issue for a woman. We spend a lot of time de-glamourisng the conflict. In a similar vein, I was looking at phase two of the project and the work we have done for the progress report. I have run more than 17 programmes, 13 of them have been with women and young people. They were all based around the de-glamourisation of the conflict and the pitfalls in terms of getting involved. I tell them that getting involved in conflict might affect their ability to travel and ten years down the line such involvement might seem remiss. Many young people that were involved in the on-street protests will encounter a problem further down the line in terms of travel.

We believe our conscious decision to work with young people to deglamourise the conflict and the romanticism behind it has been a great success. We think it is one reason the recent trouble in and around greater Belfast did not spread to Lisburn.

Deputy Seán Crowe

The issue of barriers to ex-prisoners has come up previously; collectively or as individual groups, have the witnesses identified the different barriers that exist with regard to adoption, insurance and so on? It might be helpful were the witnesses to provide formally to the joint committee a list of such barriers, which hopefully could then put it through the relevant Government structures. Do the witnesses perceive the difficulty in part to be that the process came out of the Good Friday Agreement and that different individuals were then involved in the parties that signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, namely, the two Governments? It probably is easier for such people, be they from the Conservative Party, Fine Gael, the Labour Party or whatever, to state another Government was in office at that time. One element of the agreement was that it was not something that was to stand still but instead was to progress and to develop. This is where the witnesses' role comes in, that is, with regard to the inclusive element to society and so on. While I am sure this is causing huge frustration to the witnesses' own organisations, so too is scrambling around trying to get payments. I note there is no funding stream and that was never worked out. How do the witnesses respond to those cynics in society who would say that 15 years on, it is time to pack up and move back to being a normal society? Some minority submissions that were received in respect of funding, PEACE IV and so on suggested that rather than wasting time on ex-prisoners' groups and so on, there should be investments in economic projects and positive things for society, mar dhea. How do the witnesses respond to that?

Chairman

Before allowing Mr. Kevin Mulgrew to respond, I note the gremlins are at us today, as another vote has been called. I will keep the meeting going and perhaps one person also should remain behind, thereby allowing the other members to leave. As Ms Michelle Gildernew is still here, we can keep going.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

I will remain.

Chairman

As Ms Gildernew had finished her questioning, Deputy Kirk is next.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

I thank the Chairman and apologise for missing the earlier part of the presentation. It is great that the witnesses have an opportunity to make a presentation before the joint committee and to identify the areas that clearly need addressing. It is part of the regular checking of the Good Friday Agreement to ascertain what progress has been made, particularly with regard to the more sensitive areas pertaining to it.

While I will not enter a long dissertation, I refer to one area, having regard to the various funds that are available, whether it is under PEACE II, PEACE III or PEACE IV, namely, the retraining, upskilling, reskilling or personal development of individuals. What progress has been made in that general area? It appears to me that developments in the area of reintegration or greater participation in community activity, both economic and social, would be critical because quite clearly, in the event of significant educational upskilling, the potential to participate in a real, positive and meaningful way is obvious. I wish to hear what sort of progress has been made in this regard in general terms.

Mr. Paul Gallagher

My name is Paul Gallagher and I represent Teach na Fáilte, which supports former INLA prisoners. Many legacy issues have been talked about and the point has been made that if they are not resolved, one always will be an ex-prisoner because one will carry them with one all one's life - be they in respect of employment, travel, insurance or seeking to adopt. In response to the Deputy's question, they always will be there. Consequently, we have done a lot of work on advocacy and have been working with the Northern Ireland Civil Service in an effort to put in place various programmes and to introduce voluntary acts for taking on people who have records, as we call it, to the effect that they will not be taken into account before 1998.

However, I wish to raise the issue about trying to sustain the work of Prison to Peace and not being obliged to try to apply for funding through the various bodies in a reactionary way and not to be pigeonholed into the peace programme, because we develop far more work than that and it now is well highlighted that the work should be mainstreamed. Moreover, while the vast majority of us may have come from the North, this is not a Northern problem. This is an Irish problem and members will be aware there are growing numbers of current prisoners in Portlaoise.

