Irish Political News

More strange goings-on in the long-running saga that is the Ihab Shoukri case - and the “serious nature” of the charges brought. Mr Justice Gillen today recused himself in the case because, as the BBC reports, “case papers given to him contained certain details ‘which may be adverse’ to some of the accused”.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Mr Justice Gillen said he was stepping down “in the interests of justice”. He ordered the retrial to begin on Monday.  He said he had not read any of the material in question, but decided “the interests of justice require me to recuse myself”, and therefore he could not hear any further evidence in the case.  Mr Justice Gillen added that justice should not only be done in a case, but also be seen to be done.

Presumably those case papers were prepared by the DPP..  Yesterday several reports picked up on the speech noted by Mick in March 2006 and which, it is alleged, Ihab Shoukri had personally written. Particularly the line on the UDA - “We will never go away, you know.” But the other intriguing line from what was portrayed - by certain interested parties - as the ‘bad’ UDA declared that they “must now take our fight into the political arena”.  Adds UTV report.

A change in the weather.. or just an historic snapshot..

From the previously noted statement.

So we must now take our fight into the political arena.  However, this does not spell the end for the UDA.  We want to reassure you all that the Ulster Defence Association is here to stay. I would also like to take this opportunity to let our prisoners and their families know that we will continue to fight for them.  And while Hugh Orde continually calls us criminals and puts only North Belfast Brigade Staff in jail on trumped up charges, we remain as strong as ever.

And a reminder of the meeting which a PSNI raid disrupted..

The Northern Ireland Bill of Rights Forum completed its weekend deliberations and delivered its final report [pdf file] today - there’s a correction to the report too [pdf file].  The BBC report points to both the DUP and the Catholic Church’s boycott of the launch of the report [pdf file] at the Hilton Hotel, linking that boycott to an issue which the Assembly has already debated.. but the UTV report indicates that the DUP’s criticism of the report is based on much wider grounds. Adds Full DUP statement here

DUP Forum delegate Peter Weir said: “We want to see a Bill of Rights which can command that support across the population of Northern Ireland. What has been produced does not even come close to representing that.”

He continued: “The main recommendations are contained in Chapter Four of the report. That chapter contains 41 substantive proposals. None of these proposals were passed unanimously and none of them have cross community support.  “There are 216 secondary recommendations. None of them was passed unanimously and a mere seven have cross-community support,” he added.

Over to you, Monica..

Via Newshound. Interesting view-point from Kevin Myers on The Process™ and the ‘price of peace’. Room too for some archival links - on Gerry Adams, “armed struggle” was “necessary”, MI5 and the back-channel, and the US government’s role in the latter part of that Process™. Read the whole thing.

For the peace process was solely about ensuring the IRA never bombed London again; and as far as MI5 - the prime movers of the peace process - was concerned, the corruption of Northern Irish political life was a small price to pay.

Before heading over to Mark Devenport’s blog to see the draft Bill of Rights, delivered by Chris Sidoti for discussion at the Bill of Rights Forum, it is worth reminding people what the remit given the Forum was in the first place:

“To advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and – taken together with the ECHR – to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.”

Now, before anyone panics, there is still most of a weekend of discussions (and presumably a lot of horse trading) before this gets passed on to the Human Rights Commission. Thence, it will pass through various hands (the most brutal of which is likely to be the NIO) before showing up at Stormont. But some of the stuff that’s in there bears little relationship to enactable law. More importantly, much of seems to have flagrantly ignored the remit and/or has gone way beyond matters that are under the control of the devolved institutions.

One slightly bemused delegate told Slugger:

The Unionists are largely opposed as most new rights are outwith the remit, excepted (UK) matters, programmatic, party political issues or uncosted as well as frequently repeating what is in the ECHR and thus the Human Rights Act.

The ‘voluntary’ sector has no concept of compromise and are almost religious in their certainties. Zealotry is one description or silent solidarity. CoSO could be described as the mute sector.

Most of its proposals are worthy but to the left of the left of the Labour Party. The SDLP is in favour of anything and everything except abortion and won’t oppose any SF proposal. DUP were somewhat intermittent in their attendance but have become more rigorous of late.

Another source agreed to an extent there was an air of unreality to some of the proposals coming from the voluntary sectors, but that some of the critical players, like the Unions, had experience of bargaining and was confident that the final draft can be whittled down to something more likely to get enacted.

There has been no voting mechanism agreed, so the Forum is in for an intense weekend of horse trading bit by bit until it’s offering due to be delivered on Monday at 2pm at the Hilton Hotel. A rally called by the Human Rights Consortium for Monday afternoon has been cancelled due to “ongoing workloads and time restrictions in the build up to the end of the Forum’s work”.

“Whatever happened to..”, indeed..  Funding wasn’t mentioned in the reports on the unaccredited Belfast community-based Restorative Justice scheme but, via Newshound, we have a report on an attempt to secure funding for the Barcroft CRJ scheme from Newry and Mourne Council, as proposed by Sinn Féin councillor Brendan Curran - despite the scheme not signing up to the NIO protocols. The Newry Democrat report ends by noting that

It was then decided that money will be ring-fenced for Barcroft CRJ from council funds until the group signs up to the protocols.

The condition should, surely, be “until the group receives full accreditation”?  But a second SF councillor adds the quote of the day

However SDLP councillor Gary Stokes expressed his concerns that the group had not yet signed up to protocols required by the Northern Ireland Office for CRJ funding. Sinn Fein’s Pat McGinn said that knowing the members of the group personally he could vouch for them as honest and law-abiding citizens and accused the SDLP of demonising the CRJ.

