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 8 of 11.
“— but it needs people like the British Government to give the resources needed and also, frankly, to tell the truth.”
“We are talking about something that existed and was then refused. Earlier, our colleague Trevor Lunn reported what they now say about information on McGurk's bar: we will not get it until 2056. <BR /> <BR />There is one thing that I disagree with Eamonn McCann on, and I am quite surprised at him. He talks as though it is impossible to get at the truth, yet the Bloody Sunday inquiry did that, and we are getting investigations going. We are able to set up these institutions. What he is doing is almost saying to victims, "You will never get what you want", whereas I am saying that we can do this and get it —”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let us deal with the hierarchy of victims. There is a conservative estimate that 25,000 people from the nationalist community went through jails. That means that there are 25,000 files, and, if they were charged with more than one thing, you can multiply that number by 10. When you talk about information and the lack of information, how many of the state forces went through the courts? If you want to talk about equality, justice and people's rights, have a think about that. If we want to deal with equality in those terms, there is a lot of catching up to do. <BR /> <BR />With respect to equality of investigations, let me repeat what I said earlier. This is the coronial system. It is supposed to be working from the start. We are not talking about truth recovery processes or anything like that.”
“OK. Well, leave then. Do the right thing.”
“Do you want to speak up, Chris, or do you want to listen?”
“I am glad that people are starting to use our terms — equality, balance and all that — because I believe in the equality of victims, balance and all that. However, when you talk about the hierarchy of victims and the hierarchy of investigations, you need to know what you are talking about. For instance, conservatively speaking, there was something like —”
“No, I will not give way again. I have already given way. <BR /> <BR />There are two or three issues that were mentioned by a number of people. One is the hierarchy of victims, which we have mentioned many times. Another term that was used was the hierarchy of investigations, which was used mostly by unionists. I want to deal with some of that in this way.”
“I am glad that the ex-Minister of Justice came in. I presume that he remembers that he was on the Executive and could have had some influence on this. Yet, now that he is off the Executive, he is trying to blame everybody who is on it.”
“First, I am not on the Executive — neither are you — so I do not know what is happening there. I do not know why you are challenging this. You, Eamonn McCann, and a number of other people said that the difficulty is that we are afraid to say that we cannot get the money through the Executive. I am saying it: we cannot get the money through the Executive., but I am pointing out, as you did, that this is the responsibility of the British Government. The British Government have the money: there is £150 million for legacy issues, and they should release it. End of.”
“The SDLP acknowledges that and says, "So, we're not getting it there; let's get it from the British Government, because that's where it's supposed to come from". So, they agree with what we have said in our motion.”
“It is their responsibility: it happened on their watch, and they are the people who have to pay the money; they are the people who have said that there is £150 million that should be used for legacy issues and have then refused to use it. <BR /> <BR />This is where I disagree with the two amendments. As they pointed out themselves, before they tabled the amendments, they knew that the Executive were not going to clear money for this. If the only issue was money and we had the power to give it, it would be given. The reason I disagree with the amendments and why we will vote against them is that they were put in as an attack on the Executive. Of course, the Executive cannot come to that conclusion, but we all knew that before.”
“For the many families that have tried again and again and again to get something for their loved ones, we have for the first time — for some after 45 years — an action that will do that. What is the problem? We cannot get the resources. <BR /> <BR />Let me deal with why we tabled the motion in its current form, because a number of people have criticised us, saying that we are trying to avoid issues. Let me not avoid anything. Here is the issue: these are legacy cases, and the responsibility for them, under international law, is the British Government's. They are the ones who have to comply with article 2, and they are the ones who have the duty and the power to ask any other institution, including this one, to ensure that they also comply.”
“Doug says, "I need to see it", but I do not know why, because it was the Lord Chief Justice we gave the job to and he and the Courts and Tribunals Service are the ones with the expertise. He has said that he can rectify what has been missing in the past, and at the core of that, as was said many times over the last two days, was disclosure and the lack of it and funding. He called for money. He said that he could complete it in five years if he received £5 million per annum. If he does not get the money, as someone mentioned, perhaps only two further cases will be done. As someone else pointed out, only 13 cases have been done up to now. <BR /> <BR />There is the issue. There are people waiting. As I pointed out earlier, this is a coronial system.”
“He then said, "I can sort out the 56 outstanding legacy cases in the next five years because I have a plan". Indeed, the Justice Minister went through quite a section of that plan.”
