Raymond McCartney
Foyle · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“Comhghairdeas leis an Aire. I congratulate the Minister on what is, obviously, a very challenging portfolio. I welcome the statement. I welcome the speed with which you have met the unions and, hopefully, share your optimism that you have put on the table an offer that will see an end to the industrial action.”
“This is a classic case of, sometimes, a decision being made that, people think, is the right thing to do at one time that only pushes another challenge down the road. We need a commitment from the Minister to ensure that we have a mechanism in place to safeguard us against that.”
“The Minister has alluded to the fact that the Assembly is about to dissolve, and we will all go to the doors in the coming weeks. I commend the Minister. Certainly, when we go to the doors, many issues will be raised, and it will be good for us, as Assembly Members, to be able to say to people, "No water tax".”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí sin. I thank the Minister for his answers. We talked about the cost of division, but I ask him to talk about the reputational damage to the Assembly that has come about as a result of some disgraceful decisions that were blatantly discriminatory, sectarian in the truest sense of the word and pa…”
“That aside, it is fair to say that, over a long number of years, the expansion of the campus at Magee has been very much part of the politics of the north-west; indeed, Stephen Farry, in fairness, talked about it.”
“The university, in presenting that, gave all the pluses around that and said clearly that one of the things, particularly at postgraduate entry in medical schools and in other courses, from experiences elsewhere, is the idea of what they call the 20:20 rule — people stay within 20 miles of where they were educated for 20 years.”
The complete record
Every one of 553 lines we hold for Raymond McCartney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“We see it in terms of the north-west. Indeed, truth be told, we see it in the context of the island of Ireland as a whole. <BR /> <BR />Some people have raised points that are worth exploring, and that is why we, as a party, await the scoping document from the council officials. With the size of the city deals at present, as seen particularly in England but even in the Glasgow experience — I want to talk about that briefly as we come to the end — the volume of people is sometimes upwards of half a million. There are issues about council boundaries. In Glasgow, I think, 13 councils have come together. I am wondering whether there is a legislative issue. The Minister is here; I am not sure whether he will speak, but he will certainly know that, quite recently, he has taken a legislative process through the Assembly.”
“Last week at a conference in the city, I heard the chief executive of Derry City and Strabane District Council talk about the great work that has been done in recent months with Donegal County Council. We all realise that if we are to tackle the deficit in our infrastructure — we all know that investment and increasing education and skills will flow from that, as was teased out at the conference — we have to be in a place where, when we define the north-west, we see Donegal as part of that. Sometimes, when people present aspects of this, I am not saying that it is ignored, but it is certainly not pointed up. We have to ensure that we get the maximum buy-in from the greatest number of people. We have often talked about Magee and about the A5 and A6: it will not just be the people within the city limits of Derry who will benefit from that.”
“This is relevant because, living in Derry, we have a tendency to see the north-west as being Derry and Derry alone. If we are going to develop any concept to broaden the horizon of the north-west, then we have to be mindful, particularly now with the new council and our neighbours in east Derry, who are very much part of the north-west.”
“In proposing the motion, its supporters accept the central role that the One Plan has played and will continue to play, much in the same way that there is an acknowledgement of the role that the north-west ministerial subgroup will have in ensuring that there is delivery on these issues, which we all know and have listed. <BR /> <BR />When people refer to documents proposing the city deal as a way forward, and when you read what it actually entails, you always find it a bit light on detail. At the strategy board meeting in May, there was a presentation on the city deal by Mark Durkan MP. All of us on the strategy board agreed that it would be appropriate for the officials of Derry City and Strabane District Council to ensure that we had a scoping document to look at the pros and cons, and the pitfalls and issues, around city deals.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also support the motion. Although, when Colum Eastwood was proposing it — I do not see him in his place — I was struck by the number of times he said that this came from a Tory Government. It seemed as if he had his own reservations about it. <BR /> <BR />All of us from the north-west realise the need for the appropriate framework and delivery mechanisms to ensure that there is a regeneration process to deal with decades of underdevelopment in the region. That is true of other parts of the North as well.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. He outlined that a number of recruitment processes are in place. I seek this reassurance: is he satisfied that there will be no gaps in the system, as we go forward, as a result of those recruiting processes?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement, which very clearly sets out appropriately what the Department is trying to achieve, particularly the action plan with its four key areas. That is very important and is to be welcomed, particularly if we are going to have an effect on tackling the root causes and then on how we take people away from that in future. Does he envisage that, in future, there will be an implementation plan that will allow the effect of the strategy to be measured in an appropriate way?”