There are a lot of legacy and residual issues that Prison to Peace has come through. We have good experience of going through a process involving models of dialogue, demilitarisation and disarmament and that process, as we know it today, has not ended and the skills relationships we have learned and built are required for the future. Our group, Teach na Fáilte, has done work in Portlaoise prison. We have been talking to prisoners and about issues on social justice, community development processes and about human rights. We think that collectively, Prison to Peace can go a long way if the work is sustained in dealing with issues that will arise in the future. We have seen the Good Friday Agreement, 15 years have passed and we think that sometimes it is slipping back, a lot of that stuff has not been implemented and we are present today to answer the joint committee's questions.

Mr. Kevin Mulgrew

Briefly, on Deputy Crowe's point, this is like the debate that was signalled yesterday by John Larkin, in that while one does not talk about issues, we need to talk about the real issues. If major parties - I do not simply refer to big house unionism in this regard - across the island do not accept there was a conflict, regardless of how they come to that point, then they will not deal with issues pertaining to the legacy of the conflict. Before one starts, the debate must get around that and while people will come out with different views, that is fine. Another issue with regard to funding is there is a massive disparity of approach to former combatants. British State forces have got somewhere close to £2 billion. While no one suggests they should not get it, it is £2 billion. When one considers the PEACE money for the large numbers involved, it is welcome but it is a pittance. Moreover, I agree with Ms Avila Kilmurray that it probably is not the mechanism that should be used for this. However, given the financial state of affairs, especially in this State, there is no money there to grab and it certainly will not be allocated to dealing with political ex-prisoners in this jurisdiction. It simply will not happen. As for the PEACE IV money that is available, there has been a lot of lobbying in Brussels to try to exclude political prisoners from it. The DUP and others have been over there lobbying extensively to try to get that stopped and this also needs to be challenged because this work must continue. If it is not continued, people will still try to keep those engagements. We would continue to work with all different groupings here, with all sections of society and all communities, because there are loads of different communities and loads of different issues. However, limitations arise when one does not have staff in place or does not have programme costs and so on.

The other issue in this regard is there will be a gap between PEACE III and PEACE IV. There always has been a gap, there always are delays of a year, 18 months or two years. Where will that be picked up? In the North, the last time it was picked up by some moneys obtained from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

Obviously, that did not transmit to the Southern groups because their remit did not extent that line on the map. These are real issues.

At this stage, we are set to finish in May. We still are owed 23% of the funding and have been told we might know in February or March. That is not good enough. It will take us to the end of 2014 and PEACE IV will probably not be in place for another year to 18 months thereafter.

These are only practical issues. I am sorry, but I will stop speaking after making this point.

Chairman

No, that is helpful. Mr. Dunbar wants to come in and he will be followed by Mr. Howcroft.

Mr. Roderic Dunbar

We are here to talk about the Good Friday Agreement. Would we have it if it were not for the support of the ex-prisoner community? The answer is, "Probably not." As an ex-prisoner, I ask, "Has the Good Friday Agreement delivered for me?" to which the answer is, "No." I was convicted in a special court in special circumstances. I now have a criminal record, as the British Government would state. The conditions alluded to for an amnesty have been met in that weapons have been put beyond use and the organisations have been disbanded - they have been stood down. At what point will I get what I voted for when I voted for the Good Friday Agreement - a bill of rights - which will tell me that I am a citizen? When do I stop being an ex-prisoner? I have been out of prison for almost 40 years and have not broke the law since.

The point Ms Gildernew made is one that I, as a male, have never grasped as to the effect on those such as Ms Martina Anderson and I am sure there are many more like her. I am fortunate in that I am a parent and do not have to adopt. I had three at once and I am not going to through that again.

