Gerry Kelly
North Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Accountability and implementation have been mentioned a number of times. The test in all of this will be the speed of implementation. I declare an interest, in that my sister Peggy, who was next in the family to me, spent time in Muckamore many years ago.”
“I will finish in one second. When I asked her how she was doing, she said that she wanted me to go and help others. That is what she spent our time together talking about. <BR /> <BR />We are talking not just about closing Muckamore but about resettling people.”
“I understand that the amendment is not a panacea. Ultimately, however, it will improve the tools at the police's disposal. <BR /> <BR />There is a further issue regarding what happens to the vehicles once they are seized.”
“Sinn Féin supports all three of the amendments in group five. As we know, amendment Nos 74 and 75 will introduce new powers to allow the police do drug testing at checkpoints and road traffic collisions, which will bring drug testing in line with existing alcohol breath testing. It is a necessary step to ensure public safety.”
“We talked about regulations earlier, and a number of Members said that we may have to return to the issue. I understand that we are dealing with one particular issue in the Bill, but the Minister may agree that it is something that we should come back to as our experience of what is happening grows.”
“<BR /> <BR />In West Belfast just last week, at least two children were hospitalised as a result of collisions involving e-scooters and e-bikes, including one in which a young person's head went through the back window of a car. They are very lucky to be alive.”
The complete record
Every one of 547 lines we hold for Gerry Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 11.
“The Police Federation, some retired police officers and political unionism are on the attack because the RUC's reputation for collusion and cover-ups is being exposed more and more. Former ombudsman Michael Maguire was forced to threaten to take the Chief Constable to court over the PSNI's failure to disclose information. <BR /> <BR />The motion talks about a:”
“The motion is cynical and is a misguided attempt to point the finger of blame for all those issues in the wrong direction. The ombudsman's office cannot be held responsible for all those impediments that are outside its control. <BR /> <BR />In 2018, the Police Federation warned that former RUC and PSNI officers would not cooperate with the proposed and agreed Historical Investigations Unit (HIU). The HIU was a central part of the Stormont House Agreement, which was agreed by both the Irish and British Governments and the political parties. The federation's position is in direct contravention to everything that human rights-compliant and accountable policing should stand for.”
“The Office of the Police Ombudsman has had to deal with a number of significant challenges, including a chronic lack of funding that does not allow it to complete investigations quickly enough; the reluctance of former PSNI and RUC officers to give evidence and/or information; and its lack of powers to compel retired police officers to cooperate with its investigations, which, again, was mentioned by the Member. Why anyone disagrees with that is beyond me. <BR /> <BR />There are also issues regarding the lack of disclosure of information and evidence from the PSNI and the long, protracted legal challenges that impede the ability of the office to fully investigate and to fulfil its duties. That has all led to significant delay.”
“That led to the DUP attacking the Police Ombudsman, because it does not like the truth coming out about collusion between elements in the state forces and loyalist killers. Again, the Member mentioned this. Do not mention collusion; you cannot mention it, even though everybody knows that collusion existed. <BR /> <BR />Like any organisation, the Office of the Police Ombudsman has its deficiencies. However, the office is a crucial and fundamental part of our established accountability mechanisms and should be defended.”
“I declare that I am a member of the Policing Board, which is something that may have to be declared. I oppose the motion, which reads as though it was written by a committee. Whatever about the detail of what we have heard, the motion is an outright attack on the Police Ombudsman, the functions of its office and specifically — even though this was only mentioned at the end — its role in historical investigations. This follows the Police Ombudsman's report on the Loughinisland massacre, which was mentioned by the Member, and the ombudsman's report on Damien Walsh's killing that was released earlier this year. Both reports founds that elements in the RUC colluded with loyalists.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister detail the total level of investment that has already been allocated under the Together: Building a United Community strategy, which he mentioned in his answer?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, I asked the Economy Minister about the carbon dioxide shortages that are affecting a number of industries here and, by extension, the economy. The Minister said that it was not his brief or within his remit, which I think is wrong. I would not want him to mislead the House.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. I understand that carbon dioxide is vital to a number of industries, including food production and animal slaughter. What is the Minister doing to ensure adequate supply for the industry here, and has he been in contact with counterparts in the South of Ireland and in Britain?”