“The Committee was saying to everybody, particularly to the people whom we represent, that waiting times are an issue to which we have to find a solution. The review that the Committee undertook, in my opinion, put forward very practical steps based on the experience of other people who had found themselves in the same situation and found a way out of it. <BR /> <BR />There may be no Democratic Unionist Party people speaking today, but I am sure that they would accept that waiting times are an issue that can be addressed. The solution lies in front of us, and the motion and the amendment point to a way forward. We should support that to ensure that those who find themselves waiting unnecessarily are provided with a solution to alleviate that. We will support that as we go forward.”
“I raised the issue of waiting times, and other Members made the point very well. Most of us would accept that it is not a new problem; it has been a problem in the health service for many years. That is not to say that jurisdictions in other countries have not faced similar problems and circumstances, but they have found a solution, as we should do here, for a better approach and a better way. That better way is out there for us to see, and Maeve McLaughlin referred to other countries that have carried that out. <BR /> <BR />In fairness to the Health Committee, it identified that there was a problem, and it went about it in a very strategic way. It was not an exercise in trying, if you like, to bash the Minister.”
“I know that in our community it was very clear that it was a throwback to Lord Brookeborough: in other words, keep the Fenians where the Fenians belong — outside the front door. Thankfully, those days are long, long gone and are never coming back.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is very clear to most people that the Assembly election has begun. The grab for seats within unionism has begun, and I do not think that any of us are stupid enough to believe anything different. None of us can ever talk with any certainty. Most people say it is either the knave or the unwise person who tries to predict the future, never mind the political future, but I think that we can say with a degree of certainty that there will be no electoral pact in unionism in this election. Beyond that, no doubt they will come up with a pact to keep the rogues and the renegades at the door. You can go to Google Translate to get a good definition of what "rogue" and "renegade" mean.”
“It goes without saying that it is an issue for any service or Department to be left without leadership on a day-to-day basis, particularly one as critical as the health service, which deals with the well-being of patients, people and staff, and it is obviously worth reminding people of that. However, I do not think that the Ulster Unionist Party can absolve itself from that by simply saying that the DUP Minister is not here today, because it has a responsibility that it should address. It failed in its responsibility, because there is no Minister for Regional Development, and that set off what many commentators and, indeed, many people out there say is the beginning of an electoral contest. We are without the DUP Health Minister today and a number of other DUP Ministers, but we are also without the Minister for Regional Development.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Éirím chun tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún agus don leasú. I support the motion and the amendment. There is absolutely no doubt that this is a critical issue. I think that all of us would agree — other Members referred to this — that we spend a lot of time in our constituency offices trying to address waiting times. <BR /> <BR />In her opening remarks, Jo-Anne Dobson rightly pointed out that the absence of the Health Minister here today spoke for itself. She is right: the health service and all its related services are without the person responsible for providing that type of leadership.”
“Again, I echo the comments of the Chair on the open nature of the Bill. The Minister will be well aware that we have been critical of Members using, legitimately, the openness of justice Bills to bring in amendments that were not part of the general outline of the Bill, and, in many ways, took the focus away from the original intention. Where possible, we should try and avoid that. <BR /> <BR />The Chair said that sometimes there is a mop-up at the end of a mandate. That is understandable in these circumstances. As we go forward, we are certainly hoping, and ready, for the scrutiny required at Committee Stage.”
“When there is a criminal investigation or a health and safety aspect, we want the protocols for the circumstances in which the ombudsman would defer and how he could reinitiate an investigation on how a family or the prison administration would be made aware of that. <BR /> <BR />There are other aspects that I will not go into today because we broadly support the Bill in principle. The Chair outlined the concerns on what is now called "clause 86" and the steps that the Minister is taking to protect himself from that in the future. I will allay the Minister's fears, in case he thinks that that happens only with his Bills: there has already been a discussion at the Ad Hoc Committee about the joint Bill, which has similar provisions. I am sure that, as we take that Bill forward, there will be some discussion on that.”
“When the Prison Service has been before the Committee, it has flagged up, for a long number of years, the large number of people who find themselves in prison for not paying fines, the cost to the system, how it fragments the system and all the other valuable work on rehabilitation that is sometimes curtailed as a result of that. The idea of ensuring that no one is in prison as a result of fine default is very welcome. <BR /> <BR />With Part 2, the Minister is aware that we have supported the idea of ensuring that the Prison Ombudsman is placed on a statutory footing. It is laid out very clearly how we will progress that through the Bill. There may be some issues, but the detail of that will come out.”