It’s not the first time the issue has come up at Newry and Mourne Council, as the minutes of the Council’s monthly meeting on 5 June 2006 show [pdf file]

M/171/2006 - SPECIAL STAFF AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING TO CONSIDER AND ASSESS VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION APPLICATIONS UNDER THE ‘N’ CATEGORY (REF: M/4/2)

Read: Report of Special Meeting of the Staff and Policy Committee, to which all Councillors were invited, to consider and assess Voluntary Contribution Applications under the ‘N’ Category for 2006 / 2007 held on Friday 19 May 2006. (Copy circulated)

Councillor Hearty proposed and Councillor McDonald seconded that the above Report be approved and the recommendation contained therein, i.e. that:-
“Funding for applications which scored 22 points or more, and which requested £5,000 plus, would be capped at £5,000 and that applications requesting less that £5,000 and scoring over 22 points would receive 75% of the amount requested i.e. at a total of £147,175”

As an amendment to Councillor Hearty’s proposal, Councillor Carr proposed and Councillor Kennedy seconded the Report of the Special Meeting of the Staff and Policy Committee held on Friday 19 May 2006 to consider and assess Voluntary Contribution Applications under the ‘N’ Category for 2006/2007 be approved subject to the following amendment: -

“Voluntary Contribution Applications from Greater Barcroft Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1346) and the Gap of the North Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1345) be taken out of the Voluntary Contribution Applications for 2006/2007 and the groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Northern Ireland Office for funding.

The Voluntary Contribution Applications from Dromintee Community Safety Group (ref 1284), Meigh Safety Awareness Association (ref 1310), Jonesborough Community Safety Group (ref 1347) and Forkhill Community Group (ref 1348) be taken out of the Voluntary Contributions Applications for 2006/2007 and the Groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Community Safety Unit, Belfast for funding”

Councillor Carr said he was concerned that people were encouraged by Community Safety Groups to ring a mobile telephone number as opposed to contacting the PSNI.

Councillor Kennedy said he believed that the 6 groups needed to be removed from the Voluntary Contributions list, as none of those groups were actively working with the PSNI and other lawful agencies engaged in this work.

Mr McCall reminded Members of the legal advice that had been given to the Council during 2005 in relation to grant application from CRJ Groups.

He advised that any decisions taken must be in line and in accordance with these legal advices.

He advised Members that copies of the legal advices were available for them at tonight’s Meeting.

There followed a lengthy discussion on the procedures involved in compiling the Voluntary Contribution Applications list from the initial advertising stages to the scoring and assessing stages.

Councillor Reilly pointed out that when Councillor Hearty had made his proposal at the Special Staff and Policy Meeting held on Friday 19 May 2006, he had agreed in principle but would adhere to the legal advice previously given to the Council in relation to this matter.

Councillor Mussen said he believed the scoring system for Voluntary Contribution Applications should be revisited before next year. He said the Community Safety Groups may be viewed as complimentary rather than replacing policing. He said community pressure on those who did commit anti-social behaviour must be mindful of Human Rights and he did not in any way support vigilante groups.

Councillor Connolly asked that it be recorded that he had at no time attempted to block any Group in the Mournes area from receiving Council funding.

Councillor Carr said he wished it recorded that he did not discriminate against groups from the South Armagh area.

The amendment proposed by Councillor Carr and seconded by Councillor Kennedy “that the Report of the Special Meeting of the Staff and Policy Committee held on Friday 19 May 2006 to consider and assess Voluntary Contribution Applications under the ‘N’ Category for 2006/2007 be approved subject to the following amendment: -

Voluntary Contribution Applications from greater Barcroft Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1346) and the Gap of the North Community Restorative Justice Group (ref 1345) be taken out of the Voluntary Contribution Applications for 2006/2007 and the groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Northern Ireland Office for funding.

The Voluntary Contribution Applications from Dromintee Community Safety Group (ref 1284), Meigh Safety Awareness Association (ref 1310), Jonesborough Community Safety Group (ref 1347) and Forkhill Community Group (ref 1348) be taken out of the Voluntary Contributions Applications for 2006/2007 and the Groups be advised and encouraged to apply to the Community Safety Unit, Belfast for funding” was put to a recorded vote and the voting was as follows: (copy attached)

FOR: 14
AGAINST: 12
ABSTENTIONS: 3

The amendment was declared carried.
The amendment became the Substantive Motion and was put to a vote and voting was as follows:-

FOR: 14
AGAINST: 12
ABSTENTIONS: 1

The Motion was declared carried.

Councillor Curran said he wished it recorded that he was against the Motion, as the only groups that were ever excluded from the Voluntary Contributions List were the Restorative Justice Groups.

Councillor Reilly said he wished it recorded that his vote was based on legal advice received last year.

It was further agreed that Mr R Dowey, Director of Finance prepare a Report detailing the funding which had not now been taken up under the ‘N’ Section and that this Report be tabled for consideration at the Finance Committee Meeting to be held on Thursday 15 June 2006, to which all Members were to be invited to attend for discussion on this item and to agree allocation of this money.

On the proposal of Councillor Kennedy seconded by Councillor Oliver it was agreed to convene a Fews Area Councillors Meeting with Tullyvallen Football Club and appropriate Council Official to discuss their Voluntary Contribution Application.

And the issue reappears in the minutes of the Annual General Meeting on 19th June 2006 [pdf file]

D.D/209/2006 - TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE RE ‘N’ SECTION VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS (REF: M/4/2)

Read: Minute of Finance Sub Committee Meeting held on Thursday 15 June 2006 in respect of ‘N’ Section Voluntary Contributions was which referred to the District Development Committee Meeting.

The recommendations were as follows: -

Councillor Kennedy proposed the existing issue regarding ‘N’ Category Voluntary Contributions 2006.2007, including correspondence from Mr E Morgan, Community Restorative Justice and correspondence from Mr Brain Finnegan, Slieve Gullion Community Safety Forum be referred to the Council’s Solicitor for up-to-date legal advices on if and how the Council may proceed.

Councillor McArdle seconded the above proposal.