From where do I get my rights as a citizen? I am asked to pay my taxes; I am told I can vote, but I cannot get what I want. If I want to take out insurance, I have to declare my past. I will have to pay an excess or else I will not have insurance. I am also denied employment opportunities. What is the point in re-skilling to do a specific job and someone turns around and tells me he or she is sorry but because of something I did at 22 years of age, I cannot avail of an employment opportunity? Has the Good Friday Agreement delivered for the ex-prisoner community? It is debatable, but in some ways, yes. On the fundamentals, a Bill of Rights would guarantee us full citizenship, something to which we are entitled. If I was a rapist and out of prison the 30 odd years I have been out of prison, I could write on an application form that I had no convictions, but my conviction stays with me and will never be spent. We are a special case. If we were convicted in a special court, we are a special case and that case needs to be looked at. As to whether the answer is an amnesty, expunging or deleting records, I do not know the answer to that question, but something has to be done. We would not be where we are were it not for the contribution of the ex-prisoner community, as well as members of the ex-combatant community who are sometimes overlooked and are living in fear. I cannot be judged again for the things I did but others can.

The HET was mentioned. Is there any trust in it after the revelations about the way that some persons had been followed with more vigour than others?

There is still much to be done. A start would be a bill of rights that would guarantee me the hope of full citizenship, to which I, as a citizen, should be entitled.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Dunbar for his input. The issue of a bill of rights is raised regularly at the committee, as he will be aware.

Mr. John Howcroft

I want to follow through on many matters which have been raised. We do not have the correct reference frame to really understand this issue. We use restrictive terminology such as "ex-prisoner". We need to begin to put that matter in context and look at it through the lenses of poverty, social isolation, social injustice and, as Mr. Dunbar stated, rights. These all are important lenses through which to look at this issue.

The figure Professor Shirlow threw out was 40,000. If we multiply that figure by five for dependants such as family members, children and grandchildren, we arrive at a figure of 200,000 persons within the communities on whom there have been secondary impacts in terms of their pension rates and reduced employment options. It does not stop merely with the prisoner but percolates into the wider community. We have never really measured that impact. It is no co-incidence that in the communities from which we come there are high levels of poverty and deprivation and people are effectively prisoners of the past.

A high percentage of those who joined paramilitary organisations and became involved in the conflict went on to become prisoners, but there is also hidden discrimination against former combatants. We can measure some of the discrimination against us, but we are less successful in measuring it against our children that we know occurs. In terms of security forces files still held perhaps on persons in our communities, are they still used? In these terms, there are many perceptions.

All of this occurs against the backdrop of communities that experienced the full spectrum of social injustice in terms of health and education services and unemployment. On the forging of frugal and regressive mindsets within the community that are being expressed, we have described it as a socioeconomic explosive placed in a political vacuum and primed with an identity fuse. Politics is not delivering at the grassroots and identity is used as a camouflage. Politics needs to start to deliver through providing for equal citizenship.

Mr. Noel Large

I am from EPIC Belfast which supports former UVF prisoners. There are a couple of points to be made.

In terms of what should have been implemented under section 10 of the Good Friday Agreement, on a personal level, I was released under the terms of the Agreement in October 1998. A few months after I was released, I received a letter from the tax office stating if I paid £9,000, I would be entitled to a bigger percentage of my old age pension when I reached pension age. As I had only been out a few months, I did not have £9,000 and there was not a hole in the wall from which I would get it. Even if I had had £9,000, I would only have been entitled to a pension of approximately 40% or 50%. That is what that means. I have been out 15 years, all but six months of which have been spent in full-time employment. Somebody could leave school at years of age and through no fault of his or her own might not be able to find a job and remain unemployed throughout his or her working life. At 65 years of age he or she would be entitled to a full old age pension, yet I could work - God willing - for the next ten years until I was near retirement age and still not be entitled to receive even a figure of 50%. Is there anybody in this room who would see this as anywhere close to being fair? That is only one aspect.

