COMMITTEE ON THE Friday 25 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 10.04 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): I ask members to switch off their mobile phones. Mobile phone interference has again blotted out vital parts of members’ discussions at the previous meeting. We might get this right eventually. We will go through the apologies and deputies, starting with the DUP. Mr Poots: Mr McCausland and I are here on behalf of Lord Morrow and Dr McCrea. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will there be a third Member? Mr Poots: No. Mr Nesbitt: Chairman, I am quite clear about the position this morning. I am representing Mr McNarry. When Mr Hussey arrives, he will represent one of the other three UUP members, whose name I do not recall. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McFarland? Mr Nesbitt: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGimpsey? [Laughter.] Mr Nesbitt: Mr McFarland will be arriving later; I am very clear that neither Mr Hussey nor I are representing him. I shall be leaving just after 11 o’clock this morning, so it will be your pleasure that I shall not be here. The Chairman (Mr Wells): On a serious note — Mr Nesbitt: I am being serious. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there a possibility that the UUP will not be represented at all? Mr Nesbitt: I think that Mr Hussey is coming. I had expected him to be here now, because two UUP members are supposed to be here. I think that Mr McFarland is scheduled to arrive before I leave. However, I was given the clear instruction that neither Mr Hussey nor I are representing Mr McFarland. The Chairman (Mr Wells): By a process of elimination, Mr Hussey must be Mr Kennedy. Mr Nesbitt: That is it; Mr Hussey is Mr Kennedy. Mr Ford: After that clear insight from the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group, I am delighted to confirm that Mrs Long and I are playing ourselves. Ms Lewsley: I am here on behalf of Mr Durkan. Mr Maginness is here on behalf of Dr Farren, and Mr Attwood is here on behalf of Dr McDonnell. Mr O’Dowd: Mr McGuigan and I are replacing Mr McGuinness and Mr Murphy, in whichever order. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will there be a third Member? Mr O’Dowd: Not today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content with the minutes of the meeting of 18 August 2006? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt requested that a copy of his paper, ‘Equality (Labour Market Issues)’, be placed on the Preparation for Government section of the Assembly website. That has been done, and the paper is now available for the public to read. That is entirely in order; the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland yesterday agreed that various papers would be placed on the website. If other members wish to post papers on the website, they can do so. Mr Nesbitt: Chairman, I did not anticipate that you would mention that, as it was agreed last week. All the same, I thank you for mentioning it. I wish to record my disappointment on a couple of issues. The Committee has been discussing human rights and equality issues for the past two weeks. However, I am disappointed that there was no consensus to invite the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) to appear before the Committee to speak and answer questions. I am very conscious that all the Committee’s meetings have finished approximately an hour and a half earlier than scheduled. Therefore, we could easily have made time to hear from both commissions. I strongly expressed my view that there is a difference between statutory bodies that deal with human rights and equality, such as the NIHRC and the ECNI, and non-statutory bodies, such as the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium and Amnesty International. I wish to record my disquiet about the fact that the Committee did not, in its wisdom, invite the two bodies to appear before it. Ms Lewsley: Two weeks ago I proposed that we should not invite the NIHRC or the ECNI to appear before the Committee unless there was a need to do so. My understanding is that, to date, no one has made a proposal to invite them to give evidence or to answer questions. Mr Nesbitt: At our first meeting on 4 August, when we were deciding on our modus operandi for these meetings, I expressed a preference to hear from those two bodies. I would be more than happy to hear from them. In fact, I mentioned the former SDLP member, Colin Harvey, who is professor of human rights law at Queen’s University. I would be more than happy to hear his legal perspective on human rights. I was not in any way being party political. However, I read the minutes, which said that there was a view not to have anyone from those bodies — as Ms Lewsley rightly says. Nevertheless, the Committee felt sometimes that it had much to do, and I still feel that we should have had them here. That is just a reservation, which I am asking to be noted. Ms Lewsley: Is Mr Nesbitt proposing that the NIHRC and the EQNI appear before the Committee? Mr Nesbitt: We are now in our third meeting, and there is one meeting left. The time has now passed; therefore I am just recording my position, as I initially did on 4 August. I was not indicating a preference for any group or party; I was just saying that counter to my wish, no consensus was achieved. That is the only point I want to make. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, you have clearly stated that for the record. If it arises in the plenary debate you can say that you articulated that concern. I am sure that members, from what I can hear, wish to maintain the stance they had. Mr Nesbitt: We have moved away from human rights and equality. We are now on different dimensions. But those were the two central elements and I still think that they should have been here. My second point is one of deep concern. Sinn Féin and the SDLP often engage in megaphone diplomacy with regard to my comments on equality. I note that Sinn Féin issued a statement in advance of our meeting last week saying that I was sectarian. I noted also that Sinn Féin said I have a “flat earth” approach to equaIity. I am glad that there are a couple of lawyers opposite me in the SDLP. Mr Ford: But they charge by the hour. [Laughter.] Mr Nesbitt: They charge by the word, likely words as they have. [Laughter.] I remember a couple of years ago or so a letter in ‘The Irish News’ with the heading “Have you read ‘How to Lie with Statistics’?” That was quite a strong heading. The first sentence in that letter — I can always remember it — was: “I don’t know whether Dermot Nesbitt has read the best-selling book ‘How to Lie with Statistics’, but his recent publication that Catholics are not discriminated against is a sure rival.” That was written by none other than John Dallat. Now of course, Declan O’Loan has challenged me on equality through the media. I challenged Mr Dallat with several letters. Needless to say I got no answer. At the very least, when I put forward a 30-page document of my arguments on the internet web page, they can be read and understood by anyone. Last week I openly invited all of the parties to come and discuss it with me, but none did. I wished for genuine engagement, but if parties are not going to come and talk to me then they should refrain from such hostile megaphone diplomacy. To imply that I am a liar is not exactly the best method of political exchange. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr O’Dowd, do you wish to come in on this? Mr O’Dowd: I was not one of the people who called Mr Nesbitt a liar, and in relation to the “flat earth” approach — Mr Nesbitt: I choose all my words carefully. As I say, two lawyers are present, so I had better choose them carefully. Mr O’Dowd: I am trying to bring humour into the debate. I spoke to you across the table last week about the Flat Earth Society. I also told you that my party would meet yours in a bilateral to discuss your document and that that meeting would take place in the near future. 10.15 am Mr Nesbitt: Well, I look forward to receiving a communication from you, because as yet there has been none. Mr O’Dowd: Our equality gurus are on holiday, but they will be with you. Mr Nesbitt: Ah, they are on holiday. I am glad that Sinn Féin has got “guros” for equality. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is probably the Irish for “gurus”. [Laughter.] Mr Nesbitt: Whatever that is. [Laughter.] Chairman, I have made my point. I did not say anything about the DUP, because I presume that that party will empathise with my comments. However, I do not wish to go there. Mr Attwood: It is unfortunate that Mr Dallat is not present, as he is the person who is most qualified to defend himself. However, I do not believe that anybody would suggest that Mr Nesbitt is a liar. It would be inappropriate for Mr Nesbitt or anybody else to interpret literally the headline of that letter. I believe that Mr Dallat was illustrating a view of what you had said, rather than actually alleging that you are a liar. The tone of both the headline and the letter clearly conveys that, and any other interpretation is misguided. Mr Dallat, like other SDLP members, has fundamental problems with your analysis of human rights. I do not know whether that is a “flat earth” approach. However, it is a very narrow interpretation of what we believe is required, given the broad human rights requirements in the North. Mr Nesbitt: The SDLP has difficulties with my approach. I have stated my approach in print, in public, for all to see and for all to read. I have invited the SDLP to discuss it; it has neither acknowledged that nor considered it. That party has difficulties with me. The SDLP says that it wants to have dialogue. However, it does not seem to want to discuss or exchange views, which is a little unhelpful. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, because you feel that a member of the Committee has impugned your integrity, it is entirely in order that you clarify the issue and state your point of view. The matter has been well aired. We will leave it at that. Two procedural issues have arisen. First, according to my calculations, two Lord Morrows are attending the Committee today. I have heard that people double-vote. However, double-attendance is surprising. Mr Poots: I have drawn the short straw; I am Ian Paisley Jnr. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots is Ian Paisley Jnr, and Lord Morrow is himself. Secondly, I am aware that a member who is present at the Committee for the first time has not made a declaration of interest. Have you anything to declare, Mr McGuigan? Mr McGuigan: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is important that we keep tabs on that. I did not notice. I believe, Mr Hussey, that you have been present before and have made your declaration. Mr Hussey: I was here last week, but I did not make a declaration. The Chairman (Mr Wells): For example, with regard to the parades issue, several members have declared that they are members of the Orange Order. If any similar issues come up, please declare relevant interests. We shall proceed to today’s business. I am sure that members are aware of the usual arrangements; discussion will go on until 12.20 pm and there will be a break of 15 minutes for lunch. I encourage members to bring their food back to the table. The main items of discussion today are the disappeared, dealing with the past and its legacy, truth and reconciliation, and victims. Members are acquainted with the normal procedure, which is that each party will make a short presentation on each subject. That is done in alphabetical order. Therefore, the Alliance Party will start. Afterwards, members may ask questions. During the presentations, please let either me or the Clerks know if you wish to ask a question. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party will cover all four areas of discussion on the past and its legacy in its opening statement, rather than deal separately with each area. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be helpful if each party made it clear whether they were doing this singly or as a group, and then we would know where we stand. Fire away. Mrs Long: This is clearly a complicated and multi-faceted issue. It is also probably one of the most sensitive that we will be dealing with as a Committee, as it requires us to deal with a conflict around which there is no shared understanding. It is also incredibly personal to each individual who has been directly affected, and yet it has an impact on the wider public and on politics in Northern Ireland. Some people may argue that focusing on the past is counterproductive and keeps wounds open, and that society should simply move on. Alliance disagrees strongly with that view. We believe that addressing the past and its legacy is fundamental to the process of reconciliation and to building a shared future. Failure to do this in a comprehensive and holistic manner is a barrier to political progress and future political stability. Issues of how to handle the past have been allowed to become a source of division within society, and have created further divisions as a result. Alliance believes that only through the creation of a comprehensive approach can this tendency be countered. It is the view of my party that efforts to deal with the past and its legacy have been handled on a very piecemeal basis to date. First of all, paramilitary prisoners were placed on a generous early release programme. That aspect of the agreement turned out to be the most controversial and the most painful one. There was no requirement upon the organisations involved to engage in any wider process of revealing the details of their past actions. While the early release scheme approximated to a de facto amnesty for existing prisoners, the Police Service technically retained unsolved cases from the troubles as open case files. The special historical enquiries team has now been established for that purpose, but it faces an uphill struggle. Related to this is the need to ensure that all past instances have been properly recorded and, indeed, investigated. This has been highlighted through a number of recent cases investigated by the Police Ombudsman. Amnesties were granted to paramilitaries in relation also to decommissioning, in that any evidence arising out of the handover of weapons could not be used in future prosecutions. Also, amnesties were created in relation to evidence given by paramilitaries in order to help the authorities locate the remains of the disappeared — those people kidnapped, murdered and buried in unmarked graves. The British Government over-reached itself on the subject of the so-called “on the runs” (OTRs) as a key demand of republicans during the implementation phase. Initially, the British Government agreed to what was essentially an amnesty for the OTRs, as part of the July 2001 Weston Park proposals. That initiative was attacked for two principal reasons. The first was that there was no linkage sought between the fate of the OTRs and the exiles — people who had been either internally displaced within Northern Ireland or forced to leave under threat from paramilitaries. Some were suspected of being criminals; others had simply stood up to local paramilitary godfathers, but neither should have been subjected to this kind of intimidation. Several thousand exiles are still unable to return to their homes in safety. The second problem was the absence of any judicial process for the returnees that would require them and their organisations to face up to their actions and to face their victims. This problem was, on the surface, apparently rectified within the proposals in the joint declaration of April 2003. It set out a quasi-judicial process whereby those seeking to benefit from the scheme would have had to be processed through a special tribunal. Those found guilty would have been placed on licence, like the early-release prisoners, but without serving any time in prison. However, a potentially fatal flaw was the absence of any requirement for the applicants to actually attend those hearings. There have been some limited efforts to find the truth behind some selective incidents that occurred during the troubles, but those entirely relate to actions that were conducted by the forces of the state. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry, for example, was established in early 1998, pre-dating the agreement, to explore what was, perhaps, the greatest abuse of state forces during the troubles. Amazingly, it will not report until 2007. There are now other demands for separate inquiries into a number of instances where the forces of the British and Irish Governments were alleged to be acting in collusion with republican and loyalist paramilitaries. A list of six of these was agreed by the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park. Those inquiries have not yet commenced, due to controversies relating to the British Government trying to limit their powers. We believe that it is right that the state should be held to the highest of standards. However, while these inquiries hold out the prospect of some degree of truth emerging for the families of some victims, they leave many with the feeling that their experience is less important and that they are in some way not valued by society in the same light. Many victims and their families are not benefiting from any kind of process. They have a diminishing prospect of formal prosecutions being taken, and there is no indication of any truth and reconciliation process being established in the near future. Victims are diverse and have a range of needs. Much formal public policy has focused on financial assistance and the provision of services for victims. Progress has been made, although there is room for improvement, as evidenced by the ongoing work of the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. Much more can be done, and the much wider issue must be addressed. The Alliance Party wants to outline some suggestions. However, we realise that political parties should not be overly prescriptive when proposing measures that could encourage the perception that victims’ issues have become a political football. I hope that no party would want that to be the case. Our first suggestion relates to memorialisation. Some kind of permanent memorial should be created — and there is room for considerable creativity in that regard. It may not have to be a traditional, physical memorial; there are other ways of recognising the loss of life and the cost of thirty years of violence. Consideration should also be given to holding a day of remembrance or reflection. The option of storytelling has been explored. That would allow victims, as they define themselves, to place their testimony, positive and negative, on record, leading to some kind of permanent archive. A wider truth recovery process would be a useful tool in resolving some issues. Although it might be appropriate to draw on international experience, the process must first and foremost be tailored to the evolving needs of Northern Ireland. To simply transplant a mechanism from elsewhere would be neither acceptable nor productive. There has been much discussion on many of those areas in the past, but, unfortunately, little progress. The Alliance Party would be happy to endorse proposals for the creation of a victims’ forum, which would allow victims to tell their stories in their terms, and the creation of an archive. The party proposes that the Committee should support such a proposal. The Alliance Party wants to particularly mention the disappeared and their families. We reiterate our belief that primary responsibility for addressing this matter lies with those responsible for their disappearance. At the very least, those involved have a legal and moral obligation to allow families to bury their dead and to come to peace with the situation. The legacy of paramilitarism must also be addressed. The Alliance Party did not want this section to be labelled “The Past”, because that ongoing legacy is one with which communities continue to live. The issue of exiles must be addressed. The practice of exiling is still going on in Northern Ireland, and externally. It is not simply enough to call for it to be stopped; the threats against people who have been exiled must be lifted so that they can return to their homes in safety, if they wish to do so. It is also important to note that paramilitary organisations still exert a stranglehold over certain communities. It is often associated with the prevalence of organised crime and it breeds such a culture of lawlessness that people do not appreciate the value of a society based on the rule of law. Instead, it appears to be the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. This situation carries huge social and economic costs, and huge personal costs for people in those communities. In far too many ways, the state and its agencies contribute to the situation by accepting that the