Councillor McDonald proposed that no letters of offer be sent regarding Applications amounting to £126,908, until such times as the Council had received legal advice on sending letters of offer to these particular Applications.

Councillor Murphy seconded the above Proposal.

Councillor Carr proposed that the Council proceed to send out the letters of offer regarding the successful Applications amounting to £126,908.

Councillor McArdle seconded the above proposal.

A vote was taken on the first Proposal, and voting was as follows:
For: 8
Against: 6

The Proposal was declared carried, and it was therefore agreed that no letters of offer be sent regarding Applications amounting to £126,908, until such times as the Council had received legal advice on sending offer letters to these particular Applications.

It was further agreed that when seeking the above legal advices, the Council also ask for clarification as to whether or not it is legal to allocate funding to a group which meets the same criteria as the groups who were refused.

It was also agreed the above decisions be referred for consideration at the District Development Committee Meeting to be held on Monday 19 June 2006.

In reply to Councillor Stokes Mr McCall clarified that the Council had sought legal opinion over a year ago on this issue and he was not aware of any changes in the legislation at this point in time.

Councillor Reilly felt it would be prudent to seek up to date legal opinion as it seemed unfair not sent out the letters of offer to those successful applications.

Mr McCall said that as a different marking system had been used this year in respect of the ‘N’Category Voluntary Contributions it may be prudent to seek further legal opinion.

Councillor Stokes proposed and Councillor Reilly seconded that authority be granted to proceed to send letters of offer to those successful applications amounting to £126,908 at this time and that detailed legal opinion be sought in respect of the 6 No applications which are withheld detailed as follows:-

(1) 1284 Drumintee Community Safety Group
(2) 1310 Meigh Safety Awareness Association
(3) 1345 Gap Of The North CRJ
(4) 1346 Greater Barcroft CRJ
(5) 1347 Jonesborough Community Safety Group
(6) 1348 Forkhill Community Safety Group

It was agreed to seek legal opinion in this matter at the earliest opportunity with the legal opinion to be brought back to the Council at a Meeting with the Council’s
Solicitor being in attendance.

Authority be granted to the Council’s Solicitor to appoint Counsel if necessary.

Read: Letter dated the 19 June 2006 from Elliot Trainor Partnership Solicitors in respect of the applications made by the Gap Of The North CRJ, Drumintee Safety Group, Meigh Safety Awareness Association, Jonesborough Community Safety Group and Forkhill Community Safety Group inviting the Council to reconsider their decision to refuse to make a voluntary contribution to the above named groups.

It was agreed to refer correspondence dated the 19 June 2006 from Elliot Trainor Partnership Solicitors to Mr Rory McShane, Council’s Solicitor.

And, in the August 2006 Monthly Meeting minutes [pdf file]

FINANCIAL MATTERS
M/218/2006 - SPECIAL STAFF AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING – LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS
(REF: F/3/75)_________________________________________

Read: Report of Staff and Policy Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 25 July 2006 re: legal advice from R McShane & Company Solicitors regarding voluntary contributions (copy circulated).

On the proposal of Councillor Feehan, seconded by Councillor W Burns, it was agreed to approve the above report and the recommendations contained therein.
Mr T McCall, Chief Executive, advised that he would be meeting with the Barrister on Tuesday 8 August 2006 in relation to voluntary contributions and would report back to the Council on the outcome of this meeting as soon as possible.

Following further discussion it was agreed that Mr McCall ask the Barrister if it would be in order for the Council to release all other applications on the voluntary contribution list which were not CRJ related as many groups throughout the area needed the money from the Council to cover the costs of events, many of which had already been held.

It was agreed that Mr McCall raise this matter with the Barrister and if an indication was given that all other voluntary contribution funding could be released, an urgent meeting be convened with the Group Leaders and Independent Councillors to discuss this matter.

I can’t find any reference to more recent discussion on CRJ’s in the Council until the Newry Democrat report already noted above.

A couple of reports to consider on the “refined process” that is the Historical Enquiries Team. The BBC report notes that “In the first year the team had a 40% turnover in staff, while it was about 29% last year. There are currently 180 staff, up from 80 two years ago.” and they have this quote from a HET spokeswoman

A spokeswoman for the HET told the Press Association many members only signed up to the job for a limited period because of the travel.  “Many are attracted to work for HET because of the unique nature of the challenge and a desire to help families if possible,” she said.  “However, the nature of the work is also very challenging and some people find that after an extended period, they do not want to experience any more of the trauma involved in these cases. “HET currently have a mentoring system in place whereby experienced staff help new arrivals with all aspects of HET work.”

The Belfast Telegraph report, however, includes this quote from NI Affairs Committee member, Sammy Wilson

Party colleague Sammy Wilson, a member of the NI Affairs Committee, said he found the turnover rates “quite alarming”.  He said: “I suppose some of the detectives concerned thought they were going to be reinvestigating crimes and bringing people to book, but then found out that is not quite what they were doing.”

He was concerned about the “immense” amount of resources involved and the fact that the HET has only questioned one terrorist under caution to date, despite having completed reviews of over 400 murders and having more than 1,000 under active investigation.

Some interesting detail from the Irish News front-page report in which “one of the leading lights in CRJ”, Jim McCarthy, who was sentenced to five years in 1976 for possession of firearms, “angrily” denies being an informer after he had, reportedly, “been visited at his west Belfast home by police who told him he was to be publicly exposed.” [subs req for now] The report quotes a Sinn Féin spokesman

A Sinn Fein spokesman said: “We can confirm Jim McCarthy contacted the party after the PSNI visited him.  “Sinn Fein was happy to let Jim know that there was no evidence that he was to be outed as an informer. “Jim provides a valuable community service in the area and we fully support him in taking the matter future in terms of his complaint to the ombudsman.”