“This one was specifically about legacy inquests, and it is normal that we moved off that because the issues are all connected. However, this motion was about supporting action that has been taken. <BR /> <BR />Over the last couple of days, we have been talking about inaction. Here we have a Lord Chief Justice who took action. He came in as president of the Coroners' Court and was asked to do it in November 2015. By January 2016, he had instigated a review. I think that it was Justice Weir who was involved in that. The Lord Chief Justice met the Council of Europe. He met UN human rights bodies. By February 2016, he did what nobody else — certainly no Lord Chief Justice — had done before him by going to meet the families, who are suffering and have suffered over decades, to find out what their views are.”
“I have been taking copious notes, which is always a mistake. Members have repeated the words of other Members. I agree with Eamonn McCann — at least on this — that we have had the same debate over the last two days and that all the issues that we have been talking about have been the same. <BR /> <BR />A number of people have said similar things, but the Minister of Justice said that no loss is greater than another, and I absolutely agree with her. The difficulty, as we listened to Members in this debate was that, while we heard many say similar things, once they then elaborated, the truth of the statement was shown in its naked form. I point especially to Jim Allister, who has a clear hierarchy of victims and went out of his way to condemn people who were killed. <BR /> <BR />We have had the three debates over two days.”
“I thank the Member, and I agree with a lot of what he says about victims. Any victim has to have our sympathy. I know that he and his party talk a lot about judicial processes: will he accept that the inquests that we are talking about are judicial processes? I think that you said a moment ago that they were a different situation. Some of the relatives are in the Chamber today, and they have been waiting some 45 years for this. It is a judicial process. This is not something that had to be searched for but something that existed and is being held up. Is the Member arguing that that should be held up on the basis of other victims? I have sympathy for all the victims in these cases, as he does.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers up to now. Will he give an update on Peace and INTERREG funding?”
“— and we should all be working together on that plan to achieve that goal. I commend the amendment to the House.”
“I find the word "perceived" to be crucial in this. What does it mean, and who will be the arbiter of it? Surely not the media or politicians, and I say that as a politician. This could become a charter for discrimination, and the dogs in the street have no legal standing in the matter. Perception can become reality, but that does not mean that perception is always reality. We need to take a view of individuals, of people involved — whatever their history — and how they will be able to assist in what we are trying to do with the panel report through this motion. We all know and agree on where we want to get to. There is a plan —”
“They were very good protocols, and I agree entirely with you that they should be re-enacted, because they worked and were seen to work and be helpful in transition and reintegration. <BR /> <BR />Such obstacles should be removed if we are to facilitate the reintegration of former prisoners and their families who fully support our peace and political processes. Equal citizenship should extend to every citizen. <BR /> <BR />This brings me to the final clause in both the motion and the Opposition's amendment, and it relates to one of the recommendations of the report about developing protocols. It states:”
“When you come in and say things like that, you need to have some sort of evidence behind it. <BR /> <BR />Many ex-prisoners continue to encounter barriers to full participation in society, for example, identifying obstacles to employment, financial services, adoption, international travel, and other issues. Those obstacles also impinge upon the freedoms and rights of prisoners' family members. So, it is not just the ex-prisoners; their families are also attacked through this. They have no court convictions, but they are discriminated against solely on the basis of their relationship with a former prisoner. <BR /> <BR />Again, I mention Doug Beattie — I thank him for this — who raised the issue of the protocols that were put in place.”
“Doug Beattie raised this, and, although I agree with things that he has said, he is absolutely wrong on this. You cannot just say, as an opinion, that Sinn Féin has not distanced itself from dissidents. I presume you are on social media — I am just speaking personally, never mind the rest of Sinn Féin. All you have to do is go on social media to see the attitude of dissidents to me — I am an ex-prisoner; I am not naive; I know what the craic is — and to realise the distance. We are hated. Dissidents hate Sinn Féin more than they hate the British that they claim to be opposed to. When you make a statement like that, you need to have a basis on which to say it. We have said it time and time again, and I will say it again now: I condemn them, absolutely and unequivocally.”
“That is those who now play a positive and productive role in society, not those who do not. You need to make the difference between people who are having a positive role, whatever their history, and those who are not. The blanket approach to ex-prisoners is absolutely wrong. It does not work and is detrimental to moving the process forward. Many have played a key role in consolidating our peace and political processes. I can already hear the moans and groans of the middle-class politicians with tunnel vision; those who do not experience the daily effect on their lives. In nationalist and republican working-class areas, many ex-political prisoners are leaders of great positivity.”
“I am glad that Doug Beattie raised this issue.”
“The criminal gangs clearly target our young people with the lure of the easy money that accrues from gang activity, and that is juxtaposed with life on the margins where people have low self-esteem, are devout of hope and have been robbed of developing their full potential in life. <BR /> <BR />We must attempt to align initiatives with other political interventions to ensure a sustained and concentrated onslaught against deprivation and youth marginalisation. This strategy, in coordination with other political interventions, must make a difference in the areas where paramilitarism and criminality are most prevalent. Qualitative change is essential for these communities. A key aspect of the strategy to tackle paramilitarism and crime is the requirement for the full integration of former prisoners of the recent conflict.”
