SDLP Vindicated On Offences Bill
In a nutshell:
Ø The
SDLP has been vindicated by Sinn Fein’s turnaround on the Offences Bill after
six weeks of supporting it.
Ø It
is a pity, though, that they are still trying to pretend that they did not sign
up to state killers getting away with it in the dirty deal they did with the
British at Hillsborough in 2003.
Ø Now
Tony Blair now has to bow to the inevitable and withdraw this Bill.
Ø Instead
let’s put in place positive proposals for truth, recognition and
remembrance. And let’s deal with the issue of OTRs proportionately.
SDLP vindicated
Ø We
said from the start that this legislation was a disaster and called for its
withdrawal.
Ø But
Conor Murphy welcomed it on 9 November - the day after Peter Hain had made
clear that it would protect state killers.
Ø Martin
McGuinness then defended it. He even said that the SDLP’s objections to
it were “naïve.”
Ø Sinn
Fein sold out all victims in a dirty deal with the British because - as Martin
McGuinness himself said - Sinn Fein thought that “the people who will gain most advantage
from this are those nationalists and republicans who are on the run for over 30
years.”
Ø The
truth is that this Hain/Adams Bill suited the NIO and the British Government
very well. Because it allowed each of them to cover up the truth.
Because neither of them want the public to know who, for example, has been an
informer or a colluder. And if, in the process, the rights of victims are
buried, as far as they are concerned, so be it.
Ø Now
under pressure Sinn Fein has had to back off. Six weeks on from when the
legislation was published, they have finally called for its withdrawal.
Ø Tony
Blair must now back off too. The only excuse that the British Government
could give for passing this Bill was that they had to honour the dirty deal
they did with Sinn Fein at Hillsborough in 2003. Well that’s deals off
now, so Tony has to call the Bill off too.
Sinn Fein still covering up
Ø Sinn
Fein is still covering up. They keep saying that this Bill does not
implement what was agreed at Weston Park in 2001. What they deliberately
do not admit is that it does implement the dirty deal Sinn Fein did with the
British at Hillsborough in 2003.
Ø That
deal, which is published for all to see, states in black and white that “all
scheduled offences” would be covered. Killing by the state is a scheduled
offence.
Ø So
Sinn Fein signed up to state killers getting away with it, in return for their
own people getting away with it no questions asked.
What should happen now
Ø We
need to design a proper process for truth, for recognition and
remembrance. We need to design a process that puts victims first - not
last.
Ø And,
as part of that, we need to deal proportionately with OTRs - by building up a
consensus.
What does dealing proportionately with
OTRs mean?
Ø Well
that’s something we want to negotiate with the governments, political parties
and victims.
Ø We
accept that OTRs in the South - some of whom are innocent - will want to come
back. But we have to find a way of accommodating that which also deals
with the concerns of victims.
But wasn’t the SDLP involved in the
discussions at Weston Park and at Hillsborough?
Ø Sinn
Fein negotiated this exclusively between themselves and the British
Government. They kept all texts from us.
Ø But
we warned against what was going on.
Ø And
when, after the negotiations, the proposals were published we made clear that
they were outside the Good Friday Agreement.
But didn’t Mark Durkan say that he
would accept the OTR Agreement at Westminster?
Ø No.
Our position has always been to call for the Bill to be withdrawn.
Ø What
Mark Durkan did was propose amendments bringing the deal back to Weston Park -
even though the SDLP does not accept Weston Park. Mark did that to expose
the British Government - because he knew that they would reject it. And
they did. That proved that the real deal with Sinn Fein was Hillsborough
2003 - not Weston Park in 2001.
Should people involved serve their
time?
Ø Well
at the moment under the Good Friday Agreement they would only have to serve two
years.
Ø We
are open to looking at this. But only as part of a generally agreed
strategy for dealing with the past and vindicating victims’ rights.
MARTIN MCGUINNESS ON OTRS
BBC HEARTS AND MINDS
10TH NOVEMBER 2005
Noel Thompson: Let's start
with OTRs first. Mark Durkan says you entered into an alliance of sleaze
with the government which has delivered, secured, an amnesty for the security
forces. Are you proud of that?
Martin McGuinness: I think that's a silly comment.
When this began its life it
was on basis of On the Runs and On the Runs specifically referred to
nationalist and republicans who found themselves in difficult circumstances for
over 30 years.
How many RUC men /UDR men or
British soldiers could have been described as On the Runs? None. Why was
that? Simply because they were fortunate in having an undeclared amnesty
bestowed upon them by successive British Governments.
Noel Thompson: And now you
have that written on paper
McGuinness: Well how many of them will come forward to
avail of that situation? The people who will gain most advantage from
this are those nationalists and republicans who are on the run for over 30
years.
I don’t envisage that any
people who were involved in the murders of nationalists, and Mark knows this
better than I do, is ever going to be brought before a court in this day and
age.
Noel Thompson: But you’ve
taken that possibility away from victims?