In 2007 I was invited to Indonesia to work in its peace process after the 2005 tsunami. It was funded by US Aid and I worked in Banda Aceh. It was a great learning experience and eye-opener, but as those who funded it were part of an arm of government, I was not let travel to Miami, Florida to visit Disney World. I could help to build peace in Indonesia, but I could not go to Florida for a fortnight with my daughter to see Mickey Mouse. These are small issues that might not mean a great deal to members of the committee.

Ms Kilmurray made a point on core funding. It is no mistake that much of the peace-building work, particularly in connection with ex-prisoners and ex-combatants, is not core-funded. It is not done by chance but by design. I worked on a cross-community project - Interaction - that used be called the Springfield Inter-Community Development Project, SICDP. Its work was of vital importance.

It was particularly vital in the new millennium when politicians were unable to agree a way forward in terms of power-sharing in the Assembly. Many ex-prisoners and ex-combatants engaged in what we would call the real peace-building work on the ground. We filled the vacuum that would have been filled by people who wanted to take us backwards instead of forwards. That was never recognised. I am not here with a begging bowl by any means; I will wash cars if I have to. The point is that we do not know what will happen this time next year because we always have to look over our shoulders. Part of the problem is that one is not able to focus fully on what one should be focusing, namely, on how we can have positive impacts, especially on the young, in order to take people away from a road that many of us felt we had to go down years ago.

Mr. Séanna Walsh

A point raised concerned the business of the past and charges that might well be made against certain individuals at some stage consequent on certain revelations or forensic examinations, for example. There is no general agreement anywhere on how this should be dealt with in the North. Republicans and probably most individuals present have a specific view that whatever happened in the past happened. If the war is over, it is over. One is not going to get people to come forward to talk about their role in the conflict if, by doing so, they will end up in jail again. It is simply not going to happen; therefore, people have to be honest about it.

I realise certain individuals among the victims community do not particularly want the truth; they want people like me to be put back in jail. If I have not served my time for everything in which I was ever involved, they believe I should be put back in jail. It is not going to happen in the sense that I can get up and talk about my activities in the IRA simply because I have been in jail. I can talk about stuff I was involved in that led to my going to jail. However, no one can talk about everything else that happened in the conflict if it means going back to jail. This is because there is no Statute of Limitations for what happened during the conflict. If people demand the truth about a certain incident, people like me will simply say they are not getting it on the grounds that we would be put back in jail. A section of society is crying out for what it regards as closure, but it cannot have closure if it means people are going to go back to jail. That is just the position for us. In addition, one must bear in mind everything that the state was involved in over the course of the conflict, particularly in the North. As Mr. Mulgrew stated, approximately five British soldiers went to jail as a result of killings. The state has always covered its own back.

Mr. Ciarán de Baróid

I am from the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. I manage the two PEACE programmes that we operate. I have a point I believed somebody else might have brought up.

Mr. Curry has raised the question that is asked as to why everybody does not just go home, have a cup of tea and forget about the matter on the basis that it is 15 years down the line. He has referred to the questioning of what is the point in continuing with this work. The impact and value of this work on the ground are very often missed outside the areas in which it is progressing. There were three occasions in the past four years on which we could have slid back into serious shooting-related conflict in the North. The first was when the policeman was killed, the second was when the two soldiers were killed and the third which occurred more recently was when the flag protest occurred at the beginning of this year. When one is outside the communities, it is very easy to look at the television and see a terrible thing happening without being aware of the discussion around the table. What one does not see is the discussion around the table in our office in Belfast. The loyalist representatives said there was a massive demand in their communities for a backlash and to kill a few Catholics after the killing of the policeman and two soldiers. There was a very lengthy discussion around the table and people went back into their communities and said there was no support for the activities in the republican community. That message had to be brought back by representatives of the loyalist community. There is no point in the likes of Mr. Walsh, Mr. Mulgrew, Mr. Gallagher or Mr. Dunbar saying there is no support; the message has to come from the representatives of the loyalist communities. The latter representatives, because of their background and because they are former prisoners, commanded a lot of respect and had a lot of clout in their communities. When on two occasions they went back to those communities and said there was no support for the activities in question, the lid was put back on a very dangerous situation.