local strongmen are the legitimate voices of communities and by allowing them to broker what does or does not happen in certain areas. It often seems easier to cut deals and to accommodate this intimidation rather than tackle it head on. What may seem to be a short-term gain simply exacerbates the problem. Those issues must be dealt with comprehensively, and the Government must take a consistent line across the board in dealing with the legacy of the past, ongoing paramilitarism and intimidation within communities. I have kept our comments brief, but we certainly wish to explore these issues in more detail later today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As Mrs Long dealt with all four subjects together, I allowed her to go well over the allocated five minutes. She was entitled to 20 minutes in total, comprising four five-minute slots. Her contribution lasted about 10 minutes, so that is fine. It is perfectly acceptable for parties to do that, and they will be allocated extra time. 10.30 am As some parties may run the four subjects into one presentation, I should remind members, just in case, that, under those headings, issues of sub judice could arise and, of course, the precedent and ruling are very clear. If the matter is before the courts in any fashion then members cannot be specific and cannot name individuals. I remind members, even though they have qualified privilege in this room, of the need to be careful. I will intervene if someone names individuals involved in cases that have been referred to the courts. Mr Poots: In dealing with the past and its legacy, our presentation will deal with all four issues together. First, we shall talk about victims and deal with the definition of “victims”. Our vision document states that there is a fundamental distinction between those who have suffered at the hands of terrorist gangs, and those terrorists and former terrorists who contributed to the terror campaign and wrought untold suffering throughout the troubles. The DUP simply demands a fair and sensible recognition of the victims of terror. Clouding the issue or applying a one-size-fits-all definition merely concedes to the principle of political expediency. It is unhelpful and fails to contribute to achieving reconciliation. To argue that everyone is a victim facilitates those who would minimise their own role in contributing to the terror and to the consequences of their actions. That is skewed thinking, and it establishes a false foundation for a new beginning. The rights of those who have suffered at the hands of the terror machine, and who continue to suffer, should not be pushed to the background in the false hope of achieving reconciliation. The pain and suffering that are a daily experience for many victims will not go away. Where there is no justice or reasonable recognition, there can be no healing. Many victims simply want to get on with life and leave behind what has happened to them. However, many others need the support and counsel of those who have come through similar circumstances. With regard to victims’ groups, many individuals often do not have a strong enough voice to raise the profile of their own case, or are not able to articulate their needs. It is vitally important that the support groups that have developed be supported and encouraged. Victims’ groups have developed through the work of people who give their time voluntarily, and have become an important way for victims to express their needs. Furthermore, they offer much-needed services such as counselling, training and support. The needs of victims and the priorities of those groups must be highlighted, and those needs must be recognised by Government and form the cornerstone of their strategies for victims. All too often in the past it has simply been what Government has assumed is important to victims, and not what really matters. Again, victim support groups can be key to this, as they represent their members’ wishes. It is vital that these groups receive the funding that is crucial to their survival. It is also imperative that future funds be guaranteed, so that the threat of funding removal does not hang over their heads when planning for their future. At present it is impossible — unless through private fund-raising — for these groups to improve their facilities. Victims’ groups, and particularly smaller groups, also require funding to advertise their services. It is still a problem that many of those who most require help either do not know that it is available, or are reluctant to come forward. Funding that allows those groups to reach out to more people will increase their usefulness among the people who need the services most. Compensation was not an issue when many of the killings took place in Northern Ireland, and many who have suffered have not received adequate recompense. Levels of compensation offered to those whose relatives were murdered were often minimal. In one particular case, a mother and daughter received £11,000 for watching their husband and father being gunned down. I compare that to the level of compensation received by a leading member of Sinn Féin/IRA when he was struck by an RUC truncheon and received compensation of £9,000. In a case relating to the family of one of the Loughgall terrorists, £40,000 was awarded in compensation. Funding from Government must be directed so that it benefits directly those who are the victims of terrorism and is not spread across the “victims sector”, as it is currently defined by Government. Funding that is supposed to help victims should not be siphoned off to help rehabilitate terrorists. Organisations claiming to be victims’ organisations have been established and have, as members, many people who have engaged in the terrorist campaign. Those organisations are a complete contrivance, and cannot be accepted as bona fide victims’ groups. It is vital that those who are responsible for the fate of the disappeared come forward to help locate the bodies. The Rev Dr Ian Paisley stated recently: “I hope that these proposed measures will result in the remains of the ‘Disappeared’ being located, but the fact of the matter is that accurate information about the whereabouts of the bodies from those directly responsible for these horrific murders is the most likely way to bring about closure for the families.” The republican movement, as encapsulated by the IRA as the paramilitary wing and Sinn Féin as the political wing: “must come forward with answers. They caused pain for the families in the first place by killing their loved ones. They have denied them a proper burial and have added insult to injury by sullying the memories of their victims with scurrilous accusations. It is up to them to do what they have failed to do in the past and tell the truth about where their victims bodies lie. These people know where these bodies are. Why can’t they hand them back and give their victims families some peace?” With regard to unsolved crimes, it is important that all victims of terrorism are not forgotten. There are more than 2,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland; many victims still feel the pain because no one has been brought to justice for the murder of their loved ones. More resources should be given to the Historical Enquiries Team to help it to investigate many of those crimes. There have been some suggestions that a truth commission would be a step forward for Northern Ireland. Some people think that it would bring closure to what has happened. In somewhere as small as Northern Ireland, that proposal is unlikely to be successful. Although the state would have to be fully accountable and would be required to co-operate fully and disclose all its information to such a commission, the terrorist groups would have full control over whether to participate and at what level. It is our view that a truth commission would not only be unworkable in Northern Ireland but would serve to hold accountable only those who served in the Crown forces, while terrorists could hide behind a cloak of anonymity. We are glad that the proposed legislation for those on the runs did not proceed and that the Government backed off. We will continue to oppose the introduction of any legislation that would allow so-called on-the-run terrorists to walk freely the streets of Northern Ireland. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be helpful if Mrs Long and Mr Poots could give copies of their presentations to Hansard, simply to ensure that they are correctly reported. Perhaps they could see the Hansard staff at lunch time. The same goes for all the other parties. Lord Morrow: Will we all get copies of those presentations? The Chairman (Mr Wells): What do members feel about that suggestion? Mr Poots: They will be in Hansard, anyway. Lord Morrow: Are we not discussing them today? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Each party’s submission is handed around the table. Mr Poots: I am happy for our presentation to be circulated. Mrs Long: We have not prepared a formal submission. I simply have notes from which I was speaking, but they are not comprehensive. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Your contribution seemed to be remarkably articulate to be taken from notes. Mrs Long: Thank you for your flattery; nevertheless, they were only notes. Lord Morrow: Was there not a clear understanding that each party was to present a paper to the Committee? Mrs Long: No. Lord Morrow: That was my understanding. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Parties have certainly volunteered that material in the past. Lord Morrow: No, I do not think that that is right. In the past, parties were instructed or asked to prepare papers and bring them to the Committee. Mrs Long: This issue has been discussed on several occasions, and the option for members to submit papers was left open. However, no one was required to submit a paper. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was voluntary, but is the DUP willing to make its paper available? Lord Morrow: That was the understanding at the commencement of these Committee meetings. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remember that point. The DUP volunteered to make its paper available. Mr Nesbitt: Let me try to end this minor internecine conflict in the DUP — Lord Morrow: I do not think that it is minor. Mr Nesbitt: At a previous meeting, the noble Lord read from a document that was reported in Hansard. Perhaps I am wrong, but did he make that available? Lord Morrow: Yes, I did. Mr Nesbitt: If he made that document available, the request seems laudable and easy to follow. I cannot understand what the discussion is about. Lord Morrow: No disrespect to Mr Nesbitt, but he misses the point, and not for the first time. When the Committee first met, parties were asked to submit a paper to the Committee. It may be that others do not need to do that — Mrs Long has not submitted a paper, which is fair enough. However, that was the understanding from day one. Mrs Long: It was certainly not our understanding that members had to submit papers. This issue has been discussed at almost every meeting of the Committee. Some members have offered to submit papers, and others have said that we should not submit papers. Last week, the DUP said that we should submit papers; the Ulster Unionist Party said that we should not. It was always open to us to submit papers, but we were not compelled to do so. We are happy to make a written submission to cover the points that I have raised, but we could not do it today. Mr Nesbitt: I am agreeing with Mrs Long more often than not, which is worrying. She said that there is a difference between presenting a paper and submitting one, and that that distinction was being made. Presenting a paper does not necessarily mean that a written document is submitted. It can be an oral presentation. Mrs Long presented a paper; she did not submit a written document. Her party may or may not wish to do that. The DUP read, presented and submitted a paper for the benefit of Hansard. Let us proceed, Mr Chairman. You have asked the DUP to submit its paper — Ms Lewsley: I propose that if anyone wants to submit papers today, they have the opportunity to do so. If a member wants to submit a paper at a later stage, they also have the opportunity. Mr Nesbitt: There is something important about submitting a paper at a later stage. Let us get this clear. I submitted a paper last week; I tabled the paper and it was published on the Assembly website. If a paper is submitted outside the curtilage of this Committee without it having been presented first, that would be a slightly different situation. Mr Chairman, are you giving carte blanche to members to submit whatever they like? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The problem is that at some meetings we agreed that papers would be submitted, presented and distributed. This morning, we did not do that. I simply asked members to present a paper, and they have done that. Ms Lewsley: Many papers that parties submit will be much more detailed than our presentations. We have a detailed paper that we can submit, but our presentation will be much shorter. Like Mrs Long, I will read from notes. I do not have a prepared document. I can give what I have to Hansard, and I hope that they can make use of it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will not reach agreement on this issue, and — Mr Nesbitt: It is important that a submitted paper be placed on the table at some stage; in other words, it should not be submitted outside the ambit of this Committee. Ms Lewsley: With the greatest respect to Mr Nesbitt, I mean that if the Alliance Party wanted to submit a paper, they could do it next week, because they are not prepared for it today. That is all I said. I did not say that the paper should be submitted somewhere in the ether between now and next week. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Supplying Hansard staff with documentation is a totally different issue. That will assist Hansard to report accurately what has been said at the meeting. The documentation could be notes or a fully typed submission. Do not feel that the two are linked. Let us move on. Mr McGuigan: For clarification, I will be speaking partly from a prepared paper and partly from handwritten notes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Will you cover all four subjects together or each issue separately? Mr McGuigan: I will deal with all four subjects together. Like Mr Nesbitt, I am going to agree with Mrs Long: these are sensitive issues that should not be used as political footballs. Sinn Féin remains committed to the agreement’s requirement that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of victims and survivors of violence as necessary elements of reconciliation. It is our view that the suffering of the victims and survivors has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed, and that international best practice is required to support the development of special community-based initiatives, including trauma and counselling services, with adequate resourcing and funding from both Governments to enable victims’ groups to pursue their remits. That should be done in consultation with victims’ groups. Too often in the past, Governments have imposed resources on victims’ groups without consulting them. 10.45 am Sinn Féin also demands equality of treatment for all victims and survivors and an end to the practices that discriminate against victims of state violence and collusion. That discrimination was evident in the politically expedient way in which the DUP’s nominee was appointed as Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. It is also evident in political parties’ attempts to create a hierarchy of victims of conflict by demeaning some victims, as we heard in the DUP’s presentation. On the issue of truth and reconciliation and dealing with the past, Sinn Féin believes that there should be an end to political posturing, particularly by the British Government, as regards truth recovery. All relevant parties must engage in a genuine, focused debate on the timing and purpose of a comprehensive truth process to deal with the legacy of the past, underpinned by the following principles and values: that all processes should be victim centred; that victims and survivors have the right to acknowledgement and the right to contribute to a changing society; that full co-operation and disclosure is required; and that the British state should acknowledge its role as a primary protagonist in the conflict and clarify its actions throughout. There should be no hierarchy of victims, and any panel or commission should be international and independent. There should be a desire to learn from the lessons of the past so that mistakes are not repeated. The process should not be restricted to combatant groups but should include the media, the judiciary, state institutions, civic society, and so forth. In the past, Sinn Féin has asked for full co-operation and disclosure with regard to the disappeared, and its party president has recently reiterated that call. It is in the public domain that more information, including information from primary sources, has been given to the body responsible for the matter. That body should be left to get on with its work in trying to bring about a resolution to the issue. Ms Lewsley: I will deal with the issues of victims, the disappeared and the past. My colleagues will also make short presentations. The SDLP believes that, on a moral basis, we must leave the past behind. There is a danger to our society if we do not face up to the past. Moreover, it is deeply unfair to victims to deny them the truth, if that is what they seek. It is important that the language used be more sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors. More can, and must, be done to address the needs of victims and survivors of conflict. As we try to rebuild our society, they struggle to rebuild their lives. The very least that they should expect from us is the acknowledgement of their terrible loss and a commitment to ensuring that they do not carry the burden of remembering on their own. The SDLP wants a greater platform for victims so that their needs can be articulated and their stories heard and acknowledged. It wants to ensure that any process for dealing with the past is victim centred, which is why the party supports the role of the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, although the manner in which that commissioner was appointed was unfortunate. The party also supports the establishment of a victims’ and survivors’ forum. The SDLP believes that there should be no hierarchy of victims, and that victims of the state, or of republican or loyalist terror, should have the same rights. A devolved administration should make victims’ needs a priority in the Programme for Government and address how services for victims can be improved and better compensation payments given to those who have received little or nothing. The issue of funding was mentioned this morning. The entire sector is in great need of more focused funding. Funding should be more flexible, as some victims are now elderly and their needs may have changed. No flexibility exists in current funding arrangements to address issues that affect elderly victims, such as mental-health problems and dementia. A strong monitoring role is needed to oversee how money is spent and to assess its impact. That should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the funding targets those most in need. Victims have told me that the restoration of the Assembly is important, as it would give victims the opportunity to talk more freely about the issues that concern them. Any future government should ensure that victims’ needs are centred rather than policy driven, so that those needs are taken into consideration. Services must be monitored and matched to need. The Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors could carry out that monitoring role. The interim commissioner should be a one-stop shop at which any victim can get direction on any matter. Services must be equitable across the board and across all age ranges. I commend the interim commissioner on her latest report, ‘A Forum for Victims and Survivors: Consultation Responses’, which is a summary of the feedback from the consultation seminars on the role and purpose of a victims’ and survivors’ forum. That document represents the voice of victims and survivors, not that of the interim commissioner. The British Government recently responded to a series of recommendations that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains (ICLVR) made on the disappeared. Although that announcement is welcomed, it is long overdue. A forensic-science expert submitted a review last year, and the families of the disappeared had to wait a long time for the Governments’ response. The SDLP had already expressed its concerns about that delay and is pleased to see commitments bring made at last. The challenge now is to translate