And the report also notes that, as was the case with Roy McShane, McCarthy had previously been a driver for the Sinn Féin leadership.

The 51-year-old, who was once a driver for Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams, has also been visited at his west Belfast home by police who told him he was to be publicly exposed.

The report doesn’t record when he was a driver nor whether he shared another of McShane’s roles.

In 1989 that internal security unit was stood down over concerns that it had been infiltrated by the British intelligence agencies. In what would prove to be a crucial mistake the IRA moved many of those involved in the ‘nutting squad’ into protection and driving roles for the Sinn Fein leadership.

I had asked previously, “Whatever happened to..” [community restorative justice].  Well, coincidentally, the first ten minutes of Radio 4’s Law in Action programme today dealt with “Justice Belfast style”.  The audio [RealPlayer file] is accompanied by an online article specifically about the Belfast report. There’s no mention of funding in either report, nor of the “volunteers patrolling” west Belfast, but the case used as an example of the work they do is worth noting.  With no statement being made to the police, about an attempted extortion of £10,000 by armed men describing themselves as being from “the republican movement”, the response of the Restorative Justice group took this form - Firstly Jim McCarthy, “one of the leading lights of CRJ”, assures the victim that “mainstream republicans” were not involved and, he tells the reporter,

“Different well-known people in the community will visit Margaret and Barry’s house today and tomorrow.  They’ll be seen going in and out of the house.  Just showing community support.”

Or, as the online report puts it

Margaret left CRJ’s Twinbrook office that morning feeling safer. Jim McCarthy had arranged for a number of well-known Republicans to drop in on her family at home. They hoped these public visits would scare away the extortionists.

The Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Shaun Woodward, MP, may or may not actually believe that the NI Executive has become “one of the most successful governments anywhere”..  ANYhoo.. It’s part of the mood music for the 10th anniversary of the 1998 Agreement and, whilst Bill Clinton will be elsewhere, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has decided to hold a gala dinner for former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at Dublin Castle.  Maurice Hayes is less impressed with the “rush to memorialise” - “it is still a work in progress” - and he recalls a Brendan Behan tale about Corporation workers “celebrating the seventh birthday of the hole”.  He also identifies why the Sinn Féin leadership continue to mis-represent the May ‘target date’ as an enforceable ‘deadline’ when talking up the devolution of policing and justice powers - despite it being clear for some time. From the article

Sinn Fein needs these powers to be devolved, not only because they represent the last piece of the Patten jigsaw, but because it was a main element in the bill of sale on which they persuaded republicans to buy into support for policing.

For Patten, it was a defining function of government, and a manifest of the commitment of parties to defend the institutions and the common good, that they should exercise these powers. For Sinn Fein and republicans, it is symbolically important that these powers should be exercised by local politicians responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Without that, the Sinn Fein leadership would not have got agreement, and failure to deliver will seriously damage their credibility.

Which may be the reason for those predicted “major problems ahead..” Adds A further thought.  With conditions on the ground being so important to building confidence ahead of devolving those powers.. does this help or hinder?

Community Restorative Justice? The question arises, in part, from the absence of any reference to ‘restorative justice’ in Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams’ statements on the murder of Frank McGreevy and, in particular, his party’s apparent support for ‘tougher policing’ to deal with anti-social behaviour - the police investigation into the circumstances surrounding that murder continues.  No longer funded by Chuck Feeney’s Atlantic Philanthropies some of the RJ schemes, but not all of them, have so far failed to gain the necessary accreditation to receive public funds for their activities.  Meanwhile an Irish News report points to activities on the ground in west Belfast, where “Volunteers patrolling a west Belfast neighbourhood where a father-of-two was beaten to death last weekend are to be given a direct line to police.” Pictured below are SF MLA, Paul Maskey, “community workers” Stephen Corr and Sean Murray and Superintendent Nick Purce. It’s not the first photo of Sean Murray the Irish News has carried..

Here he is in May last year, at a meeting chaired by Martin McAleese, seemingly representing the Provisional IRA Army Council to Jackie McDonald’s representing the UDA inner council. Left to right, Sean Murray, Martin McAleese, Jackie McDonald.

Btw, Sean Murray is also a member of the Parades Review Team.

On Restorative Justice, the November report from the Criminal Justice Inspectorate on CRJ (Ireland) schemes noted some points on the Belfast-based organisation.

5.8 The Belfast schemes handle a wide range of business, which includes some serious crime and threats from dissident paramilitaries. They are well run, and great dedication is shown by the small team of staff members as well as by the volunteers. Inspectors were astonished at the commitment shown by many of those they interviewed, and there could be no question about their motivation being to help their communities, not in any sense to control them. [added emphasis]

And that

5.10 The Belfast schemes are not in the business of patrolling or providing a security presence. They have separated themselves from the Safer Neighbourhood projects, though there is still evidence of some members participating in both. Inspectors agree that CRJI is right to pursue a policy of separation, so that their role does not become confused.

Since November, the date of the report, there have been reports of a number of incidents, and confrontations, in which “veteran republicans” have been hospitalised or, as in the most recent case, killed - although it’s worth pointing out that none of the reports directly linked those incidents to any organisational activity.

But, as the Irish News report noted

Members of the Safer Neighbourhoods Project patrol the streets of the lower Falls in a bid to clamp down on anti-social behaviour.

They have been given a mobile phone number to call should trouble erupt.

Until last night the group contacted police through the police switchboard, which had prompted complaints alleging slow response times.

Now volunteers have been given a phone number that will connect them directly to a duty inspector, who can dispatch officers if necessary.

Meanwhile, the schemes’ public responses to criminal activity has been less than encouraging.

The organisation that deals with restorative justice in the area, Colin Community Restorative Justice, says it has contacted paramilitary groups who deny involvement and has offered to mediate with the criminal gang it says is involved.  Police have confirmed there are death threats and that the man the gang were after, who is married with two children, has now fled the area.

