Employment guidance: Another Sinn Fein sop - Allister
05 May 2007
Statement by Jim Allister MEP:
“The Employers’ Guidance on recruiting terrorist convicts is another sop to Sinn Fein. It is the product of a Working Group which included representatives of ex-prisoners and it proposes a “Tripartite Review Panel” within the Civil Service upon which ex-prisoners will be represented. Nowhere does the document permit consideration of the impact of employing a convicted terrorist on working relationships within a place of employment? Why is that not a relevant consideration?
The extent to which it is a charter for terrorist convicts is illustrated by the fact that the onus is in favour of their employment and the employer has to produce reasons to justify rejecting them.
There is no justification for these special provisions for terrorist convicts. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Order makes provision for all prisoners and it is wrong and offensive that special treatment is to be afforded to terrorist convicts.
I intend to write to the First Minister with some pertinent questions and inviting him to say if he supports the document, in particular its excusing of terrorist deeds in paragraph 4.2. I also intend to ask
· just how voluntary the guidance is, since in the public sector, at least, it seems to be compulsory;
· for disclosure of all minutes of the Working Group and for the identification of the prisoner’s representation thereon;
· whether the guidance has been “equality proofed”, as required by Section 75 of the NI Act, 1998, in that it seems to prejudice the interests of the law-abiding community by treating the law-breaker as if he had the same standing.
When the First Minister takes office he will carry responsibility for these grotesque provisions. Thus if he is not happy with them, it is up to him to get them withdrawn. There is no point in him saying his hands are tied as he needs Martin McGuinness’ permission to act, because that is exactly the arrangement he is voluntarily embracing. Sadly, never once in negotiations did the DUP seek to challenge or disentangle the joint nature of the office of OFMDFM.”
