Examination of Witnesses (Questions 681-699)
MR MICHAEL
GALLAGHER, MR
WILLIAM JAMESON,
MR WILLIAM
FRAZER AND
MR WILLIAM
WILKINSON
28 FEBRUARY 2005
Q681 Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you for
coming to help us with this inquiry because, as you know, we are
struggling to find a way forward, to put the past behind us, what
sort of means might best be used to achieve that. We know where
you come from and perhaps you would like to tell us first of all
what the purpose of your work is as briefly as possible—we
know how it started—and what really the purpose of your
work is for the victims of the conflict.
Mr Gallagher: We now have Mr Frazer.
Mr Frazer: Sorry if I am late.
Q682 Chairman: Not at all, I gather you
have come rather a long way.
Mr Frazer: Yes, I just landed
this morning.
Q683 Chairman: You are very welcome.
Mr Gallagher, Mr Jameson, just tell us a little bit about your
work with the victims?
Mr Gallagher: The group we represent
was formed really within two months of the Omagh bomb; it was
the Omagh bomb families that got together themselves because we
felt that there was not the support that we needed, and I am not
so sure at the end of the day at that time that any support could
have helped us, but we just felt that we got support from each
other. The group was formed and it consisted of a wide variety
of people coming from different religious and political backgrounds,
and when we had meetings we did not ask anyone to leave their
politics or religion outside the door and it did not become an
issue. The key thing that united us was the fact that we all wanted
justice and the group went on to continue to support each other—that
was the primary function of the group—and then at a later
date there came issues that we had to deal with, issues arising
out of the Omagh Fund, how the Fund was distributing and handling
the charity that was sent to Omagh, there were many questions
around that, and events that were happening in the aftermath of
Omagh, the generosity of people, there seemed to be some confusion
on how that was handled. Those were the first issues that we got
involved in and how the Omagh District Council and the Sperrin
Lakeland Trust were not very much involved in that. We fed back
to those agencies and other Government agencies. Then, coming
up to the Ombudsman's investigation into the investigation into
the Omagh bomb, the justice issue then became more real for the
families, but just prior to that we had concerns that there was
no convictions and we had pursued the RUC at that time. That was
something that we were very much involved in, but the group seems
to have evolved around the issue of pursuing those who planted
the bomb in Omagh, that was a big part of it, the fact that we
had little or no justice three years after the event. We then
had what we call the Nuala O'Loan/Ronnie Flanagan affair, but
in the interim we were very much focused on the people who planted
the bomb in Omagh. We held a vigil outside a pub in west Belfast
where they were holding a fundraiser; we also went to Central
London where they had organised a fundraiser with a Cuban solidarity
group and a Turkish terrorist group.
Q684 Chairman: Who, the IRA had?
Mr Gallagher: The 32 Counties
Sovereign Movement, which was the political wing of the Real IRA.
Q685 Chairman: INLA, yes.
Mr Gallagher: No, Real IRA.
Q686 Chairman: The Real IRA, yes. I am
sorry, I do know what I am talking about, I have just got my letters
in the wrong order.
Mr Gallagher: There are so many
three-letter groups in Northern Ireland. What happened was we
pursued those people and we sought the help of government to pursue
them, and I must say that that did not always happen. One of the
most important things the group has ever done was to put the Real
IRA on the American foreign terrorists list; the Irish Government
were not keen on that at all, they in fact opposed it, but nevertheless
it did happen and that was the first time that an Irish terrorist
group had ever been on the American foreign terrorist list. That
was one of the first acts of President Bush when he came into
power and then again it was renewed, it is renewed every two years,
and it was renewed again after it expired. We have quite a difficult
job putting pressure on the Governments to pursue terrorists,
and some of us—Billy and myself and others—had a meeting
with David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, because we had concerns
about the 2000 Terrorist Bill. There seems to be a view within
the British and Irish Governments—and it is not common anywhere
else because I came back yesterday from Bogota and other governments
in other countries do not make a distinction between national
and international terrorists. Our feeling was why should you be
selective because terrorists do co-operate across borders, but
there seems to be an attitude here of treating Irish terrorists
as different from all the other terrorist organisations, and we
pressed the Home Secretary on this. We can only assume that the
British Government does not want to offend terrorists by calling
them exactly what they are, terrorists, and we have noted now
when attacks take place that it is either loyalist paramilitaries
or republican paramilitaries or dissidents, the word "terrorist"
seems to have been removed from the dictionary that we used too
often in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years. That is basically
where we are, we have had that struggle with the Irish Government
but we overcame it, and the Secretary of State again did not make
any changes in the 2000 Terrorist Bill so all the regulations
that apply after September 11, a lot of them do not apply to Irish
terrorists, and we do not see these terrorists being pursued in
the same way.
Q687 Chairman: Thank you very much. It
is a question really of how we start to create discussion about
reconciliation. Do you think that should be victim-centred, or
does that put too much pressure on those who suffered the most?
