Mr. Séanna Walsh:

A point raised concerned the business of the past and charges that might well be made against certain individuals at some stage consequent on certain revelations or forensic examinations, for example. There is no general agreement anywhere on how this should be dealt with in the North. Republicans and probably most individuals present have a specific view that whatever happened in the past happened. If the war is over, it is over. One is not going to get people to come forward to talk about their role in the conflict if, by doing so, they will end up in jail again. It is simply not going to happen; therefore, people have to be honest about it.

I realise certain individuals among the victims community do not particularly want the truth; they want people like me to be put back in jail. If I have not served my time for everything in which I was ever involved, they believe I should be put back in jail. It is not going to happen in the sense that I can get up and talk about my activities in the IRA simply because I have been in jail. I can talk about stuff I was involved in that led to my going to jail. However, no one can talk about everything else that happened in the conflict if it means going back to jail. This is because there is no Statute of Limitations for what happened during the conflict. If people demand the truth about a certain incident, people like me will simply say they are not getting it on the grounds that we would be put back in jail. A section of society is crying out for what it regards as closure, but it cannot have closure if it means people are going to go back to jail. That is just the position for us. In addition, one must bear in mind everything that the state was involved in over the course of the conflict, particularly in the North. As Mr. Mulgrew stated, approximately five British soldiers went to jail as a result of killings. The state has always covered its own back.