“I will also make it clear that the only conversations that we have had with the British Government have been to make clear our total opposition to the amnesty proposals. It is for Boris Johnson and Brandon Lewis and them alone to explain to families their rationale and motivation for bringing the proposals forward. Again, we totally and absolutely reject the Command Paper. We in Sinn Féin will continue to work with families in the pursuit of truth, justice and acknowledgement across our community. Across the Chamber, we have the opportunity to make common cause and oppose, challenge and object to these disgraceful proposals as an affront to victims and survivors. I urge Members to support the motion.”
“They have fought long battles over decades in memory of their loved ones, some of them for up to 50 years, and they need to be supported by all of us here. I have also spoken to many republicans over recent days, many of whom, like me, were imprisoned. It seems to come up time and time again. They, too, are concerned that the public messaging seeks to put them in the same category as state forces: as people who want and would benefit from some form of amnesty. That is a distraction and amounts to another red herring. <BR /> <BR />Let me say for the record yet again, speaking as a former political prisoner, that the intent here is to cover up Britain's dirty war in Ireland.”
“They are proposals at the moment, and the intent here must be to prevent them coming in. If we are serious about upholding, protecting and respecting the rights of victims, together we must resist and reject the proposals. In no way do they give cover to any public body, including the Office of the Police Ombudsman or the Coroners' Court, to delay or halt current processes or the publication of reports, and there are outstanding reports. Now that the proposal has been made, I do not want it to be taken as legislation: it is not. <BR /> <BR />Families are understandably angry. When I talk about "victims' families", I talk about people across the victims and survivors community. They are angry and have real and well-founded concerns.”
“That would have a far-reaching implication for confidence in the administration of justice and the rule of law. <BR /> <BR />We can be in no doubt that the proposals are about more than an amnesty for British soldiers. As mentioned earlier, it is not just about the squaddies. The proposals protect those behind the scenes, those in suits and the shadowy figures in the upper echelons who facilitated state killings, designed torture practices in interrogation centres and presided over weapons importation and the administrative practice of collusion. While the British Government's intent is to have amnesty for state forces and to rip the European Convention on Human Rights from the centre of the Good Friday Agreement, let us remember that they are proposals at this stage. It is important to say that. We have a small window of opportunity.”
“Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin. I speak in favour of the motion. I will try to keep to five minutes. <BR /> <BR />Today, we in the Assembly have the opportunity to stand together and send a message to the British Government that we all reject any form of amnesty or statute of limitations for British state forces or non-state forces and any interference in the rule of law or the administration of justice. If the Stormont House Agreement was about separating legacy investigations from current policing, these amnesty proposals, if legislated for, would undermine the entire justice system and democracy itself. Such legislation would bring an immediate end to all criminal investigations, such as those by the Police Ombudsman, the Coroners' Court and civil courts, of conflict-related offences.”
“I am concerned that there is not even a list of these unadopted alleyways. I do not think that that would be a huge budgetary problem to deal with. We are flying blind until we get that. Will the Minister bring some sort of list forward? I understand that there are always problems with budget. How will we then deal with this problem? She will know that this is a huge problem in North Belfast.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for her answer. I understand that there are always difficulties with budgets. As she pointed out in her answer, there are a number of problems in North Belfast with access for residents.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am glad to hear that he is very aware of the surge in demand for Irish-medium education and, particularly, that there is an oversubscription in Coláiste Feirste, which is the post-primary school in Belfast. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has given a commitment that he is searching for a site for an extended campus for Coláiste Feirste. Will he give a commitment that the search will continue and that there is a development plan for such a campus?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. It was a very comprehensive answer; in fact, she may have answered some of my supplementary questions. I thank her for her determination to deal with the issue. Given that the legislation has not kept up with technological changes, as the Minister touched on, will she provide some detail on the main issues emerging from the consultation around that?”