McGuinness: Victims and relatives
of victims know, for example in the case of the Bloody Sunday families, the
British Army was effectively marched up to Buckingham Palace and were decorated
by the British Queen for their activities in Derry on that day. So what’s
the likehood of those people being brought before court.
People out there in our community
have a good sense what this is all about. People know this is about
resolving an anomaly which flows from the GFA, prisoner releases. The
fact that there were people found themselves in this almost limbo situation.
SF has has spoken today to a
number of victims groups. There is a lot of anger within victim groups
about the way which this situation is being reported and the fact that
relatives of victims of state violence are being virtually being ignored in the
course of this debate.
Noel Thompson: Mark Durkan is
pointing out that it is you who are putting them in that position by giving an
amnesty to security forces. He wants their voices to be heard
McGuinness: Well Mark is very naïve then if that is
the case. Because these people have effectively had an undeclared amnesty
for over 30 years. Successive British Governments have stood over
murderous activities of some elements of British intelligence services UDR, RUC,
and British Army and that’s a fact and people in nationalist and republican
areas know that.
Noel Thompson: But they also
know there have been inquiries and more inquiries planned?
McGuinness: How many soldiers or
how many RUC men have appeared before court for murders of 100s of
Catholics and nationalists that have taken place over the years - few and far
between
Noel Thompson: And now they
never will?
McGuinness: They never would in my
opinion. Anyone from the broad nationalist/republican constituency knows that
the state always defends its service people. Those people who were
involved, even in the importation of arms from S Africa, - what possibility is
there that these people would ever stand before a court -I think there is no
possibility whatsoever. I am not as naïve as Mark appears to be.
THE
HILLSBOROUGH SIDE DEAL
PROPOSALS
IN RELATION TO ON THE RUNS (OTRs)
APRIL 2003
PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO ON THE RUNS (OTRs)
1. Within a context of acts
of completion, the British Government would bring
before Parliament the legislation necessary to resolve outstanding cases on a
basis
involving due judicial process, and showing sensitivity to the position of
victims. The
Irish Government would address similar cases in its jurisdiction. A related
issue would
be the complete ending of exiling and allowing those exiled to return.
2. This paper outlines the
proposals for the British legislation.
3. There would be two
elements to the process - a body to establish eligibility for the
scheme and a special judicial tribunal to hear cases.
4. Legislation would set
out who and what offences qualified for the scheme. A
qualifying offence would be any scheduled or equivalent offence committed
before 10
April 1998. It would include offences committed by, or in the course of,
escaping, or
committed as part of an incident involving a scheduled offence. A qualifying
person
would be someone:
• who was not a supporter of a specified organisation;
• who was not currently involved in acts of terrorism; and
• who had not been convicted of a serious offence committed after 10 April 1998
for which he had received a sentence of five years or more.
5. An individual who
believed that he was covered by the terms of the legislation
would apply in writing to an Eligibility Body. The applicant or his
representative would
be asked to confirm that he was not a supporter of a specified organisation.
The
Eligibility Body would ask the Secretary of State for information, including
details of any
charges brought in relation to offences allegedly committed after 10 April
1998, and any
information on whether the applicant is a supporter of a specified organisation
or is
involved in terrorism. The information from the applicant and the Secretary of
State
would be considered and a determination reached as to the eligibility of the
individual
against the criteria set out above.
6. The applicant or the
Secretary of State would be entitled to challenge the
determination. Where the material on which a challenge was based was of a sensitive
nature, procedures would be put in place to ensure that it was safeguarded.
7. Once someone had been
declared eligible, he or she would be free to return to
Northern Ireland without risk of arrest for questioning or charge in relation
to a
qualifying offence.
8. Once a certificate had
been granted, the matter would be passed to a Special
Judicial Tribunal, with the powers of a criminal court, consisting of a senior
judge (but
no jury). The relevant prosecuting authorities would be able to bring charges
before the
Special Judicial Tribunal against any person whom the Eligibility Commission
had
declared eligible. The applicant would not be required to be present at the
trial. He
would be able to plead not guilty and, if he wished, instruct a defence to be
mounted.
The Special Judicial Tribunal would not have the power to remand in custody.
9. In the event of
conviction, the Special Judicial Tribunal would pass sentence, but
the person convicted would immediately qualify for the early release scheme. The
Eligibility Body would exercise the relevant powers of the Sentence Review
Commission
under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. There would be two significant
changes to the Act:
• the existing two year minimum period in custody would be reduced to zero;
• the requirement that, to qualify, the sentence needed to be of at least five
years
would be removed.
10. On receiving a
determinate sentence the individual would be immediately
released on licence. The licence could be revoked and the sentence passed by
the Special
Judicial Tribunal effected. This would happen if:
• the cease-fire of the organisation of which the individual was a supporter
broke
down, and it therefore became a specified organisation; or
• the individual became a supporter of a specified organisation; or
• the individual became involved in terrorism; or
• the individual committed a serious crime for which he received a sentence of
5 or
more years.
In the case of individuals receiving a life sentence, an assessment would have
to be made
of whether the individual was a danger to the public before he or she could be
released on
licence.
11. There would be normal rights of appeal
against conviction or sentence.