The police response in other areas to serious crime has been equalling less than encouraging at times.. as has the governments’.

And, while the Northern Ireland Alternatives’ schemes are now accredited, there were concerns raised in May last year by the CJI report then.

“In particular there needs to be clarity about the limits beyond which delinquent or anti-social behaviour needs to be treated as criminal and reported to the police,” it stated.

“The schemes are clear that serious offences must be notified, but there has been a grey area where some of the judgements made have not been entirely comfortable.”

Another point to note is that, although no longer funding Restorative Justice Groups, Atlantic Philanthropies continues to fund other organisations here.

Jonathan Powell isn’t the only one with a book out to mark the 10th anniversary of the 1998 agreement.  The Irish Times today notes [subs req] the publication of a revised edition of The Far Side of Revenge by Deaglán de Bréadún, the paper’s political correspondent - the title is another quote from The Cure at Troy.  The report highlights the evolution of the back-channel of communication to “a semi-permanent team of negotiators from the different sides: London, Dublin and Sinn Féin.” And that, “This provided an underlying structure for the negotiations, although it meant that sometimes senior civil servants would be brought into meetings ahead of ministers, who would be left waiting outside.” Of course there were other interested parties. But the most interesting extract, on The Process™, is this

“These officials even became adept at making the usual gestures towards republican core values while at the same time ‘trying to get in a couple of things we wanted’. Some might see this as a corruption of the democratic process, but underlying the whole endeavour was a simple desire, simply expressed: stop the killing.”

The author quotes a senior Irish negotiator as saying that Tony Blair and his top adviser Jonathan Powell brought a new note of pragmatism to the British government’s approach: “Their attitude was, ‘Let’s stop the killing and worry about the detail later’.”

Meanwhile there’s another extract of interest from Powell’s book in the Guardian

Powell even found himself holding talks with Gerry Adams in the No 10 gents in March 2000 as they tried to break the impasse over decommissioning:

Adams first indicated to me that quiet meetings might prove productive when he came into No 10 on March 21 to talk about the IRA tradition of dumping weapons. His suggestion was that dumping could serve as a confidence-building measure. After the meeting he insisted I follow him into the ground-floor toilet, so we could speak away from his people, and possibly our bugs, to ask me to come up with some ideas on how this could be done, and then come over to see him.

An Irish News report today [subs req] provides an interesting update to the charges against Marvin Canning.  A brother-in-law of the deputy First Minister, Mr Canning faces seven charges in connection with an abduction and assault in Mullingar, Co Westmeath, last April - including false imprisonment, kidnapping and grevious bodily harm with intent.  According to today’s report, the Crown lawyer, Douglas Edmondson, told the court that “police described the death of 53-year-old Michael [Gerard?] Hampson, also from Derry, as suspicious.  He was naked when discovered, the court heard.” Hampson was wanted for questioning about the abduction/assault when he went missing in December last year and, when his body was found, police declined to say if foul play was suspected.

From the Irish News report. [subs req]

Mr Edmondson had also argued there was a risk of witness interference and alleged that three men claiming to be from the IRA had warned an associate of Mr Cranston that he was to drop the case.

The report also notes that, despite previously being refused bail

During the couple’s ordeal demands were made for Euro170,000 (£131,00), it was claimed.  But defence counsel Joe Brolly said the strength of evidence against Mr Canning was questionable.

The judge said that as well as the [cash] £10,000 surety requirement, Mr Canning was to stay at an address in Middlesex and have no contact with his co-accused or the victims.  He was also ordered to surrender his Irish passport and banned from applying for a British one.

That’s Tony Blair’s former chief of staff - the recently married Jonathan Powell - on Tony Blair.  Powell’s account of The Process™ will be published soon, and is to be serialised in the Guardian from Monday.  Today’s paper has a taster, and a longer interview, pointing to the importance of the “secret back channel between the British government and the IRA”.  One part of that back channel, Brendan Duddy - formerly a member of the Policing Board - has been talking to journalist Peter Taylor.. although it’s not clear from the reports whether the other parts of that back channel, Martin McGuinness and a MI5 agent known as ‘Robert’, talked too.  Here’s a short news report which may, or may not, be reliable..  Compare and contrast what’s said with previous statements by others.

From the Guardian report

Powell, the most senior member of the Blair circle to survive the prime minister’s full term in office, said that he had realised, after reviewing government papers and his diaries, that a secret back channel between the British government and the IRA, first opened in the 1970s, was one of the key factors that contributed to a peace deal three decades later.

“It’s very difficult for democratic governments to do - talk to a terrorist movement that’s killing your people,” he said. “[But] if I was in government now I would want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban; and I would want to find a channel to al-Qaida.”

And from the full interview in the Guardian

Powell is unfailingly described by profile writers as “diplomatic”, but one of the most striking things revealed by his book is his capacity for putting his foot in his mouth. When Siobhan O’Hanlon, Gerry Adams’s late assistant, asks for a meeting with Blair during the Good Friday talks, Powell tells her his boss is in a meeting with Bertie Ahern, but “we could get rid of him”. O’Hanlon replies that there is no need and Powell, whose sense of humour frequently falls on the dusty side of dry, chips in that he did not mean “get rid of him in her usual sense”.

“He would say the most outrageous things in meetings,” recalls one former member of the Blair inner circle. Powell does not contest the charge: “Sometimes I say things which are extremely plonkerish at just the wrong moment… which is one of the reasons they kept me away from the press. It would’ve been a complete disaster if I’d have talked to the papers.”

Despite this, Powell was by common consent one of the key elements in the forging of a settlement in Northern Ireland. “Even if they didn’t trust me, they trusted him,” Blair says. “Sometimes Adams and McGuinness would take things from him that they wouldn’t take from me.”