“We want you, Minister, to finish the process, as many people have said, as you have to, in the right way, but we also want you to say no.”
“I do not think so; this is an Adjournment debate. That was a good try. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for being here, but I accept that there is only a certain amount that she can say. However, she is from North Belfast, so she will not be surprised by what I say. First, we want the Minister to know the facts about the incinerator. We want this to be based on facts about the building of this waste monster, and, when you look at the size of it, you see that it is a monster. We have not even dealt with the visual effects of it. We want her to know the damage that it is causing financially, which has been covered, and environmentally, which will be covered later. There will be health risks to thousands not just in that area, which is the point that I am making; it goes way beyond that area.”
“I have already let you in, and I am running out of time.”
“You are talking about waste that is going from here, but what about the waste that will be brought here? If we have a capacity of over 300,000 tons per annum and are nowhere near putting that in, we will get the waste from many other places.”
“Trevor said that that is a fraud, but saying that recycling and the idea of recycling is a fraud is a big statement to make. The evidence for it has been given time and time again. There are targets that bring it up to 65%, and, as Steve Aiken said, we are well on the way to reaching those. Landfill rates have fallen to just over 20%. That does not mean that there is not still landfill, but the rates are falling, and that is the main point. As Steve Aiken said, when you add in the site on the harbour, you find that it takes up a huge amount of that as well. <BR /> <BR />When you have overcapacity, you have, first of all, a financial issue where you are not making any money, as was pointed out, and the subsidies get bigger and bigger. People then try to fill that site, so they start looking for other things.”
“One of the reasons why I am speaking is that I am from North Belfast and the edge of North Belfast going into South Antrim is the Hightown Road. One side is North Belfast, and the other side is South Antrim. The effects of the incinerator — whether it is to do with transport, roads, toxins in the air or the water supply, with surface water and all of that — apply not just to South Antrim, because you can pass through that; it involves the Belfast basin, and, of course, the first place that you hit there is North Belfast. It is worth saying that there are cross-party objections to this from representatives of the DUP — notwithstanding yourself, Trevor — and from Sinn Féin, the SDLP, UUP, Alliance and the Greens. <BR /> <BR />Recycling rates have been increased to 55%.”
“I am only starting, and that is one of the points that I was going to make. That is not the only reason. <BR /> <BR />I thank No-ARC21 for learning and for being very forensic about how it went at the issue over that period. I was interested in the points that Steve Aiken made — some maybe from No-ARC21 but also some from his own experience — and how the factual accounts coincided. That is really what I am standing over. No-ARC21 was very forensic. It looked at all the evidence and convinced us, as party members, that this was the way to go, and it did not give up. At the point when anybody else would have given up — for instance, when the decision was made by the permanent secretary — it moved on from that. <BR /> <BR />This is a bit repetitive, but there have been serious concerns.”
“I have listened to the debate closely. I have been involved with and have supported No-ARC21 for some years, and I was at the case that we are talking about. Just because the case centred on whether the permanent secretary had the right to make the decision does not mean that you can extrapolate from that that it could have been passed on other grounds. He took the decision when he should not have, and he took it against massive opposition. There were a number of meetings with him, including with my party, about it. <BR /> <BR />A lot of what I was going to say has been said, and I thank Steve Aiken for securing the debate.”
“Sometimes people say, "Why the Pat Finucane case?" Remember that, at Weston Park, it was agreed that five investigations would go ahead. Four went ahead. Pat Finucane's case did not. If what happened to Pat Finucane is not exposed and admitted by the Government, it can happen again to anyone.”
“The unanswered questions around the killing are very much an open wound for the Finucane family. With all other avenues exhausted, there is only one investigative option left to the Finucane family that can examine information and compel and cross-examine witnesses: a full public inquiry. Only a public inquiry can assist the family to get to the truth about the scope and extent of British state collusion in the killing. <BR /> <BR />The decision by the British Government to block a full public inquiry is a matter of public and international interest. I urge Members to support the motion and call on the British Government to hold a public inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane in 1989. <BR /> <BR />I will finish on this point.”
