Committee on the Thursday 22 June 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.05 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need to decide future business. We have taken the decision not to meet tomorrow, as that is most people’s constituency day, but there is a view that we should meet on Monday. Two parties have stated that they have group meetings on Monday morning, so the question is, do we meet on Monday afternoon and for how long? Mr Kennedy: There was a suggestion that we could meet at 12.00 noon and 1.30 pm was also suggested. Tuesday has been ruled out because the DUP will be unable to attend, as Mr Morrow is to be elevated. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will remember to refer to him by his proper title from Tuesday onwards. It is important that we do not get hauled before the Woolsack. Can we agree a time on Monday and then look at Wednesday? Mr Murphy: What are the plans? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are talking of meeting on Monday afternoon at 2.00 pm. Mr Kennedy: What about 1.30 pm? Mr Dallat: If we meet at 1.30 pm, the meeting will run late, which leaves it extremely difficult to attend anything else in the evening, and I have a district policing partnership (DPP) meeting in Coleraine at 6.30 pm. Perhaps we could start at 12.00 noon and have a working lunch with a few sandwiches and then get on with the work, but I will agree to whatever decision is made. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I suggest meeting from 1.30 pm to late. Mr McFarland: We could finish between 5.00 pm and 5.30 pm. In theory, if we take today that leaves half a day effectively, and that will probably finish Sinn Féin off. [Laughter.] Mr Murphy: You wish. Mr Kennedy: We have been saying that for 35 years. Mr McFarland: We then have the SDLP’s submission, which could last all day if the other submissions are anything to go by. We could be well into Wednesday for the next submission. I think that 5.00 pm to 5.30 pm would suit. I have to be in Tyrone by 8.00 pm, but my colleagues can carry on if the mood of the Committee is to run later. Dr Farren: We need to decide what has to be completed by next Thursday, as that day has been pencilled in for the Prime Ministers’ visit. It would be good if the Committee had not only completed its questioning but had some discussion on how we want things to be taken forward. As I understand it, our first task is to scope things, so we must identify those things and agree on how they will be addressed without getting into the argument about whether they are addressed here or elsewhere before the Prime Ministers’ visit. It would be helpful for their officials to know that we had given that question some thought. We should find some time on Wednesday to address that, so we need to work back from that and ensure that we give sufficient time between now and Wednesday to have completed this business. I know that I asked for the later start on Monday, but I am happy to consider starting at around 11.30 am to give us a run-in before lunch to ensure that we do not just finish with this business and not address the second question that I have raised. Dr McCrea: We all have practical difficulties, and we will try to work around those. If 12.00 noon on Monday is practical for the SDLP and others, there is no reason why we could not try to be helpful. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there consensus on Monday at 12.00 noon? That allows everybody to have their group meeting. We will sit until 5.30 pm. Mr Kennedy: Will we work through from 12 noon to 5.30 pm or break briefly for lunch or sandwiches? The Chairman (Mr Wells): As it is a closed session we can have sandwiches and bring them back to our tables. Mr Kennedy: We do not have to bring our own? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thinking of very nice lunches, there is no hint of a meeting of the Business Committee on Monday; it will be Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That can be arranged so that we can sit through until 5.00 pm. Vegetarians or vegans can let the Clerks know their requirements. Hopefully that will allow us to polish off the examination of the papers. There seems to be a problem with Tuesday due to the elevation of Lord Morrow. It looks as if it is ruled out. Mr Morrow: I do not expect the world to stop, you know. Mr Kennedy: That is very humble of you. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Lord Morrow, I think that the entire Committee would see that as one of the most important events of next week, and we are all hoping to be there. Mr Morrow: Is there anyone here who thinks that? Mr Kennedy: There are Members of the Commons who may even wish to introduce you. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We would not want to spoil Mr Morrow’s day. Bearing in mind Dr Farren’s comments about the PMs’ visit, are we free on Wednesday as a group? Mr Murphy: Chairman, I know both Martin McGuinness and I will probably have difficulties for at least some part of Wednesday, but we will make sure that we are represented here anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does anybody else have problems with Wednesday? Mrs Long: Only in the morning. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Wednesday is the key day. Mr McFarland: Wednesday is the key day because we need to finish remaining business by that stage and have the discussion that Seán mentioned. We need to have some idea where we are with all this before the Prime Ministers arrive on Thursday, if they intend to come. The Chairman (Mr Wells): To bring the chairmanship back into balance, I propose that Mr Molloy chair Monday and that I chair Wednesday. Monday’s meeting will take up only part of the day. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, do you envisage that Wednesday will be an all-day session, from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, because we need to draw some conclusions. Mr McFarland: Chairman, we should perhaps order sandwiches again on Wednesday to give us a complete run — obviously, we might need to take the odd break for food. Otherwise, business will become backed up — the SDLP’s submission may take a day and a half, and we will need time for ours. We do not want to leave ourselves with no time to clear up business before Thursday. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is everybody happy? Mr McNarry has arrived; that is nicely timed. This will be an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, and I know that we are totally wedded to our mobile phones, but please turn them off. If they are on silent mode, keep them well away from the mikes, otherwise the Hansard staff will complain. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, can you tell us what, if anything, is available yet from Hansard? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are expecting Tuesday’s report today. It is not the normal sequence that you have in the Chamber, where you expect it to be in the pigeonholes for 11.00 the next morning. There is a 48-hour delay. Are there any other procedural points before we resume questioning the Sinn Féin paper? 10.15 am Dr McCrea: Who gets the Hansard report? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee. Dr McCrea: Each Member of the Committee? The Chairman (Mr Wells): A copy is available for each Member. At some stage a decision must be taken as to what we do with the Hansard report, but the minutes are entirely in-house and private. It will go only to the three official party nominees; then it is up to the parties if they want to distribute it to their substitutes. Unless there are further procedural issues, we will resume questioning on the Sinn Féin paper. I understand that on adjournment yesterday Ian Paisley Jnr was questioning, and the DUP has indicated that it wishes to continue. Mr Morrow wants to take over where Mr Paisley left off. Presumably we are on the last round of questioning on that; everyone else has had their go. Dr McCrea: Surely that is open. If it is similar to what happened before, it allows other groupings to intervene if they have questions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. There is nobody on the list, but if anybody wishes to draw that to my attention or that of the clerks, please let us know. The field is very much with the DUP delegation to finish off their questioning. Mr Morrow: We turn to issues surrounding criminality. Does Sinn Féin believe that the IRA statement of July 2005 is an instruction to its members not to be involved in criminal activity? Mr Murphy: The statement was a clear instruction to IRA members to be involved in no activities whatsoever. I presume that that covers every conceivable range of activities. Mr Morrow: Including criminal activities? Mr Murphy: That depends on whether you want to get into a debate about whether you consider the IRA to be a criminal, a political or a revolutionary organisation — that is a different debate — but the statement instructs its volunteers not to engage in any activity whatsoever. Mr Morrow: Including criminal activity? Mr Murphy: I refer you to my previous answer. You may consider the IRA to be a criminal organisation — I do not. However, the instructions are quite clear about all activities. Mr Morrow: What is Sinn Féin’s understanding of the term “criminality” or “criminal activity”? Mr Murphy: It is hard to give a pat answer; there are many definitions of criminal activity. I tend to think that it is activity that is against the law and has no political motivation whatsoever but is merely intended for the self-gratification or benefit of the individual or individuals carrying out the activity. Mr Morrow: Theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy, money laundering — would that be criminal activity? Mr Murphy: If it was geared towards those ends, I would consider it so, yes. Dr McCrea: What does that answer mean: “If it was geared towards”? What was the actual wording — “Theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy, money laundering” will be regarded as criminal activity only if they are geared towards personal gain? What kind of an answer is that from any democrat? Could we therefore have an explanation of what that means? Mr Murphy: To answer William’s question, there are Governments throughout the world, including the Government to which he gives allegiance, who engage in murder, intimidation and setting people up to be murdered and who engage with all sorts of unsavoury elements in order to pursue their own agendas. The Member may consider that to be criminal activity or he may not, because it happens to be carried out in the name of his Government — or any other Government in the world. Governments everywhere have killed, tortured, kidnapped and intimidated people and have robbed, bribed and bullied them. In my view, if activities such as that were carried out for the personal gain of the individuals involved, then I would consider it to be criminal activity. Other groups may, in many people’s views, have legitimate rights to wage campaigns against oppressive Governments and engage in various means to do that. The Member might consider that criminal, but someone like myself might consider the activities of people that he gives allegiance to — the UDR, the RUC, the British Government and its agencies and armies here — to have engaged in widespread criminal activity against my community. We can debate all that until the cows come home, but because the Member happens to consider himself a democrat, and because the Government have the legitimate powers of the state invested in them, any activity that they carry out cannot be considered as criminal — from the Member’s point of view — but for those in my community on the receiving end of that activity, it is considered to be very criminal. Dr McCrea: Once again it has to be recorded that that answer is no answer. The DUP specifically asked the question: does Sinn Féin regard theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy and money laundering as criminal activity? The answer was sidestepped, because the reply was, if it were for personal gain. The IRA can carry out theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy and money laundering, but it is not criminal activity. Is that Sinn Féin’s position? Mr Murphy: I have outlined Sinn Féin’s position. It might not be the answer that the Member wants, but he is not facing up to the fact that people that he has given allegiance to and associated with have been engaged in criminal activity against my community. If the Member has difficulty facing up to that, that is his view. I am clear about what, as a republican, I would have considered to be revolutionary activity and what I consider to be criminal activity, which is the pursuit for personal gain of any of those things that he outlined. Perhaps the Member has difficulty with that as he happens to thrive on righteousness, but the reality is that the people that he has associated with and the Government that he has given allegiance to and the agencies, armies and militias that he has lauded over the years have engaged in all of the activities that he outlined, and yet he defends their right to never be described as criminal. There are a lot of grey areas in the conflict that we have emerged from, William, and if you want to get down to definitions of it, we can spend — and I am happy to spend — the next couple of weeks here talking about it. However, you will not get me to accept that the republican movement was a criminal organisation. Too many people died defending their right to be classified as political. The Governments recognised their classification as political when they were released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That is my answer. It might not suit, and you might not like it, but that is the answer. Dr McCrea: There is a significant point here, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that all the parties sitting round the table listened to that answer. The people that we are asked — or supposed to be asked — to put into Government do not believe that theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy and money laundering are wrong unless it is for personal gain. That is a serious indictment, and it is not a bit of wonder that I constantly state “Sinn Féin/IRA”, because that is the biggest indictment of any so-called political grouping that expects to go into Government. How, therefore, do they expect to be in charge of policing and justice, as they suggest, when they do not believe that any of those things are criminal activity, except it be for personal gain. How could anyone at this table suggest that that political party, with its links to an organisation that it believes is in no way criminal — the party clearly stated that that organisation was not criminal in any way, shape or form — is fit for Government? Each delegation had better realise that, on the basis of that admission, that party is asking unionists to put those who believe in that kind of lifestyle into power. That is not a democratic lifestyle. I will therefore ask the question again, but Sinn Féin will not answer. I am not answering questions; I answered questions for four and a half hours. Stop the evasion; stop playing around with words — Sinn Féin is good at that. However, the fact is that Mr McGuinness did not come back to answer any questions, yet he asked practically all the questions before. It speaks volumes that the leadership of that organisation is unable to be here, because it would feel uncomfortable answering some of those questions. The fact that, even though it is Sinn Féin’s time to be questioned, there are only two members to answer questions shows the disdain and contempt in which they hold this process. In actual fact, it shows that it is not willing to answer the question, so I will ask it again: can any political party in Government — not across the world, but in Northern Ireland — accept that those who are involved in theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy and money laundering are not criminals? Can any political party accept that as a tenable position for Government? Mr Murphy: I am not sure whether Mr McCrea’s question was directed at me or at all the political parties. Dr McCrea: One group is being questioned but is not answering those questions; it is trying to evade the seriousness of this. If that group cannot say that the police should be supported and effectively engaged in bringing to justice those involved in theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy, money laundering — whether they be IRA or anyone else — and that it is proper for such persons be brought to justice and that those activities are criminal, irrespective of the organisation that carries them out or whether it is for personal gain, that group is certainly not fit for Government. I am asking a straightforward question. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Murphy, this is the fourth time that a question of this, or a similar, nature has been put by Mr McCrea. Can you deal with it one last time? We need to move to a different question. Mr Murphy: I preface my answer with the same remarks I made to Ian Paisley Jnr yesterday, when William McCrea was not here. I note that there are only two members in the DUP delegation today, so we are perhaps treating each other with equal contempt. The purpose of the DUP questions is not to elucidate, gather information on or address any of the issues about which it claims to be concerned. Rather, the DUP is trying to find further reasons and cobble together answers and bits of answers to further reinforce its members’ personal views and the party’s views and to attempt to reinforce the views of its community that it should not be doing business with Sinn Féin. That has not been the purpose of the other political parties, which have tried to tease out the issues in the parties’ papers and get some understanding of them in order to move this process forward. Nonetheless, I will continue to answer. I refer William McCrea to my previous answer; I also refer him back to the IRA statement of last July, which instructed IRA volunteers not to engage in any activities whatsoever. I repeat my view that I do not consider the IRA to be a criminal organisation. I repeat my view that people with whom William has associated in the past — and, for all I know, with whom he may still be associated — in the various agencies of the British Army and British Government forces have been engaged in all sorts of activities that would not fall within the definition, as William would see it, of lawful activity. 10.30 am So if we want to debate the idea of what has been criminal throughout the course of this conflict and what has not, then we can engage in that debate. That is my answer. Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, these are important questions. There is no confidence in the unionist community that Sinn Féin/IRA is fit for anything, and certainly Sinn Féin is not fit for Government. There is no confidence there. If it is trying to impress that community, and we are trying to elicit answers, it is on the record and will certainly tell that community whether Sinn Féin is fit for Government or not. I think it is an indictment of any political party that it does not regard those involved in theft, robbery, extortion, smuggling, piracy and money laundering as criminals. Therefore, I ask one other question: does Sinn Féin believe that the IRA or its members have been involved in any of those activities since last July? Mr Morrow: Perhaps we should just say that Mr Murphy should not feel under any pressure if the answer is going to embarrass him. Mr Murphy: You keep speaking behind your hand, and it is very hard to hear what you are saying. Mr Morrow: I did not have my hand up when I spoke. Mr Murphy: Go ahead. Mr Morrow: What I am saying is to assist you. You should not feel under any pressure to answer the question if the answer is going to embarrass you. That is what I said. Mr Murphy: OK. I can assure the future Lord Morrow that I have been interrogated for many days by many people more adept at their job than he, and I do not feel under any pressure whatsoever. Dr McCrea: Here we go again. Mr Murphy: The IRA instructions to the volunteers last July were very clear, and I believe that those instructions have held. Dr McCrea: Is Sinn Féin saying to us that no member of the IRA has been involved in such activities since July, and that if anyone was, and was proved to have been, that would make him a criminal? Mr Murphy: Anybody who disobeys the instructions of the IRA of last July, which was to involve himself in no activities whatsoever, moves himself clearly outside the terms of that organisation. Dr McCrea: Would that make him a criminal? Mr Murphy: Well, it depends on the activity that you happen to suggest. You are into the realms of speculation and hypothetical situations. If a member of the DUP was engaged in a sexual assault on a council worker, would that make him a criminal? It possibly would, but we are into all sorts of hypothetical situations here. If anyone disobeys the IRA instructions of last year, he moves himself outside the terms of that organisation and will no longer benefit from any political direction that that organisation is giving. Dr McCrea: Let me give an example: the vodka heist in the Republic of Ireland. If it is found to be that the people who were involved in that heist were members of the Provisional IRA, would Sinn Féin accept that they are criminals? Mr Murphy: Which heist was this? Dr McCrea: The vodka heist. It is well known in the Irish Republic. Certainly it was well reported. Of course, again, if you do not want to answer, you can say that you do not know anything about these things. I suppose you did not know anything yesterday. I am sorry that a death prevented me from being present for that part. I suppose there was no knowledge of “Slab” Murphy or anything else, but let us keep to the vodka heist in the Republic. If the persons involved are found to be members of the Provisional IRA, will Sinn Féin now accept that they are criminals? Mr Murphy: If that activity was carried out since last July, the persons involved were not acting on behalf of any organisation. They were therefore acting on their own behalf, and therefore they were engaged in criminal activity. Dr McCrea: Are they criminals? Mr Murphy: I am surprised that you have difficulty understanding. If the action that you are talking about took place since last July, the people involved were not acting on behalf of the IRA. Therefore they were engaged in criminal activity. Is that clear for you? Mr Morrow: If they had been acting on behalf of the IRA, would that not have been criminal? Mr Murphy: They would not have been acting on behalf of the IRA if it took place after last July. Mr Morrow: Can we move on to the most recent Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) report? It states that: “there are indications that some members, including some senior ones, (as distinct from the organisation itself) are still involved in crime, including offences such as fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, tax evasion and smuggling.” Do you believe that the IMC got it totally wrong? Mr Murphy: I have already answered the question on the general nature of the IMC about four times. I have no confidence at all in the IMC and its membership, in the way that it gathers its information, or in the standards of evidence on which it relies to produce that information. The entire IMC — how it produces reports and who it takes its intelligence from — is completely tainted. I am currently challenging all of that in the courts. If the IMC report refers to any activity that was carried out by individuals after July of last year, that activity was not done on behalf of the IRA. It would therefore fall outside the terms of that organisation. Mr Morrow: Setting aside your own personal views about the IMC — Mr Murphy: When I am asked to comment on something that the IMC has produced, it is very hard to set aside my views on its members and their backgrounds, on the way in which they gather their evidence, on the people who give them that evidence, and on the standards on which they rely to reproduce that evidence. Mr Morrow: Very often there are organisations, groups and political parties in whom I do not have a lot of confidence. That does not mean that every utterance they make is wrong. Do you accept that? Mr Murphy: That may well be the case for you; you are expressing your own personal view. I am expressing a general view about an organisation that carries its own political baggage into all of this. It gathers evidence from sources that are highly suspect, and it reproduces that evidence. It has accepted, in conversations with our legal people, that it applies no normal standards of evidence to any of the information that it gathers, and yet it reproduces that information as fact. Under those conditions, it is very difficult to treat any of the IMC’s utterances with any degree of seriousness at all. Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, to get this clear: all utterances from the IMC, as far as Mr Murphy is concerned, are at best suspect, and most likely illogical or wrong. Mr Murphy: They are certainly tainted, and that makes it very difficult to differentiate between what might be correct and what might be incorrect. Mr Morrow: Why would they be tainted or wrong, in your opinion? Mr Murphy: I have just outlined that. The nature of the people involved means that it is not independent. The means by which it gathers evidence and the sources from which it gathers that evidence, and the evidential standards of proof that it applies, all make the reports tainted. Mr Morrow: Suppose that the IMC was — by accident or by chance — right, would the people mentioned in its reports be criminals? In your estimation, the IMC never gets it right, but what if, for some unknown reason, it got it right for once? Mr Murphy: I am not saying that it never gets it right; I am saying that its reports are tainted. If anyone is found to have engaged in any activity after July last year, they fall outside the terms of the IRA. They are not engaged in any activity on behalf of the IRA, and, therefore, they enjoy no protection from the political nature of that organisation. Mr Morrow: I know that you have no confidence in the IMC, and you think that it is all a conspiracy theory. I was a bit surprised that you did not go on to claim that the securocrats were up to their necks in it, because that is the usual theme. However, in its February report, the IMC stated that: “members and former members of PIRA continue to be heavily involved in serious organised crime, including counterfeiting and the smuggling of fuel and tobacco.” I have listened to what you have said. Are you saying that the IMC is wrong on that matter as well? Mr Murphy: I will repeat the answer, lest you have difficulty in understanding me. Mr Morrow: Perhaps you could shorten it this time. Mr Murphy: Let me repeat it to you. Mr Morrow: Yes or no. Mr Murphy: Let me repeat it to you again. When such a body, with all of the flaws that I have outlined, gathers evidence on the basis that it has and produces a report, you can only consider that report to be tainted. Therefore to try to differentiate in that report between what may be true or not, or between what may be accurate or not, is a fairly moot exercise because the report, the way that the evidence is gathered, and the way that the evidence is produced and relied upon is entirely tainted. Therefore it is difficult to distinguish what in the report is accurate and what is not. Mr Morrow: A shortened version of what you are saying is no. Mr Murphy: I am saying that we cannot rely on IMC reports. I suspect that the day will come, possibly in the near future, when the DUP will no longer rely on IMC reports. Mr Morrow: Hold on. I do not know why we have to keep reminding you that the DUP is not in the dock today. We were in it the other day; you had your chance then. Mr Murphy: I do not consider myself to be in the dock. However, that choice of word is an interesting revelation of how you see this process: we are supposed to be analysing one another’s position papers and asking one another to explain them. That you consider this a judicial process says a great deal about your attitude towards the Committee. Mr Morrow: If you were more precise in your answers, less analysing would be needed. Dr McCrea: Sinn Féin says that we cannot believe anything that the IMC says because the IMC is tainted. Therefore when the IMC says that a significant amount of IRA weapons was decommissioned, we cannot believe it. Mr Murphy: With due respect to the Reverend McCrea, there is an organisation that all the parties around this table, apart from the DUP, agreed would rule on decommissioning. All parties and the Governments agreed to it. That organisation agreed that the weapons of the IRA have been dealt with to its satisfaction. The two Governments have accepted that the weapons have been dealt with. Dr McCrea: I — Mr Murphy: Please let me finish. The IMC had no part to play in the process of decommissioning; it was not involved in the weapons issue at all. Therefore, as with all its other findings, there is little credibility in anything that it has to say on the issue. Dr McCrea: Let us take that a step further. Most people in this room would accept the IMC as a credible organisation; the two Governments have stated that they believe it to be a credible organisation; and the American Government have stated that it is a credible organisation. Only Sinn Féin does not believe the IMC to be a credible organisation. It expects us to believe that decommissioning has happened because it tells us so — as if the information had come down from on high. Sinn Féin believes that because it dismisses the IMC’s credibility, everyone must do the same. However, when a body, such as the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), gives credence to what Sinn Féin says, Sinn Féin expects us to believe it. Accepting the premise on which Sinn Féin is building its argument, would it not be right for the DUP to be suspicious of an organisation that Sinn Féin and the IRA believe to be credible? Mr Murphy: That is a matter for yourself. You are here to ask me questions, not to offer your own point of view. May I make a prediction: in the future, the DUP will have difficulties with IMC reports, and then it will fall back on its old ploy of consulting its information sources in the PSNI to sustain its objections to going into Government with the rest of us. I would be very careful if I were you, William, of basing too much on the IMC. I predict that, probably in the near future but certainly in the middle future, you will be at odds with IMC reports. Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, the DUP has never tied itself to the IMC. The IMC is one of the information bases on which we, and the unionist community, will make our judgement. We do not believe that the IMC speaks out of badness or vindictiveness; we believe that it gives us an honest assessment of matters. We have other sources of information on which to make a judgement, as does the unionist community. We will not be embarrassed by an IMC report, nor will we bow in submission to it. What we will not accept, however, is the Government pretending that the IMC says that all is well when the IMC reports say that all is not well. Mr Murphy: I am glad that we can find agreement on that. Mr Kennedy: Mr Murphy, you indicated your fairly unhealthy view of the IMC; you describe it as tainted. Are its views on the IRA and republicans alone tainted, or are its views on loyalist paramilitaries tainted as well? 10.45 am Mr Murphy: I am glad that the DUP now shares some of our reservations about the IMC. As I said in my answer to Maurice Morrow, when the people involved — given their lack of independence, their standards of proof and the sources on which they rely — publish a report that they stand over as fact, it is very hard to pick out what may or may not be accurate. We do not rely on IMC reports for any proof on any organisation, whether the IRA or any other organisation or individuals. Mr Kennedy: For the avoidance of doubt, do you regard the IMC’s reports on loyalist activity as tainted? Mr Murphy: We regard all of the IMC reports and all of their content as tainted. Therefore we are unable to distinguish what might be accurate or not. Mr Morrow: Can we ask Sinn Féin whether, to the best of its knowledge, the IRA has ever made a statement that later turned out to be untrue? Mr Murphy: That is probably correct; yes. Mr Morrow: So you are saying yes? Mr Murphy: Yes, I am sure that that has happened. Mr Morrow: Do any instances come to mind? Mr Murphy: Not off the top of my head, but I know of certain instances — Mr Morrow: What about any other part of your anatomy? Mr Murphy: You are the one asking the questions. If you want to ask a question about a specific IRA statement, ask a question about that statement. I know that, on occasions in the past, the IRA has issued statements, followed by further statements with additional evidence, correcting what it previously said. That has happened on a number of occasions. If you have a specific incident in mind, perhaps you would care to put the question. Mr Morrow: Since you cannot remember a specific one — Mr Murphy: I can remember plenty of them, but do you want me to list them? If you have a specific one in mind, perhaps you could — Mr Morrow: No. I asked whether you could remember any, and you said that, off the top of your head, you could not. Mr Murphy: I can, yes. I said that there had been a number of occasions, and I can remember them. Mr Morrow: Would a bank robbery carried out on 26 July by IRA members be a crime? Mr Murphy: If it was after the IRA statement was issued — I cannot recall the date — yes, I would answer in the same way that I did earlier: it would be outside the terms of that organisation. Mr Morrow: So if it happened after the IRA statement, it is a crime, but if it happened before the IRA statement, it is not a crime. Is that what you are saying? Mr Murphy: Well, let me explain it for you again. The IRA issued an instruction from the head of the organisation to all of its volunteers. Mr Morrow: Sorry; say that again. Mr Murphy: The IRA issued an instruction from the head of the organisation to all of its volunteers not to engage in any activity whatsoever. That is the current order under which it operates. If anyone breaks that order, they will no longer enjoy the political benefits of belonging to that organisation. Therefore anyone in that situation would fall outside the terms of the organisation, and any activities in which they engage would be for their own purpose. Mr Morrow: Just so that I get it clear, a bank robbery carried out after 26 July by IRA members would be a crime? Mr Murphy: I will repeat the answer to you again. If anyone engaged in any activity — Mr Morrow: If you could indulge me — Mr Murphy: I have been indulging you for some time. Mr Morrow: That is fair enough, and I hope that you can condescend. Would a bank robbery carried out after 26 July by IRA members be a crime, and would a bank robbery carried out before 26 July by the IRA be a crime, in your opinion? I am asking it that way. Mr Murphy: If the IRA engaged in any activities before it issued that instruction, I would not consider that to be a crime, no. Mr Morrow: Right. So the IRA is the sole arbiter of when a crime is a crime? Mr Murphy: I am giving you my opinion on that. Dr McCrea: If a political party that wants to ascend to positions in an Executive states that if the IRA says that it is all right, then it is all right? If the IRA — not society, not the courts, not anyone else — says that it is all right, then it is all right? Mr Murphy has said that it is not a crime if the IRA says that it was done in its name, but if it was not done in its name, without its authority, it is a crime. Mr Deputy Speaker, does Sinn Féin really accept the IRA being the arbiter of, and authority on, what does and does not constitute a crime as a tenable position in any democracy? Mr Murphy must come clean. Those statements are on the record. There should be no pious words from other political parties to try to cover up what he meant or did not mean. I am sure that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams will regret sending him to this Committee to answer questions because Sinn Féin is digging a bigger hole than ever before. If we had forgotten our doubts about Sinn Féin’s acceptability to be in Government before this questioning, I can assure you that the record of this meeting will guarantee that that party is totally unacceptable. I am asking a straightforward question. The IRA states that if something is done without its authority, it is considered a crime. That is what you said, Mr Murphy. If the IRA states that something is done with its authority, it is not considered a crime. Does Sinn Féin believe that that is an acceptable position in any democracy? Mr Murphy: We do not live in a normal or acceptable democracy. This state to which you hold an allegiance has never been a normal or acceptable democracy. There have been times when you, your followers and your party have challenged the authority of this state. There have been times when you have organised people, in a military fashion, to challenge and threaten the authority of the state. As recently as last summer, your party leader threatened that a spark would be lit that would cause a conflagration and threaten the authority of the Parades Commission, which, whether you like it or not, is a lawful authority of the state. You are no stranger, William, to threatening and challenging the authority of the state or to forming organisations that have made threats. Those organisations have imported weapons illegally and still hold them; those weapons have never been dealt with under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement or any other terms. You are no stranger to all of that. You cannot sit in a position of moral authority, as you try to do, and define what is, or is not, morally lawful under the terms of the state. We are trying to emerge from conflict. We do not live in a normal democratic society. The reason that we have the Good Friday Agreement, with all its checks and balances, is a reflection on the fact that we do not live, and never have lived, in a normal democratic society. This society must change, and we are playing our part in trying to ensure that that happens. You are playing your part in trying to ensure that this society goes backwards. That is regrettable. Nonetheless, we will keep at our task to try to create a better future, and not the type of past that you wish to live in. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Kennedy has indicated that he wishes to enter the discussion. Dr McCrea: I am certain that Mr Kennedy can come in. When one realises the seriousness of this issue, Sinn Féin’s answer is both pathetic and a joke. The Sinn Féin attitude towards a £20-million bank robbery, if it is carried out in the name of the IRA, is to say: “Bully for you, boys. You can have your pension funds; you can have whatever you like, but it is all right.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr O’Dowd has indicated that he wants to come in on the same point. Mr Kennedy: During exchanges in the past few minutes, Mr Murphy used a certain phrase on two occasions. If an incident occurred after the publication of the July 2005 IRA statement, Sinn Féin would regard it as criminal activity, and members would no longer enjoy the “political benefits” — I hope that I am quoting him accurately. He has used that phrase — “political benefits” — twice, and it is an interesting phrase. Will Mr Murphy outline the political benefits of, presumably, IRA membership? Mr Murphy: People involved in IRA activity over the past 30 years, who were arrested for that activity and claimed to be part of that organisation, were considered, at various stages by the Governments of the North and the South, and certainly by the community from which they came, to be political prisoners. People engaged in activity outside the terms of the IRA do not enjoy any of those benefits. Mr Kennedy: Are you saying that it is political in a broader sense, rather than in the sense of being peculiar to Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: It is political in the broad sense in that people have been categorised, classified and released as political prisoners. If they were part of that organisation, their own communities considered them political prisoners; if they were outside that organisation, they were not considered for any of those benefits. Mr Kennedy: Are we wrong to assume that any political benefits that an IRA member would enjoy might not necessarily be linked to Sinn Féin? Mr Murphy: No; none whatever. Mr Kennedy: How else would they benefit politically? Mr Murphy: I have just outlined how people benefit politically. That was not in reference to Sinn Féin; I was talking about the general situation with regard to how they are treated by both Governments and by their own communities. Mr Kennedy: Are you also saying that it is neither possible nor desirable from your point of view that IRA membership be dualled with some form of political membership attached to your party? Mr Murphy: Given that the IRA is a secret organisation, one would not know who its members are. Sinn Féin is an open political party whose members are paid up and registered. If I am given the lists, I know who the Sinn Féin members are in any given cumann. Therefore the question does not arise. Mr Kennedy: Does that mean that you do not know any IRA members who are also in Sinn Féin? Is there no dual mandate as far as you are concerned? Mr Murphy: Given that the IRA is a secret organisation, its membership is a secret. Mr Kennedy: Are you not aware of dual mandate? Mr Murphy: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Two procedural points have emerged. First, I would normally allow one question in interventions, but Mr Kennedy got five. Mr Kennedy: You indulged me, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members should normally intervene immediately on a point that has arisen. On a couple of occasions, Committee members have drifted on to issues that could lead them into difficulties. First, there was reference to a Mr Murphy. That is a south Armagh issue that the police and the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) are investigating. Given those investigations, I would be grateful if members did not mention specific cases in future questions. The police are investigating the bank robbery, and, indeed, there have been arrests. Therefore I would be grateful to Committee members if they spoke in general, rather than specific, terms about criminality and alleged incidents. That will keep us right. Mr McNarry: I am not being picky, but are hundreds of unsolved cases not under investigation? How far do you want us to — The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no problem in mentioning cases in general terms, but if Committee members start to name specific individuals who are under investigation or specific cases that are before the courts, I will have to call them to order. Mr McNarry: Before the courts? The Chairman (Mr Wells): In so far as the Assets Recovery Agency is involved, those cases are quasi-judicial, but there have been arrests in the Northern Bank case. Therefore we cannot go into the specifics of those cases or even name them, in my opinion. Mr McNarry: That is OK, but the Assets Recovery Agency is usually allowed to take over a case because no proceedings are being taken by the statutory agencies. As those cases are also quite well known, do you not want us to mention any of them? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Specifically no. Mr McFarland: I understand that Mr Paisley Jnr trained in the law, and yesterday — The Chairman (Mr Wells): No; he has a history degree. Mr McFarland: Does he? Mr Paisley Jnr advised us yesterday that it was a problem when an issue was “before the courts” — I think that he used those words. It might be worth clarifying this with our own legal people. There is a difference between discussing cases that have been passed to the ARA because criminal conviction through the courts is no longer possible and talking about those cases that are before the courts. Clearly, if a case is before the courts there is a problem. My understanding is that if a case is not before the courts there may not be a problem. Could that be clarified? 