those commitments into actions. Many families have been waiting for more than 30 years for the bodies of their loved ones, so bureaucracy must not make them wait any longer. There must be a renewed will to find the bodies. Some people mistakenly believe that everything that can be done has been done, but that is simply not true. For example, French police dug for Seamus Ruddy’s body for only six hours, which is clearly not sufficient to relieve the Ruddy family’s lifetime of suffering. Much more must be done, and families must be kept informed every step of the way. The commitment to appoint a family liaison officer for the families of the disappeared is therefore crucial and welcome. However, no amount of good work by the Governments will make up for the lack of co-operation shown by those in the IRA and the INLA who were involved in those terrible crimes in the first place. Members of the Provisional IRA and the INLA stole those people’s lives and then stole their bodies. If they have any conscience at all, they must do everything that they can to ensure that they do not rob the families of any chance of a Christian burial. We support the Alliance Party’s proposal to establish a victims’ forum in order to increase the voice for victims and survivors. The SDLP has two proposals, the first of which is that victims should be prioritised in the Programme for Government. The second proposal is that the Committee should agree the principle that a liaison officer for the families of the disappeared be appointed immediately. Mr A Maginness: I will focus on the issues of truth and remembrance. The SDLP believes that it is imperative to vindicate victims’ rights to truth and remembrance. Victims keenly feel and bear the pain and suffering of loss, but, at present, that loss and suffering is neither publicly nor officially acknowledged, as it should be. The very least that society can do is to recognise that burden and to ensure that victims’ suffering is not in vain. The SDLP believes that the full, independent, “Cory-compliant” public inquiries that were promised at Weston Park should be held. We welcome the opening of the inquiry into the death of Rosemary Nelson but urge that there be progress on all the other inquiries that Judge Cory recommended. However, my party is implacably opposed to the Inquiries Act 2005, which threatens to endanger the effectiveness and the independence of public inquiries into cases of alleged collusion between state forces and paramilitary groups. That legislation is on the statute books, but it should not be used. Fully independent inquiries should be held. The SDLP believes that the British Government will not have credibility on victims and survivors issues while the Prime Minister continues to renege on his clear commitment to the Finucane family about the inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. The Inquiries Act 2005 runs contrary to the provision of a full and independent inquiry into his murder. The SDLP also advocates an officially designated day of remembrance across Northern Ireland and Ireland. It would act as a lasting reminder of the distance that our society has travelled in the past three decades, and of the distance that still has to be travelled. The SDLP believes that, at present, there is no established body to deal directly with the process of truth recovery. The victims’ and survivors’ forum should consider the establishment of an independent international truth body to lead a truth process and to work on a North/South basis. Such a truth body could perform a variety of functions, and we suggest the following: the compilation of a register of victims, to which any individual may submit their name for inclusion; and a truth-and-remembrance archive, which could be established and overseen by the truth body. The archive would have state-of-the-art technology and would allow victims, survivors and their families to record their personal accounts, including, if they wish to do so, details of whom, or what organisation, they believe to be responsible for the death of their loved ones. It would be for them to determine whether they wanted the archive to be made public. The archive would have a twofold effect, giving an individual’s description of what happened to them and a collective acknowledgement of the sufferings of victims and survivors. The public part of the archive could be publicised, for example through an interactive video archive that could be displayed in town halls and other public buildings, listing the names of victims and giving an account of their truth on particular anniversaries. That would be a reasonably straightforward way to acknowledge the individual and collective suffering of victims. The SDLP also welcomes the cold-case review and is pleased that it includes paramilitary and state killings. We believe that the Historical Enquiries Team should be given adequate resources to complete what is a difficult, onerous and voluminous task. We also believe that the Police Ombudsman should be given proper resources to deal with that aspect of truth recovery. Victims must be put first, and truth recovery must be victims centred. To date, society has done too little for victims, and many feel that they carry a lonely burden. The SDLP offers proposals for a comprehensive strategy that puts the rights and needs of victims at the centre. Its proposals will allow society to acknowledge, and account for, the past in order to recognise the enduring pain and share the burden of remembrance. These are not exhaustive proposals, but we put them into the public domain for further discussion and adaptation. 11.00 am Mr Hussey: I shall make the Ulster Unionist Party’s presentation. I have my notes, and, unlike Naomi, I will not use them but will read what I have prepared from them. I will present the text for Hansard’s use, although there will be deviations as I go through the presentation. It is not a paper as such; it is a written version of what I intend to present to the Committee today. This issue is a central precursor to moving forward. Our society has suffered enormously in the past three and a half decades from terrorism and the sectarianism and division associated with the conflict. The community has had its basic foundations weakened and strained by indiscriminate murder and destruction to such an extent that we are left with a situation in which, some 37 years after the start of the so-called “troubles”, we must decide when criminality is at a normal level. We do not yet live in a normal society; indeed, achieving such a society is one of the fundamental reasons for the establishment of the Committee on the Preparation for Government. However, a normal society may not emerge in our lifetime if we do not adequately deal with the past. Comments in this paper are predicated on three issues. First, the Ulster Unionist Party does not equate victims with perpetrators. Secondly, we believe that every victim’s situation is personal and specific and that the process must reflect that; victims must not be subject to a loose and generic system. Thirdly, we agree that there is no hierarchy of victimhood; it has a spectrum. How one defines a policy on victims is dependent on certain agreed principles. We are focused primarily on the establishment of agreed principles in order to provide the necessary framework for victims’ issues to be dealt with sensitively and fairly. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was appointed by the late Mo Mowlam, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to examine the issue of remembrance. His report is entitled ‘We Will Remember Them’, a phrase taken from the fourth stanza of the poem ‘For the Fallen’. Remembrance of those killed in war, or as a result of terrorist activity, is, sadly, something that we in Northern Ireland are well used to. It is not uncommon to hear references made on Remembrance Sunday to those servicemen and innocents who were murdered during the troubles. We support efforts to remember the sacrifice made in the troubles. Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter — all fell at the hands of terrorists, and we do not wish to see them forgotten. In remembrance, however, we are aware of the efforts of perpetrators of violence to sanitise their respective murder campaigns. The efforts of terrorists to legitimise themselves create the problem that we have been unable to get around — how to remember and to reconcile. We have conflicting views of the troubles: why they started, how both sides conducted the experience and who won or lost. The Ulster Unionist Party accepts that this is an enormously complex issue. We acknowledge that we do not have, and are highly unlikely ever to have, a single narrative of the troubles. That is why it may be unlikely that we will ever come up with a unanimous and mutually acceptable definition of who is, or is not, a victim. Nevertheless, we believe that only those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists — and not the terrorists themselves — are the true victims of the troubles. In our view, perpetrators of violence are plainly not victims. It is only right that account is taken of responsibility and criminal culpability in determining society’s collective approach. Those people who operated outside the framework of civic society, who acted beyond law and order and acceptable civilised values, and who sought to remove from others the most fundamental of all rights — the right to life — cannot be classed as victims and survivors. Many people will ask whether to do so would be insensitive and gravely insulting to those who are blameless and innocent. Paramilitaries kill other paramilitaries in internecine feuds. The figures might show that more republican militants were murdered by republican militants than by any other group. The Ulster Unionist Party is keen to stay inside the realms of responsible politics. Those include the condemnation of all illegal activity, all paramilitary crime and a completely different treatment of all illegal combatants of the troubles from that shown to genuine victims. Those who seek to justify and edify the victim maker add little to the process. The nationalist and republican community appears to expect two standards in a truth and reconciliation process: full disclosure and accountability from the forces of law and order and, from terrorist organisations, codes of honour that allow for secrecy. I do not expect more of the forces of the Crown than I do of criminals; however, to attempt a wholesale truth recovery process beyond the normal procedure for investigating alleged wrongdoing by police officers and soldiers would clearly be a one-sided farce. That situation will remain, unless and until the republican movement decides to be reasonable about its past crimes. The Ulster Unionist Party is clear that the South African truth and reconciliation model is not transferable, in whole or in part, to meet the needs of Northern Ireland. However, we believe that the permanent establishment of a victims’ commissioner is the way forward. The state has a burden of responsibility to uphold law and order. When that, inevitably, fails, it has a further duty of care to the victims of crime. It must be made clear that that responsibility does not diminish if the crime is committed in pursuance of insurrection, insurgency or separatism. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that, in our situation, the state’s burden is best carried by a commissioner for victims and survivors. In broad terms, we welcome the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which is currently out for consultation. Nonetheless, the Ulster Unionist Party cannot agree to the definition of “victim” as offered in article 3 of the Order. A victims’ forum is suggested in the Order, and that is a positive step. Such a forum, adequately constituted, is the state’s best method of moving our society away from its past. It would assist a victims’ commissioner to co-ordinate financial, political and psychological help for victims of the troubles, and in the dispersal of information. Many projects, such as the Healing Through Remembering story-telling project, provide an excellent means of helping victims and survivors to heal old wounds and achieve a sense of closure. A victims’ forum could, and should, be the central focal point for such projects and make them accessible to those who wish to avail of them. That is important. There is, however, a concern that a victims’ forum could become a quasi-judicial kangaroo court. We can provide no other explanation for including a provision in the Order for absolute privilege for reports by the commissioner. This is most unusual, highly unnecessary and in all possibility dangerous. We are opposed to any attempt to include victims and perpetrators within the same forum. It is grossly inappropriate. The UUP has always advocated a value-added approach to the use of public funds. Any use of taxpayers’ money must add to society. Perpetrators of violence must be dealt with in a manner conducive to normalising our society, but we must be very clear that this task is separate from helping victims to move on. The victims’ forum must be for that purpose. There must be clear balance in the commissioner’s actions towards separate groups of victims. Victims’ groups require funding, and it should be co-ordinated by the commissioner subject to what the funds will be achieving. Groups such as ‘SAVER/NAVER’ in Mid-Ulster/County Armagh and ‘West Tyrone Voice’ in my own area provide excellent care and respite for their members. For groups such as these, funding needs to be firmed up and instituted in the long term to allow them to deal with the needs of their client base for the foreseeable future. However, there are individuals who are not part of a victims’ group. For example, many civilians are dealing with their own particular trauma, and it may be that they have not realised that they would have recourse to financial compensation and support. At the beginning of the troubles, expertise and mechanisms in that area did not exist. Therefore, those individuals must be high on the commissioner’s agenda. They can very often be left behind. To a large extent it is to those individuals that the commissioner must make himself or herself most accessible. As a result, we firmly believe that the intention that the commissioner will open one office in central Belfast is not sufficient to deal with Northern Ireland as a whole. There are also victims who wish to be left alone to deal with the past in their own way. No one should infringe on their right to do so. The needs of ex-servicemen and their families are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the Policing Board. The commissioner must, however, champion the cause of servicemen in cases when the respective authorities fail in their duty of care. The issue of a permanent memorial to victims must be left to the victims who suffered as a result of terrorist action. The Ulster Unionist Party does not seek to claim that it has all the answers, nor does it seek to hijack what is an important issue for political gain. A memorial must be dedicated to those who have suffered or died in our troubles. In conclusion, constructive debate is vital to support the whole project. This process must be based on principles of fairness, equity and understanding. The apologists of violence may seek to sanitise the horrors that were perpetrated on people here. That must not be allowed to influence policy-making. The process must have moral authority to be fully effective. Those who wish to move the debate forward constructively should not refrain from offering their views. We all know that this is a complex area, and I accept that some may disagree with my views. At this stage, if we are open-minded and constructive in our approach and truly wish to see Northern Ireland move forward, progress can be made. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Nesbitt, you indicated earlier that you had to leave at 11 o’clock. If you wish to get in early in the discussion, that is fine. Mr Nesbitt: I was just about to go, but I have one comment. Sinn Féin, in its introduction, talked about international best practice. I am always conscious that Sinn Féin refers to international best practice and international norms, yet when I asked Michael Ferguson, on an aspect of human rights, if he would subscribe to international norms, his answer — in simple English — was yes and no. It is cherry picking, and that is my only comment. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thank the five parties. Some groups have obviously taken a lot of time and care with their presentations, and that is appreciated. I allowed some parties a degree of latitude because they had rolled up their views under the four headings into one presentation. I am conscious that some parties did not take full use of their time so I will allow groups to come back in if they wish to add points. As far as I can see there are three proposals: first, for a victims’ forum, which I understand has the support of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the UUPAG; secondly, there is a proposal from Patricia Lewsley that the issue of victims is identified as a priority in the Programme for Government; thirdly, Patricia proposed the appointment of a family liaison officer for victims. 11.15 am Those are the only proposals that came out of that discussion. Mr Hussey: The appointment of a family liaison officer was intended to be for the families of the “disappeared”. Ms Lewsley: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The “disappeared” rather than victims. I just want to ask Alban whether his contribution with regard to Cory-compliant inquiries was a follow-up proposal, a suggestion or an aspiration? Mr Maginness: It is certainly a proposal from the SDLP. If it finds support around the table, we would welcome that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): So we have four proposals then. No one has as yet indicated that he or she wishes to speak on any of those proposals or any of the evidence that has been heard. Mr McGuigan: May I have clarification on the fourth proposal? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will seek guidance from members. Do we want to work our way through these? One or two of them might be fairly straightforward, and then we will come to the Cory-compliance issue. Mr Attwood: May I ask a relevant question arising from the submissions? The Ulster Unionists said that, for various reasons, they did not feel that a truth and reconciliation commission model is necessary for the like of the North. The DUP said that the North is too small on the one hand and that, on the other, it would be members of state organisations that would be made to participate and not members of paramilitary organisations. Those are real concerns, but when Sinn Féin talked about the same issue in its submission, Mr McGuigan said that: “one of the principles that should inform the work of such a commission was full co-operation and disclosure”. Given the DUP’s view that paramilitary groups would not live up to the requirement for full co-operation and disclosure to a truth process, is it the view of Sinn Féin now that any member of a paramilitary organisation would be required to co-operate fully and disclose to a truth process that which was within its gift? If that is the case, to some degree that narrows the difference around the table on a very important matter. It certainly creates a tension between what might now be the case and what certainly was the case when Martin McGuinness appeared at the Bloody Sunday tribunal, where he chose not to co-operate fully or disclose what he knew. If there has been some shift of policy — and that is implied by Sinn Féin’s acceptance of the principle of full co-operation and disclosure — that would be very helpful. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do Sinn Féin want to answer that? Mr McGuigan: Mr Attwood quoted me correctly, but in the preface to some of the principles and values that I outlined, I said that we were calling for a genuine focused debate among all the relevant parties on how we could take the issue forward. We need that debate so that we can all work out together how a truth process can be taken forward. Members will be aware that Sinn Féin produced a document on this matter several years ago, which is available on our website. In that document, we stated that for a truth process to work, all combatant groups and relevant organisations needed to take part. Mr Attwood: Just to clarify, does that mean that all combatant groups — including illegal groups — and their members could co-operate fully and disclose to the process what they know? Is that the principle? That would be quite helpful to unionist concerns about a truth commission. Mr McGuigan: It is difficult to talk now about something that may well happen in the future. The principles are those I have outlined, namely that there should be a focused debate among all groups, and that for a truth process to work, all groups who were involved in the conflict need to play their part. Mr Attwood: Given that you advocate full disclosure and full co-operation in any truth process, does that extend to the role played by illegal groups? This is important because the main reason for the unionist parties’ understandable concern about, and opposition to, a truth and reconciliation process — whatever form that might take — is that there would not be full co-operation and disclosure from paramilitary groups. If Sinn Fein has shifted ground on that, it opens up new possibilities as far as we are concerned. Mr McGuigan: I do not think that my comments today represent a shift in ground. As I have already said, we produced a document a number of years ago that contained these very principles. Mrs Long: I just want to clarify an issue to do with the victims’ forum. The shape that the victims’ forum would take has been changing. It was initially envisaged as an opportunity for people to put their stories on record and create an historical archive. Now the term is used to relate more to an advocacy body with a support role, which we believe is also vital. The Alliance Party’s proposal still stands, but we need some clarity about people’s understanding of the role of the victims’ forum. Such an advocacy and support role does not currently exist, but it is needed, and a forum would be a useful way of providing it. However, a forum is also needed to enable people to put their stories on record. Alliance wants to highlight its views on the story-telling and archive aspect. The party sees that as distinct from a truth and recovery process, in that putting experiences on record will not tell the truth of how those experiences came about. There is a difference between people putting experiences on record for an archive and getting the truth about what happened in the circumstances. There is a distinction between the two, so I would just like some clarity about the victims’ forum. There is one other matter that we would like to formulate into a proposal if it were possible to get consensus on it: namely the idea of a day of remembrance and reflection. A number of parties have mentioned it and been supportive of it, and my party feels it is worth exploring further. I am not thinking about what that day would look like in detail; rather I am thinking about the principle that there ought to be a point where such reflection can take place. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Edwin is next, but I think that Patricia wants to clarify that proposal. Ms Lewsley: In her opening remarks Naomi talked about the format of the proposed victims’ forum. I am worried that members around this table, rather than the victims themselves, might decide what it should look like. The victims’ commissioner has told me that after the first piece of work that I mentioned, another piece of work is to be undertaken, and that is to look at different models. It is important that whatever model is chosen be led by victims and is for their benefit. Mrs Long: I completely agree with what Patricia has said. I was just highlighting the fact that people may have different perceptions of what that may be, but we agree in principle with it being led by victims. Mr Poots: Alex should not get too excited about Sinn Fein’s having made a significant shift this morning. There is the usual convoluted “Yes” from Sinn Féin, but there are more caveats in that than Henry VIII had wives. In essence, Sinn Féin is suggesting not full disclosure but a series of proposals that ensure that such disclosure will not occur. Mr McGuigan blew his cover significantly this morning when he stated that further evidence had been supplied on the “disappeared”. When the big searches were carried out, we were told that all the evidence had been supplied. However, why was the further evidence held back? Clearly, Sinn Fein held back evidence at that point, and that information is now being supplied. The same thing happened with decommissioning: we were told that all the weaponry had been handed in, yet weapons have been found since. The information that Sinn Féin has given in the past has certainly fallen short, and Mr McGuigan confirmed that this morning by saying that further information has since been provided. I would like to tease out the subject of the victims’ forum a little further. If we do not have a definition of “victim”, it will be difficult to establish a victims’ forum. Unless there is agreement on that definition, such a forum will probably be a non-runner. Some people perpetuate the nonsense of saying: “I was brought up in a certain area and ended up in a paramilitary organisation. I shot somebody in the back, so I am just as much a victim as the person who was shot.” That is a load of nonsense. It comes from the same school of thought as someone who says: “If someone has two cars and I have none, I can steal one of his because I am a victim, so the person who had the car stolen is no more a victim than the person who committed the crime.” The terrorist cannot be classified as a victim, and it would be a recipe for disaster to establish a forum in which people who claim to be victims but who are actually terrorists participate equally with victims. Unless we agree the definition of “victim”, proceeding with a victims’ forum will be very difficult. Mr McGuigan: Having listened to the presentations from both unionist parties, I am even more concerned about how we make progress with a victims’ forum. Sinn Féin supports, in principle, the establishment of a victims’ forum, but none of the political expediency that I mentioned earlier that was employed in the appointment of the victims’ commissioner should be permitted. That is no slight against the individual who was appointed; rather, I am speaking against the process of that appointment. There can be no hierarchy of victims. The DUP and the UUP may have their own interpretations of history, but the only way in which we can move this forward is by accepting that the grief and victimhood of all the people who suffered as a result of this conflict can be considered equally. Mr McFarland: I apologise to the Committee for missing the first part of the meeting. Parties have been struggling with this very complex issue for years. That complexity has meant that we have tended to leave it to one side. As we have said in previous Committee meetings, perhaps some headway should be made on the matter so that society here can be settled. The first question that we need to ask ourselves is: what are we trying to achieve? Different parties and groups are trying to achieve different things. The 1998 agreement was supposed to have been a watershed: we drew a line in the past and moved on. If we carried the past with us, society would be disturbed. Society in Northern Ireland has a choice: we can spend the next 50 years picking at our sores one by one — that is how long it will take — and nothing will ever heal if we keep dragging up the past, picking at it and keep this boiling. We have a number of areas that we need to deal with. First, we have to look after the victims. My colleague Derek Hussey mentioned the problem of agreeing on the definition of “victim”. Different parties disagree on that, and it is hard to know whether that is a soluble problem. Our focus must be victim centred. As anyone who has strayed into this area will know, victims come in all shapes and sizes. Some want to move on and have done so. Some families do not want an inquiry into the loss of their loved one, because they do not want to be reminded of it. They have dealt with it and put it in the past; their loved one is buried, and they have moved on, some for over 20 years. They do not want the case to be reopened. 11.30 am Other victims do want to know what happened. The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) was set up in January 2006 by the PSNI, and it has had interesting discussions with many families who are not interested in taking people to court and seeing them hanged. The HET may be able to solve the outstanding problem for them of what happened to their father, their son, or their wife. There are also people who want to have anybody who had anything to do with the killing of their loved one hung, drawn and quartered. A delegation from Northern Ireland went to Guatemala to examine its truth and reconciliation process. They discovered that there are various stages to the process. To begin with, people just want to know what happened to their loved one. When they discover that, they then want to see the perpetrator appear in court and have the public see what he or she has done. Then the circumstances of the crime are dragged up and they are reminded of what happened. Then they want revenge; they want the perpetrators punished. The Ulster Unionists have several problems with this. Judicially, the Belfast Agreement drew a line under the past. Rightly or wrongly — and there were serious debates about it at the time — prisoners were freed as part of the process. That meant that while a person might spend a while in jail awaiting the court case, anyone who committed a crime before April 1998 would almost certainly be released under that legislation. Therefore — and unfortunately in many cases — nobody would spend any time behind bars or be hanged for terrorist crimes committed before 1998. That is an issue for those who are looking for retribution and revenge. Some of these issues cannot be solved in this context. However, people want to record for posterity details of what happened to them, how they were hurt and how they lost loved ones, and there must be some system in place for doing that. The danger of having inquiries on truth and reconciliation is that they may not arrive at full disclosure. It is clear from the Saville inquiry that the Provisional IRA has no intention of disclosing anything to anybody. In light of that, I suggest that we will have difficulty in persuading the Army or the police to give a full account of what they did. We will get no visibility on this — but if we did, could we cope with it? What would happen if someone discovered that the person who nominated her husband to be shot lives two doors down from her? There have been instances where family members have fallen out; cousins have fallen out because the word of one has led to someone’s death. How will society cope with the disclosure of this information? We could pick at the past for the next 50 years. We should deal with the victims sensitively, listen to their stories and help them as far as we can to deal with what happened. We have a big problem at present. Those who have been involved with health issues will know about the mental stability of those who were actively involved in the fighting. The Army and the police are encountering increasing numbers of people who have severe psychological problems. A senior member of the Provisional IRA told me that his group is witnessing similar problems and that those who were directly involved in killings are now suffering. I do not doubt that the loyalist paramilitaries are experiencing the same. We have a residue of people who are mentally and psychologically damaged. These problems tend not to affect people when they are young and fireproof; the problems come with age, and, as such, they constitute an enormous problem. There will be ramifications all round if we keep digging up the past and do not allow human beings to deal normally with what happened. In the first world war, 1 million people were killed and 1 million families were damaged. In the second world war, hundreds of thousands of people were involved in combat that was as bad as, if not worse than, that which we have experienced here. People dealt with it. Society has traditionally dealt with conflict by moving on as best it can. Today, we have counsellors and others to help with post-traumatic stress disorder in a way in which did not exist previously. This is a dodgy area, so we must handle it sensitively. Mr Ford: Mr McFarland has made some interesting points. It is easier for society to move on when society has all been on the same side, as was the case after 1945. Our society is riven with differences over the history of the past 30-odd years. It is not easy for society to move on in those circumstances. Mr McFarland highlighted the different attitudes that victims take. There may be significant limits to what is possible. To give victims an opportunity to put their story on record, and perhaps to hold a day of remembrance, may be as far as we can move. I want to tease out the issue of the hierarchy of victims, or “spectrum”, as Mr Hussey said. Mr Poots has made it clear that he considers only those who were on the innocent side to be victims. The definition in the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is that anyone who has been affected by the troubles is potentially a victim. Our unionist colleagues have not confronted the fact that there is a range of experiences. I can accept that people who see themselves as completely law-abiding find it difficult to regard terrorists — from whatever organisation they come, and on whatever side of the divide — as totally innocent victims. What about the mothers of those terrorists who were killed in action? We must accept that there is a range of experiences. In the legal definition in article 3(1)(c) of the draft Order, close relatives of terrorists are clearly seen as victims. By any logical definition, they are victims. Whether one approves of what their relations were up to does not alter the personal feelings that they are going through. Unless we as a society start to confront the fact that there is a huge range of different experiences, we shall not be able to move this process forward. By different experiences, I mean the relationship that people had with the person who was killed, the involvement of the person who was killed, the feelings that have been experienced, the length of time that has passed and individuals’ personal healing process. All manner of people were psychologically or physically affected by the troubles. We may have to leave it to others to provide the definitions, but, nevertheless, we must tease out our collective thoughts a little. The Chairman (Mr Wells): This is a very thought-provoking discussion. Ms Lewsley: If we decided to open up the definition of “victims”, we could be here for a fortnight. I do not want to stifle the debate, but there is a definition in the legislation. There is the opportunity for ongoing consultation on that definition, and it could be changed. I want some clarification on Edwin’s proposal. I may have misunderstood him. Is he saying that he cannot support the proposal for a victims’ forum because of the current definition of “victims”? Mr Poots: You are not confused. Ms Lewsley: Therefore there is no consensus on the principle of a victims’ forum? Mr Poots: No. Ms Lewsley: That is sad for the victims, because they are calling for this forum. Mr McCausland: The exchange between Mr McGuigan and Mr Attwood was illuminating, to say the least. Mr McGuigan’s fancy footwork over the issue of full co-operation and disclosure, and the shift in the ground over a couple of minutes, was remarkable. We had a statement, then it was retracted; it might have been standing or falling over. It was incredible. That has to be compared to Martin McGuinness refusing to reveal information about his time as a senior IRA figure in Londonderry, and the leader of the same party still denying that he was ever a member of the IRA. Mr O’Dowd: I want a ruling on this issue. A number of references have been made to the Saville Inquiry and interpretations given about Martin McGuinness’s role at the inquiry. It is not up to this Committee to decide whether Martin McGuinness gave full disclosure to the Saville Inquiry. Lord Morrow: We are allowed to have an opinion. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is no sub judice issue, since the inquiry is closed. Mr O’Dowd: The inquiry has not ruled. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGuinness is not being accused of any criminal offence. These are fair comments. You have put your objections on record, but there is nothing unusual here; compared to some of the comments that have been made in this Committee in the past two and a half months, this is relatively mild. I have no problem with what has been said. Mr O’Dowd: Can I ask the Clerks to clarify that point for the next meeting? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will refer it to the Clerk of the Assembly for his views, but I do not see anything untoward in what has been said. Mr McFarland: On a point of information, I understood that Martin McGuinness had said to the inquiry that he was not able to — Mr O’Dowd: I have no difficulty with any of the statements that Martin McGuinness made to the Saville Inquiry. What I am saying is that it is not up to this Committee to decide whether he co-operated fully with the inquiry. Mr McFarland: My understanding is that Martin McGuinness, when questioned, said that he was not at liberty to say — Mr O’Dowd: As I said, I have no difficulty with any statements that Martin made, or with your quoting them, but it is not up to this Committee to decide whether he co-operated fully. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is not up to the Committee to make that decision, but individual members can give their views. I will not stop anyone from making such a statement or from contradicting it. Mr McCausland: Mr O’Dowd’s sensitivity knows no bounds. If Sinn Féin will not even face up to the truth about Martin McGuinness’s refusal to disclose information, there is not much chance of it or the IRA co-operating with a truth commission. If there is an attempt to paper over the past on a simple fact such as that, what hope can there be for a truth commission? It is disappointing, but not altogether surprising, that the contribution from Sinn Féin this morning has reaffirmed the fact that a truth commission will not work in Northern Ireland. I also want to pick up on Sinn Féin’s use of the term “hierarchy of victims”. That is an attempt to dissolve real distinctions and real definitions. Ms Lewsley described it as leaving the past behind “on a moral basis”. That is getting to the heart of the matter. For me and for the vast majority of the unionist community, there are moral issues about what is right and what is wrong. The way in which the Protestant community views these issues means that they are clear in their own minds about distinctions between perpetrator and victim. The introduction of the term “hierarchy of victims” is an attempt to paper over that issue. 