Adams says Powell was effective because he had Blair’s authority - “They were almost Siamese twins” - but was constantly engaged with the Irish problem. “He was in and out of here secretly on numerous occasions… He was someone you could pick up the phone to and he was always available and there were times when I rang when I knew it wasn’t opportune because I could hear children in the background or whatever, but he would always take the call.”

Powell reckons that for 10 years he devoted some time to Northern Ireland “on average every other day or third day”, and flew in and out at least once a month. “Nine-tenths of the battle was paying attention to Northern Ireland. Previous British prime ministers, with the notable and honourable exception of John Major, hadn’t.”

Didn’t Powell ever lose patience with the bickering, the

pig-headedness? Didn’t he ever think, “Sod the lot of them”? “Frequently. Repeatedly.”

Reflecting on his experience of Northern Ireland, Powell says the clearest lesson is that we must always find ways to talk to our enemies. “The conclusion I came to, particularly looking back over my papers, over my diaries, was that one of the crucial things in this work was having a link to the IRA right from the 70s onwards. Although it wasn’t used much for large periods, there was always a way they could communicate.”

It’s a principle he thinks we should be adopting now in the Middle East. What about al-Qaida, I wonder, and he answers without missing a beat: “I would say the analogy with al-Qaida is there’s nothing to say to al-Qaida and they’ve got nothing to say to us at the moment, but at some stage you’re going to have to come to a political solution as well as a security solution… If I was in government now, I would want to have been talking to Hamas, I would be wanting to communicate with the Taliban and I would want to find a channel to al-Qaida. It’s not an easy step to take, and with al-Qaida there’s a practical problem of finding who you want to talk to, how you’d establish a channel. But I would be urging people to make an effort to do that.”

When I later talk to Blair, unbidden, he volunteers that Powell’s “creativity” was sometimes overlooked. “Sometimes he was almost too creative for the political realities.”

More pre breaking news... Though it’s not clear that talks have yet concluded, the Bill of Rights Forum could be heading for collapse… Slugger hears from one Alliance source that “there is no hint of compromise. The Unions are still stuck in the 70s, and the Unionists in 60s.” It seems too that there is no sign of the Catholic Church’s representative, who seems to have judged there are more constructive things to be doing on a Friday afternoon… Another source suggested that there was too much grandstanding and not enough politicking... We await the final outcome…

The blood-crazed ferret Telegraph blogger, and editor-in-chief of The Catholic Herald, Damian Thompson, provides a useful corrective to the recent wide-spread coverage of the story that “the Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins”.  Local media outlets, and not so local, including otherwise excellent bloggers [Adds who adds his own corrective] - and here - also carried the story. Damian Thompson’s Holy Smoke blog notes the Catholic Communications Network statement

The statement adds: “This is not a new Vatican edict. The story originated from an interview that Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti gave to the L’Osservatore Romano in which he was questioned about new forms of social sins in this age of globalisation.  Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti is not the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary; he is the regent (official). The Major Penitentiary is Cardinal James Francis Stafford.”

There is still a story there, but it’s not necessarily the reported one.

It’s worth noting that whilst the current RTÉ online article reports it straight, that’s not what happened in the archived radio report on the day.

The item which stands out in the supposed list of new ‘mortal sins’, in particular, is “Genetic manipulation”

Michael White, indirectly, points out why that’s significant

But MPs are gearing up for another battle in the shape of a bill that mingles a host of distinct and complex issues, practical, ethical and religious. That formidable alliance, the Catholic church and the Daily Mail, is on the warpath, seeking to use the human fertilisation and embryology bill to curb abortion rights, from 24 to 20 weeks.

The less grabby issues in headline terms range from parental rights arising from same-sex marriage (social), to rules on donor consent on the use of embryo material (legal) and pressure (scientific) to create “inter-species” embryos such as human DNA injected into empty cows’ eggs to create a hybrid, albeit one which is 99.9% human in genetic terms.

Scientists have demanded this right since 2006, and the regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, gave the go-ahead in January, to the annoyance of politicians who believe voters want parliament to decide such matters. It is in the bill.

And as Michael White also points out

The bill, which updates the 1990 act in the light of evolving science and public attitudes, has already had a little-reported passage through the Lords, where science and faith slugged it out more gently than ministers led by Lord Darzi had feared.

Complaints were heard and Lord Darzi sent out a conciliatory letter, but few changes were made. When the Lib Dem Catholic peer David Alton moved to curb hybrid embryo research, he was defeated by 268 to 96. Only the Tories narrowly backed him, by 52 to 42. The Lib Dems were 42 to nine against, Labour 136 to eight against, and crossbenchers 45 to 24 against. Even the bishops backed science two to one.

Time for a ‘mortal [sin]’ intervention, then?

It ties in with a comment I made in Mick’s seemingly unrelated post here

It’s all part of [Benedict’s] wider campaign..

Which could be characterised as an attempt to re-assert the imperial influence of Constantine’s over-rated medieval entity.

Adds Sound advice from Crooked Timber’s Jon Mandle

As far as I can tell, in an interview Bishop Gianfranco Girotti commented: “If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a weight, a resonance, that’s especially social, rather than individual.” And he gave some examples (although I admit to being a little unclear about how they are social in a new way). But it doesn’t seem that he gave seven examples. And, frankly, I can’t even tell if he intended his examples to be of mortal sins. My advice: avoid anything that is “morally dubious” until the situation is clarified.

The Irish Times report quotes a statement from the Taoiseach’s office as saying, in reference to Sinn Fein’s demand for the devolving policing and justice powers, “that the time is right for the parties to move forward and take the final steps towards full devolution and full normality, as set out in the St Andrews Agreement.” But, in a recent debate, the Taoiseach also told the Dáil

“The way for us all to move forward is to try to ensure we get district policing and devolution of policing. I am fully committed to trying to do that. I have raised this with the British Prime Minister and Dr. Paisley and have discussed it with Deputy Ó Caoláin’s colleagues. We will do everything we can to achieve that as soon as possible. It might drift for a few months but, hopefully, we will be able to make progress on it.”