“All these activities undermine the morale, cohesion and quality of life of working-class communities who already suffer from the ravages of socio-economic deprivation, generational educational underachievement and unemployment. Such issues create the conditions that feed, develop and sustain paramilitarism and criminality. <BR /> <BR />Any meaningful attempt to tackle such activities needs to focus on the causes of the problem, not the symptoms. The vast majority of people in working-class areas — in fact, in any area or class — whether they are nationalist, unionist or other, want to be rid of the scourge of paramilitarism and organised crime, but they cannot do it alone. We must empower communities to engage with the young people who constitute one of the most vulnerable sections of society in relation to such activities.”
“<BR /> <BR />Communities and communal initiatives need to be innovative and adequately resourced, with community input an integral aspect of any genuine co-design approach to formulating the response. Communities must be empowered to build and develop levels of confidence in our new policing dispensation, our criminal justice system and our peace and political processes while helping to deliver an unequivocal commitment to the rule of law. Communities should not be told that they must do it; they should be empowered to do it. Communities can also assist in the process of isolating and marginalising paramilitary and criminal gangs operating from within communities but engaging in anti-community activities such as punishment beatings, shootings, extortion, robberies, drug dealing and worse.”
“That is joined-up thinking. That is outcomes-based. That is co-design involving partnerships, including the community. Initially, what is required is the development of an implementation plan that designates the imperative of an adequately resourced community response alongside a robust criminal justice response for tackling paramilitaries, paramilitary activity and organised criminality in all areas. The criminal justice response could help to create the space and lay the groundwork for community initiatives to kick in. This will not be blamed on the Justice Minister only; we are very, very aware that this involves many other aspects of Departments and the community itself.”
“I will not — a stand-in for Jim Allister is all I need.”
“You can spend your own time on bombast and attacks on people instead of taking up mine. <BR /> <BR />That is why the Sinn Féin amendment:”
“Tackling it is how you process down the road in order to tackle paramilitary activity, criminality and organised crime throughout the North. I emphasise the word "tackling" because this will be a difficult process and wishing that such activity would disappear just will not hack it.”
“The Executive have an action plan and a ring-fenced budget. There is a lot in one of the amendments — I think that it is the SDLP and UUP amendment — about what has been spent. However, there is a ring-fenced budget, so the money is there to deal with the problem: there is £50 million to achieve that. The motion and the Opposition amendment, each in its own way, seem simply to want to attack — even though Doug denies it — the Executive's action plan, as opposed to giving specific ideas of how to assist realistically in the implementation of its 43 recommendations. <BR /> <BR />The focus of the action plan is on tackling paramilitary activity. I want to deal with that as well because the difference between tackling and disbandment was raised. These are illegal organisations, and, therefore, there is a law to disband them.”
“In the Chamber, we have a motion and two amendments. All three have things in common. After listening to Doug Beattie, I find that there are some things that I agree with and some that I do not, but I will get into that later. I am a wee bit worried that the Alliance Party seems to wring its hands because it did not get the Justice Ministry. <BR /> <BR />The fact that there is agreement is not surprising. We have the Fresh Start panel report that the Executive and other parties accept. We are all, by and large, agreed that, whether it is 18 years after the Good Friday Agreement or 22 years after the ceasefires in 1994, all paramilitary organisations should disappear and be disbanded — full stop. That is what we all agreed to. The big question is about the best way to achieve that goal in the shortest time and with the resources available.”
“Yes, I understand that. I agree with him on the point that, no matter who you talk to and, as I said, even within some families, people want different things out of this process. The idea of the architecture of the Stormont House Agreement was to set up a number of possibilities so that all those issues could be dealt with, from justice through to the ICIR, oral history and the other aspects of those structures. The purpose of doing that is that we can try to deal with all the issues. It may be an impossible task, and all the parties agreed at least to the structures being set up. Now we are facing a blockage, mostly, or maybe entirely, from the British Government, to attempts to get those structures set up, and that is what we want to do. So, I support the Sinn Féin amendment to the SDLP motion.”
“I agree with him: once you get the truth, it does not necessarily mean that you will have reconciliation or even that you will have justice. But it is the one thing that every victim and survivor that I have ever spoken to has asked for.”