“The scale of concern about legacy cases has been acknowledged by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg, which has reopened the supervision of the Finucane case.”
“No. <BR /> <BR />It is long past time that the British Government's policy and practice of collusion was subject to a public inquiry and, indeed, the rule of law. In summary, the killing of Pat Finucane is a matter of significant public interest. This is not an issue for narrow politicking and political consideration.”
“At its core, the British approach is to delay, frustrate and deny accountability.”
“A four-party letter that was signed and sent to Brandon Lewis, urging him to consider his response to the Supreme Court ruling, stated:”
“Alongside that, the PSNI said that there were:”
“I can only conclude that the decision by Brandon Lewis to resist the public inquiry, and to involve the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman, amounts to more of the same tactic of obstruction, frustration and delay. The responses from both Governments to his decision are instructive. The Office of the Police Ombudsman has said:”
“The British Government's approach of resisting investigation into the killing and their role in the conflict more generally should concern all of us, particularly now that they seek to introduce an amnesty for state actors. <BR /> <BR />On 24 November 2020, Members of the US House of Representatives expressed concern that:”
“That is despite a political commitment by the British Government at the Weston Park talks in 2001 to hold a public inquiry. <BR /> <BR />The Supreme Court ruled in February 2019 that all previous reviews, including the Stevens Inquiries, the work of Judge Cory and the research of Desmond de Silva, were incapable of establishing the full facts, failed to meet article 2 standards, were not effective and did not fulfill international human rights standards. The publicly known facts clearly indicate a web of conspiracy and deceit and that there was an overarching state conspiracy. The British Government's strategy was clear. They used key figures in the UDA as their proxies to advance a policy of state-sponsored killings. Concealing the level of state involvement is the real reason why, after 32 years, there has been no public inquiry.”
“On the balance of probability, there is general acceptance that an officer or officers from the RUC did propose Pat Finucane as a target for assassination. That is why former British Prime Minister David Cameron himself acknowledged that there had been "shocking" levels of collusion in the killing. <BR /> <BR />Yet, while the facts are clearly accepted, they do not address questions of public interest that should concern all citizens. Who ordered the killing, and why? Who knew what, and when? Thirty-two years on, these questions have not been answered. It is a statement of fact that the British Government have frustrated and blocked answers to these questions. They even brought in an Inquiries Act in 2005 to secure secrecy around the role of the state in the killing.”
“The Finucane family believe that the killing of Pat, a much-loved son, brother, husband and father, was British-state-sponsored murder. It is known that the man who killed Pat, the man who provided the weapon and the man who provided the intelligence were all British state agents. It is known that the Force Research Unit (FRU) inserted Brian Nelson, who was on the MI5 payroll, into the UDA. Nelson was involved in countless killings himself. It is known that, of the 210 people arrested as part of the Stevens investigations, only three were not working for the British state. It is known that 85% of UDA intelligence came from British security force sources. The UDA was not proscribed until 1992. These facts provide clear evidence that agents of the state were directly involved in authorising and planning the killing.”
“In its response to the NIO legacy consultation, Sinn Féin called on the British Government to fulfil outstanding Weston Park legacy agreements and to hold a public inquiry into the state killing of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane. In setting out our remarks, I will speak to the facts of Pat Finucane's killing and the need to answer the family's key question about who pulled the trigger. I will also ask this: who pulled the strings? <BR /> <BR />Human rights lawyer Pat Finucane was killed at his family home, 32 years ago, on 12 February 1989. For 32 years, the Finucane family has spoken the truth to all who would listen. The family has been an inspiration to many others who have sought the truth during that period.”