Of course, as most should be aware by now, it’s entirely dependent on agreement between the parties in the Assembly. Perhaps somebody should tell Gerry..

Speaking of the Sinn Féin leader’s statement

Firstly on the idea that May 2008 is in some way an enforceable deadline..

Coming so soon after his appearance at an event with a, presumably, Provisional IRA ‘colour party’, talking about “control” of policing, whether or not that is couched in “democratic” references, is hardly conducive to building confidence and trust. 

And with the expected next leader of the DUP pointing to certain organisational structures..

As to why the Sinn Féin leadership keep presenting May 2008 as an enforceable deadline.

If Sinn Féin had been paying attention they’d know what even the current Northern Ireland Secretary of State knows - “It is for the parties to decide when the time is right..”

Of course the apparent confusion among Sinn Fein MLAs is necessary because the leadership told the party membership that, rather than the previous internal party arrangement, the leadership would only commit the party to supporting the police and the criminal justice system under certain conditions

“That this Ard Fheis endorses the Ard Chomhairle motion. That the Ard Chomhairle is mandated to implement this motion only when the power-sharing institutions are established and when the Ard Chomhairle is satisfied that the policing and justice powers will be transferred. Or if this does not happen within the St Andrews timeframe, only when acceptable new partnership arrangements to implement the Good Friday Agreement are in place.”

The reality is that devolution of policing and justice powers can only happen following a joint request from the First and deputy First Ministers, confirmed by a vote in the Assembly, and agreed by Parliament. 

Imposing those powers against the wishes of the Assembly would be a “constitutional nonsense” - and, importantly, “it is not the intention—nor is the power available to the Government—to do that.”

Interestingly, SF member Chris Gaskin tells us

At the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis last week the delegates overwhelmingly supported my own Cumann’s motion on the issue.

And, as he relates, that motion states..

“This Ard Fheis mandates the Ard Chomhairle to set out, in public, the party’s position in relation to our involvement in the current policing structures should the British Government fail to devolve policing and justice powers by the 8th May 2008.”

We’ll have to wait to see what the SF leadership has to say at that point..

But, of course, it’s not within the gift of the “British Government”..

Not that the Sinn Fein leadership don’t realise that..

A UUP sponsored motion in the Assembly today on the Eames/Bradley co-chaired Consultative Group on the Past seems to have provided an opportunity for the DUP and Sinn Féin to unite in criticism of the group.  DUP MLA David Simpson is reported to have commented during the debate that

“One part of the group was briefing against another part of the group.  In effect one part of the Eames/Bradley group sought to use the press to get its view of the Troubles and any potential amnesty into the public domain as a means of spiking internal opposition to the suggestion.  As such there are serious question marks over the ability of this group to actually deliver because it is divided and because those divisions are being played out in the press over the issue of victims.”

While outside the Assembly chamber, SF MLA Jennifer McCann issued this statement

“The Consultative Group on the Past, while having genuine people with integrity in its membership was undermined from the start by being set up by the British government. I do not believe the Eames/ Bradley Group as it is called is the way forward in terms of the search for the Truth.”

Those criticisms have been made before. But I’ll note, again, that it had been suggested that when the Provisional IRA declined to meet with the Eames/Bradley group it indicated an intention to side-step Eames/Bradley and focus instead on the FOUR Victims Commissioners.. a potentially much less inquisitive group.. appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers.

The motion

That this Assembly calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to give their full support and co-operation to the operations of the Eames/Bradley Consultative group on the Past.

was accepted by the Assembly.

RTÉ’s Tommie Gorman interviewed the probable next leader of the DUP, Peter Robinson, on This Week - you can listen to the interview here and there’s a short online report here which notes his comments on devolving policing and justice powers as well as the continuing existence of the Provisional IRA army council.

Mr Robinson also said he hoped to see devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland soon.  However he said it would be unhelpful if it was to happen tomorrow, and he would first look to see a high measure of stability being achieved.  Mr Robinson said the IRA Army Council should dissolve itself as quickly as possible, and the DUP would look to see if the Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams gives leadership on the issue to make it happen.

A quick reminder that part 2 of John Ware’s series “The Price of Peace” is about to air on Radio 4 starting at 1.30pm - “Dealing with the Big Man.” It’ll be repeated on Thursday at 8pm and direct link to the audio now available online. Adds Interesting comment from US Envoy Mitchell Reiss - “Plan B, I think, was more smoke and mirrors than it was reality.” [approx 24 mins in] But there’s much more detail on the US involvement in The Process™ in the previously noted analysis. Update Whilst Ware claimed there was lack of conditionality in the DUP’s position before joining the current Executive, a series of interviews by Frank Millar in early 2006 provide evidence of just such conditionality.  Here’s Mitchell Reiss in June 2006 - he mentions Plan B as well

“I will say that I’ve been encouraged by the objective criteria they have set out for joining a government with Sinn Féin. The two issues Peter Robinson articulated when he visited the US in April were a commitment to supporting the police and an ending of IRA criminality. I think those are completely reasonable for the DUP to stake out - and again, if they should be met, then I can’t see any reason why the DUP wouldn’t be willing to stand up in Stormont immediately.”

Andersonstown News Belfast Media Group managing director Máirtín Ó Muilleoir has pointed to Guardian journalist Ian Jack’s appearance at a public meeting in St Mary’s University College on Thursday - “I told the truth, what else was I to do” - part of the Sinn Féin organised “Gibraltar/Milltown Martyrs Anniversary”.. but it’s always worthwhile going to the source.  Ian Jack has posted his account of the meeting at the Guardian’s CommentisFree blog

“The intention - the bomb stored in Spain - has by now almost vanished from republican memories and I didn’t raise it with the audience on Thursday night. They were polite and attentive and they had come to remember and grieve; Niall, Séamus and Mary were there, and many others who had known the dead. My silence came only partly out of cowardice and respect. The truth was that there was hardly time.”