“Logically then, we ask that the DUP amendment be rejected, as the intent is, at best, watering down the proposal and inviting publication of a flawed document, which will further demoralise the long-suffering families waiting for the structures that can bring them truth. Paul Frew said that there was a lot of disagreement between families, even within families, and different groups that are involved. I agree with that. Where I am inclined to disagree with him is that he let me point out that truth is the one thing. He has spoken to as many families as I and others in this Chamber have, and truth is the one thing that is consistent. It is the one thing that they demand and the one thing that everyone wants. The purpose of setting up the structures that we are talking about here is to get at that truth.”
“So, our purpose in putting as our amendment the short addition of "prior to public consultation" after "issues" in line 7 is to make that point. <BR /> <BR />For this reason, I hope that those who will vote for the motion — the SDLP and others — will support the Sinn Féin amendment. We have been given indications that the SDLP at least will do that.”
“The British Secretary of State has outlined plans for a public consultation on addressing the past, and we have highlighted the need for a serious attempt by the British Government to resolve key outstanding issues prior to any public consultation. To date, we have not experienced any serious attempt by the British Government to do so.”
“Access to legal aid should be on a statutory basis, and there needs to be total clarity around any proposed appeals mechanism and its underpinning principles and criteria. <BR /> <BR />The Stormont House Agreement achieved consensus on the broad architecture of a suite of options, including justice; information recovery; enhancement of the coronial courts; storytelling; and provision of high-quality services for victims and families. All such options need to be addressed, and the mechanisms established, enhanced and adequately resourced. Without the resource, we can go nowhere. <BR /> <BR />It is clear from what I am saying that Sinn Féin welcomes the SDLP motion and Alex Attwood saying that he will accept our amendment.”
“When staffing the Historical Investigations Unit, it needs to be ensured that its investigative teams fully meet article 2 compliance under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There need to be comprehensive family reports for those families from the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR). I point out the lack of any appeal mechanism for those reports in the draft legislation that was produced. <BR /> <BR />There needs to be access to competent legal representatives for the families. If there are any closed material procedures, which are basically secret courts, those representatives must have passed the requisite vetting procedures, but, more importantly, the families must have confidence in the individuals who would represent their interests in any closed material procedure.”
“Although we continue to believe that an independent international truth recovery process offers the best way forward, we have signalled our intent to progress the issue of legacy by agreeing to proposals outlined in the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. <BR /> <BR />The Stormont House Agreement articulated a victim-centred approach — indeed, I think that all parties articulated that — to addressing the past, promising victims and families meaningful input. That has ramifications for a number of issues. Disclosure is essential, by way of family reports and meaningful consultation by the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) with families of victims during the investigative process.”
“I thank the Members who brought forward this motion on addressing the past. It is very timely. Indeed, a number of Members and parties have brought forward motions on legacy issues, which we will deal with today and tomorrow. <BR /> <BR />For more than a decade, Sinn Féin has consistently proposed the creation of an independent international truth commission. That was outlined during the 2009 Eames/Bradley consultation process. We have argued that such a process must be independent of the state, independent of combatant forces and independent of political parties. We reject all attempts to create and sustain a hierarchy of victims, and all processes should be victim-centred and deal with all victims of the conflict on the basis of equality.”
“On a point of order, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. It is not actually a point of order. I would like to apologise for not being in my place for questions to the Agriculture Minister.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister. Does she agree that the result of the EU referendum will make the job of any marketing organisation much more difficult?”
“Gabhaim buíochas as na freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the First Minister believe that a panel of redress should be established to meet the needs of the victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse?”
“— that all the parties now support the agreement and Father Donegan; perhaps they should have done so a long time ago.”
“Gary Donegan, as far as I am concerned, is the perfect image of a worker priest. I am glad —”
“Some of the key figures in the Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective (GARC) are also involved in other anti-peace-process political parties, and you cannot fool people on the ground when they know exactly whom they are dealing with in all this. <BR /> <BR />Father Donegan should not have taken that abuse. I took some abuse myself, but I am a politician and that is what politicians are here for: to take whatever criticisms are thrown at us in whatever way. We should be able to take it. However, to focus attention on Father Gary Donegan is a disgrace. The same man has been up in the area every night for the past two and a half years, trying to make sure that no more young people got caught up and entered the criminal justice system. <BR /> <BR />Let me say a little more.”
“The agreement also allows a conversation to expand beyond the issue of parades, which had entered into every conversation, whether on regeneration, housing or bringing tourists or jobs into the area. Parades came into the middle of every conversation. Now, with where we are, we have a great platform for moving forward. <BR /> <BR />We had another parade on Friday night and a protest on Saturday morning, which, I am glad to say, was also peaceful. However, I have to mention some of the scenes that are now in the media around Father Gary Donegan, who is a highly respected priest in the area. He is respected not only as a priest but as someone who has been involved in peace and reconciliation work over a long period. Some of the people who gave him such abuse have a political agenda.”