“I am grateful to be afforded the opportunity to speak on a very important cross-party motion. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that any discussion of legacy matters brings with it a number of different views and perspectives. I am aware that there are many families across the whole community who live with the consequences of the death or injury of a loved one and that, even with the passing of time, the loss and pain do not diminish. Members do not need me to tell them how difficult the consequences are to deal with. <BR /> <BR />I do not underestimate the challenge involved in dealing with legacy matters. That does not mean, however, that we should shy away from those challenges, nor should it be beyond us to conduct the debate in a respectful manner.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you look at the comments made by Jim Allister around the events company to see if they were acceptable language?”
“<BR /> <BR />Sorry, I should have started by declaring an interest: I spoke to HMICFRS. I was, of course at the funeral, and I am a member of the Policing Board.”
“However, I make it very clear that HMICFRS said that there was no bias or preferential treatment by the police at the funeral. The terms used were that the actions of the police came nowhere near the threshold for disciplinary action against anybody involved. Of course, it took different legal advice from that taken by the PPS and came to the same conclusion. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, at some stage, instead of just rejecting every report that comes along, maybe we will get to the point at which we can move on. A family is grieving, and it also has to move on. Every time this comes up, it affects the family as well. Maybe we can take some cognisance of that when we deal with this. I say that with an understanding of the hurt caused on that day. In the end, my appeal is that we move on.”
“Mervyn Storey did not once mention that the family of Bobby Storey is grieving, but it is. Bobby Storey was a bad loss to his family and many others. Perhaps, in the middle of this, it is worth remembering that another family is involved. I accept entirely that people, including other families, were hurt. I have said that on a number of occasions, as have other Members. <BR /> <BR />This was the third, possibly fourth, investigation into these events. As the result of each comes out, the DUP does not accept it. Mervyn Storey said that there is to be another review, and there will be. The review of the PPS decision is yet to come. <BR /> <BR />I understand that Mr Storey wants things to be corrected, because some criticisms were made.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra go dtí seo. I listened to the Minister's answer. She touched on the question that I was going to ask, which was whether she has had any conversations with the Health Minister about better outcomes in the court system. I understand that we are dealing with a pandemic and welcome the technology that has been used, but are you looking at the court system in a holistic way, if I could put it that way, post COVID to get better outcomes, especially in disputes between parents?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer, which has closed down my supplementary question. Is there any more detail on the route option and the indicative timeline, which the Minister touched on? The service will be a welcome addition to the green economy and to green recovery following the pandemic.”
“It is not often that I agree with Steve Aiken, but he described the position exactly as I would. Does the Minister agree that the assessment of the amount of waste that would be necessary for the capacity that has been talked about does not exist?”
“Will the Minister commit to involving those who have autism, their families, their carers and a wide range of community and voluntary sector groups in designing a future autism strategy?”
“This morning, we got a report that a number of plastic bullets or attenuating energy projectiles (AEP) were fired last night for the first time in many years. That, to me, shows the tinderbox that we are in at the moment. No one wants to go back to those days. I urge the people who are organising these protests — by bringing people onto the streets, the situation will escalate — to stop before someone is killed. Tá mé ag tacú leis an rún.”
“The place to deal with political disagreements is here in the Chamber; not by refusing to meet, but by dialogue and outreach, listening and finding answers collectively when that is possible. Sinn Féin will always work to resolve difficult problems when possible. That can be done only with other parties. <BR /> <BR />The motion speaks for itself. Let us condemn violence without equivocation wherever it occurs and uphold:”
“I should have declared earlier that I am a member of the Policing Board. Unfortunately, I then witnessed that in west and north Belfast because the unrest did spread throughout last night. <BR /> <BR />We must call out threats of sectarian attacks on elected representatives, journalists and ordinary people in their workplaces and homes. Paramilitary drug dealers cannot be allowed to work as community workers by day and thugs by night. They do not represent loyalism or any other section of society, so let us not join in the pretence that they speak for anyone but themselves. Whatever the criticism or disagreement with senior police officers is, demanding their removal does not solve the problem. Accountability mechanisms have been set up to deal with complaints, big and small.”