On another occasion there was a rumour that the INLA was to attack an Orange Order march that would be passing Ardoyne. The response within loyalist communities was,"To hell it will; we will go up to Ardoyne and sort that out." Again, there was discussion around a table and the representatives from the INLA constituency assured the loyalist representatives that there was no truth to the rumour. The rumour had been circulated by the Northern edition of one of the more irresponsible newspapers in the country. People went back into their communities and said what had been rumoured would not happen. It was a case of calling a war and nobody coming, with the consequence being no trouble in Ardoyne.

One saw what was happening on the street during the flag protest. At the Short Strand-Lower Newtownards interface, events were at the point where there was real potential for somebody to be killed. The sectarian element was developing. The former IRA, ex-combatant, ex-prisoner constituents sent 100 men to the Short Strand to stop the response or attack - whichever way one views it - coming from that community. Colleagues supporting former UDA prisoners did tremendous work at the interface. This is possibly the case with some of the UVF representatives, but I know the UDA representatives pulled it back. From the outside, people saw the trouble vanishing, but they did not hear the dialogue.

There is a constant, simmering undercurrent in the North that can be ignited very easily by the smallest event. We are now in a set of circumstances in which there is a lid on a number of matters. There is much discussion and debate taking place and there is a lot of work being done by the people sitting around tables that are not seen. One can never prove the riot or killing that did not happen. I am outlining the battles people have all the time. There was no trouble on Shankill Road when there was trouble in east Belfast. People expressed their surprise, but they did not realise why there had been no trouble there, in Lisburn and the area Mr. Gardiner covers in Derry. They did not see the work done on the ground. Without the project groups, there would be a massive vacuum within working class areas. People on the island do not realise how important it is to maintain this work.

Deputy Frank Feighan

The submissions made by the groups represented are among the most powerful the committee has received. I do not normally make that kind of comment. I thank the delegates.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I am acquainted with the work they do, much of which is done at great risk to themselves. The group can come in an settle matters when things are about to implode. It can be difficult work and entails courageous action on their behalf.

As regards the lack of funding, if this committee can make recommendations for the group we will not be found wanting in that regard. Perhaps the group can tell us what type of funding it requires from the State.

Mr. Nigel Gardiner

I want to echo what Mr. Ciarán de Baróid said about the work being done. People are not aware of the phone calls we get at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. to attend interface areas.

Last year in Londonderry, an issue arose concerning the flying of regimental flags belonging to the Parachute Regiment. Negotiations took place over three and a half days which, on the eve of the Apprentice Boys' parade, had the potential to create major sectarian violence. The ramifications and fallout could have spread but my colleagues and I took that risky gamble to ensure that sectarian strife did not ensue in the streets of Londonderry.

Deputy Seamus Kirk raised the question of retraining and upskilling. One can try one's best to work with limited resources. I have 49 ex-prisoners who are involved through EPIC. They have done their SIA security training in licensed warehouse duties. During Londonderry's City of Culture year they were able to get casual and sustainable employment for a year. The question is what happens thereafter. Are ex-prisoners going to be discriminated against? As it stands, the ex-prisoner consortium is a disparate group, but their community is also maligned and castigated by sections within the community.

It was stated that this committee has no representation from the Unionist and loyalist community. The Official Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party are very good at castigating loyalism and those involved in the From Prison to Peace Partnership. The ladies and gentlemen around this table have taken risks to ensure that the peace process is kept on track. Mr. de Baróid alluded to the murder of two British soldiers at Massereene Barracks and the subsequent murder of two PSNI officers. It should be borne in mind that there have been 63 shooting incidents in Londonderry in the past few years, so all is not well in the garden.

In Northern Ireland at present we have an issue concerning parades and flag protests. There is a major one planned for the end of this month. This is not scaremongering, but we also have a major dissident threat that exists right across Northern Ireland. Does it have the potential to destabilise the peace process? That is the question.

