COMMITTEE ON THE
PREPARATION FOR GOVERNMENT

Friday 25 August 2006

Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings:
The Chairman, Mr Jim Wells
Mr Alex Attwood
Mr David Ford
Mr Derek Hussey
Ms Patricia Lewsley
Mrs Naomi Long
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Philip McGuigan
Mr Alban Maginness
Lord Morrow
Mr Dermot Nesbitt
Mr John O’Dowd
Mr Edwin Poots

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 mov