Mr. Kevin Mulgrew:

We have a document, which we are processing, which deals with each of the issues from our perspective, that is, what the issue is, what the situation is, what needs to be resolved and who we believe are the main players. That is almost completed. One of the things with the current PEACE programme, and we have to be straight here, is that the DUP has its narrative, which is fine, we have our narrative and many other people have their narratives. We accept that. The DUP narrative is that there was no conflict. It is starting off with that narrative. Regardless of actions and enduring conflicts or anything like that, the language changed subtly from the legacy of the conflict to the legacy of the Troubles. That is the language in the previous SEUPB document, and it can be seen that that was a fairly big shift. If people are starting off by stating that there was no conflict and, I do not wish to get into pejorative terms, that it was just people decided to start killing and bombing with no context to it, where is people's starting point? The SEUPB was directed by how that final programme emerged.

The previous programmes were very beneficial to us, although limited in their capacity to deal with a range of issues and the numbers of people we were dealing with. However, it was very helpful, unlike this one. We stressed this when we met them. We brought this up two years before the programme was put together and we said this was going to happen. We went to Brussels and said that the DUP was going to take this apart, that it was going to unravel and that we needed guarantees. We said this clearly years beforehand. It is true that we are going back over the same issues. It is very frustrating, including for the committee members. That is why we did not come here to hand over the same document. It becomes a merry-go-round. This document will put the issues from our perspective and will include what we think can be done.

We have said that some of the travel issues are outside the remit of the committee. I have been in prison five times but I have no conflict related conviction because I was released every time. However, I get stopped going into Canada and get held for five days. I also get stopped from going to America and I am stopped if I try to go to Australia or New Zealand. That is the reality for me. Michael has a conflict conviction so he will be in the same boat. It is not just people who were imprisoned. When boarding airplanes, the question asked is if one has ever been arrested. A person is not just asked if he or she has ever been imprisoned. It is similar with insurance forms. We only learned of this when we asked the brokers. Every form asks if a person has any outstanding charges. It was in the small print in every one of them when we started to look at them. We have had some success with them and we acknowledge that. With regard to travel, we acknowledge what Senator Feighan said about Australia. That has been very positive. Politics changed there. There was a change of government. There were a few terrorist incidents over there and that changes some people's opinions. We understand that, but it is on an individual basis again. We have had people who have gone out and people who have been refused. However, there is some movement, at least, but with others there is none.

We include the issues here, how they can be dealt with and what needs to be done. Some of it requires legislative change. Members will recall that there was an issue in this jurisdiction with regard to taxi drivers. The taxi Bill was passed. Much of that Bill was sound and many parties supported the provisions in it. However, no provision was made for political conflict related charges or jail sentences. Anybody who had been in prison for more than five years could be refused a licence to drive a taxi. We met FLAC, the Free Legal Advice Centres, which was very good. We took a case to court and we won it. That has set a precedent because it involved the constitutional right to work, the Good Friday Agreement and the length of time from when the person was imprisoned. The judge just threw it out. Again, that was positive. However, we spent approximately two years putting that case together to make a good case. We spoke to many gardaí about it since then. If anybody has been in prison for more than five years, they must make the Garda aware of that. The Garda can then process the person in whatever way it wishes. Most of the gardaí we have dealt with in most areas have said that as long as somebody does that, they will not be pursuing it any further if that person is a fit and proper person for work, which I think is the archaic language used.

There has been some progress and we are glad about that, but other issues are stagnating. The trouble with that is, as Mr. Molloy said, it is happening to the grandchildren, who are getting stopped. That is not isolated. There have been a number of cases. We are only hearing about some of them because people do not deal with them. People get fed up with some of the things. In the case of jobs, many of our people do not go for jobs because they say they will not get them. We are telling them to go for the jobs to challenge this and chase it, but there is a culture of saying there is no point because we have been doing this so many times. It breeds that type of indifference.