Ian Jack goes on to make some other interesting observations

In such a situation, the attractions of republicanism are easy to see. Sinn Féin is “the movement” and therefore confidently going forward; a partner in government; on the front foot and not the back. In West Belfast, especially, it runs the show through webs of old and often military connections. The seats at St Mary’s College were filled by families who knew one another well enough to make jokes about each other, suggesting the kind of intimate city life that has vanished in England. The Irish language is popular in schools and evening classes; there may now be more Gaelic speakers in West Belfast than Dublin. Money has been a great balm. The local paper, the Andersonstown News, was founded as a radical sheet in 1972 by the Andersonstown Central Civic Resistance Committee. Today, after considerable and controversial government investment, it’s a thick bi-weekly brimming with property ads for terraced houses off the Falls Road for around £200,000.

All this, and yet Belfast remains an introverted city split into “nationalist” and “loyalist” settlements by “peace walls”, where in the west you can make a pilgrimage to martyrs monuments and murals like inspecting the Stations of the Cross. Daniel, a young Sinn Féin activist, took me round the circuit - Milltown, Bombay Street, the gable end showing Bobby Sands - and displayed a lively and informed knowledge of every death. Fascinating, but the theme of grievance and injury stretching back to 1798 was also claustrophobic, like looking down a long tunnel of woe.

We went for some supper and I asked Daniel if the organising committee for the Gibraltar-Milltown Martyrs Anniversary had ever considered extending an invitation to the friends and relations of the British corporals Woods and Howe, whose deaths ended the cycle of March, 1988. Might not reconciliation be a more forward-looking programme than martyrdom? He said, “Yes, we could have done. Maybe we should have done.” Perhaps next time they will.

The Irish Examiner picks up on comments by Sinn Féin TD, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, in questions to the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland in the Dáil yesterday - after Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny, said “we do not need a structure like the army council of the Provisional IRA.” Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin response was

Will the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny and others not consider for a moment that this is exactly what dissident republicanism want them to do? Will they ponder the possibility that the IRA, in whatever way it exists today, represents a bulwark against dissident advance in many areas on this island, not least of all in the Border counties in the North?

I’m sure MI5 appreciate the assistance..

The comments came after Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said

In the course of the statements in the House on the murder of Paul Quinn, I made the point that if the peace process is to work and the Good Friday Agreement is to be implemented for the benefit of all communities, we do not need a structure like the army council of the Provisional IRA. I made that point based on evidence given to me by people living across a broad swathe of the south Armagh Border region where, on a continual basis, punishment beatings are being carried out in apparent accordance with that particular structure. Does the Taoiseach agree this is something that should be abandoned? I would love to get a letter from P. O’Neill indicating that such a decision was taken in the light of being serious about the development of the country from here on.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern’s response, on that particular point, was

As I said yesterday, the building blocks of bringing devolution of policing and justice to Northern Ireland is local involvement and participation by communities. That is the best way of bringing an end to such activity for ever more and of getting away from having any types of paramilitary groups, power groups, heavy gangs or whatever new umbrella they devise. I get reports from time to time of groupings that are still operating on that type of heavy gangs basis. Whether they are doing so with any authorisation - which I am told by intelligence they are not - or doing it off their own bat, it is not a good thing and we must see the end of it. It is not unreasonable, ten years on, that we should see the end of this once and for all. The best way of achieving this is through proper local policing in these areas, so that we bring back a level of normality. If we do not do that, we will continue to have these sporadic events by either side, whether in loyalist areas or republican strongholds. We must try to get away from that and anything that helps in this regard is welcome. I do not want to dictate to any organisation how it should move into the future other than that I want to see it moving into the future.

Later in the debate, Labour TD, Eamon Gilmore, sought a clarification of what Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin had meant by “a bulwark against dissident advance”

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I have a brief question for the Taoiseach since the Ceann Comhairle told us Opposition leaders cannot ask questions of each other. What does the Taoiseach understand Deputy Ó Caoláin to mean what he says the Provisional IRA is acting as a bulwark against dissident republicans? Does he know what that means and does he agree with that assessment?

The Taoiseach: I think I have already answered that and I have taken the same line. Perhaps Deputy Ó Caoláin meant to put it slightly differently.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I though the Taoiseach was the only one who had that problem.

The Taoiseach: Since I have to try to chair the Opposition-----

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach: I think what Deputy Ó Caoláin meant to say was that in the peaceful role the IRA now plays, as supportive of the peace process, is to try to discourage those who might get involved in paramilitary activities from doing so.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: “Discourage” is a lovely word.

The Taoiseach: I am sure Deputy Ó Caoláin meant discourage by peaceful, lawful and good community means.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: What other interpretation would Deputy Gilmore put on it?

The Taoiseach: I would not put any on it.

Having made the preparations to forcibly evict residents in the vested lands around City of Derry Airport, if necessary, we’ll have to wait to see whether Derry City Council actually use those powers.  The deadline for residents to move out is Saturday 1st March but it’s worth highlighting, from the BBC report, that the Department of Environment has yet to decide on the Council’s application to approve interim rental payments - although there is no indication of when that application was made.

The DoE said Derry City Council asked them to approve compensation for interim rental payments. In a statement, the department said it was “approached by the council to discuss how best to submit a formal application for approval in respect of compensation for interim rental payments as part of a wider package of compensation for those affected. “The department is considering the council’s approach and will respond as soon as possible.”

And with reports that some residents have yet to receive any compensation, the Council’s reported statement may look less than convincing.

“Derry City Council recognises the need to facilitate forme