11.00 am The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is clear guidance on that in the current Standing Orders. Standing Order 25(c)(i) states: “in the case of a criminal case in courts of law, including courts martial, from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made”. That applies to the Northern Bank issue. Standing Order 25(c)(ii) states: “in the case of a civil case in courts of law, from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion for an injunction”. I would interpret Standing Order 25(c)(i) as applying to the Northern Bank. The Murphy case would be covered by Standing Order 25(c)(ii). Mr McNarry: I understand that, Mr Chairman. However, if we move from criminality into the annals of murder, where do the cold cases that are under scrutiny sit? In the meetings that I have attended, we have not talked about victims. It would be difficult to discuss victims without mentioning why they are victims and without referring to specific cases. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a valid point, Mr McNarry, and a very understandable one. The ruling made in the Chamber by the previous Speaker was that, if there was any possibility of any individual case coming before the courts — and with the cold case review procedure, that is a possibility; indeed, cases have come before the courts as a result of that process — Members should exercise extreme caution. I do not wish to restrict Committee members. You are perfectly at liberty to mention global cases of Assets Recovery Agency work. However, if people refer to specific cases, I will have to call them to order. Equally, if they refer to cases that we know are before the courts, I will immediately call them to order. I raise that point because we are moving into territory where that will arise. I am not being difficult, but Standing Orders are very clear on this issue. Mr Kennedy got away with it, but I will call people to order if they persist in going down the line of four or five additional questions. Mr O’Dowd has been waiting for a considerable period, so I will ask him to make his point, and then it is straight back to Mr McCrea and Mr Morrow. Mr O’Dowd: My point is in answer to some of the questions that have been put to some of the Sinn Féin delegation in relation to criminality. The majority of the parties sitting around the table have at one time or another come into conflict with what is known as criminal law, which the state has established. During the civil rights period, the SDLP and Sinn Féin came into conflict with that. The UUP, down through history, and the DUP, through the history of the state, have come into conflict with criminal law. Indeed, Eileen Paisley and Rev Ian Paisley have both served jail terms. I have no doubt that those two individuals do not believe that they are criminals. Mr Kennedy: Eileen was never in jail. Mr O’Dowd: I think she was. If I am wrong, I am perfectly happy to correct that. Mr Kennedy: She may have visited. Mr O’Dowd: If I am historically inaccurate, I am happy to have that corrected. I would like to have that little bit of history checked. I doubt that any of those individuals from the SDLP, the UUP or the DUP who ended up behind bars because they stood against authority — whether over the civil rights movement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the street protests that took place around Drumcree for a number of years — believe themselves to be criminals. They believed that their political convictions forced them into a conflict that in any other circumstances they would never have come into, and they ended up in front of a judge or behind bars or in police custody. They are still out there, as political people, serving their communities. They do not see their past as criminal; they were forced into a position; they had no choice. We can all tic-tac back and forth across this table about criminality — it will get us nowhere. I find the unionist approach to criminality very interesting. I take on board the Chairman’s point about not mentioning individual cases, otherwise I could go on all day. The vast majority of cases with which the Assets Recovery Agency is dealing are happening in loyalist areas. Seventy-five per cent of the assets recovered by the Assets Recovery Agency have come from loyalist Protestant unionist areas. Even with our concerns about what the agency is about and some of the political manipulation that goes on within it — even with all that weight on it shoulders — when its officers go looking for criminal activity, they find it in unionist Protestant loyalist areas represented by the people across the table. Yesterday I used the example of Ballymena, a town which is plagued by the abuse of hard drugs peddled not by republicans, but by unionist paramilitaries. The council is controlled by the DUP, at Assembly level the area is controlled by the DUP, and there is a DUP MP, yet all that criminality continues. When I hear unionist politicians complaining about criminality and saying that republicans must do something about it, I want to see what is being done in unionist areas. If they can give us the model of how you end criminality, we will be happy to examine it and see if we can learn from it. However, if we are going to continue debating criminality all day, we will not get the chance to debate the future. That is what the Preparation for Government Committee is about. It is about debating the future. Conor and I are happy to sit here for the next four or five days answering silly questions, but we will miss the opportunity to talk about creating a new future. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr O’Dowd, I will have to make another procedural point. I did not detect a question — Mr O’Dowd: With respect, Mr Chairman, I am answering questions. The DUP has already told us that we have no right to ask questions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You are all experienced individuals. All you have to say is: “Is it not the case that …”, and away you go. We have had a series of speeches here. Equally, while Mr Kennedy accepted five points, people who continuously try to string five points into one intervention will also be brought to book. Mr Morrow: I take great exception — although I think it is par for the course — to anything we ask being “silly questions”. It is a bit like when unionists go out to celebrate their culture. We are castigated for it. Nationalists are allowed to celebrate their culture, but when unionists go out to do similar, it is a different mission. Here we have it again from Sinn Féin Members: the DUP is coming up with “silly questions”. That is the contempt in which they hold those opposite them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am content that all the questions that have been asked have been entirely in order. Mr O’Dowd: I can assure the delegates across the table that I do not hold them in contempt, if that clarifies the position for them. Dr McCrea: There is a vast difference, and surely Sinn Féin sees that. We did not ask about any of those other things. We asked directly about crime. It is not about a person going out and standing in the middle of the road or having a genuine conviction. We are asking about criminal activity: fuel laundering, money laundering, extortion, piracy, smuggling. All of those things are deliberate crimes in any civilised society. What we were told in answer was that if the IRA sanctioned it, it was not a crime, but if the IRA did not sanction it, it was a crime. Let me put something on the record. I know of no elected representative who thinks that drugs in Ballymena, Newry, Londonderry, Magherafelt or any part of the Province are acceptable or any grouping is acceptable, whether it is done by a paramilitary organisation or not. In fact we have demanded that the police tackle this issue and find the guilty persons, as in my constituency where people were caught with £3 million of drugs at the airport yesterday. That is to be condemned unreservedly. It is criminal activity. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Please come to your question, Mr McCrea. Dr McCrea: I have to put it like that because it is so important. Here is a direct question: does Sinn Féin believe that anything the IRA did during the troubles was a crime? Mr Murphy: The IRA engaged in a lot of illegal activity during the conflict. If you want me to say that I believe that the IRA was a criminal organisation, clearly, I will not say that. It is clear that the IRA, and individuals within it who were in prison, went to extraordinary lengths to prove to world that it was not a criminal organisation, but a highly politically motivated organisation. Perhaps the DUP does not accept that. I will not sit here, regardless of what questions you ask — you may ask me any question that you like — and state that the IRA was a criminal organisation. Dr McCrea: So the murder of a mother, because she was looked upon as a British agent, was not a crime? Is Sinn Féin saying that when the IRA murdered a mother and hid her body, it was not a crime? Mr Murphy: I am saying that the IRA was not a criminal organisation. Dr McCrea: Was it a crime? Mr Murphy: I am not getting into individual cases on the advice — Dr McCrea: No. The Chairman, with the greatest respect, spoke about cases that could come before the courts. Was the murder of a mother a crime? I did not identify the mother. Quite honestly, I could identify individuals — make no mistake about it. I have waited for more than 30 years to hear anything about two of my loved ones, who were 16 and 21 years of age when they were blasted to bits by the IRA. Was that a crime? Who killed them? Let me keep to the subject of the mother, who was perceived to be friendly towards the security forces. If the IRA murder her and hide her body, is that a crime? Mr Murphy: I do not know the specific case, but I tell you now that the IRA was not a criminal organisation. Dr McCrea: So it was not a crime? Mr Murphy: You can beat your chest about victims, William, but I could bring you lists and lists — Dr McCrea: Was it a crime? Mr Murphy: Mr Chairman, am I allowed to answer a question? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr Murphy: You can beat your chest about victims, but there are victims on all sides. You try to create a hierarchy of victims within which the people for whom you feel emotionally are somehow at the top, and people on the republican side are somehow not to be considered victims. I can assure you of the pain of people who were shot by members of the forces to which you give allegiance. Those people were murdered, set up to be murdered, and their details were passed on to other illegal organisations to carry out those murders. Their pain is the same as the people for whom you feel pain. There were a lot of activities and a lot of hurt caused by all sides. I acknowledge that the IRA carried out brutal activity and that it hurt people. Sinn Féin is trying to find a better way out of all that. If you want to revisit the past on every occasion, that is fine. We will discuss it for as long as you like. There was hurt on every side. There are victims who feel as bad on the republican side as those on your side. At the end of the day, the suffering is exactly the same. People who visited that pain on them engaged in the same sort of killing that causes you a problem. Mr McNarry: You have acknowledged, Conor, the IRA’s activity and the hurt that it caused. Accepting that no one should have a monopoly on victimhood, can you tell me how you intend to specifically address the hurt caused to victims of IRA activity? I ask that your answer is not about other activity. Specifically on IRA activity, how does Sinn Féin intend to address the hurt inside my community, particularly that caused by murder? Mr Murphy: The best way to try to address that is through open engagement and honest discussion. Sinn Féin has published a number of papers about truth and truth recovery processes and is quite happy to debate that issue. That involves the IRA as much as all the other protagonists in the conflict. That is the best way forward. There is no easy, one-solution-fits-all scenario, because I have met people on what you might like to classify as the nationalist side, and they have different expectations and desires for the outcome of any process to address their pain. Some want convictions, some want acknowledgement, and there is a range of options in between. There is no particular solution for any particular community, but the best way to try to deal with that is through an open and honest engagement, through dialogue and through some form of truth and reconciliation process to which everyone can subscribe. We have published papers on that, and we are open and willing to discuss them with anyone who is genuinely interested in discussing them with us. 11.15 am Mr McNarry: Do you see part of that encouraging the IRA to make a statement regarding the hurt that it has caused? Mr Murphy: The IRA has already made a statement on that, and that has found a degree of hearing in some quarters, but in many other quarters it has probably found no degree of hearing whatsoever. Mr McNarry: Because it was insufficient. Mr Murphy: Well, it begs the question as to what sort of words or deeds or gestures from the IRA would be sufficient — rather than people stumbling forward with what they think is sufficient to do the trick — because this thing will not be resolved by any easy gesture or statement from anyone. There is too much hurt in this community for it to be resolved by that. It will not be resolved, but it will be dealt with and eased by genuine dialogue. For me to be prescriptive and say that if the IRA said A, B and C, the people who have been on the receiving end of its campaign would be satisfied would be naive. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now go back to the DUP questioning. Dr McCrea: Once again, we have to establish that the answers given are serious, that the illustration I use of its not being a crime to abduct a mother is a very serious situation. Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, did I pick Mr Murphy up correctly when he said that the IRA statement of last July was an instruction not to be involved in criminal activities? Mr Murphy: It was not to be involved in any activities whatsoever. I am quoting the words of it. You and I may interpret it differently, and anyone who reads it may have a different interpretation. I do not have the statement to hand, but the actual words as I recall them were “not to be involved in any activity whatsoever.” Dr McCrea: Criminal or otherwise? Mr Murphy: Any activity is any activity. Dr McCrea: You may have great difficulties with the second part of my question. Mr Murphy: Let me hear it, and I will decide. Dr McCrea: Do you accept that having possession of money, which was previously illegally obtained, is a crime? Mr Murphy: If someone were in possession of something that was considered to be engaged in an activity, then it would be clearly contrary to the IRA’s instructions. Dr McCrea: So, would it be a crime? Mr Murphy: Well, however you view it. Dr McCrea: I do not know where you are coming from here, because you are saying that the IRA is the sole judge of what is a crime. You said that previously. Mr Murphy: No, we are talking about the outworkings of the IRA statement as I recall, and the IRA has instructed its volunteers not to engage in any activity whatsoever. If anyone breached that direction and became engaged in any activity, should that be in possession of something or engaged in some activity, he would clearly be in breach of that instruction and, therefore, would fall outside the terms of the IRA, as I understand it. Dr McCrea: Let us assume that that is the case. Would you then urge anyone who had possession or knew of such funds or money or information to give that to the authorities either North or South? Mr Murphy: I am not aware of anyone who has possession of such things. Dr McCrea: I am not saying that you are aware of anyone — I am saying if you were. Mr Murphy: It is a hypothetical question. I would not urge anyone to engage on this side of the border with an organisation in which I have no confidence and with which I would not engage. I would not urge anyone to do anything that I would not do. I am not aware if there are any materials, because, as far as I am concerned, the materials have been dealt with under Gen de Chastelain’s remit. I am not aware of any of the suggestions that you make, and you are back again into the realms of a hypothetical situation, but I would not encourage anyone to give information to any organisation in which I have confidence. Dr McCrea: Would you see any conflict or difficulty in a political party being in Government that took that stance? We want to be in Government, we must be in Government, but we are not co-operating with the authorities of law and order while we are in this Government — do you see any difficulties with that? Mr Murphy: We were in Government when we had that stance. Mr Morrow: We are talking about the future, not the past. Mr Murphy: I am not quite sure of the time factor, but the SDLP may well have been in Government before it endorsed the current policing arrangements. As we said yesterday and over the past couple of days, we envisage a successful outcome on policing matters. We envisage that when the institutions are restored we will be well on the way to resolving the outstanding policing issues and to securing the transfer of policing and justice powers. Had your party not regrettably scuppered the arrangements in 2004, we could have been beyond that point at this stage. However, that is history; we have to face what is happening now. Nevertheless, we envisage a successful outcome on outstanding policing matters. Therefore I anticipate that those matters will be resolved in a future Administration here. Mr Morrow: My recollection, and the recollection of most parties that were at Leeds Castle, is that it was Sinn Féin members who walked away. We understood afterwards why they had to walk away — because there was a matter being planned at that time that would have been a serious embarrassment to them — if you could embarrass them. Dr McCrea: Could we get this right, Mr Chairman? I believe that Sinn Féin Members said this morning that they were in Government while they did not support the police and that that was acceptable in their eyes. They are telling us that, even though policing has not been settled, it would still be acceptable for them to be in Government without supporting the due forces and processes of law and order. Is that a correct understanding of their position? Mr Murphy: Can I remind William that he engaged with our Ministers when they were in Government and did not support what he considers to be the forces of law and order? There are outstanding matters in relation to policing and justice. We intend to have those resolved; we do not envisage being in Government without those matters being resolved. Our intention is to try to see that happen. We were in Government at a time when we still could not endorse the policing arrangements as they pertained here and when Patten had still not been fully delivered on. Although DUP Ministers might not have sat in the Executive, they were in the same Government that we were in. DUP Members in the Chamber interacted with our Government Ministers in the way other Members in the Chamber interacted with them. It was not a problem for them then; I wonder why it has become one now. Dr McCrea: I am rather confused by this, Mr Chairman, because we have been constantly told — and I think it will be in the record — that the problem with the DUP over the years is that we have not engaged with Sinn Féín; now we are told that we did engage with them. Talk about a muddled mind! However, I suppose that that is as confusing a process as would be appropriate for Sinn Féin/IRA, which does not know whether it is a party or what it is. Let us take this a step further. Are Sinn Féin Members telling this Committee that they would not instruct their members to call the PSNI if their house was burgled? Mr Murphy: We do not issue instructions to our members about house burglaries. However, if I were asked to give advice to a party member whose house had been burgled, and if they wished to claim insurance for items burgled from their house or for damage that had been done to their house, I would say that they had no alternative but to report the issue to the PSNI. If I were asked — Dr McCrea: Oh — Mr Murphy: May I answer the question without interruption? If I were asked whether I would give information to the PSNI that I did not have to give for insurance purposes, I would answer that, as I do not have confidence in that organisation, I would not give the information. I would not ask anyone to do that which I would not do myself. Dr McCrea: Therefore it depends on monetary gain. If monetary gain is at issue, you use the police; if not, you abuse them. Mr Murphy: There is an old saying about unionists: they have often been more loyal to the half-crown than to the Crown; that cap fits both ways. Mr Morrow: That is rubbish. Dr McCrea: With the greatest respect, as a party and a group that has drawn more from the public purse than most, Sinn Féin might not be loyal to the Queen, but it certainly loves her head on a £20 note. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr O’Dowd has indicated that he wants to make a brief point. Mr O’Dowd: Perhaps the DUP could help us in our deliberations on policing. What quantifies unqualified support for the police or policing arrangements? During the riots in Belfast last September, 150 high velocity rounds were fired at the PSNI and the British Army, and dozens upon dozens of bombs were thrown at them. Hundreds of officers were injured and millions of pounds’ worth of damage was caused across unionist areas of Belfast After that the DUP, under the instructions of the North and West Belfast Parades Forum, which contains members of the illegal UVF and the illegal UDA, left a district policing partnership. What is unqualified support for the police? What does that mean? Dr McCrea: As one who is not answering questions today; perhaps I will ask another question. I noticed “the illegal UVF” and “the illegal UDA”. Will Sinn Féin now tell us, clearly and without equivocation: is the IRA an illegal organisation? Mr Murphy: Yes, of course, it is; it always has been. The problem is that you did not have the same degree of concern when the UDA for many years was not an illegal organisation. I never heard of you calling for it to be specified. The IRA has always been an illegal organisation; I have no difficulty with that or with describing it as such. Your query, and the previous 20 or 30 questions, were around whether you considered the IRA was a criminal organisation, which was a different matter. Dr McCrea: I say that the histories of the two go together, but nevertheless, Sinn Féin says that it does not recognise the police and that it will give no information to the police. Why then do some of its representatives shake hands with the police? Mr Murphy: I am not aware of any representatives who shake hands with the police. Dr McCrea: Why then did the chairman of Magherafelt District Council shake hands with a divisional commander of the police? Mr Murphy: That is a matter for himself. I do not recognise the British Government’s authority in this part of their jurisdiction, but I have shaken hands with Tony Blair on many occasions. Dr McCrea: So you do not recognise British authority. Who does Sinn Féin recognise? It does not recognise the DUP; the other day Martin McGuinness practically told us that it was a horrendous experience to be in the same room as the DUP. So who has the right to exist, other than itself? Mr Murphy: I assure you, William, that you have a right to exist, and I would be very happy to shake your hand at any time. Dr McCrea: I can assure you that, as far as the answers that have been given today are concerned, that is certainly a long way off. Nothing that has been said here today shows that Sinn Féin is worthy for Government or any other position. Those are the usual platitudes of Sinn Féin, and others may be beguiled by them, but I assure you that the DUP will not be beguiled by any of its pious words. As I pointed out the other day, as a bit of a public exercise it proposed Dr Paisley, whom it has gutted and condemned all these years — and still does — for First Minister. It certainly stuck in its throat; nevertheless none of us fell for that disguise either. At the last exchange on Friday, the mask fell as regards what it really thought when it came to Mr McGuinness and some of the rest of us. Setting aside Sinn Féin and the IRA, does Sinn Féin, as a matter of principle, believe that it is reasonable that to be in Government a political party should not be inextricably linked to a paramilitary or criminal organisation such as the IRA? I ask Sinn Féin to answer the question it is asked. Mr Murphy: I do not consider the IRA to be a criminal organisation; therefore the question has no validity. We have reservations about those with whom we share Government — including yourself, your past, your own activities and associations, the organisations which you have helped to found and the misery which they have visited on members of my community. Nonetheless, we base people’s entitlement to be in Government on the mandate they receive from the electorate. You have received a substantial mandate and we have received a substantial mandate. We recognise and respect your mandate and we only ask that you do the same for ours. We ask that you do not treat the people who vote for Sinn Féin as, somehow, second-class to those who vote for you or any of the other political parties of which you approve. Democracy is not about accepting the voters that you approve of and who meet your standards: democracy is about people having equal rights under the ballot box. People vote for us and, therefore, we are entitled to be in the Government under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and under the d’Hondt mechanism, on which we base our entitlement to Government. We have serious reservations and confidence issues around the DUP and its attitude to the people who vote for us. That was reflected in your previous answer that the community that we represent was more inclined to get public money — as if they were all dole spongers or something like that. That racist attitude permeates the DUP, and we have serious reservations about all of that. Nonetheless, your mandate entitles you to be in Government and our mandate entitles us to be in Government. It entitles the UUP and the SDLP to be in Government, and we respect that. We operate on that basis. 11.30 am Mr Morrow: It was Mr Murphy who said that unionists were more loyal to the half-crown than to the Crown. The inference was first of all directed at us. Mr Murphy: It was in response to the Rev William McCrea saying that we were interested in monetary gain, and I was making a remark that has often been the broad view of the nationalist community. However, the remark that our community were more likely to be in receipt of public moneys is a somewhat racist view; that somehow people in the nationalist community were more likely to be in receipt of benefits and somehow less of a person or a lower standard of community than the community that you represent. That racist view has permeated the thinking and utterances of the DUP since its existence. Mr Morrow: Is Mr Murphy saying that his remark about my community being more loyal to the half-crown was not racist? Mr Murphy: No, I do not think that it was racist. Dr McCrea: No, No. Can I say, Mr Deputy Speaker — The Chairperson (Mr Wells): Mrs Long has — Dr McCrea: There is something that I must say before lunch and then I am happy to give way to Mrs Long. I want to put something on the record. There is a certain amount of malice in the answers given because they are personally directed at me — “you, you, you”. I make it abundantly clear that I have never been a member of any illegal organisation — never a member of any illegal organisation. The charge that has been laid against me is one of deliberate malice. However, I ask a direct question of Mr Murphy, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: was Mr Murphy ever a member of the Provisional IRA? Mr Murphy: Yes, I was. When I refer to you, Mr McCrea, you are here representing your party, the DUP — Dr McCrea: There were times that it was deliberately — Mr Murphy: Can I finish my response? You are here representing your party, and there are people who you have associated with who have heaped misery on the nationalist community — particularly the community that John O’Dowd represents. People who you have publicly associated with have heaped misery. It does apply to you personally, but it also applies in a general terms to your party and to the people that you have associated with, the groups that you have helped bring into existence, the weapons that they have brought into this country, and the people that have been killed as a result of those weapons. If the cap fits, either personally or collectively, then that is a matter for yourself. Dr McCrea: That is deliberate malice, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the only time that I ever was associated with, or stood on a platform, was at a time when a person was condemned to death and to be murdered for their political beliefs. I did on that occasion, and I do so again, unreservedly condemn the murder of anyone by either the individual person, Billy Wright, or others associated with him. Therefore, I direct one further question in return. Does Mr Murphy unreservedly condemn the IRA murders of the likes of Robert and Rachel McLernon? Not a hierarchy or anything, but does he unreservedly condemn the IRA murders of the last 30 years? Mr Murphy: I am not in the business of condemning — Dr McCrea: Stop equivocating. Do you condemn those murders or not? I have unreservedly condemned murders of members of the Roman Catholic population and the Protestant community. I ask whether you unreservedly condemn the IRA murders. That is a direct question. Mr Murphy: And I will give you a direct answer. I am not in the business of condemning the IRA; I never have done, and I will not do so now. Dr McCrea: That says more about — Mr Murphy: To finish my answer, regardless of your own personal attempt to get out of your association with Billy Wright, your appearance — Dr McCrea: I have no association whatsoever with Billy Wright. Mr Murphy: Your appearance on a platform with Billy Wright gave great comfort to him and his organisation; it sent a very strong message to the community — Dr McCrea: That nobody should be condemned to death for their political beliefs. Mr Murphy: Can I finish my answer, Mr Speaker? I did not interrupt Mr McCrea. Your appearance with Billy Wright gave comfort to him and to the organisation of which he was head at the time — an organisation that was murdering not only Catholic people, but also Protestant people in that area. To the community that I represent, your appearance gave a very strong indication of your views. Dr McCrea: The pious belief of a person who will not condemn any murder shows that they have given succour to the IRA, of which Mr Murphy has admitted membership. I also put on record that the IRA murdered more Roman Catholics in this country than so-called loyalist paramilitaries did. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mrs Long has been extremely patient, so I will let her speak and we can return to the DUP’s questions. Mrs Long: It is extremely unusual for Mrs Long to be patient. On this occasion, the debate has moved on, so I will let it proceed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we try to conclude this particular strand of questioning and move on? We have been dealing with one area for quite a long time. Mr Morrow: Mr Deputy Speaker, is Sinn Féin aware of anywhere in the world, which is a fairly big place, where a party in Government does not support the police force of that country? Mr Murphy: I am not aware; I do not have that type of knowledge, but I must say that the DUP often begins, or sets in context, its questions by referring to “normal democracies”. We do not live in a normal democracy. We are emerging from a situation where this statelet has always been contested, where the policing service has been used to uphold and protect the constitutional status quo and has been used to murder people, and set people up to be murdered, in my community. We are not in a normal society, so to compare it with any other country is a false comparison. This is not a normal society. The policing service here was never a normal policing service. The fact that, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, policing had to change and there had to be a new beginning to policing acknowledged that there was never a normal policing service here. In our view, we have still not achieved a new beginning to policing. We are well on the way, but outstanding matters remain. I anticipate that we will achieve a new beginning for policing. To make a comparison between here and anywhere else in the world, wherever you may be thinking of, it must be compared with some other abnormal democracy where policing was used for political purposes to repress one section of the community. If you point out such a society to me, I could perhaps make a valid comparison, but none springs to mind at the moment. Mr Morrow: I did not prefix my question by referring to normal society. I simply asked a question. Mr Murphy, for reasons best known to himself, prefixed his answer with the term “normal deomcracy”. I ask Sinn Féin a question that Seán Farren asked of the DUP yesterday: when is enough enough? You were asked a question yesterday by Ian Paisley Jnr in relation to the Belfast Agreement, and you said that it was to give everybody space; it was not the solution, because the Belfast Agreement was interpreted by some as a process — I suspect by you as well. For others it was a solution or it was a decision. When is enough enough? Is it only enough when you get your way and have a 32-county, all-Ireland republic? Is that enough? Is that what you call enough? Mr Murphy: As a political party, we are entitled to strive for our objectives. That is the purpose of political parties. The DUP’s political rationale or raison d’être is to maintain the Union, and that is a legitimate quest for the DUP. We have a legitimate quest, which is to strive for a united Ireland. We want an agreed Ireland; we want an Ireland in which all of the people of this country can agree to live together. That is our quest. Should we stop doing that because the DUP does not want us to do it? Should we abandon the idea that we are Irish people? Should we abandon any aspirations that we have to create unity on this island? Should we agree with the notion that the political intervention of Britain in this country over the decades, never mind the centuries, has been good for the people of this island? Why would we abandon all that? That is our belief, and we are entitled to pursue that belief. We are happy to work with you in this institution and to work with you on creating a better future despite our misgivings about your party and your track record and your intentions for the future. We are quite happy to engage and work for the betterment of all our people. Enough is enough when people meet their aspirations. You have your aspirations. They are satisfied at the moment because you are constitutionally part of the United Kingdom, but we have an entitlement under the Good Friday Agreement, as has the SDLP, to pursue our aspirations democratically and politically, and that is what we intend to do. Why should we stop that? Would it give more comfort to the DUP if I were to sit here and lie and say that republicans have given up on the aspiration of a united Ireland, but we will achieve it by stealth? Would that give more comfort to unionism? Unionists always value direct, blunt talking. They give the impression that they value direct talking, that you know exactly where you are coming from with no shilly-shallying about. Well, I will let you know where we are coming from: we want to create a united Ireland. We want to end the Union with Britain. We will devote all our political energies in a peaceful and democratic fashion to doing that. I will not give up on that until such times as I have no political energy left. That is blunt and direct talking. Unionists, I am told, value blunt and direct talking. That is our aspiration, and Sinn Féin as an organisation and party right across this island, not just in the North, intends to pursue that aspiration with all of its vigour. Mr Morrow: So, Mr Deputy Speaker, when Bertie Ahern says that, as far as he is concerned, the constitutional position is a settled one, Sinn Féin says that no matter what is settled before 24 November, that is very much an interim position, and Sinn Féin will continue until it has defined that “enough is enough”. We now know that. Mr Murphy: I have to profess some surprise that Maurice Morrow would feel, with all he knows about Sinn Féin, that somehow we would have settled for the constitutional position that we currently find ourselves in. If it is news to him now that Sinn Féin is pursuing a united Ireland and that we will use all our political energy to pursue a united Ireland, I wonder where he has been for the last while. That has always been our position, and, as far as I can see, it will always be our position until such times as we can reach that goal. Our intention is to work with others to try to convince them of the merit of that goal, to try to work with people in the interim to provide in the best possible way that we can for the people whom we represent collectively in this room. That is our goal, and why that is surprising to you I am at a loss to understand because it has been stated often for as long as Sinn Féin has been a political organisation, and that is 101 years. 11.45 am Mr Morrow: Mr Murphy may treat me as naive or as far below his standard of ability. That does not hurt me in the slightest. My community has been on the receiving end of the paramilitary wing of your party. We are under no illusions whatsoever; there are too many tombstones out there that remind us of the capabilities and ruthlessness of your organisation. If the IRA, tomorrow, instructed its members — contrary to its instructions to cease all activity — that, from a precise date, that instruction no longer stands, would you support it? Mr Murphy: I and my party have made the argument that there is no longer any rationale for armed struggle. The IRA has accepted that argument, and I do not anticipate that it will change its mind. We have argued quite clearly for the last period that there is no further rationale for armed struggle, and the IRA has accepted that. You are getting into the realms of a hypothetical situation, but I can assure you that, from my understanding of my community and of republicanism, the war is over. The armed struggle is over. The IRA has said that clearly. That is the fact on the ground as I know it in my community. It might be some source of comfort to you to always have the enemy on the hill, ready to come over; the enemy at the gate, ready to burst through. That is how the DUP has sustained its position in unionism for the last 30 years. The enemy has always been at the gate. Let me tell you clearly that the armed struggle is over. Republicans are going to pursue their aims by political and democratic means. The armed struggle is over. You may wish to tell your community that the enemy is still at the gate, bursting to get in, that its intentions are still of malice to your community. We have suffered. We have been in many graveyards as well. We know the bitter cost of conflict in this country very well, but I can assure you that the enemy is no longer at the gate. It is now a political enemy that you face. Mr McFarland: I accept Conor’s aspirations, which are perfectly acceptable, to seek a united Ireland by peaceful and democratic means, but does he accept that the only way in which he can achieve a united Ireland that is stable and sustainable is with the agreement and acquiescence of more than one million unionists on this island, who are not going to go anywhere? Mr Murphy: Given our experience of being corralled into a state against our wishes, I am fully aware that to try to corral and coerce people into a political arrangement against their wishes is not the best way to create stability or a peaceful and prosperous country. Obviously, the best way to a united Ireland is with the agreement of people from every part of this island on what type of Ireland they wish to see — one that protects all of their rights, identities, aspirations and that protects their future. I am quite aware of my own experience of the failed experiment of unionism in the North of Ireland, which tried to corral a minority here, to treat them in a certain fashion, to expect them to put up with it, and to have a normal, stable and democratic state. That did not work, so I do not consider that that could work on a 32-county basis. Dr McCrea: We have heard that the war is over. Can Sinn Féin tell us why guns were stopped from being brought in by the republican movement just this past week? Mr Murphy: The questions that I have been asked up to this point have been in relation to the IRA. If other organisations or individuals who do not belong to the IRA are attempting to do things, that is a matter for them. We have taken a stand against those people in our community, not just by what we have said publicly, but by what we have done in the community. That stand has probably threatened the lives of very many of our party members. That is perhaps more of a threat than that presented to our party members in recent times by the people that you have supported. We have taken a stand against those people, and we will continue to take a stand against them and to say, publicly and privately, that they are completely wrong in trying to start or reignite an armed campaign. They have no support in our community; they have no strategy or direction. We have made that clear. If you are trying to associate those people with the party that I represent, you are a long way off the mark: they probably represent more of a threat to me than to you. Dr McCrea: I did not know that the bomb that was being made in Lurgan was for Sinn Féin or for the — Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, can I ask for a ruling? People are in custody and being questioned. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McCrea, Mr O’Dowd raises a point of order, which I must take. Mr O’Dowd: People are being questioned about the accusations that William McCrea is making. Two people are in custody in relation to allegations concerning the finding of components of an explosive in Lurgan. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have made it very clear, Mr McCrea, that Committee members must be extremely careful in dealing with matters that are before the courts. Dr McCrea: I accept your ruling. Although the point was made that recent activity was a greater threat to members of Sinn Féin than to my community. Mr Murphy: I was talking about — go on ahead and finish your question. Sorry. Dr McCrea: “It is a matter for themselves”, we are told; with respect, those are no credentials for a democrat. It is not a matter for themselves if the Continuity IRA or the Real IRA are threatening people. Will Sinn Féin support the security forces in defeating that terrorist threat? Mr Murphy: I go back to the remarks with which I prefaced all my answers to the DUP’s questions. Rather than use answers to elucidate or gain information, the DUP would snatch at answers or half-answers or parts of phrases to justify or reinforce its own view. I said very clearly in my answer that the intent of those organisations probably poses as much — or more — of a threat to people in Sinn Féin that it does to William McCrea. Dr McCrea: But — Mr Murphy: Sorry, will you let me answer the question, if you do not mind? That is the general view. For the past day and a half in this engagement, the DUP representatives have cobbled together bits from parts of answers to reinforce their view. No doubt, the DUP representatives will trawl through the Hansard report to pick out bits and pieces to reinforce their own world view and represent it to their party and community. However, that is a matter for themselves. I made clear the stance that Sinn Féin has taken, publicly and privately, against dissident organisations, and some people have disagreed strongly with us on that. We have also endeavoured to manage the frustration among our own supporters to ensure that nobody gives support to those organisations, and we have been largely successful in that. Those organisations regard us with even greater contempt than you do, William. As for giving information to the police, I repeat what I said previously: I do not have confidence that the PSNI would treat such information in a normal policing fashion, and the numerous revelations concerning the intelligence agencies’ handling of the Omagh bomb show that attitude to be justified. I have no confidence in the PSNI, and therefore I would not recommend anyone to do that which I would have no confidence in doing myself. I will continue, publicly and privately, as will my party, to confront those who support a renewed armed campaign to try to dissuade them from that course of action. Dr Farren: Do we finish at 12.00 noon? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We finish at 12.30 pm. Dr Farren: A real issue arises from this morning’s discussions. Let us assume — and it may be a big assumption to make — that we were to have our institutions restored along with an inclusive Executive, and the issues around policing and justice were resolved, so that full participation and support — in the form that is generally understood by those words — was forthcoming from all political parties. I wonder, Conor, what would Sinn Féin’s attitude be, particularly within the Executive, but generally politically, towards the likelihood that many cold cases could come before the courts — some of them involving loyalist paramilitaries and others from the IRA and, indeed, state agencies? What would Sinn Féin’s attitude be towards the pursuit of such cases, given your answers to questions about past acts of criminality and that you accept that some activities might not or would not be deemed criminal and therefore should not be pursued? Would they be pursued? Would there be approval, acquiescence, or indeed, support for the pursuit of those cases? That is a very real issue that could test all of us, given the attitudes that have been expressed towards particular incidents, some major atrocities, indeed, and others, not involving killings, but bank robberies and other forms of what in a normal situation would be regarded as illegal and criminal. Mr Murphy: I believe that the cold case review team is concerned only with killings, but besides that, you are outlining a hypothetical scenario. Dr Farren: With all due respect, I do not think that it is. Mr Murphy: Please let me finish. You are outlining a scenario in which the Executive has been formed, policing and justice powers have been devolved, and people have a confidence in and an acceptance of the policing arrangements. If policing arrangements are carried forward, then they obviously have the confidence of the parties who signed up to that. Dr Farren: There are cases that might end up in court involving activities that you and your colleagues, the whole Sinn Féin republican movement, have regarded as non-criminal. Would there be full support for the pursuit of those cases? It might well be that a Sinn Féin MLA could hold a position in a department for policing and justice, or a ministerial portfolio. He would have membership of the policing board, of a district policing partnership (DPP). Would there be campaigns for certain cases not to be proceeded with? In one sense you can say that I am being hypothetical, but if ongoing investigations are to continue — and I cannot imagine any agreement that they should not — we could well be faced with the scenario that I have outlined. It would be reassuring if you would accept that those matters should be pursued in the normal sense within the policing and judicial systems. Mr Murphy: Again, this does not just apply to Sinn Féin. It could well apply to your own party. Dr Farren: I have asked the same question of other parties. Mr Murphy: I noticed that the current Lord Mayor of Belfast was previously a member of another organisation. Dr Farren: It is not a question for us. Do not duck the question. Mr Murphy: You are outlining a scenario again — and I will repeat the answer — in which people have resolved the outstanding policing and justice issues and have given their support to policing arrangements. So that is a situation in which people are confident that those arrangements are carried forward in a professional and accountable manner. 12.00 noon The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is 12.00 noon. We are due to suspend at 12.30 pm. At that stage, discussions on the Sinn Féin paper will have lasted six and a half hours. We need to move on and attempt to complete discussions by 12.30 pm. Mr Ford has indicated that he wishes to speak. I am going to ask Mr Morrow to move his questions on. Mr Ford: I thought that Mr Morrow had moved on, which is why you had gone to Dr Farren. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We need some continuity. There have been many interjections during the questioning. Could I ask Mr Ford to speak, and I will try to give the DUP a good continuous run to finish off? Dr McCrea: We are nearly finished. Mr Ford: I am happy to wait my turn. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will allow Mr Morrow and Mr McCrea to finish their questioning. Mr Morrow: I have listened, Mr Deputy Speaker, to Sinn Féin. One thread runs through everything its members say: it is always someone else’s fault; it is never their fault. Mr Murphy said that Sinn Féin’s goal is a united Ireland. In response to Mr McFarland, he said that Sinn Féin had no desire to coerce the people of this country into a united Ireland. For the past 30 years, we could be forgiven for misunderstanding that there was an attempt to coerce us. I ask Mr Murphy whether he would like to comment on something. At the time of partition, the Protestant population in the South of Ireland stood at 12%; today it is 2% to 3%. That situation came about because of marginalisation, humiliation and discrimination, and the Protestant population left. Since partition, your population here has increased and grown to its present strength. It has doubled, at least, since partition. You never felt that this “statelet”, as you call it, which has been festooned in discrimination, was so bad that you would do what the Protestants did in the South — get out. You never felt that you were so badly done by that you wanted to cross the border and live in the promised land. How do you think that Protestants feel when you say that you have no desire to coerce us into a united Ireland? You also said that you could not, or would not, support the PSNI. Do you accept, whether you like them or not — you have told us often enough that you do not like them, but you told us the same thing about the RUC, the British Army and the UDR; you just do not like — Dr McCrea: And the DUP too. Mr Morrow: We always suspected that you did not like us. I do not know how we drew that conclusion, but we did suspect that. We suspect that you despise the very ground on which we stand. Bearing in mind that the PSNI is the most monitored police force in the world, what more does it have to do to enable you to endorse the force? Is it yet another case of the RUC not being acceptable and the PSNI not being acceptable and that we must have a force that is acceptable to your organisation? Mr Murphy: I do not despise the ground on which you stand, unless Tyrone is playing Armagh, when I have some difficulty. We can travel through the mists of time, but I never considered the promised land to be on the other side of the border, even though I live only five or six miles from it. Partition has failed both states on this island. The Northern state failed because it did not deliver what unionists wanted, and the Southern state did not deliver what, for me as an Irish republican, my grandfather wanted when he fought in the war of independence. Both states delivered the “carnival of reaction” that James Connolly predicted. There was a reactionary Catholic Southern state and a reactionary Protestant Northern state. Each did a disservice to those who lived in their confines. That is why republicans want to create an entirely new country on this island. We have never held up the 26 counties as a model of good practice. There are a variety of views on the demographic changes that Maurice Morrow outlined, and I have heard Southern Protestants offer a completely different view from his. However, that is an argument for another day. As for policing, we happen to be sticklers for agreements; you may condemn us for that if you wish. However, when people promise a new beginning to policing, we like to see it. The Patten Report brought in a series of proposals and Peter Mandelson messed them up, but we would like to hold the British Government to the proposals in that report. There are outstanding issues on policing. I do not have them here chapter and verse, but we would happily provide you with a copy — we have printed and published them, talked about them and made them available. We have said clearly that we would like satisfaction on those issues. We never get as personal as hating individuals or organisations, because that is a waste of emotion and energy; but, given our historical experience, we are trying to change things for the better. We are trying to create a policing service that is responsive and responsible to our community and to your community. That is our objective, and I think that we will be successful. However, there are outstanding issues, and I will make them available if you wish to read them. Dr McCrea: We have been told that anything that was done under the IRA’s instructions over the past 30 years — murder, extortion, counterfeiting or smuggling — was not criminal. Let us accept the scenario that Dr Farren put forward and say that under a restored Executive it was found that leading members of Sinn Féin — possibly even MLAs — had been involved in those cold cases and were brought before the courts to be charged with criminal activity, whether murder or one of the other crimes that I mentioned. Would Sinn Féin support the Administration in taking those cases forward? Mr Murphy: I will repeat the answer that I gave to Seán Farren. You describe a situation in which the outstanding policing issues have been resolved and when people have confidence in the handling of policing and judicial matters. If people have confidence in how those matters are handled, they will have confidence in how they are handled. If we are digging into the past, the same scenario may arise for the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. However, people will have to have confidence in how policing and judicial matters are handled. Dr McCrea: Sinn Féin has told us that it does not believe that those activities were criminal, as they were done under IRA instruction. Therefore whether Sinn Féin accepts the police or not is not the problem. The problem is those actions that were carried out under IRA instruction. Mr Murphy is clearly stating that if people involved in such cases were to be investigated and charged, Sinn Féin would support them. Mr Murphy: As I said, if we have confidence in the arrangements, we will have confidence in the arrangements. You have to remember that the British Government — your own Government — decided that anyone who was convicted before 1998 was considered a political prisoner and was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. I have no doubt that if the situation that you outlined pertained to a DUP member, they would be as likely as anyone else to invoke the 1998 early-release scheme. Dr McCrea: Once again, we have heard no answers. Earlier, it was stated that those involved in such cases were not criminals. How could they be charged with a crime if they are not criminals? We are used to hearing no answers and nothing but gobbledegook. However, the minutes will reveal what Conor Murphy said to this Committee. Let us therefore find out. We have dealt with the Executive set-up. There is a threat from the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. Will Sinn Féin support the forces of law and order in crushing the terrorist threat from the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA or whatever other grouping is out there? Mr Murphy: If Sinn Féin has confidence in the policing arrangements, it will give them whatever support they need. The situation pertains currently that we do not have confidence in the policing arrangements. If we get to that stage, then I would imagine that we would have confidence that the police are accountable, free from political intervention and responsive to the community. I would also envisage in that situation — and I know that you like to play up the threat of the enemy at the gate — where we are able to make political progress, we would have gone a long way to ending the likelihood of any campaign from any armed group, whether a dissident micro-republican group or a loyalist group. That is a challenge for us; it is a challenge for me and a challenge for you. If we have confidence in the policing arrangements, we will have confidence in the policing arrangements for handling those matters. Dr McCrea: Certainly, the answers that we have received do not, in my opinion, hasten that day, because there is no confidence in Sinn Féin and the answers that it has given today. Mr Murphy: We did not expect that you would get any, to be honest. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McNarry, who has not much of an opportunity, has indicated that he would like to come in on this point. Mr McNarry: This is a follow-up to what William and, earlier, Seán Farren said. I am unhappy with the response, so I would like to try it another way, Chairman. Conor, if as a result of investigations into cold cases, members of the IRA are sentenced, in your book are they exempt from the ramifications you outlined were activated by the IRA’s July statement? Mr Murphy: My understanding is that if the actions with which they were charged and sentenced were beyond July 2005 — Mr McNarry: They are not; we are talking about the cold case review. Mr Murphy: Then I presume that anyone made subject to the law as a result of the cold case review, providing it is prior to 1998, would have the same provisions applied as anyone else sentenced before 1998. Mr McNarry: I am asking where you think they sit within the IRA statement. Mr Murphy: The IRA statement is in relation to its own volunteers, post whatever date in July the statement was made. The cold case review that you are talking about probably goes from that right back to the early 1970s. Mr McNarry: If in that intervening period — and I know it is hypothetical, but it is important — Sinn Féin had not accepted policing, but the courts had accepted through the process of law and order that certain people were guilty and found them guilty of a crime committed during the time covered by the cold case review, where does the statement from the IRA sit in relation to that? Mr Murphy: I am struggling to understand that logic. The IRA statement related to the activities of volunteers beyond a point last July. If anybody is convicted out of the cold case review it is obviously at a time previous to last July, probably right back in the 1970s or the 1980s, perhaps in the 1990s. If he was part of the IRA, he would benefit from the same arrangements as anyone else who was part of the IRA prior to 1998 in relation to activities before 1998 — that is, the early-release scheme under the Good Friday Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have obviously been watching Mr Kennedy very carefully and picked up the tricks of the trade. There were actually three interventions there with Mr McNarry. Mr McFarland, you can have one minute. 