“In particular, they are about how deductions will come from benefits, and we need to see the detail of that and the freezing of assets. If someone is deemed to have to pay a fine, whatever benefits are deducted — if they have to be deducted, and we have reservations about that that we will come to in time — other family members should not be punished unnecessarily for the misdemeanour of someone else. We like the idea that those in default of paying a fine would, where possible, be "punished" by community-based projects rather than the collection process. We will certainly explore that. I welcome the fact that the Minister has proposed that no child will end up going to prison as a result of not paying a fine.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the fact that we have now reached the Second Stage of the Justice (No. 2) Bill. We look forward to it passing through to Committee Stage, where much of the scrutiny and detail will come to the fore. <BR /> <BR />I have a number of brief observations. We broadly support the principles relating to fine default in Part 1. We have seen over a long number of years, particularly in Committee, how that issue seems not to go away and has posed particular problems for those who are left to collect fines. It has never really been properly tackled. In principle, we welcome the idea of the way in which the Department seeks to do this. There are some issues, and we flagged those up with the officials when they were at the Committee.”
“No. Over many years and, indeed, many instances, that, of course, was business as usual. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I want to reaffirm Sinn Féin's total commitment to the political and peace processes and all that comes with them. There are no ifs and no buts. It is a total and absolute commitment. With the motion very much in mind, it was very noticeable that a number of those who spoke today made no reference to the Davison or McGuigan families. We pledge our continuing support to them as they seek justice and to the PSNI in its ongoing investigation. Sin é.”
“So, it is very difficult to take lectures from those who, to this very day, share platforms and issue joint declarations with the negative and destructive forces within unionism. Be it by the threat of graduated responses or a third force, they are all designed to serve and promote narrow political views and, very often, self-interest.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me again state on behalf of Sinn Féin in clear and unambiguous terms that we are totally committed to the peace process and to peaceful and democratic means of achieving all political goals and objectives. That is the platform that we stand on and that is the mandate that we are given by those whose vote we seek and attain. No one, be it an individual, a party or a Government will be permitted to undermine or undervalue that. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of Sinn Féin, Martin McGuinness has demonstrated that commitment time out of number, both by word and deed. He was not found wanting when he shared platforms with Chief Constables and other political leaders to condemn the actions of so-named dissident republicans.”
“It has left the stage. Sin é, as they say. It is finished, gone and not coming back. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that political parties have used the killings for political advantage. With the prospect of an election, perhaps in May 2016, unionism is scrapping for advantage with a couple of seats up for grabs. When it suits their interests, as it did in relation to the Chief Constable's statement, one would think that he made single-sentence statements. The rest is never referred to and, indeed, is ignored. Why? Simply because it suits, and, after all, there are a few seats up for grabs and perhaps a few seats to secure. Alban Maginness mentioned Enda Kenny. Let me remind him that there is an election coming in that state too and that politicians are not beyond electioneering.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some have tried to suggest that those who carried out the murders were somehow motivated by republican ideals or could be called republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The murders were carried out for narrow self-interest. They were wanton violence and, therefore, criminal acts that were carried out by criminals. As someone who, along with many others, has fought any attempt to criminalise republicans, let there be no doubt as to the strength and the import of this condemnation. <BR /> <BR />In proposing the motion, Gerry Kelly outlined in great detail how the murders have been used by some for party political interest and who have seized on the comments of George Hamilton. I fundamentally disagree with George Hamilton's assertion that the IRA exists. The IRA made its intentions known in 2005.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím chun tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo. I rise to support the motion. <BR /> <BR />Ba mhaith liom comhbhrón a dhéanamh le teaghlaigh Gerard Davison and Kevin McGuigan. I begin, in the first instance and in the tone of the motion, by condemning the murders of Gerard Davison and Kevin McGuigan. I extend my sympathy and solidarity to their families, ever mindful that they continue to carry their loss even as we speak. I put on the record the need for people with any information relating to both murders to come forward and assist the PSNI in its investigation. Those who carried out the murders have no regard for the grief that they have visited upon those families.”