Mr Jameson: I would like to respond
to that. What is a victim over in Northern Ireland? The problem
now is that we have so many victims or so-called victims, people
dealing in drugs, gangsters, they are all classed as victims.
They are not victims of terrorism, they are victims of their own
doing.
Q688 Chairman: I think one can leave
drug dealers out of this for the moment.
Mr Jameson: But the government
have not, they are giving away millions of pounds from the memorial
fund—
Mr Gallagher: That was the fund
set up for victims.
Mr Jameson: It has been hijacked
now, the Government hijacked it themselves by saying if you are
involved as a victim of a drug dealer you can go to the memorial
fund and pick up £200 or £300, yet us as victims of
terrorism—not troubles, terrorism—we have the same
following through as they have. I go back to Mr Bloomfield's report
here—it was a joke, I thought. He escaped the real meaning,
i.e. we are victims of terrorism, not troubles, terrorism. Probably
I am walking way too far here, but under the 1988 Criminal Justice
Act if you were not within 25 yards of a bomb going off, you were
not entitled to compensation. Because the Omagh bomb happened
in 1998 we are in between two stools, we are not classed as victims
according to Mr Bloomfield's report, and we want an answer from
yourself on this.
Q689 Chairman: It is not for anybody
to answer questions now. (A person walks into the hearing). Excuse
me, who is this?
Mr Frazer: He is a colleague of
mine. He was on the same plane. I am sorry, did you not realise
that he was coming?
Chairman: Fine. Let us try and get away,
if we can, from the general points to the specific, which is what
I think you can help us with. Mr Roy Beggs.
Q690 Mr Beggs: Good afternoon. How far
have Government initiatives succeeded in addressing the practical
needs of victims?
Mr Frazer: I will respond, if
it is open to the floor. The Government basically is only doing
the minimum that they think they can get away with, and in reality
they are producing these so-called groups who are running an agenda
alongside the Government.
Q691 Chairman: Which sort of groups?
Mr Frazer: Like the Trauma Advisory
Panel which we have actually withdrawn from because there are
more prisoner groups on it now than there are victims groups.
These people are supposed to deal with victims; we know some of
the things that they have organised—they were bringing people
off the street out of community groups and using victims' money
to take them away to do different things. The problem is, victims
will not go to these groups because they do not know who they
are dealing with. There is a security problem, there is a trust
problem, they will not go to them, but the Government has given
them money hand over fist to work with victims and they have not
got the ability to do it. They are pulling in everybody and anybody
to make up numbers; people sit on these trauma advisory groups
and there are prisoners groups, there is everybody and their dog
except for victims. That has to stop because the Government is
talking about 18½ million victims: it is a rotten lie, so
it is. I stand over that and I will challenge any Government Minister
that wants to sit there and put the figures out. That is in fact,
not in Government statistics, where the money has gone. This is
where the problem is coming from, they are not dealing with the
victims, they are dealing with the perpetrators, anybody that
will make up numbers. Trips have been organised in this country,
taking 50 people away and they might have five of them who are
victims. It is costing £5,000 or £6,000 a time, and
there are victims actually out there who cannot get the money
that is needed to help them, but it is because these people are
saying it is cross-community. The reality is that cross-community
is paramilitary and victim, that is what they are moving towards.
Cross-community between Catholic and Protestant is not a problem,
but it is a problem to be perpetrator and victim, and anywhere
you go in the world—as Michael said, we have come back from
Colombia, there was no perpetrator at that conference and there
were certainly none standing on the platform, so why should I
come back to Northern Ireland and be asked to stand on the platform
with one in Northern Ireland.
Mr Gallagher: If I could just
come back, Mr Chairman, to the question you asked about reconciliation;
if you were sitting where I am sitting and people mention reconciliation,
what exactly do they mean by that? Do they mean that I should
reconcile with the person that assassinated my brother and murdered
my son? My colleague, William Jameson, is a Presbyterian, I am
a Roman Catholic: we have no problem with each other, but if you
are saying reconcile with the perpetrators, that is an entirely
different ball-game. That is a personal choice that the victims
have to make: some may choose to make that and some may not, but
what I have decided to do is work with the victims, but I do agree
with what William has said that there seems to be almost a muddying
of the waters here, that the victim and the perpetrator are not
being reasonable if they do not come together. Many of the conferences
we go to here in Northern Ireland, people are saying everybody
in Northern Ireland is a victim. People can judge it whatever
way they want but, again, this is the second international conference
on victims of terrorism that I have been to, last year was the
first one in Madrid. I have not seen any perpetrators at those
conferences and the word terrorism is used. We have never faced
up to it and said these people are terrorists.
Q692 Chairman: I think we have; we called
the IRA terrorists.
Mr Gallagher: But you have stopped
calling them, as I pointed out.
Q693 Chairman: Some have. Please give
your name and where you are from so we have it on the record.