12.15 pm Mr McFarland: I have one question, and it is key to a number of issues here. As Conor has said, offences committed in the period up until April 1998 are covered by the Belfast Agreement. Republicans after last July fall outside the cover of the republican movement. What happens to a republican who has been involved in activity, of whatever sort, after April 1998, where they are not covered by the Belfast Agreement get-out-of-jail-free card, but not after last July, and therefore it was sanctioned IRA activity, but not covered by the Belfast Agreement? How do you see yourselves and your followers dealing with a cold case review that finds that a senior republican has committed a crime, is before the courts and will spend life in jail, because there is no get-out-of-jail card here? How do you deal with that? Mr Murphy: I am not aware of any cold case review cases post-1998. As far as I am aware, there are not — Dr Farren: Or any case. Mr McFarland: The cold case reviews are right up to the moment. They are reviewing all cases up to when the review started last year. The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) covers all the way back. Mr Murphy: I am not aware of any post-1998, I have to say. Mr McNarry: We are not allowed to mention them, unfortunately. Mr McFarland: Suppose there are cases. Suppose you have a case from after 1998, so it is not covered by the get-out-of-jail-free card, and it is sanctioned activity because it is before July of last year. How do you see yourselves dealing with that if you are in Government and supporting the police? Mr Murphy: Again, as I have said, if we have confidence in the policing and judicial arrangements, then we will have confidence in those arrangements to deal with those matters. That is simply the way it will be. I am not aware of any such cases, so we are getting into a hypothetical situation about what might or might not happen. There are currently people in jail serving their sentences for offences post-1998. If we have confidence in policing and judicial arrangements and are back in an Executive here, then that will be the case. We will have confidence in them and in all the current processes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am now going to allow the DUP an opportunity to finish its questions uninterrupted, and then Mr Ford. Dr McCrea: To be fair to Mr Ford, I do not want to deny him his chance. To say it as quickly as I possibly can, there has been a statement from Sinn Féin at this Committee that it did not expect us to get confidence out of today. If there is no confidence, how does Sinn Féin expect us to move forward? Certainly the answers Sinn Féin has given were not given in order to give confidence to the unionist community at all. They have been evasive and empty and have only given credibility, succour and encouragement to republicans who have done things in the past with the cover that they were done in the name of the IRA. It will give great succour to them. I am sure that the unionist community will find no succour from that whatsoever. I would have thought that the purpose of the answer session was to at least try to give some confidence to the community that there is a way forward, because if there is not that confidence then there will be no way forward. Mr Murphy’s response is most revealing. As for this reliance on the get-out clause, families who have had their loved ones murdered, whether on the nationalist or unionist side, want justice. They will be sickened to know that there is a reliance on this get-out clause, hoping that it covers all the cases that will cause the IRA some discomfort. I really feel that that in itself has been most revealing. Here is a direct question: since the war is over, when will the IRA’s structures be demolished? Mr Murphy: I will preface my answer in the same way as William McCrea, and I repeat what I said at the start of this question, and have said several times since: my clear understanding — and nothing has been said to change it — is that the DUP did not enter this examination of Sinn Féin’s issues paper, which is what we are here to discuss, with a view to getting information to satisfy some of its concerns. Rather, its aim was to pick through our answers to reinforce the view that it already holds, and to strengthen and reinforce that view among its supporters. That is what the DUP has been about since it came to this Committee. This is not, and never has been, a genuine attempt to engage with Sinn Féin and the other political parties and to move forward in preparing for Government. Rather, it is an attempt to list obstacles, to reinforce and build them as high as possible; and where obstacles cannot be found, the DUP will invent them. That has been the DUP’s approach, and that was why I said that I did not expect that it would gain any confidence from our answers. Mr McCrea posed a question on the continuing existence of the IRA. I am not sure on what date the IRA was formed; I presume that it was formed in the early part of last century, and it has been in existence ever since. At times, that has exercised unionists; at other times, it has not. Unionist Governments have engaged in early release schemes for IRA prisoners before. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, they released IRA prisoners when they considered that the IRA no longer posed any threat. The IRA will go out of existence when it decides that it is time to do so. I have stated clearly that the armed struggle is over and the issue of IRA weapons has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the commission set up to deal with it, the two Governments and most political parties. The future intention of the IRA is clear. Its instructions to its volunteers are clear. That, for me, represents an enormous opportunity to make progress. Others will somehow try to find opportunities to frustrate progress. If they do not find them within the IRA, they will look to dissident organisations to try to find them, because they thrive on the enemy at the gate. That is how they have sustained their political careers and their political platform for the last 30 or 40 years, but that will not serve their community well in the future. This state is a failed political entity. Partition has failed both states on this island. If we want to create a better future for our community in this part of the island, and for the community across the island, we should seize opportunities, not try to find the negative in any opportunity presented to us. Mr Morrow: I think that the DUP has said this before, but from start to finish, we have heard from Sinn Féin that it is always, always someone else’s fault: the Brits, the DUP, the PSNI, the Army, or securocrats. Is there anything, but anything — no matter how minute — that Sinn Féin could do that might give a signal to the unionist community that it is for real? Mr Murphy: It is not always everybody else’s fault. Republicans are as responsible for the conflict as everyone else who took part. We do not absolve ourselves of any responsibility. Republicans took actions that caused hurt, and we accept responsibility for those actions. It is not everyone else’s fault apart from ours. That is a childish way to broach things. A complex political and historical problem has caused conflict in this country. It is the responsibility of anyone who wants to provide leadership to try to work their way out of that. I would go with you to an Orange Order hall in Dungannon or Tyrone, or any other hall or gathering that you arranged, and talk to your community. Last summer, I shared a platform with Arlene Foster in West Belfast, and I invited unionists to Camlough in South Armagh, where I live, to speak to people in my community and express their view of how things can move forward. Invite me to speak on a platform in your constituency, Magherafelt or South Antrim, and I will talk to members of your community. If that does not give them confidence, then at least we will have tried. At least a wider audience could hear what Sinn Féin has to say, rather than the filtered version of events, the snatches out of Hansard that you, William McCrea or other Members of the DUP may present to them. I am willing to speak to any audience in any DUP constituency, to answer any questions and explain and articulate our perspective on where we want to go in this country. Most people feel that dialogue is a clearer way of trying to resolve our problems than simply presenting each other’s view and the worst that we can find in each other to our own communities. We make provision and arrangements wherever we can for unionists to come to our community. I sat in Pilot’s Row in the Bogside in Derry when Gregory Campbell spoke to republicans, and I have sat with Arlene Foster in West Belfast. I have invited unionists to speak on platforms in South Armagh, and they have done so. Let us get some of that engagement in the unionist community, and then we will see what happens. Perhaps it will not generate anything, but it is certainly worth trying. Dr McCrea: There is nothing globally that Sinn Féin could do to send a message out to the unionist community. Mr Murphy: I am offering you an opportunity. Dr McCrea: We have not had a straight answer in six and a half hours, so I doubt that we ever will get one. Mr O’Dowd: It is worth trying surely. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Ford has been waiting patiently. We will leave him to ask the final question. He has seven minutes. Mr Ford: I will not take seven minutes, but Conor Murphy might take seven minutes to respond. We have spent several hours establishing the lack of confidence between Sinn Féin and the DUP. Sinn Féin Members have made it clear that they object to the IMC, its personnel, its methods, even its very existence, so I do not wish to revisit those points except to state that the Alliance Party proposed the body which has become the IMC because we believed that it had the opportunity to provide confidence, and it is starting to do that. Given that the bulk of questioning that Sinn Féin has been subjected to over the past couple of days has been from the DUP, does Sinn Féin accept that there are people in this community — and they are not all unionists — who have genuine concerns about the continuation of paramilitary activity since the signing of the agreement in April 1998? Those people sought to work with Sinn Féin and to move the process forward; they accept that decommissioning has occurred and that time had to be allowed for change to occur and for paramilitarism to come to an end, yet they have a nagging concern that there is still a level of paramilitary activity. Sinn Féin talked about other parties’ links with violence, and it specifically exempted the Alliance Party this morning but, in fairness, that probably ought to apply to the bulk of the SDLP and even to a few decent people who still vote Ulster Unionist. Do you accept that there are people who are genuinely seeking to move the process on but who, at the moment, are not confident that all paramilitary activity has ceased? I say “all paramilitary” conscious of the fact that that I can ask you about only one particular paramilitary group. How can Sinn Féin provide reassurance to those people, if it believes that other people are here almost seeking not to be reassured? Mr Murphy: That is a useful distinction. I would caution you against falling into the two-party problem trap, which Alliance seems to readily jump into on every occasion, that the problem is a confidence issue between the DUP and Sinn Féin. There are lots of confidence issues between all the parties. Mr Ford: I was merely highlighting the confidence that has failed to be shown over the past few hours of this discussion. Mr Murphy: That is fair enough, but there are a lot of confidence issues between all the parties. Mr McNarry: For the record, if Mr Ford failed to pick that up, and to reassure him of our position, the Ulster Unionists do not have great confidence in what we have heard either. 12.30 pm Mr Murphy: I accept that you do not want to be out-DUPed by the DUP, but that is fair enough. In answering David Ford’s question, I address you as well. There are people who do have genuine issues and I accept that. The best way is through genuine dialogue, which will help to address those concerns. You rightly point out that the DUP approach, rather than trying genuinely to address those concerns and have some degree of confidence grow from that — because we have issues of concern with other parties, agencies and organisations — has been to try to find further reasons for a lack of engagement and to try to reinforce the world view that we have already heard. This is probably the first lengthy exchange that we have had across a Committee room with members of the DUP. I had hoped that it would have been a positive experience. Perhaps somewhere in it there will be nuggets that they can cling to that might help them to change their view on issues. However, I suspect that their purpose in this exercise was not to prepare for the restoration of Government but to try to find further obstacles to the return of devolution — I am afraid that that has been reinforced by the nature, not just of the questioning, but of the commentary that went with it. While all parties have genuine concerns, the best way to address them — as we have been doing since 1998 and before — is through bilateral meetings and open dialogue with all the other political parties. You are quite right; there are some who do not wish their concerns to be addressed because their very reason for existence is based on those concerns being sustained. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have two minutes, Mr Ford. Mr Ford: Mr Murphy appears to imply that if devolution of justice occurs Sinn Féin would have confidence in the police service. Until we reach that point, who is responsible for dealing with any criminal activity on the part of IRA members that might have come to light since the statement of July last year? Mr Murphy: The people who are responsible for dealing with any matters of bringing people before the courts are those in the current policing and judicial system. We must be able to go to our party with confidence that we can work with the arrangement and we must ensure that they have confidence as well. Then we will have to convince the community who support us that there is sufficient in the policing arrangements to allow us to have confidence in them. When we reach that stage, the outstanding policing matters will be resolved. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will adjourn the meeting until noon on Monday. There will be lunch, and we will hear details from the SDLP’s paper, which, I understand, Mr Farren will take the lead on. Mr Molloy will be in the Chair. Adjourned at 12.33 pm. |