SDLP must decide if on side of victims or victim makers
21 May 2013
Statement by Jim Allister MLA:-
Like affected victims I am appalled that the SDLP could even contemplate riding to the rescue of Sinn Fein to block the SPAD Bill by signing a Petition of Concern.
Such a Petition of Concern would not only be a travesty in terms of frustrating the democratic will of the Assembly, but a slap in the face for the Travers family, in particular, who with such courage have led the call for legislative change. My Bill is designed to ensure that ‘Never Again’ can victims, such as the Travers family, be re-traumatised by an appointment such as that of Mary McArdle. SDLP support for Sinn Fein’s petition would be a very clear declaration by them that such can indeed happen again.
The choice facing the SDLP is to stand on the side of the victims or protect the victim-makers!
In view of some public comments let me spell out some facts:
• Following the second stage of the Bill I offered, and repeatedly offered, to discuss any concerns they had with the SDLP. They never engaged.
• Before Consideration Stage I shared with the SDLP the amendments I was tabling, which in large part were to meet issues they seemed to have, namely, the ‘blanket ban’ approach in respect of serious convicts and the absence of an appeal mechanism. Hence, the introduction of Clause 3 and the further appeal to the High Court in Clause 4.
• Despite constantly saying they would discuss their amendments with me before tabling same, they never did and proceeded to table their Consideration Stage amendments, thus shutting down the opportunity for discussion.
• After the Consideration Stage I renewed my invitation to discuss any issue with me. It was only on 13 May that the first discussions took place. In meetings I sought to stretch to accommodate the SDLP, being willing to contemplate change to Clause 3(3), which seemed of prime concern. On 14 May Mr Bradley returned to me to say unless I could give all their amendments required there could be no agreement. Such was impossible. The SDLP then tabled their amendments. Interestingly, for a party now threatening a Petition of Concern because their amendments were not accepted, if the Further Consideration Stage had proceeded as originally listed there would have been no SDLP amendments, because they had withdrawn them at that stage.
• The amendment (No 9) whose rejection seems to be causing the SDLP most resentment was the most heavily defeated amendment of them all, being rejected by 85 votes to 12. This was the one seeking to remove an expectation that a SPAD should have helped the police in solving the crimes associated with their criminality.
Considering that Sinn Fein did nothing to help the SDLP get their amendments through yesterday – even, the one which would have exempted sittings SPADs from the Bill – I find it astounding that, nonetheless, SDLP are minded to ride to the rescue of Sinn Fein, when they wouldn’t even help themselves in the division lobbies.
I trust the SDLP will review their position and listen, not to me, but the plaintiff pleas of victims.