Mr Wilkinson: My name is William
Wilkinson, I work as a researcher for FAIR—Families Acting
for Innocent Relatives. I really want to underscore what I have
heard before; the difficulty in dealing with the past, even in
practical terms, is the idea of who exactly is a victim? I think
it is only, as Michael has said, whenever we step outside Northern
Ireland that we see a clear picture of exactly, in international
terms, the differentiations made. The problem is that in the undue
haste that there has been to, I suppose, construct a political
deal in Northern Ireland there is an inclusive political model
being used. The difficulty is that that cannot be squared with
dealing with the past vis a vis victims, in that the politicians,
whilst subject to society, may not have the same problems, it
is extremely difficult if not impossible at this period in time
for victims to be forced together. I suppose the first point that
we have always made is that if anybody is genuine in their attempt
to deal with Northern Ireland's past, the first thing they must
task themselves to do is to actually deal with victims, they are
the most obvious, some are bereaved but they are very much the
visible and physical product of the past. The first thing I suppose
we would underscore to the Committee is that we are very glad
you have taken the time to meet victims and their representatives;
anybody who is genuine in their attempt to deal with Northern
Ireland's past must deal primarily with victims and, sadly, we
have seen previously that that perhaps has been an afterthought.
We would like, as we see it, the opportunity here for the first
time for victims to be placed, as we can see with other governments
such as Colombia, Spain, very much in the vanguard of attempts
to deal with the past.
Chairman: That is very interesting. We
have a lot of questions to get through, I must say. I have asked
my colleagues to make their questions brief and I would be very
grateful if you would do your best to make your answers brief.
Mr Beggs.
Q694 Mr Beggs: Would the creation of
a victims ombudsman help to ensure that the needs of victims are
heard within government?
Mr Wilkinson: Yes. We as a group—and
certainly we have lobbied within other groups in Northern Ireland—would
certainly support that idea and, as a model, we have looked to
the Children Commissioner for Northern Ireland, and the general
rationale for that commission also applies to victims.
Q695 Chairman: You probably have not
heard yet—and this may cut the rest of it short—that
two days ago the Secretary of State announced that he planned
to appoint a victims commissioner.
Mr Frazer: I actually did know,
Chairman, that that was supposed to happen but within politics,
until you actually hear that it has happened—
Q696 Chairman: It has not happened, I
said it is going to happen.
Mr Gallagher: If I could just
mention two things briefly here, just on the second question,
what views do you have regarding the Government's dealing with
the past initiative, the first thing that needs to happen is that
there needs to be a proper compensation package for the victims
of the past 35 years. The benefit of that would be that we do
not need bus trips and go to meetings with cups of tea—I
do not really want to be sitting here doing what I am doing. I
was never a member of any group before the Omagh bomb and we can
deal, believe it or not, with what we have got to deal with, the
issues in our lives. I will move on, but until that happens we
cannot do that. The memorial fund has already been mentioned,
there are millions and there probably will be billions because
they have now moved the goalposts to include drug dealers, people
who were victims of feuds between paramilitary groups—that
is one point I want to make. The other point is that a few weeks
ago I had a phone call from a journalist based in London, a French
journalist. It has been announced by the European Commission that
there is going to be a European day of remembrance for victims
of terrorism, and what he says here is "Working on behalf
of the European Commission for justice, freedom and security we
intend to interview people who have been confronted with acts
of terrorism in Europe. Our goal is to inform the European public
about the lives of victims and their relatives of terrorism. The
film will be proposed to TV channels in Europe in order to accompany
the first European day of remembrance for victims of terrorism
which will take place on 11 March 2005, one year after the bombings
in Madrid." This film crew came from Toulouse in France;
they interviewed people in eight European countries, victims of
terrorism. They interviewed myself and a lady whose son died in
the Omagh bomb and they interviewed two people in mainland Britain,
one was a victim of Lockerbie and I think the other one was a
victim of a foreign terrorist act. I also asked them who else
they were interviewing and they said they were interviewing senior
Government ministers in each country, and they said they had learned
that there was a victims minister here in Northern Ireland. They
applied to interview her and she refused and she pointed them
towards the Home Office, who also refused. These were people who
did not fully understand the position in Northern Ireland—they
could not understand why Government ministers would not participate
in the interviews. This was something that was passed by the European
Commission, so that is how Government treats victims, they are
almost trying to wipe this out as if it did not happen. I can
furnish you with the details of these people who came here and
conducted the interview; the interviews will be shown on European
television on 11 March, but the Government has not participated.
Q697 Chairman: Thank you for that.
Mr Frazer: The thing about the
victims commissioner is, are victims going to be involved in who
is actually appointed?
Q698 Chairman: The Government has to
make that appointment.
Mr Frazer: Yes, but will the victims
have an input?
Q699 Chairman: I do not know. The Secretary
of State will consult, but if you have a strong feeling about
it there is nothing to stop you writing to the Secretary of State.
Mr Gallagher: Surely the Secretary
of State should consult the views of the victims.
|