“People object to the introduction of petitions of concern, but, in this instance, I think that it is a legitimate enough use of Assembly rules to allow us at least to say to people that, when we make law here, it is done in a proper way, notwithstanding, as we saw with Lord Morrow's Bill and the Chair's amendment on early prison release, there are occasions when it is appropriate because we missed something. I do not think that Bills should be used as a catch-all, and we will certainly speak to that in the future.”
“The fear is that the commentary and focus has been on a number of issues that were brought in at Further Consideration Stage. This Justice Bill dates back a long time. The Committee report is three volumes long and contains over 1,000 pages of evidence, so good due diligence was provided to every aspect and every clause. Last week, I made the point to the Minister in the debate that we accept that the nature of justice Bills is such that they nearly become miscellaneous Bills, so that, at Further Consideration Stage, almost anything can be brought in.”
“I make the general point to this Minister and all other Ministers that that is not the way we should be conducting business. If there are issues to be addressed, they should be addressed appropriately so that people are not accused of using Further Consideration Stage in an inappropriate way, even if, for them, it is a very legitimate way. That is what we have to do. <BR /> <BR />It was an interesting issue, even in the earlier debate on the proposal tabled by Edwin Poots and Paul Givan. On that, we expressed our reservations on the proposal itself and on it being tabled at Further Consideration Stage. Whatever your view of the amendments and their content, they required more public scrutiny.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Chair has laid out, in very cogent terms, the approach taken by the Committee. It is fair to say that many members of the Committee were frustrated and felt that time could have been better employed — let us not say it was "wasted" — since May 2012, as was pointed out by the Committee Chair. <BR /> <BR />As he said on Thursday, the Department appeared to put on the table a package that addresses most of the main concerns outlined by the amendments. Certainly, we welcome that part of it. There are obviously some aspects that will return as we go forward, and we will hold our position until then. <BR /> <BR />I understand well that the proposers of the amendments will feel that, although Further Consideration Stage was not an appropriate time for the amendments, they certainly focused minds.”
“There is even the framing of this amendment. Many would ask, "Why 65? Should the same protections not be offered to 64-year-olds?" The amendment may be well-intentioned to try to deal with an issue that we need to deal with, but, in our opinion, this is not the way to do it. With that in mind, particularly around the principle of no scrutiny, we were certainly willing to sign a petition of concern. <BR /> <BR />If it is brought back to a Committee, we will certainly raise the other points around clarity, minimum sentences and even whether it is an idea to pick an arbitrary figure and say that some will be protected at that age and others will not. That is something that we will discuss at that stage, but for the purpose of tonight's debate, we are supportive of the concept and use of the petition of concern. Go raibh mile maith agat.”
“<BR /> <BR />If this ever resurrects itself in another guise, and so that I am not accused of saying that we should have full scrutiny but that we still POC'd it at the end, I want to say that there are issues around minimum sentences. We have discussed this before. There have been other motions in the House and indeed circumstances when legislation was seeking minimum sentences and we spoke against them. I well remember a private Member's motion dealing with this issue. A number of Members said that a minimum sentence did not allow for judicial discretion or the circumstances to be taken into account.”
“I think that we all accept that Further Consideration Stage is the part of the process where you tighten up deficiencies after all the scrutiny. While the proposers may be well intentioned, I think that, in many ways, this is a process of circumventing the system. The point can be made — I will make it here, too, to the Justice Minister and, indeed, to any other Minister — that sometimes when a Bill is so broad, and we had a discussion about this previously, it nearly becomes a miscellaneous Bill. When it becomes a miscellaneous Bill, you lay the ground for this type of clause or amendment to be brought in at the last stage. It is totally legitimate with regard to the process, but with regard to the outcome, it is far from that.”
“We believe that to come at this stage of a legislative programme with a proposal like this, with no scrutiny process, does not allow the issues to be considered by the stakeholders involved: the justice agencies, the PSNI and, I suppose, even the Sentencing Council. Their views would, in my opinion, allow us to inform ourselves better of how we should take this forward and, in particular, how we deal with the issue. <BR /> <BR />I have elderly parents. I accept that the vulnerability of older people is something worth discussing. It is worth reminding ourselves that perhaps they do not feel as protected as they should. The process to take us to the conclusion is not to come in at Further Consideration Stage.”
“He cautioned the Committee about amendments — I suppose, from his point of view, correctly — and that sometimes, even after full scrutiny, the intention of an amendment can take a Bill in the opposite direction. He said that when you legislate in haste, you sometimes have to repent at leisure. That is an appropriate observation, if you like, for this amendment. <BR /> <BR />A number of people pointed out the deficiencies, from their point of view, in the way in which this has been proposed. Only two Members have spoken, so I assume that others, when they speak, will look at it in a number of ways.”