11.45 am Mr McFarland’s made a point about people discovering that a man down the street, or in the next street, was the person who targeted, or even shot, their relative. In many communities, people are already in that situation. They see people walking the streets whom they know — and the security forces know but cannot prove — to have committed a crime against their family. I cannot for the life of me believe that there is any correlation between a man walking into a fish shop on the Shankill Road who is killed by his own bomb and the men, women and children who were blown up by that terrorist bomb. There is no correlation, and it would be an insult and an offence against decency and humanity to attempt to draw one. Sinn Féin’s party president was willing to carry the coffin of that bomber. Mr O’Dowd: Who carried George Seawright’s coffin? Mr Hussey: We have already said that we concur with Mr McCausland’s point on the definition of “victims”. Mr Poots has said that the issue must be addressed. Everything else is predicated on that definition. I expected that the issue of victims’ confidence would have been raised in relation to full co-operation and disclosure in a truth and reconciliation commission. My community would have no confidence in the republican movement’s input to such a commission. I agree with Ms Lewsley that victims are looking for a forum and the issue, yet again, is how the participants are defined. Many of the groups that I deal with will not sit down with those whom they consider perpetrators. Victims and perpetrators must be dealt with separately. Someone else may have suggestions about how to deal with perpetrators, but I feel strongly that we cannot mix the two. The issue today is victims, and I am taking that forward according to my definition of “victims”. Some groups are being refused funding because they will not go on courses with ex-prisoners’ groups or others who, from their point of view, represent the perpetrators. Some groups experience funding difficulties because they adhere to their principles and morals. Those principles and morals must be respected; from the UUP’s point of view, they must be paramount. The Chairman (Mr Wells): After Lord Morrow, Mr Maginness, Mr Attwood, Mr McGuigan and Mr O’Dowd have spoken, all members will have had their say on this issue, and we will have given it a fair degree of latitude. After Mr O’Dowd has spoken, I will go to the proposal. Unless I am missing something, we will not get agreement on a definition of “victims”. Lord Morrow: Mr McCausland has adequately covered some of the points that I intended to raise. Until there is a clear definition of “victims”, there will be no consensus on the issue. It is central and paramount. As Mr McFarland and Mr McCausland said, many of the victims know the perpetrators. That is what makes it even more evil and is why there was such resentment in the unionist community when Mr McFarland’s party signed up to the release of terrorists who came out of jail singing “Tiocfaidh ár lá” — “Our day has come”. There was no sign of any remorse from those coming out of jail, but rather a triumphalism that was sickening to the core. That set the whole process back many years. The SDLP berates my party and tells it to move on — I wish that the SDLP would practise what it preaches. I have listened to members of the SDLP on television and in various forums, and invariably they talk of the 50 years of misrule. They cannot get over it, yet they expect unionists to get over 35 years of trashing in a year or two. Mr Hussey said that the UUP would have absolutely no confidence in anything that Sinn Féin said. I am glad that he said that; it shows a significant shift in his party’s thinking. The DUP also has no confidence in anything that Sinn Féin says, which is why the DUP will not go into government with Sinn Féin. We might have confidence in what Sinn Féin does, but we have absolutely no confidence in anything that it says. Mr Hussey’s party had enough confidence in what Sinn Féin said to go into government with it three times, although it was warned against doing that. He had to put his hand in the fire to find out that it was going to burn him. The reason that my party says “no” to a victims’ forum is that there is no clear definition of what a “victim” is. If someone watches a terrible incident on television and is traumatised by it, is he or she a victim? Those who went out to murder in Loughgall, and ended up dead themselves — are they victims? People who go out to plant bombs but are killed by their own bombs — are they victims? Unionists do not see such people as victims but as people with murderous intent in their hearts who ended up dead themselves because they were out to kill innocent people. Mr A Maginness: It is disappointing that the Committee cannot even find consensus for a definition of “victims”. It harms the interests of victims when we start to argue over definitions. It is important that we get on with the work of addressing the interests of victims and survivors rather than nitpicking over definitions and creating political obstacles. My remarks are aimed primarily at the DUP, but it is equally disappointing that Sinn Féin has resiled from a position of full disclosure to one that is obscure and lends no credibility to its stance of trying to push ahead with a proper truth-recovery process. It is difficult for people to have confidence in the Sinn Féin position. Sinn Féin made a very bold statement of principle that there should be full disclosure but, when questioned about it, immediately resiled from that position. It is politically damaging for that to have happened this morning. It does nothing to assist the process of truth recovery. In June 2006, the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors published a summary of feedback from consultation seminars on the role and purpose of a victims’ and survivors’ forum. It concerns truth recovery, and I want to reflect on its findings. This is not the definitive view of the interim commissioner but the findings of the consultation process. The issue of truth recovery was raised in five of the 14 seminars. In the section “Truth Recovery”, it states: “Initiatives for dealing with the past were generally accepted as being necessary, but there was no consensus on how or when that should be done. Also, it was felt that there is a tension between remembering at an individual level and moving on at a societal level. A mechanism to provide a safe opportunity for truth recovery, story-telling and reconciliation to promote real change aimed at preventing future conflict is needed. Other issues closely related to this topic were conflict transformation and reconciliation. The main focus here was in relation to the differing stages of readiness to address these issues across different areas. It was noted that this would require acceptance and understanding and to be nurtured at small levels, in the initial stages. It was felt that in this way trust and confidence can be built gradually and that trust is a necessary pre-requisite for truth recovery. It was also reported that some such work is already going on, and in order for it to work it needs to be kept out of the limelight. What a forum could do: Make people aware of which options are available such as Truth Recovery, Story Telling and Reconciliation. However, participation will be voluntary and there should be no pressure on individuals. It was also proposed that a forum could research Truth Recovery models to ascertain the best model for the Northern Ireland situation.” That is predicated on there being a victims’ and survivors’ forum, and the views of those who were consulted are reflected in what I have read out. It seems to emphasise the fact that there is a broad acceptance of the need for a truth-recovery process, of whatever shape or form. I will leave a copy of the summary so that Hansard can refer to it. A process of truth recovery is necessary for us to be able to leave the past behind on a moral basis. Mr Attwood: It is important to echo what Mr Maginness has said, as a reply to Mr McFarland’s earlier thoughtful remarks. To some degree he differed from that approach. Some years ago, I spoke to people from Srebrenica about their need for truth recovery, given that thousands of people were massacred there. They made an interesting observation that, although it was important that they knew the truth of what had happened, the older generation in Srebrenica wanted to know the truth of what had happened during the Second World War. 12.00 noon Tito’s strategy after the war was to suppress the experience of the war, so the citizens of the then Yugoslavia did not speak about what they had done to one another and to those who had sided with the Germans against the indigenous people. The older generation in Srebrenica wanted to recover the truth of the Second World War. Mr McFarland, understandably, said that we could be chasing this issue for the next 50 years, but if it is not dealt with, it will come back to us in the next 50 years, just as in Srebrenica the Second World War still casts a shadow, despite the terrible experiences that they have had since then. That is also emphasised by experiences of the First World War. Sebastian Haffner, in his diary of the war, ‘Defying Hitler: A Memoir’, said that, although there was something pathological about the German people that led them to be attracted to Hitler, the experiences of the First World War — the experience of defeat and of how the conquering parties handled the German people — made them vulnerable to Hitler. He argued that, although one can explain the actions of Hitler and how he should have been defied, it must also be understood that if people do not work through their experiences, the seeds of conflict can return. That is why we must all put our heads together and create a truth-recovery process, even though it will be imperfect. It will be deeply imperfect, but it must be done. If we do not deal with truth recovery, the power will be given to others. Last autumn we learned that if the power is given to the leadership of the republican movement and elements in the British Government, they will concoct a set of proposals in order to bury the truth about anybody who committed any scheduled offence, whether they were in an illegal organisation, the Army or the police. That is what the on-the-run/state killings proposals would have done; it would have been a mechanism for the self-serving needs of the leadership of the republican movement and elements within the British Government to take the spotlight away from what they had done. We have a choice: we can try to work through an imperfect model of truth recovery or we can live with the consequences of reheated proposals, which is what will happen. The British Government and the republican leadership will reheat their proposals for the on-the-run/state killings legislation. Minister of State David Hanson has told us that the proposals are coming back, although he says that he does not know when — and I believe him. Such issues are not dealt with at his level; they are dealt with at Downing Street level. However, the proposals are coming back; they will hit us very soon and be much the same as before. The legislation will probably be split so that the IRA will get its piece, and elements in the British Government will get their piece. When that happens, our power to work out an imperfect model will go, and their power to create the worst model will become reality. I want to echo what Alan McFarland said about the Historical Enquiries Team. There are issues about the funding, accountability and independence of the Historical Enquiries Team, but it is the best mechanism that has so far been established for dealing with the past. It reflects comments made by Mr McCausland and others. I can bring people to the Historical Enquiries Team in west Belfast because they want an inquiry or an account of what happened, even though they know that Adair’s ‘C’ Company killed their loved ones. They know who did it. They know the people in ‘C’ company who killed them, and they know that they live up the street, or that they are now living in England — but they just want some more information and explanation. Going into the past means that you might discover who did what, but most of the time people know who did what, just as these families in west Belfast know. The HET creates a mechanism for getting a handle on all of that. My own view is that the work of the HET can be presented in such a way that it is not just an individual accounting for what happened in the past — and perhaps some prosecutions — but also a record of what happened in the past; a public expression, an archive, some written documentation or perhaps a DVD. The HET has the potential to become much bigger than it is now. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGuigan and Mr O’Dowd are the last two speakers. The only way that anyone else will be able to get in now is by way of a point of information, because we have had 14 contributions on this issue. Mr McGuigan: I am conscious that there are two separate but important aspects to all that we are discussing today. There is the sensitive matter of victims, and how we resolve those issues. The way to do it is, as David Ford says, to abide by the definition in the 1998 Act. It is important that that definition is upheld, and not diluted in any way by this body. Nor should any political party or anyone else dilute it or continue to perpetrate a hierarchy. Victims are victims as defined in the Act. We may not like that; the unionist parties may not like it; but that is the way that it is, and that is the way that the issue should be dealt with as regards resources, finance and support for victims’ organisations, and contributions to victims’ forums. I repeat that Sinn Féin supports the idea of a victims’ forum in principle. We did not support the “on-the-runs” (OTR) legislation, but for those who sometimes have a selective memory, we support a victims’ forum. Moving on to the issue of truth recovery, reconciliation and dealing with the past, some of the points that have been made — Mr Maginness: May I intervene on a point of information? Mr McGuigan says that Sinn Féin did not support the OTR legislation. I clearly remember — because I was there in London that very day — that Conor Murphy MP welcomed the legislation and did so publicly to the media. Later on, admittedly, the party resiled from that position, but for the life of me I cannot understand how Mr McGuigan can say that it did not support it. The party welcomed it in Westminster itself. Mr McGuigan: Conor Murphy is not here to answer that. Sinn Féin did not support the OTR legislation and that is a matter of public record. It does not need to be rehashed at this juncture. Mr McFarland: Let us be absolutely clear about this. Sinn Féin negotiated the OTR legislation with the Government at Weston Park. It supported it all the way through — Mr O’Dowd: With respect, Mr McFarland, the OTR legislation was not negotiated at Weston Park. There was no legislation on the table at Weston Park. It was the principle that the issue of OTRs had to be dealt with that was discussed at Weston Park. Mr McFarland: The OTR legislation was a Sinn Féin win, as far as the party was concerned, and it told everybody so — until the Government decided that they could not let the IRA off the hook and busily put policemen and soldiers in the dock. In their wisdom they decided to include policemen and soldiers in the OTR amnesty, at which point Sinn Féin backed off. Those are the facts of the matter. There is no point in Sinn Féin saying now that it never supported the OTR legislation. The party negotiated; the legislation was its baby; and the party went against it only when the security forces were put into the mix. Mrs Long: May I ask for a point of information on that issue? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGuigan has to agree to it, not Mr McFarland. Mr McGuigan: I would like to continue my presentation uninterrupted, if allowed to. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There will be no more points of information allowed on Mr McGuigan’s presentation. I am sorry, Naomi, but I have honestly given everybody a fair crack of the whip. Mr McFarland: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr Chairman, but we agreed at the beginning of the Committee’s work that all of this would take as long as it would take. Mr Chairman, you led the charge by saying that nobody would be gagged and that anyone who wished to speak could do so. Thus, if Naomi wishes to raise a point of order — The Chairman (Mr Wells): No one can say that Naomi has been gagged at this Committee. Check the number of words that she has spoken — she must hold the record. Therefore, I do not think that I, or the other Chairman, can be accused of gagging her. Mr McFarland, it is a close-run competition between yourself, Mr Nesbitt and Mrs Long. Mrs Long: That is a reflection of my good attendance as opposed to my verbosity. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Well said. I will let Mr McGuigan finish his comments uninterrupted. It is up to Mr O’Dowd to decide whether he takes a point of information from Mrs Long or anybody else. Mr McGuigan: To clarify my point on the on-the-runs issue; the British Government handled it in the same way as they handled the issue of truth recovery — by deflecting, lying and covering up. It is an important issue, and the two previous members who spoke outlined the reasons why it is so important. I listened with interest to Nelson McCausland’s comments about morality in the unionist community. I also listened to unionist representatives suggest in their presentations that republicans or the IRA were the only combatants in this conflict, negating the fact that over 1,500 innocent nationalists were killed by state and unionist forces throughout this conflict and that the first eight or nine people killed in this conflict were killed by the RUC — Mr Poots: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. If the member wants to make statements, can they be somewhere close to being factually correct? His statement that 1,500 nationalists have been killed by state security forces has absolutely no basis in truth; it is a complete lie. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is not a point of order; it is a point of information, but you have made it. Mr McGuigan, please continue. Mr McGuigan: — by state and unionist death squads; there is very little difference between the two in the eyes of our community and in the eyes of people who have published reports — such as the Stevens Report — that prove that there was collusion at the highest levels. We must also discuss conflict resolution. Alban and Alex have clearly pointed out that conflict resolution involves an examination of the past for the causes, nature and extent of the conflict; if we do not do that, years down the line we will find ourselves in similar Committees discussing the same issues. The issue must be dealt with. When is the right time to discuss this issue? If the unionist parties are as confident as they say are about what happened, they should have no problem sitting down with the rest of us and discussing the way forward. I do not expect this Committee to come up with answers today, but I do expect political representation to come together to discuss ways of resolving this matter so that we can have national reconciliation on this island, put the past behind us and move to a new future. However, that will involve leadership from everybody. The Historical Enquiries Team is not an answer to this problem. As has been the case in the past, it is simply state forces investigating state forces. That is not satisfactory. Independent investigation is needed, and we must learn from international experiences. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr O’Dowd will speak next, after which I will put the proposal. Then we will have lunch, which might encourage people to stick to the timetable. Mr O’Dowd: Every time unionist politicians talk about victims, they talk about victims of republican violence. The remarks that I have heard today have served only to confirm that. When republicans talk about victims, we talk about all victims, including victims of republican, state and other violence. Mr Hussey: Chairman, on a point of order — Mr O’Dowd: I am not taking any points of order or information, thank you very much. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I have to take points of order. Mr Hussey: That is a false statement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is not a point of order, it is a point of information. Mr O’Dowd: That is not a point of order. Mr Hussey: Deputy Speaker, on this side we refer to terrorist crimes — Mr O’Dowd: Mr Hussey, let me give you an example. A 13-year-old child goes to the shop to buy a carton of milk for her mother and is shot in the back of the head with a plastic bullet. Is she not a victim? Of course, she is. My relatives were killed by an individual who is now being portrayed as an innocent victim by a south Armagh group. That person went on to bomb Dublin and Monaghan and was later killed by the IRA. Is he a victim? Yes, he is. Are his family victims? Yes, they are. No one here can decide that one person is an innocent victim and another is not, and that one should be remembered and the other not. Everyone who died as a result of this conflict is a victim. Lord Morrow: Only those who died? Mr O’Dowd: Will you let me finish? Those who were combatants in the campaign are also victims of the circumstances that this society created. Lord Morrow: That includes the whole population. Mr O’Dowd: If they were involved as combatants, then yes they are. That includes the RUC, UDR and British soldiers. That includes Loyalist death squads. It is not for anyone at this table to decide who is an innocent victim. As to how we move on, Nelson referred to the Shankill bombing. If the DUP showed half the moral and political courage that Alan McBride, who lost his family in the Shankill bombing, has shown, this society would be much better. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have had a full and frank exchange of views on this. There is now a slight difficulty. Much of the debate will flavour our views on all the proposals. Do you wish to pursue your proposal of a victims’ forum, Ms Lewsley? 12.15 pm Ms Lewsley: That was actually an Alliance proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sorry. I am in trouble now, am I not? [Laughter]. Mrs Long: I am a very forgiving person. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The proposal was supported by Patricia as well. Do you wish to pursue it? Mrs Long: Yes. The proposal stands, though I do not expect that we will have consensus on it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on that? Lord Morrow: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No. There are several groups for it, but at least one against. Mr Hussey: To clarify, the difficulty is the definition. Forum, yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want it recorded that you are opposed to it as well? Lord Morrow: We are opposed because there is no clear definition of a victim. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that what you are saying, Derek? Mrs Long: In my proposal there is no definition of a victim. Lord Morrow: That is the problem. Mrs Long: I am not defining a victim. The issue is whether or not victims should have a forum. If we later define what victims are, that does not preclude us from having a forum, so the thing is not mutually exclusive. Ms Lewsley: I want to reiterate what Mrs Long has said. This is just about agreeing in principle that there should be a forum. The definition of a victim, and the structure of that forum, are completely different matters. Mr Poots: That is putting the cart before the horse. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is right. I take it that even with that clarification we are not going to get consensus on that. We must move on to Patricia’s next proposal that victims be identified in the Programme for Government and made a priority. Do we have consensus on that? Perhaps more importantly, is there is anything that has not been covered in the debate and needs to be raised after lunch? Do members want me to postpone a decision? I have the impression that we have looked at this from all angles. Mr McFarland: What is the out-working of that? Are we talking about special funds that OFMDFM have? Originally victims were the responsibility of that Department. We created special funds for different issues within that Department. Logically, although it will go on for some time, if the issue is addressed and those who feel they are victims dealt with properly, many of them may stop being victims, in terms of needing money and resources. We are talking about having a specific line in the Programme for Government, a specific budget. The question is: to do what and for how long? Before it is possible to agree that there should be provision, the downstream implications of that need to be teased out for any future Executive. Where will the money for it come from? How much should it be? Is it open ended? The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have confirmed that there is a need for discussion on this. I think we will leave it to after lunch. This issue has not been sufficiently addressed in the previous discussion. So we will move to that in fifteen minutes. Meeting suspended at 12.19 pm On resuming — 12.43 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): The issue of victims being a priority in the Programme for Government requires more discussion. I will outline some procedural matters. First, the Building will close today at 4.30 pm for the bank holiday, but arrangements can be made for us to get out of the Building if the meeting goes on beyond 4.30 pm. Secondly, the main members of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland, and the full representatives on the Preparation for Government Committee, will receive their reports at approximately 4.00 pm today; copies will be delivered here. Lord Morrow: How do you spell the “full”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I mean the main members: Lord Morrow, Alan and David, among others. The report is some 1,000 pages long and is a bulky document. Members are advised to get their copy to read over the weekend. I interrupted Patricia. I will take the names of those who wish to contribute to the debate on this issue. 12.45 pm Ms Lewsley: I want to point out that the proposal was made in order to give recognition to victims. Lord Morrow: Chairman, you are anxious about whether the Committee is quorate. The Committee is quorate unless it is brought to your attention that it is not. Mr McFarland: We agreed that the Committee is quorate as long as one member from each party is present when the meeting starts. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a requirement rather than a quorum. Ms Lewsley: I can wait until Alan brings his cup of coffee to the table. I just wanted to respond to the matter that he initially raised. Mr McFarland: For the first time in 30 years, the previous Assembly had to put its money where its mouth was and deliver on whatever had been extolled or complained about. Although it had the propensity to have good ideas that made sense on one level, they were not always deliverable. If we are to suggest ideas that we believe will benefit society or individuals, we must think about how they will be delivered, how much they will cost, and what purpose they will have. Together with the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with institutional issues, we should give thought as to how such ideas will work. For example, I believe that the SDLP proposed that there should be an equality Department. The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) in the previous Assembly had responsibility for equality. Presumably, if there were a separate Department to deal with equality matters, the issue of victims would come under its remit. Without impinging on the Monday team’s discussions on institutions, I am not sure whether that proposal would mean that OFMDFM’s responsibilities would be expanded or that responsibilities would be taken from OFMDFM and given to a new Department. We must, therefore, consider how everything would operate. Victims must be looked after, so money must be put aside for that. However, should it be given to victims’ groups, as is currently the case? There are several groups from each tradition. Some are closely related to the security forces and some are closely related to paramilitaries. We must consider whether that system of funding victims’ groups is to continue or whether the money will be lumped into the centre and attached to a victims’ forum, which could then dole out the money to the various groups. I am curious to know how that would work in practice. I want to tease that out from Patricia. Suppose that the Executive are up and running in November. What effect would the proposal have? How much would it cost to implement? Some of the costs that relate to victims are health costs, because people have been physically and mentally hurt by bomb blasts. Would money be taken from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and put into the suggested pool of money for victims? Would victims’ groups come forward to record their stories, as they do at present? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will let Patricia answer that, and then David, who has been waiting patiently, can speak. Ms Lewsley: I am a bit confused now, never mind you, Alan. If victims are to be a priority in the Programme for Government, the Government must first recognise them and, secondly, commit to dealing with the issue. Once victims are at the heart of government, it is for the Government to decide who is responsible for them. You are right: if the matter goes to the centre of government, the other Departments will, we hope, ensure that they fulfil their obligations to victims. Certain subjects were mentioned in the Programme for Government, and I was involved with two in particular — Diabetes UK and neonatal screening for the deaf. If something is mentioned in the Programme for Government, an opportunity for accountability is created. That means that if no progress has been made a year down the line, we can ask why, given that it was in the Programme for Government. The issue is bigger for victims: the Government must take the issue more seriously by putting it at the heart of its day-to-day operations and making all Departments accountable. That is preferable. Mr McFarland: Mr Chairman, does this issue fall under the overall heading of “Equality”? Traditionally, the issue of victims has lurked there somewhere, but it was suggested that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should oversee it. My point is that somebody should oversee it; who will do that? Ms Lewsley: I understand that, but the Committee of the Centre, which will now be a Statutory Committee, dealt with victims. We do not need to decide where the issue should go and who should be responsible. All that that I am asking is that we get consensus on the principle that it should be a priority that is included in the Programme for Government. Mr McFarland: The logic is that if we feel strongly about it, we recommend that it becomes a priority. As such it will attract money, and if it does that — Ms Lewsley: With the greatest respect, Alan, money is already allocated to deal with victims. That does not mean that more cannot be spent, but we are not setting up a new entity for which we expect a new budget. People who work with victims and survivors say that there is a need to consider how the money that they receive is best spent. It is not simply about getting more money but about whether the existing money is being spent in the best way. However, it is often about ensuring that a service that is being delivered by, for example, health or education agencies includes victims. In some cases, extra money might not be a factor. Mr McFarland: We are back to our original problem. At the moment, if people class themselves as victims, whether they are active or former paramilitaries or innocent victims who were blown up when walking along the street, they can get money from the Government. If we are never going to agree what a victim is, we will not get parties to agree how to continue funding. The Northern Ireland Assembly has been suspended since October 2002, and currently the Government fund many victims’ groups, and this issue has become a big problem. If all goes well with the DUP and Sinn Féin, we will end up back in a government through which we will have to reclaim ownership of the victims issue, put it somewhere and dole out the money. If we cannot agree on what a victim is and whether a republican organisation that deals with victims is as valid as the South Armagh Victims Encouraging Recognition/North Armagh Victims Encouraging Recognition (SAVER/NAVER) or any other group, this will become a big problem. It is not a problem at the moment because the fact that we are not responsible for the victims issue means that we can talk about it. However, if we became responsible, it will become a major issue if the starting point of defining who is and who is not a victim and, therefore, who does or does not attract money is not solved. Ms Lewsley: With the greatest respect, the issue of victims was at the core of the Committee of the Centre. Why should the focus change simply because the Government aspire to make it a priority? Victims and issues about definition and funding, and so forth, already existed. Mr McFarland: The Government did not treat the issue of victims as seriously as they do now. There is an interim commissioner, and a great deal of funding has come on-stream. Over the past four years, many groups have been formed that did not exist when the Committee of the Centre examined the matter. In the previous Assembly, there were complaints about the attention paid to this issue by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Life has moved on and become much more complicated; we are starting to seriously examine how we deal with the past; in practical terms, victims are being taken much more seriously than they were four or five years ago. In emotional terms, they have always been taken seriously, but practical things are now being done for them. We have come quite a long way in the past four years. If a government is set up that takes ownership of this issue from the Government, which have doled out money all over the place — sometimes to organisations that we and others might disagree about — we may disagree about how this issue is to be dealt with by Government. Ms Lewsley: I understand that, but everything can be ironed out if the issue of victims is made a priority for the Government. Sooner rather than later, it will be put on the long finger for another four or five years. Alan has touched on the matter, and before the first proposal on the victims’ forum was taken, you, Mr Chairman, said that everything depended on the definition of a victim. Until we get that definition right, nothing will be agreed. We will not reach consensus with the DUP and others. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am glad that we first thrashed out the issue of defining a victim, because it would have been rather silly to have done it the other way round. This morning’s debate will affect the decisions we make on all the other proposals. Mr Ford has been waiting rather a long time to get in. He will be followed by Mr McGuigan and Lord Morrow. Mr Ford: It is my understanding that the contents of the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 were in an OFMDFM paper when the Ulster Unionist Party held the office of First Minister, so the party’s views on the possible change in definition may be interesting. Alan’s approach to the victims issue is in danger of leading this Committee on rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims into discussions on institutional matters. Patricia and Naomi’s proposal concerned a principle; there has not been a coherent or comprehensive approach to the needs of victims. The approaches have been piecemeal, and if we are to treat the needs of victims seriously, they should be a priority in the Programme for Government. That becomes an issue for the victims’ commissioner, the Executive and various bodies; however, counting beans is not an issue for this Committee. We are in danger if we start to go into nitty-gritty details. We can say that, as a matter of principle, we have not dealt with the needs of victims comprehensively up until now and that we should make them a priority in the Programme for Government, otherwise we get sucked into a discussion on Departments’ counting beans and the funding of the National Health Service, which is not the function of this Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps Mr McGuigan and Lord Morrow will be able to put their parties’ views in their contributions on this important issue. Mr McGuigan: I do not want to prolong the discussion or delve into details. I want to agree broadly with what has been said. In my discussions with victims’ groups, I have heard complaints about the stability of funding; there should be more stability. Much of the funding comes from the centre, but funding also comes from other bodies and, over time, that runs out. Victims’ groups do good work on highlighting the issue, campaigning and helping victims. They need stability of funding so that they can continue to do that, and if we accept the broad principle that victims should have increased priority, all the other issues can be taken care of. Lord Morrow: I cannot understand why we are having this discussion. I agree with David Ford: we either agree that we want the issue of victims to be a priority for the Government, or we do not. Who deals with it after that is not for this Committee to decide; it is for somebody else to decide. I suggest that we move on and either agree that it is a priority for Government, or it is not. That is our function. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do I detect consensus on this issue? Is there general agreement that, regardless of the mechanics, we believe that the issue of victims is a priority? Is that agreed? Members indicated assent. 1.00 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is good news. The next proposal concerns the disappeared. I will not preclude members from coming back on a different proposal on victims, because we took all four items together. The proposal regarding the disappeared was that there should be a family liaison officer. Ms Lewsley: The report from the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains (ICLVR) recommends the establishment of a family liaison officer. In recent media coverage, the British Government said that they would do that. We agree in principle that that should happen sooner rather than later, because the commission’s report was published over a year ago. However, the British Government can make all kinds of commitments and express aspirations but never follow them through. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do members understand what is involved and what a family liaison officer would do? It is fairly self-explanatory. Do members have any views on that suggestion? Mr Ford: I agree entirely with Patricia. Lord Morrow: To what report did Patricia refer? Ms Lewsley: The report was prepared by the ICLVR. I do not know the exact title. It was published over a year ago, and it recommended the establishment of a family liaison officer. This is one of the issues. Families receive no communication from anyone and are left not knowing what has been happening for six months or a year. Lord Morrow: Is this post in addition to the victims’ commissioner? Would the post holder work with the victims’ commissioner? Ms Lewsley: Very much so, yes. Lord Morrow: Where would that person be located? Ms Lewsley: That would be up to whoever employs the person. The proposal specifically concerns the disappeared. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Should this happen immediately or after devolution? Ms Lewsley: It should happen immediately. Mr McGuigan: I am looking for a point of information. Mr Chairman, you said that the family liaison officer post was self-explanatory. Will the officer liaise between the commissioner and the families? Ms Lewsley: The person would liaise between the families and anyone else working on the issue of the disappeared, such as the Historical Enquiries Team. He or she might even liaise between the families and the Government. Mr McFarland: One of the problems with the disappeared is that most are thought to be buried in the Republic of Ireland. Given that they are buried outside the United Kingdom, who will fund all this? Will somebody in Northern Ireland deal with the families, or is it a cross-border venture that will deal with people in the Republic? Does a mechanism not already exist to deal with this? I thought that we had systems to deal with the disappeared. Ms Lewsley: There are systems, but they are failing because of a lack of communication. This person would specifically deal directly with the families and raise their issues of concern. When Gareth O’Connor went missing for all those months, his wife could not deal with her mortgage because she did not have a death certificate. Small issues such as that are big problems for families. There was no clear line of communication, and she had to go round the houses to find out whom she should talk to. The family liaison officer would be a single point of contact who would deal with the issues and liaise with others involved. Mr McFarland: This is not what might be termed a “fast” issue. There has been a report. Over recent months — Philip might confirm this — the republican movement has given further information, but the pace is slow. Digging for bodies will not start until as much information as possible is available. Previously, diggers were brought in, but people were so busy poking stuff out of the ground that key clues were missed. Buried bodies can disintegrate, depending on the soil type, and layers have to be skimmed; if you watch ‘Time Team’, you will know what I am talking about. The plan is to hold off until they are sure of the site, then do a proper forensic examination, bring in the dogs they used before and use other new techniques that have been developed. I am not sure that a liaison officer will be needed for the actual mechanics; it will happen when it happens. However, there is an issue about how the humanitarian side of it is to be dealt with. Normally, the relatives get in touch with their MP, MLA or councillor, who liaises with the police or social services. Ms Lewsley: Sometimes; and sometimes there is a lack of communication. Mr McFarland: Yes, but that is the inefficiency of the present system. A new system may be needed specifically for this. There may have been problems in some cases. However, if a family liaison officer is needed, the post must be funded. Would the liaison officer be busy all the time, or would it be a part-time job? The practicalities must be looked at. I am not saying that it should not happen, but things need to be tightened up. Ms Lewsley: May I just say two things? It has already been recommended in the report, and the British Government have made a commitment. All I am asking is that they do it sooner rather than later. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are watching a dialogue here. Naomi Long, David Ford and Nelson McCausland have been waiting patiently. Mrs Long: With reference to Alan McFarland’s comments, I do not see that this is a jurisdictional issue. The families require this liaison function — the Government agreed to provide it, but have not done so. This is not a jurisdictional issue; it is about somebody liaising with the families. Alan may not be convinced that a liaison function is necessary, but the families and the commissioner who led the investigation are convinced that it is necessary. This is about politicians wanting to place their stamp on what is and what is not required for the families going through this. Politicians should accept the views of the families who say that something is needed, and when it has been properly assessed and weighted. Why must the people around this table be convinced of its necessity when that work has already been done? The issues that Alan raised about the mechanics of recovering the bodies of the disappeared bear no relation to Patricia’s proposal, which is about a liaison function so that families are kept informed. Ongoing investigations are often dealt with by small teams whose resources are fully engaged in trying to make progress. Liaison with the families involved can be difficult. This proposal would help prevent suffering families from having to trek around the system to find answers. Instead, they would place their questions with a responsible person, who would take them forward on their behalf. It is about alleviating the suffering of the families. This is not a matter of the practicalities, which will be dealt with in the proper way; it is about saying to people whose lives are already in chaos, and who have already suffered, and continue to suffer with the uncertainty of the situation, that they have an individual, to whom they can put a face, as their point of contact. It is not a jurisdictional or a mechanistic issue. It is about giving families what they feel they need in what are horrific circumstances. The families argued their point with the commissioner, and the commissioner accepted their argument. Mr Ford: I do not need to add to what Patricia and Naomi have said. Mr McCausland: It is not the role of this Committee to draw up a job description. Ms Long: No. Mr McCausland: That is for other people. It is about the broad principle. Ms Lewsley: Naomi and others have said the same. This is the broad principle of supporting the families of the “disappeared” and asking for a liaison officer to be put in place sooner rather than later. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Committee has given the matter a reasonable airing. Alan, are you satisfied that your questions have been answered? Mr McFarland: Yes. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next issue is more complicated. It is raised by Mr Maginness. It is that full, independent, “Cory-compliant” – that is a new phrase for me – inquiries should take place as promised at Weston Park. Perhaps you could set the scene, Mr Maginness, since it has been a couple of hours since this was mentioned. Mr Maginness: Most members are aware that a number of inquiries were proposed by the Honourable Justice Peter Cory into cases including Wright, Nelson, Hamill and Finucane. Judge Cory proposed that certain allegations, particularly of collusion, needed to be properly aired and investigated by full, independent inquiries. The British Government agreed, at Weston Park, to establish an investigation into whether these inquiries should take place. Subsequently, Judge Cory reported and recommended that there should be inquiries into these matters. The British Government accepted that in principle. However, the British Government then changed the basis upon which inquiries would take place. They introduced the Inquiries Act 2005, which, as the SDLP see it, has circumscribed the independence of chairs of inquiries. We believe that that damages the process of investigation; damages the independence of the inquiry; limits the scope of the inquiry; and hinders the recovery of truth in relation to these matters. My party is opposed to the new Inquiries Act 2005. We believe it to be injurious not just to these inquiries, but also to inquiries in general. People do not realise how damaging this could be in the future — The Chairman (Mr Wells): It might be difficult to pick up your voice on the microphone. I do not want to miss any of this. Mr Maginness: Sorry. The Act could be damaging for all inquiries, not just those that we are talking about here today. We use the terms full, independent and Cory-compliant public inquiries. When Judge Cory became acquainted with the particulars of the new legislation, he was critical of it and said: “I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act”. He did not believe that an inquiry held under the 2005 Act could get at the truth. The SDLP says let us proceed with the inquiries, but let us have them fully “Cory-compliant” and separate from the new Inquiries Act. Mr Ford: Let us be clear. Collusion is not just an issue of concern for nationalists. Two of the Cory inquiries concern alleged collusion between gardaí and republican paramilitaries. For the Alliance Party, collusion is an issue of the rule of law, ensuring the highest standards of integrity for everyone in this society. That said, my party has concerns about the impact of these six particular inquiries with regard to the HET in general. There seems to be some sort of selective justice. Many other victims have the same needs, feelings, and concerns as the victims in those six cases. Nonetheless, the Governments promised at Weston Park that those six cases would be subject to full inquiries. Based on that promise, those inquiries should take place subject to the law that existed at that time. The law should not have been changed to obstruct the potential working of the inquiries. However, it is also a singular lesson to the Governments about the dangers of selectivity and their failure to take account of the needs of many hundreds of other families of victims. To single out those six cases was not a good thing to do. 1.15 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will take each party’s view on the proposal. Mr McFarland: The Government introduced that legislation because they believe that they have a duty of care to ensure that individuals are not killed as a result of information that may be given. Perish the thought, but if one of the inquiries proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that Martin McGuinness, former chief of staff of the IRA, had been a British agent for 20 or 30 years, could that threaten his life? He has denied that he was an agent in discussions in Committee, and I am sure that it is not the case that he was. There have, however, been recent cases in which Mr Donaldson and others have been done away with after it was discovered that they had been agents. Therefore the Government have a duty of care, and, through the legislation, they say that they must have the right to decide whether information that is to be used in an inquiry might lead to someone getting killed. Members of the Committee will be aware that, under section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, the Chief Constable has the same duty of care not to release into the public domain information that might result in someone being killed. That is my understanding of the legislation, and the legislation seems sensible. Others may disagree, but are they prepared to take the risk that people may lose their life as a result of information that is released to an inquiry? Lord Morrow: There has been much discussion around this table about the hierarchy of victims. It seems that we are moving into territory in which there are two types of victims. Alban Maginness talked in some detail about the inquiries, and he said that any inquiry must be “Cory-compliant”. What significance does that hold? Does that mean that an inquiry that has been designated by Cory is different from any other inquiry that might be established? Does it have different criteria or a greater likelihood of a sound outcome? Why must it be “Cory-compliant”? Did Cory include in his report new criteria that had not formed part of any previous inquiry? I suspect that “Cory-compliant” will be the buzzword that we will hear for a while in inquiry-related interviews on television, and so forth. Mr A Maginness: I will respond to the interesting point that Lord Morrow has raised. He is correct when he says that the six inquiries are specific. It was agreed at Weston Park — in principle anyway — that they would be conducted under the old legislation, which is the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, and that any new legislation should not apply to them. The SDLP believes that that makes those inquiries “Cory-compliant”, because they conform to the traditional standards of independence that apply to a proper public inquiry. Mr O’Dowd: We would support the proposal as put forward. Those inquiries came about after lengthy discussions. Indeed, including the Stevens inquiry, there were three in total into the Pat Finucane case that were never published. They caused great concern about the level of collusion between the British state and loyalist death squads. Indeed, if the reason for this legislation is not, as Alan has suggested, the protection of informants, it is Sinn Féin’s view that it has been introduced to protect people right up to Cabinet level. Papers have been disclosed and statements have been made by senior members of the Force Research Unit (FRU) that would suggest that the policy of taking out opponents of the state, whether they be armed opponents or opponents who would work in the legislatures, was sanctioned at Cabinet level. The reason for these inquiries is very important. It goes to the heart of the British Government’s role in the conflict over the past 30 years. Certainly there are many families who have never had a proper inquiry into the deaths of their loved ones, and we have already discussed victims this morning. Some families want to be left alone with their memories and others want to seek the truth. Several of the inquiries, as outlined by Cory, go to the heart of the conflict on this island. They were agreed between the two Governments, and should be carried out in the fashion independently set out by Judge Cory. There should be no changes to the legislation under which those hearings are to be established. The Rosemary Nelson inquiry, for instance, is being held under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 rather than the Inquiries Act 2005. That can also infringe on how witnesses are called or dealt with. Cory did not envisage that for any of these inquiries. If an inquiry is “Cory-compliant” it will have the support of Sinn Féin. Mr Attwood: I have two or three comments to make. First, I would suggest to John O’Dowd that there is an inconsistency in the position adopted by Sinn Féin this morning and the position it has taken this afternoon. This afternoon, Sinn Féin is arguing that inquiries have to be “Cory-compliant”. That requires full co-operation and disclosure right up to Cabinet level. Nobody is off-limits and everything must be revealed. That is what “Cory-compliant” means. Yet this morning Sinn Féin would not sign up to looking into the past generally in a situation in which nobody was off limits and everything had to be revealed. Sinn Féin have been inconsistent between this morning and this afternoon and they might want to reflect on that. Secondly, in answer to a point raised by Alan McFarland, there will be matters in these inquiries, even if they are “Cory-compliant”, that would be of such a nature that special provision would have to be made. That is going to be the nature of delving into the past. Nobody disputes that. There might be a dispute around how far to go in making special provisions. That was fought out in particular around the Bloody Sunday inquiry, in which the SDLP felt that the courts leant far too much in favour of the state. The problem with the new legislation is not that some things might have to be handled in a specific way; it is the fact that the power to decide those matters does not fall to the tribunal, but to the Minister. We have a so-called independent review of serious allegations, and critical judgements about the conduct of that tribunal will be made, not by the tribunal members, or the courts, or an independent body of law — but by a Minister. In other words, a so-called independent tribunal’s critical moments are going to be decided by a political person. A tribunal looking into the past has to be independent, and cannot be subject to political interference, never mind political calls; but that is what the new legislation puts in place. It was done for two reasons; first, because there are elements of the British system that do not want the truth of Finucane to come out. How high it goes is a matter of debate, but it goes far and high. The British political system thinks that there cannot be a situation in which people who have had political roles in the past have also been complicit in the activities of the Force Research Unit. The second, and more fundamental, issue for the British people is that the new tribunals legislation was an attempt to prevent a repeat of what happened after the Iraq war. There was an inquiry, and whatever about the inquiries into the death of that gentleman who committed suicide — Mr Poots: Dr Kelly. Mr Attwood: Dr Kelly — that while that was a very flawed tribunal, stuff came out that was embarrassing to the British Government. The Government used the Finucane situation to force through legislation that stops proper independent inquiries into matters that concern the British people, never mind matters that concern the people of Ireland. That was its purpose. Therefore Alban is right: we should be signing up to Cory-compliant inquiries because the British Government have used Finucane in such a way to subvert independent inquiry into many matters. Mr McFarland: Does Alex accept that perhaps part of the fear comes from the experience with the Bloody Sunday inquiry? Details, such as the names and addresses of those who had been on the side of the security forces, that were released to the tribunal ended up being given to the media and the defence teams. People had been assured that they would not be put under threat by such an event, but information was released to everybody. Therefore the experience with our one big inquiry is that an inquiry cannot be trusted to keep sensitive information secret. It is perhaps not surprising that the Government have taken that step to have some control over information that may be released in circumstances in which people’s lives are under threat. Mr Attwood: The power to do that should be left to the courts. If there is a concern about a particular person or matter, an independent arbiter — such as a judge — should decide what happens with information. However, there is no independence in allowing a Government Minister to say yea or nay to information about a person’s details becoming known. That is not due process; it offends against independence and impartiality. Mr McFarland is right; people should be concerned when information gets leaked, but giving control to politicians who will either leak or suppress it is not the answer. Mr McCausland: For me, selectivity, which David Ford mentioned, is the fundamental issue. We are discussing a number of inquiries, whatever about their accountability and whether they were agreed at Weston Park or wherever else, but we must ask to where this whole thing leads. I noticed the other day in the daily newspapers that there is a cause seeking justice or truth about Captain Kelly, and that there will now be an inquiry into the activities and role of Captain Kelly and the Dublin Government around the time that the Provisional IRA was formed. It is fine to perhaps look at the activities of a garda here and a garda somewhere else, but if there are issues that go right to the top, as Alex Attwood believes is the case with the British Government, are there also not issues that go right to the top in the Government party in the Irish Republic? Mr McGuigan: I apologise for continually having to put Alex straight, but it is an important issue that needs to be put straight continually. This morning, I, on behalf of Sinn Féin, put forward a proposal that highlights our principles about full co-operation and disclosure. As I said earlier, a Sinn Féin document of a number of years ago stated that all combatants should play their part. Alex needs to be aware that Sinn Féin has a very progressive position on truth recovery. For example, there was an NI Affairs Committee on this issue, and as far as I am aware — I can be corrected if I am wrong — Sinn Féin was the only party from the North who made a submission. Indeed, the SDLP had a representative on that Committee, which sat on eight or nine occasions, and — again I can be corrected — that representative failed to turn up on those occasions. 1.30 pm That issue must be clarified once and for all. There is no difference in our opinion either this morning or this afternoon. Sinn Féin is very clear on this: it is there and it is in public. The Cory-compliant issue is one that the British Government have used, as they have used others throughout the history of this struggle, to run away from the truth. Collusion is a serious issue. It goes to the heart of the British Government. It is a policy that followed on from the likes of “shoot to kill” and other policies designed to tackle the nationalist and republican peoples’ demands throughout the conflict. The Inquiries Act 2005 is another tactic used by the British Government when it looked like the truth was coming out. It is along the lines of lost files and tampering with evidence, as shown at the Bloody Sunday Tribunal to have been perpetrated by the British Government. Mr Hussey: Are we looking at the cases as highlighted by Judge Cory? Or are we looking at the principle of how cases are dealt with? The issue of agents within organisations being given a free hand is not an issue for the republican community alone. It is an issue within the Protestant community. There are areas where that question is in people’s minds: were our friends or relatives allowed to die to protect an agent? It is not a one-sided thing. Mr O’Dowd: I acknowledge that fact; especially over the last few years where a significant number of the Protestant community have been killed by suspected state agents. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Everyone seems to have had a say on this. In the absence of any new contribution, I will seek consensus on this proposal. What is the view of Members? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At least two groups have said that they are not happy with that, so that proposal falls. The next proposal is Mrs Long’s, that there ought to be a day of remembrance and reflection. I am conscious that it has been about two hours since you spoke to this, and that I have been accused of gagging you already, so therefore I will let you speak on this issue. Mr Ford: For two hours? [Laughter]. Mrs Long: Which is something of a record. In the original submissions a number of parties made reference to the need for a day of reflection or remembrance. There seemed to be some kind of consensus around the principle. It is perhaps something on which we might achieve consensus. An opportunity for people to reflect is one way of trying to address concerns that the issue of victims – both those who survived and those who did not – has, somehow in the political process, been lost. It does not tie people down to definitions, and it does not put people in difficult positions as to the shape or form of the day. It simply agrees the principle that it is appropriate that a day should be set aside for remembrance. That is the context of my proposal. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is important that we go around the groups on this. Mr McFarland has indicated that he wishes to speak. Dr Birnie will follow. Mr McFarland: Remembrance Sunday has evolved, and now embraces not only world wars, but all conflicts. That day of reflection seems adequate. I always worry about — someone’s telephone is ringing. A Member: Your speech is lost. Mr McFarland: All right. I worry when I hear talk of days of reflection and reconciliation et cetera. It takes me back to Hillsborough, and the plan suggested in about 2000, when the Government was seriously proposing a day of reconciliation at which a British army soldier and a volunteer from the IRA would stand at Hillsborough, reversing arms and everyone would say mea culpa, and that they were sorry. That was a serious proposal. The moment that I hear the words “day of reflection” or “day of reconciliation”, I run for my headache tablets. No one is against hoping and praying, and remembering what has gone on in Northern Ireland during the past 30 years. However, we must be careful. It ties in with the issue of who else should be recognised. There is still deep hurt in the nationalist community about loyalist murders; and there is deep hurt in the unionist community about republican murders. I have no doubt that republicans are still concerned about killings by the security forces. It is too early to expect everyone to stand together. Mr Poots: I do not have a problem with the notion or ideals behind the proposal. There will, however, be a problem with its outcome. How would it be possible to prevent the day being hijacked for political purposes? That has happened in the past. Ultimately, what appears to be a good idea would probably unravel and cause further hurt and contention. There has been discussion on how to define a “victim”. Republicans believe that Thomas Begley is as much a victim as the people whom he murdered. I have no doubt that they would want that to be reflected on such a day, which would cause huge consternation to those families who lost loved ones in the Shankill Road bombing and other such incidents. The idea behind the proposal is good. However, its outworking could prove to be disastrous. Mr McCausland: I accept that there is idealism behind the proposal, which I would expect from the person who made it. Mrs Long: Thank you. Mr McCausland: However, it assumes that a level of integrity exists across our society. I do not believe that it does. I want to return to a point that was raised by Edwin about Thomas Begley. Two of the relatives of the victims of the Shankill Road bomb were taken to meet Peter Hain by a delegation of which I was a member. Discussion was about Sean Kelly. The relatives looked Peter Hain in the eye and asked him, clearly and specifically, what made someone a victim. He could not look them in the eye. They asked him whether Thomas Begley was a victim. He replied, “No”. He was also asked whether the IRA men who were killed at Loughgall were victims. Again, he replied, “No”. I have no doubt that if that line were followed, it might be possible to have a day of remembrance. Regrettably, however, I am afraid that it would be hijacked. For example, Sean Kelly could be there to remember Thomas Begley. Relatives of those who were killed in the Shankill Road bomb, and its survivors, would have to stand side by side with him. They would not want that. Mr McGuigan: In principle, Sinn Féin has no objection to a remembrance day. My party believes that it could be a good way to move forward. However, it is not a stand-alone issue. There are other issues that must be addressed alongside it. The idea for it probably came from a report from the Healing Through Remembering project, produced by a group with a broad range of different opinions. The group has produced many reports, in which that suggestion, among others, has been made. However, we believe that it is part of a bigger process that includes truth recovery and other victim-centred initiatives. I agree with Edwin that it should not be hijacked by politicians. I am afraid that, since the idea was suggested, that has begun. Ms Lewsley: I want to return to the reasons that Naomi made the proposal. The proposal is about agreeing the general principle of holding a day of remembrance for people in Northern Ireland. The detail and the timescale can be worked out later. Such a day may never be held because of arguments over such preconditions as the definition of “victims”. However, do we believe in the principle that there should be a day of remembrance? Mr Hussey: I, like other members, do not have the slightest difficulty with the idea of a day of remembrance. The devil will be in the detail. As Alan said, we already have Remembrance Sunday, although I know that some people have difficulty with that. It is not unusual for republicans and loyalists to be remembered side by side. For example, on 1 July, the 16th (Irish) Division, a republican-based division, is remembered side by side with the 36th (Ulster) Division. Again, the time factor comes into the equation. I am also mindful that in Sinn Féin-controlled council areas, there was an attempt to plant trees of remembrance as part of a cross-community day of coming together and remembrance. As Sinn Féin will be well aware, that failed in many areas because the Protestant/loyalist/unionist community did not want to be associated with it. As someone said, it was perhaps hijacked, not just by political parties, but by churches and others. Thus, some viewed it as a political exercise, and it did not work. It certainly did not work in my district council area, and I understand that it did not work in Omagh and other council areas. The devil is in the detail. Mr McGuigan: On a point of information, Mr Chairman. Sinn Féin held those remembrance ceremonies in an attempt to show political leadership; had that leadership been facilitated by the unionist community and others, those ceremonies might have been more successful. However, they were a success in the areas in which they were held. Mr A Maginness: I hate to be a pedant, but the 16th (Irish) Division was certainly not republican in any sense of the word. It may have been nationalist in aspiration, but it certainly was not republican. The DUP’s argument — and, to some extent, the Ulster Unionist Party’s argument — is, as I understand it, that it is too early to talk about a day of remembrance because there is too much hurt in the community. It argues that we must first come to terms with that hurt and develop sufficient political maturity to deal with it. Our community has not reached that stage; that is self-evidently true. However, to argue that is to assume that a day of remembrance is an end in itself. It is not. I understand Naomi’s point; it is a means to an end. In other words, a day of remembrance should be held so that people — imperfectly, with their different viewpoints — can come together to remember the obscene horror of what we have unnecessarily gone through over 35 years. Such a day of reflection would be one of the many mechanisms that could be employed to help people to come to terms with the suffering, division and conflict. By holding a series of different events over the coming years, we could work through the issue and, eventually, achieve a form of political reconciliation. However, if we were all reconciled and had the necessary political maturity to deal with this matter, there would be absolutely no need for a day of remembrance. It is simply a vehicle to help us towards reconciliation; if we were reconciled, we would not need it. Naomi’s arguments are important because she believes that we should use this day to try to achieve reconciliation. At least, that is my understanding. 1.45 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Naomi, I detect that the Committee is not going to get consensus on this issue. Do you want to sum up? Mrs Long: We have had a debate about proposals that I never made. The idea of people from the Army and the IRA exchanging weapons was not my proposal. It was not my suggestion that that would be an appropriate form of remembrance, and I can categorically say that I would not suggest that. We have been told that it is early days; I was not prescriptive about timescale. We have been told that the devil would be in the detail and the practicalities; I accept that. However, I was not prescriptive about the form that that day would take. In their presentations this morning, a number of other parties, including the unionist parties at some point, made reference to remembrance and a day of remembrance. I find it difficult to marry that reference with the resistance to a proposal that accepts it in principle. I was not prescriptive about how it would proceed. I accept the fact that people reflect on Remembrance Day. However, Remembrance Day tends to be focused on those who died in the Second World War, and the First World War tends to be commemorated on 1 July. Holocaust Memorial Day sets aside a specific time and place when people can think about that aspect of war. However, in the Northern Ireland context, where there has been serious loss of life and a serious impact on the community, the aspiration to set aside a special time for our community to reflect on what it has been through would be a way for people to start to address some of the questions that the Committee has touched on today but failed to address. That is what I suggest, and that is why I made the proposal. I did not think that the proposal would be easy or simple. However, in the earlier proposals and statements from other parties, there seemed to be a kernel of consensus that setting aside time for reflection as a community would be worthwhile and beneficial in principle, albeit difficult to formulate in practice, which I accept. However, that is not something that I would want the Committee to be prescriptive about. Mr McFarland: If the Committee ever gets past first base, and the Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness stand outside the front gates of Stormont as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, it will be because the DUP has accepted Sinn Féin. The entire climate of our society will change whenever that happens. As that change settles in and is manifest in the parties that are seen and televised debating in the Chamber and working in the Committees, we may get to a stage where people are comfortable with a joint wreath-laying ceremony at the Cenotaph in Belfast with the Rev Paisley and Mr McGuinness participating. Lord Morrow: Pigs will fly. Mr McFarland: That is how it would be if we were looking for people to stand side by side and have a common remembrance. It is hard for me to envisage how we would get to the stage where people would be comfortable remembering the past in that way. It is an aspiration and a good idea, but the time is not yet right. Mrs Long: If Alan McFarland is content that the aspiration is a good idea, I see no reason that his party should veto the proposals, because it is simply an aspirational principle. References to situations that require individuals, specified or unspecified, to exchange weapons or jointly lay wreaths was never part of what I envisaged. I repeat that because it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. This is not about political settlement. Whether or not there is an Assembly in November, there are always victims. Whether or not we can get our act together around this table and make Government work for the people of Northern Ireland, there are always victims. All I seek is agreement that, for one afternoon, we can put the needs of those people first. Regardless of whether the political situation is resolved, the issues of the past and its legacy remain here to be dealt with. Aside from the political aspect, we, as a community, will be able to make progress only if we start to address those issues. The principle, therefore, is not that individuals should have to share in their remembrance with anyone else, nor that the remembrance should take a particular format, civic or otherwise. None of that was part of my proposal. It was simply that a day should be set aside for that remembrance. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Poots has a point of information. It will be the last one. Mr Poots: The second proposal is open-ended and vague. In essence, there is nothing wrong with the proposals. There is nothing bad about them either, but their outcomes are uncontrollable. That puts the DUP in an awkward position in that it is sympathetic to what is being proposed but it is so open-ended that there would be no control over the outcome. Therefore, the DUP cannot lend its support to such proposals. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I formally put it to the meeting? Do we have consensus? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before members rush away, we must deal with some issues. There is another proposal but members will understand why I have not put it to the meeting. The proposal is that the victims’ and survivors’ forum should consider setting up a truth body. As we cannot agree about a forum being set up, I did not think that there was much to be gained by having a long debate on a truth body. That is why the proposal is not being put. It is nearly 2.00 pm. Before I go any further, I want to say that I found the quality of today’s presentations and discussions to be of a very high level. I want to thank all of those who took the time to prepare. Lord Morrow: Is that your judgement? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is my judgement. If anyone wants to challenge the Chairman’s ruling, they can do so. However, it is quite clear that people took the time to sit down in advance of this meeting and prepare their contributions. Lord Morrow: Are you measuring today’s performance against other days? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, pretty much so. Mr Hussey: May we all add the commendation to our CVs? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That attention to detail is appreciated, especially from the Chair. It is now 2.00 pm; we are not scheduled to finish until 4.00 pm and the doors will be locked at 4.30 pm. We have the option of proceeding to a discussion of “Culture and confidence building measures”. Lord Morrow: We are not prepared for that discussion. Ms Lewsley: May I make a proposal? As it is bank holiday weekend, it would be nice to finish early. Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, you indicated earlier that the report from the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland would be available at 4.00 pm. Is there any chance of getting that earlier? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is being printed, and I hope that it is on its way to us, if members are able to wait. Only full members of the subgroup and full members of the Preparation for Government Committee will receive a copy. The Committee Clerk: The Preparation for Government Committee that deals with institutional issues will discuss the report next Tuesday. Copies will be posted out, but if members want to wait a wee while, they can have their copies. Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, are we going to be so restrictive that members here cannot take a copy of the report back to their parties? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Several members were present yesterday, and it was agreed to print 60 copies. Therefore, we are not in a position to give every member a copy until the report has been agreed by the Preparation for Government Committee, at which time a copy will be made available to all 108 MLAs. Mrs Long: Mr Chairman, you suggested that the report would be dealt with at next Tuesday’s meeting. Reference has already been made, albeit light-heartedly, to the bank holiday weekend. In fairness, if parties are in receipt of the report at 4.00 pm and want to take it to their party staff for further discussion or to give it more consideration, the opportunity to do that is limited when we will not be in a position to do that until Tuesday morning. If the report is posted out, it will not arrive until Tuesday morning. There is a logistical issue about being able to discuss papers in depth on Tuesday morning. However, there may be a point later in the day when members will be in a position to do so. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The report will not be posted out; it will be couriered to members. The advantage of getting the report today is that members can start to read it tonight. Mr McFarland: Each party nominated a member of the Preparation for Government Committee to the subgroup. Each of us has spent two days a week for the past few weeks with that nominee, running the party’s business on the subgroup. Presumably, that nominee will attend next Tuesday’s meeting; Mr McNarry will attend that meeting. It would be surprising if subgroup members had not been keeping their parties informed. If party members on the Preparation for Government Committee had disagreed with what their people on the subgroup — Mrs Long: I suspect that Alan and I speak a different language because of his interpretation of what I said. I simply stated that it may be difficult for members to have a thorough review of the report in advance of Tuesday’s meeting, not that they do not know the substance of it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I chaired yesterday’s subgroup meeting that signed off the report. There was unanimity, and there is no great constitutional issue. There is a wish list for the economy of Northern Ireland, and you will not find any great surprises in it. Mr McFarland: Presumably, it just needs a nod next Tuesday? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It would be difficult not to, given the fact that most members of the Preparation for Government Committee have sat on the subgroup at some stage, so there is some overlap. Members should not expect any great surprises. It is a huge document — it is 1,000 pages long — and is being printed in four volumes. Mrs Long: Members will need the weekend to read it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a bit of light reading for the bank holiday weekend. Mr McFarland: All those who have been following Hansard for the past three weeks will have nothing to read. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those people could write the report themselves. Mrs Long: They could bind it and put it on the shelf. Lord Morrow: I am glad that we have Monday off. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any other business that members wish to raise as a result of today’s meeting? No? The next meeting of the Preparation for Government Committee will be on Tuesday 29 August at 10.00 am, at which the major item will be the report of the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland. The next meeting of the Preparation for Government Committee that deals with rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims will be on Friday 1 September; it will be an all-day meeting, with lunch provided, in Room 144. Mr Ford: In the context of the confidence-building discussions, it would be useful if those who raised points that are on the agenda for next week took two or three minutes now to brief the rest of us on what they see as the highlights so that we can prepare. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Given Lord Morrow’s comments earlier, do members wish to submit papers in advance for that meeting, so that others can study and comment on them, rather than take the issues as they arise on the day? Mr Poots: All papers would have to be submitted by Wednesday. Mr McFarland: We have had an unwritten agreement, and we are doing well. The purpose of a Committee is to discuss issues. If parties want to read papers, they can prepare and submit them. All members are busy, and some of us sit on three Preparation for Government Committees. Everyone would have to prepare papers on every topic. At present, each party makes a presentation, and we have a thorough discussion that might take six hours. We have all sat here for hours and hours discussing issues. However, it takes a long time to prepare submissions and to read other parties’ submissions. It negates the need for a meeting. If there are submissions, there is no need for a meeting because members will have read the views of all the parties. The Chairman (Mr Wells): At next Friday’s meeting, members can speak to a paper and they can decide whether to hand it out. Are members content? Members indicated dissent. Mr Ford: Some of us who were seeking clarification are still lacking it. Mr O’Dowd: You are applying logic to the argument. Mrs Long: All that is required is a framework for the discussion. This issue was raised when we were pulling together the agenda. It was not clear what substantive issues came under “Confidence building”. Confidence building could range from institutional issues to policing to community-based issues, which is why we need some guidance about the scope of the heading. 2.00 pm Mr McFarland: Initially, under “Culture”, the DUP and my party raised the issue of unionist confidence and the fact that, for a number of reasons, there is a lack of confidence in the unionist community. The sub-entries then evolved to include ethnic minorities, after someone made the point that we should be discussing the influx of people into Northern Ireland from eastern Europe, our indigenous Chinese population and the rise in hate crime. It was then said that if we were to cover unionist culture and ethnic-minority culture, we had better include nationalist culture as well. Therefore we have two sub-headings. First, we have “Confidence building”, which was originally about the parading issue and the perception that nationalist areas have received a whole pile of money, which has created a vibrant, confident community, while unionists have not had money spent on them, which has resulted in a lack of confidence in that community. Secondly, the three cultures were to be discussed. Whether those will take an entire day to discuss, it is difficult to tell at present, but that is roughly how we arrived at having three sub-entries to debate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Folks therefore know what to expect. Members who take a copy of the subgroup’s report are not to keep it to themselves if they are expected to hand it over to someone else. Lord Morrow: Are we to give it to our neighbour? The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, members are to take the report on the basis that they are to pass it on quickly to the person for whom it is intended. Ms Lewsley: It should take them a weekend to work that out. Lord Morrow: Nelson says to put it on eBay. Adjourned at 2.02 pm. |