Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-70)
MR TOM
ROBERTS AND
MR WILLIAM
SMITH
2 FEBRUARY 2005
Q60 Mark Tami: Have you had any sort
of response so far?
Mr Roberts: We have had a good
response, even from nationalists and republicans, who at least
welcome it from the point of view that our point of view is clearly
articulated as to why there is a resistance to a truth recovery
process in the community.
Mark Tami: Thank you.
Q61 Chairman: We are getting a very clear
indication of your views which you are putting very frankly and
helpfully, but there is just one thing that slightly bugs me and
that is the fact that you are always referring to your objections
in the context that the republicans are better at it and will
make more of it than you can. If I can put it this way, that is
a negative reason. If there was a way to conduct some form of
truth recovery which was not comparative, would you still see
no positive benefit at all? Forget the republicans for a minute,
but just imagine that you were looking at your community and at
the pros and cons of letting it all out, talking about it and
trying to put it behind you. I understand your fear that the republicans
will make much of this—that is one of the reasons that we
are having these hearings in private—there will be platforms
and everything else, but put that to one side; can you see no
good coming out of this at all?
Mr Smith: To be frank, Ulster
says no, and these are the reasons why they say no, and they are
elucidated in this document. There are lots of reasons; we could
have just turned round and said no, but here are the reasons why.
I do not see any benefit.
Q62 Chairman: But every one of your answers
has had reference to what the Republicans would do.
Mr Roberts: Not all of them.
Q63 Chairman: If you did not have that
anxiety, is there still no good that could come of it?
Mr Roberts: It is a very difficult
question to answer, but at this point in time I cannot really
see any good. I would not be so insensitive as to try to envisage
myself as a victim, but depending on what the definition of a
victim is maybe loyalist victims groups feel that there is some
benefit. I do not see much evidence of that, though, having talked
to loyalist victims of the conflict.
Chairman: Okay. Mr Steve Pound.
Q64 Mr Pound: Gentlemen, I just want
to add to the chairman's thanks for the honesty and transparency
of the answers you have given, it is greatly appreciated. You
referred to the implications of this process earlier on, and I
value what you have said. Some experts—and the fact that
they are experts does not mean that we should necessarily rule
them out—have said that it could be helpful for encounters
to take place between former adversaries, and I have actually
been at meetings with David Irvine when he has met people who
basically were trying to kill him a few years ago. I accept that
that may be exceptional, but do you think there is any value in
meetings between former adversaries and have you formally or informally
put any such meetings in train?
Mr Roberts: I think I alluded
to that earlier on when I said we have created opportunities where
former prisoners, people who were formerly involved in the conflict,
have been able to engage with one another in the hope that we
can create a better understanding of one another's positions so
that the likelihood of going back to violent means of solving
conflict is brought to an end and we can look at other methods
that can be used to resolve conflict. We have created lots of
opportunities and we are engaged with all sorts of people who
are involved in conflict, the police people, the British Army,
republicans of various hues and loyalists of various hues as well.
Q65 Mr Pound: I appreciate the initiatives
that you have set in train; what are the consequences? Did such
meetings take place?
Mr Smith: Today, for instance,
I should have been on a web design course along with republican
prisoners; that is a joint web design course that we are doing.
So it is an ongoing process and we are very heavily involved in
that to try to learn in Northern Ireland.
Q66 Mr Pound: Do you think that the outcome
of such meetings is productive and helpful?
Mr Roberts: We would view it as
productive, although there has been some disingenuous activity
in the past with these engagements, but we are prepared to engage
with anyone in the hope that it will make a difference and make
the likelihood of violence much more remote than what it has been
in the past.
Mr Pound: Thanks very much indeed; I
think the rest of the points have been covered, chairman.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr Greg Campbell.
Q67 Mr Campbell: You have made it fairly
clear, despite repeated questions about your reaction to the truth
recovery project, what your general reaction is to it. Is there
any other work that you are doing about attitudes to the past
that you have not alluded to as yet in your submission?
Mr Roberts: The only thing that
I can say is that what we try to do is look to the future and
use our experience to hopefully impress upon our young people
that the methods that we used are not appropriate any more, and
to try and resolve their difficulties by other means, what we
would call conflict transformation, because in our view there
is no resolution really to the conflict in Northern Ireland because
you have two irreconcilable political ideologies, so if we can
transform it from one of violence, that is what we would aspire
to do.
Q68 Mr Campbell: You referred earlier
to your work with the ex-prisoners groups and the problems that
some of them and their families were faced with in terms of employment
rights and opportunities. Would you accept though that there would
be people in Northern Ireland who have never broken the law in
any way, who would have equal difficulties about employment opportunities
and chances to gain full employment, who would look at ex-prisoners'
complaints about that with some scepticism.
Mr Smith: We have said we do not
want to be any better off than anybody else, but what we did say
we want is a level playing field. I was convicted in relation
to the Troubles; when I go for a job I have to put down my sentence
and what I was imprisoned for etc on every application form, which
puts me at a complete disadvantage right away. I have been out
of prison for over 30 years now and I am still an ex-prisoner,
so it never goes away and it is not a level playing field. If
I apply for a taxi driver's licence to work, I cannot get one,
it can be objected to, so it is not a level playing field. We
are not asking for any more than anybody else, we are just asking
to be treated the same.
Q69 Mr Campbell: But you would accept
that there are some employment opportunities that would be sensitive,
such as security-related employment where you probably would not
get the same opportunities.
Mr Smith: I accept that ex-prisoners
should not be able to join the police force, but my children should
be able to, my relatives should be able to because they have never
done anything wrong. That is what we are saying.
Mr Roberts: I accept what you
are saying fully, we do not remain in some sort of persecution
complex mode and we realise that there are people who have never
infringed the law at all who have difficulties in employment,
but remove the obstacles and if we are still having difficulties
then we are just like everybody else.
Mr Smith: Over particularly the
last five or six years loyalism has all been tarred with one brush,
that they are all gangsters. But that is not the case, the vast
majority of loyalists that we know who are ex-prisoners, are in
gainful employment and are working in positive ways within the
protestant community. So the issue about community workers, I
have been one of the community for over 20 years, since I came
out of prison, so there are a lot of positive things from ex-prisoners
coming through within the community.
Chairman: Mr Roy Beggs.
Q70 Mr Beggs: One of the most painful
crosses that ex-prisoners have to bear is the fact that their
children do not get considered at all for posts in the armed services.
No reasons are given and I presume that you, like us, would want
to know for how long will that be maintained.
Mr Roberts: Certainly, we do not
feel that that should exist because you cannot be responsible
for the sins of your father; there are lots of these children
who were not even born when their fathers were involved in the
conflict so why they should be discriminated against is beyond
me.
Chairman: Mr Roberts, Mr Smith, thank
you very much indeed for being so frank with us. It has been a
very interesting session for the Committee, we are very grateful
to you.
| 