“During the recent debate, we said that the approach taken was the principle of full scrutiny, but we also outlined reasons why we opposed the intention of that amendment at that time, so it was a two-pronged approach. This is a two-pronged approach as well. Who knows what our approach would be if this were brought through full scrutiny. We have reservations about minimum sentencing. I will go into that shortly. The reason why I said it was that, this afternoon, the Health Minister moved the Second Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill in the House. He talked about the long process of framing that Bill. He talked about the long process of scrutiny that the Ad Hoc Committee, of which I am a member, will give to the Bill.”
“Further Consideration Stage is not the appropriate time to bring this type of new clause in front of the Assembly, given the breadth and depth of it and perhaps the discussion that is needed on it. Attacks on older people and how they are treated by the justice system are something worth discussing, certainly worth highlighting and therefore definitely worth campaigning for. However, my party's opinion is that the remit and intent of the clause is such that it would require the full scrutiny process of the Assembly to ensure that we do the right thing with regard to any legislative process.”
“<BR /> <BR />The wording of the amendment allows a degree of latitude for the Prison Service and the Probation Board so that it does not become a stipulation. That is in case there are other things that prisoners might do on release. They might take up full-time employment, and community service, if not a hindrance, might certainly reduce their prospects of that. What it is designed to do, in much the same way as if someone was given a sentence that included a probation order, is give rise to conditions that will assist that. In that context, we will support it. <BR /> <BR />We will oppose amendment No 7, tabled in the name of Paul Givan and Edwin Poots.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will speak first on amendment No 6, which is tabled in the name of Alastair Ross, and we will support it. I think that, in outlining the reasons why he brought the amendment to the debate today, he put it in context. The Department briefed the Committee on a number of occasions about a procedure that it will use to release prisoners early from their sentence. The Chair, Alastair Ross, spoke about the bar being set and how it will be done to ensure that the people who are released early pose absolutely no risk to the public. Rightly, he identified a gap: whereas other stipulations can be put on a prisoner on release, there was a gap in relation to community service. I think that this was an appropriate mechanism to address that.”
“She accepted that the Minister and the Department could do more work on that. She obviously feels that the amendments that have been tabled today fulfil her intentions. We will therefore support them as well.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some of the other amendments have been described as "technical" and, certainly, they add to the work from Consideration Stage and, indeed, to another Bill. An amendment was tabled to perhaps tighten up the intent of that tabled by Paul Frew at Consideration Stage. I think that it adds to the intention, which was well laid out and well discussed at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, with regard to the amendment dealing with the Human Trafficking Act, as it is now, given Lord Morrow's intent, I think that he is happy, as the idea of the charities was missing. This amendment will now, if you like, add to that Bill. We are certainly more than content to support that. Similarly, Dolores Kelly articulated what she was trying to do with amendments that she tabled at Consideration Stage.”
“Taking note of concerns that were raised to the Committee during the inquiry on victims and witnesses, we were trying to be very clear about the idea of vulnerable witnesses unnecessarily having to give evidence twice, particularly in sexual violence or rape trials and, indeed, perhaps in other trials. I think that the amendments as laid out by the Minister provide the protection of what we believe is the necessary part of the PE, PI and mixed committals. We think that they serve a useful purpose and that they are now protected. However, protections are also built in to ensure that you do not have that two-stage approach to some witnesses. We are content to support amendment Nos 2 and 3. Obviously, we accept that, if they are carried, our amendment would fall. That is fine.”
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4, I will just speak briefly on amendment No 4, which is tabled in my name, Sean Lynch's and Chris Hazzard's. The Minister described it as well-intentioned and then started to point out the deficiencies in it, which I think we would accept. We were trying to demonstrate with that amendment the Minister's concern, which he was right to mention, that sometimes when you are defining something, each party or person might have a concept of it but that when you are legislating, you have to have a clear definition. The term "interests of justice" was not clear.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I just want to speak to a number of the amendments. The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, provided the commentary on most of them. When the Minister was speaking about amendment No 1, I think there was an acceptance. The Chair laid out clearly, on behalf of the Committee, the reason why we had our reservations about clause 86. The Minister described the amendment as narrower and more focused, and I think we would agree with that. It allows us to say — I think it was Paul Frew who brought it up at the Committee — that Part 1 was perhaps the area that needed the latitude and flexibility, given the large number of Acts that the Bill would affect, stretching right back to 1840, as the Chair said. We will support amendment No 1.”