What will happen when we go away and there is no funding to run projects to ensure that our youth are brought to the fore, as Mr. Deane said? To quote from a residential conference held at the weekend, where to now?

Ms Avila Kilmurray

I will wrap up with a few points. Essentially, the political ex-prisoners have fallen through the fault line in terms of the inability to deal with the past. As a result, they have taken the predominance of the blame. The inability to deal with the past comes down to something this committee can take up between the British and Irish governments. There is a conflicting narrative whereby on the one hand it was described as an aggravated crime wave, while on the other hand it was described as a political struggle or war. Until that is dealt with, everything else falls captive to our inability to look at that.

As regards dealing with the past, the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland is trying to look at some sort of shared history through prisoners' eyes. We have interviewed a lot of them. One of the things that comes out strongly is that they say their involvement was not over a particular incident or ideology, but was due to the circumstances they found themselves in. Particularly on the loyalist side, people said that political speeches created the conditions they found themselves in.

As regards criminal records, I attended meetings from 2002 with the direct rule minister, Mr. David Hanson. We were seeking legislation and it was argued that we should go for a voluntary code of practice. Since 2007, we have been meeting with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service and have made some small gains, but there are still outstanding issues. Something has to be done about that.

Mainstream government core funding is needed for essential office and running costs, as well as essential co-ordination. The Peace IV programme comes in with broader programmatic costs. Because of a lack of funding this time last year, we had two groups - one from the republican side and the other from the loyalist side - working voluntarily without wages. They were in danger of losing their houses. I went up to the civil service to say that we would erect a cross-community tent on the grounds of Stormont to shelter those who had been made homeless due to the lack of continuity in funding. That remains a major issue and will certainly come up again.

It has taken many years of work and courage to get the Prison to Peace group working together. It is a model of what we hoped would emerge from the Good Friday Agreement. Ex-prisoners who had previously set out to kill each other were actually working together to maintain the peace process. I was talking to Jackie McDonald yesterday and he said that, given the current sensitivities and tensions, there are people within their communities who, if this work does not continue and is not more robustly supported, will say: "We told you. You took the risks. You put your necks out but they let you fall by the wayside." There are dangers involved in the practical situation on the ground, as well as in how communities will respond if this sort of work is not maintained somehow.

Chairman

I think you are a Strabane man, Paul, are you not?

Mr. Paul Gallagher

Yes.

Chairman

On Monday, I learned that there are 300 ex-combatants in Strabane alone, which is not a big place. It gave me some perspective as regards numbers. It was stated that it is not just a Six Counties problem, which is correct. To turn it the other way, the solution is not just a Six Counties solution. The flag is also being flown for Cork. I know the good work that all the witnesses are doing to try to move things forward. This committee is trying to provide space for everyone involved. In two weeks time, we will have representatives from victims' groups here. I do not have to tell those attending the committee today about the complexity of moving things forward, but we try to keep it as simple as possible. We appreciate and respect the perspective of every group that comes here.

The committee will continue with its outreach programme in Northern Ireland. We will be in Derry and Donegal in January with an invite back to Belfast later in the new year. The committee’s door is always open to the delegations. Civil servants will be examining today’s proceedings to identify the issues and concerns raised. This will influence future developments.

I agree there are frustrations with the peace process 15 years in. However, it is still in its infancy and we have a long road to go. We certainly want to be with the delegations on that journey. If there is any way the committee can assist, our door is always open.

Mr. Philip Deane

I welcome the fact the committee is meeting with the victims’ groups. In many ways, their voices have been unheard. The voices that are heard have been sometimes hijacked for political purposes. I would appreciate it if the committee could pass our message on to them for us. Many of them do not want speak to people such as us. I have to point out that I am not a former prisoner - at least not yet. The main thrust of this group’s work is trying our best to ensure there are no more prisoners and no more victims. To quote a colleague, "It takes an awful lot of work for nothing to happen."

Mr. Ciarán de Baróid

We thank the committee for organising today’s meeting and for everyone who attended. It is great to see so many faces around the table.