“We can have an issue about the causes of the conflict and who was involved in the conflict; that is what the Stormont House Agreement will allow us all to do, but it was wrong for anyone to say here today that British state collusion in relation to unionist paramilitaries was not an issue worth discussing. Anybody who tried to sidetrack it with another issue was doing a disservice not just to the truth but to the families who are sitting in the Public Gallery and who are looking for leadership from this institution to ensure that they get the truth. We pledge our support to them and we will continue on in that search.”
“That is a bit silly. The accusation was made in the past — and the Minister needs to be careful about this — that his Department was the NIO in drag, and some of the statements that were made today give some credence to that. <BR /> <BR />We all remember the arrogance and dismissive attitude that was displayed to families when they were told that collusion was an illusion. We can all look to those families and say that they disproved that collusion was an illusion. It was a reality in everyday life and a reality in their lives that saw their loved ones being assassinated by a unionist militia that was paid and controlled by the British state. <BR /> <BR />That is why this motion is important and it is why we focused on the issue.”
“The families are to be commended for their dignity and the resolute manner in which they have confronted that culture of silence and denial. The challenge was made and people said that they would not relent to Sinn Féin and that Sinn Féin will not get its way on this particular issue. Take Sinn Féin out of it; the people you are dealing with are the families of those affected. They will not be going away, because they have exposed the nature of the British state in relation to collusion. <BR /> <BR />I was a bit annoyed — maybe that is too strong a word — that Stewart Dickson linked this to welfare reform. It is absolutely outrageous that we are going to have a process where people are trying to identify and seek the truth and they are going to be told that they cannot have it until the rest of us deal with welfare reform.”
“Indeed, many observers have commented that in any other place, indeed, even in Britain in the past, Governments have fallen for far less. That is what we are dealing with. <BR /> <BR />The families of those who were affected by collusion have stated that their focus is on the truth and that, for them, that can only come about through an independent and thorough investigation process. Confidence has been dented because of the way in which the agencies of the British state have responded to date. The culture of denial and delay is an attempt to slow down that process. I was a bit perturbed that the Minister referred to the lack of regulatory impact. You do not need any regulatory impact to decide what is right and wrong, and to try to defend what happened then through the lack of regulatory impact is a bit rich.”
“He went on to state areas such as identifying Pat Finucane as a target, supplying the weapon that killed him, facilitating its disappearance and deliberately obstructing the subsequent RUC investigation, and that British Army officers lied to the investigators. So, when people ask, "Did collusion exist?", David Cameron certainly believed that it did. Indeed, he apologised on behalf of the British Government and, in his words, on behalf of his country. <BR /> <BR />Having read the Hansard report of that speech, I note that there was not a single dissenting voice. All the MPs present seemed to accept what David Cameron said. Not one of them ever accused him of misleading the House and we all know the consequences of that.”
“He said that there were "shocking levels" of collusion between unionist paramilitaries and the British state and that that was demonstrated "beyond ...doubt". All those who talk about collusion being alleged or not proven should quote and read the British Prime Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />In case people believe that collusion started and ended with the Brian Nelson affair, one only has to read Nuala O'Loan's report on the Mount Vernon UVF — others referred to it — and look at Operation Ballast. It is all there to be seen. It did not just take place in the 1980s and 1990s. There was the Glenanne gang and McGurk's Bar, and it stretched right across the island with the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the killing of Eddie Fullerton. They are all there. <BR /> <BR />In the aftermath of the de Silva review, which most people accept was only a surface investigation with no powers of questioning or rebuttal, it was so obvious that collusion was endemic that no less than the British Prime Minister David Cameron was compelled to admit liability in the British House of Commons.”
“In themselves, those reports were perhaps far from complete and do not give us the full picture, but they certainly highlight how collusion as a policy was initiated, nurtured and employed by the British state and its agencies. <BR /> <BR />John Stevens informed us all that 210 people were arrested, 207 of whom were paid British agents. When the de Silva report referred to Brian Nelson and the fact that he was a paid agent, it described him as an employee of the state. People have said that it was not systematic, but 207 people take a lot of handling and organisation, so people really need to realise the fallacy of the idea that it was not systematic.”