Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement debate -
Thursday, 4 May 2023

Engagement with Representatives of Truth Recovery Process

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Senator Black and Stephen Farry, MP. Today we have an engagement with representatives of Truth Recovery Process. In particular, I welcome our former colleague from the Houses, Liz McManus, a former Deputy and Minister of State. She is her in her role as vice chair of the Truth Recovery Process and is accompanied her colleagues Mr. Harry Donaghy, Northern chair; Mr. John Green, Southern chair; Mr. Padraig Yeates, secretary; Mr. Peter Lavery; and Mr. Andy Pollak. On behalf of the committee, I welcome them to the meeting. We will have 15 minutes allocated to each group. It is relaxed and informal, involving questions and answers or whatever. The witnesses should feel free to contribute their views.

Before we begin, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses regarding references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. However, witnesses and participants who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within those precincts, and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are also asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter of the proceedings should be given. They should respect directions given by the Chair and also respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible they should neither criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I understand that Mr. Yeates is making the opening statement. Is that correct?

Ms Liz McManus

First of all, I thank the Chair and all of the members of the committee for facilitating us. It is great to see some of the more seasoned members who are familiar to me looking so hale and hearty----

An Cathaoirleach

Some are very seasoned, including myself.

Ms Liz McManus

You do not look a day older.

I would like to introduce the speakers very briefly and then Mr. Yeates will speak. Padraig Yeates, who may well be known to the committee, joined the republican movement in the 1960s and stayed with the official movement after the split. He was active in the civil rights campaign and the anti-internment movement. He became a journalist and worked for The Irish Times. He also wrote a number of significant books about Irish history, industrial relations and social issues.

The next speaker is Mr. Peter Lavery, from Belfast. His father was killed 50 years ago by the IRA. He worked for a management consultancy called Venture International and has been involved in peace projects and community relations. Beside Peter is Mr. Harry Donaghy, also from Belfast. Harry is a founding member of the Fellowship of Messines Association and has been the association's project manager for 21 years. He is a former combatant himself and a prisoner. He is currently Northern joint chair of the Truth Recovery Process. Mr. John Green runs his own accountancy business. He was chair of the Glasnevin Trust for most of the decade of commemorations. He is the Southern joint chair of the Truth Recovery Process. Finally, we have Mr. Andy Pollack, who may also be well known to the committee. He was the compiler of the Opsahl Commission report and the first director of the Centre for Cross Border Studies, which was set up as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. He has also worked as a journalist.

Padraig Yeates will now make an opening statement.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

Thank you. I will just read out our statement and then obviously we are happy to answer any questions members may have. Our position is that we welcome the success of the Good Friday Agreement in ending the communal conflict on this island but there remains an urgent need to address the need of victims and their families and for wider society to know the truth and strengthen reconciliation. This is particularly the case for the earliest and bloodiest years of the Troubles when most of the deaths and serious injuries occurred. People with this information are dying while new British legislation threatens to pull down the shutters on future investigations, including inquests and criminal prosecutions, despite opposition from all the political parties in Northern Ireland and in the South.

We propose the Truth Recovery Process as an option to the courts for families to access the truth of what happened to their loved ones, should they wish to use it. We are encouraged by models of truth recovery developed in post-conflict societies elsewhere such as Chile, Colombia and South Africa. We had speakers from all of those countries at our own very successful conference recently on 1 April in Queen's University Belfast. We believe, as a result of that interaction and of our own experience, that the truth recovery process would enable victims here and their families to request information from former combatants and expedite access to State records and compensation. In return for their amnesty, former combatants would have to act in good faith and commit fully to engaging with those who have suffered by their actions. This would require full disclosure on their part of their own involvement in all of the actions for which they are claiming immunity. They could not provide information implicating other individuals but the process would facilitate engagement by groups of former combatants as well as by individuals.

Former combatants would include members of the security forces and paramilitary organisations who were involved in the period of the Troubles covered by the 1998 Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Cases would be dealt with through a mediation process overseen by senior members of the British and Irish judiciaries, or alternatively by an international chair agreed by the two sovereign Governments. The scheme would have two divisions. The first is a justice facilitation unit which would mediate between victims and former combatants and provide mechanisms that would allow them to engage directly with each other, as and when required. The second division is a truth recovery unit which would examine each case forensically. It would collect and verify information for use as required in the mediation process.

We believe that our proposal is compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and we have received a legal opinion to that effect by Mr. Michael Lynn SC and Ms Céile Varley, barrister at law, which was provided under the Free Legal Aid Commission’s, FLAC, Public Interest Law Alliance, PILA, project. Like many voluntary groups, I would like to thank FLAC for providing this very important resource to civil society.

The aim of the truth recovery process is to enable both sides, victims and former combatants, to reconcile on the facts of the case. We believe very strongly that without such an agreement, any further forms of reconciliation are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, not alone between individuals but within the wider community.

The process would provide for a speedier and fuller examination of each event than is possible through the courts, facilitate the wider process of reconciliation in divided communities, and create a greater understanding and acknowledgement of the damage caused by the Troubles. The process would require the fullest co-operation of the Irish and UK Governments if it is to provide total disclosure, as envisaged in the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, ICIR, section of the Stormont House agreement. Without the leadership of both Governments the necessary amendments to the ICIR will not be possible. If agreement could be reached on mechanisms to retrieve the remains of victims who disappeared in the Troubles, surely the same approach can be used for recovering the truth about what happened to all those who have suffered.

Ms Liz McManus

Thank you. Mr. Lavery is next.

Mr. Peter Lavery

I was in my mid to late teens when my father was killed. He was 60 years old. I often think that there is a hierarchy of deaths and I kind of survived it. I have arrived at an age, 50 years after his death, where I am an observer of what is going on. Nobody seems to represent the victims that I know from around Northern Ireland. One thing that I do know about all of the victims and their families is what they have in common, which is that they all want the truth. They want to know what happened. I have been lucky. I have been married for 37 years, have children and grandchildren. I am now 70 and am reasonably healthy. I have quite a lot of experience working with communities all over Northern Ireland, with prisoner groups and other groups who have been conflicted in the past. For example, I have worked with the Orange Order, the GAA and the Ulster Bands Forum, bringing them together to work, which was great.

The Good Friday Agreement is not perfect. One part of it that has fallen between the stones is that relating to the treatment of victims' families. I get it and I understand why but it really is time to deal with this issue.

Ms Liz McManus

Harry is next.

Mr. Harry Donaghy

I was born and raised in what is now known as the Lower Falls area of Belfast. I come from a generation who can remember relative peace before the Troubles broke out in 1969.

When we first met Mr. Yeates a number of years ago, the meetings were in camera with people known as former combatants. Mr. Yeates outlined the principles and rationale for the truth recovery process. I, along with others, certainly found it was something that should definitely be pursued. It helped to ignite conversations that had taken place in the compounds in Long Kesh in the mid-1970s, which we had lost in recent years. We had discussions then about what we were going to do when we finally arrived at a peace process. If peace was declared and accepted, how would we set about constructing new relationships in between and across all of those who had been affected, with victims being a major part of that?

It has been extremely useful and worthwhile to revisit some of those conversations that took place nearly 40 years ago and which took place in the lead-up to the declaration of the ceasefires in 1994 and when arriving at the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. One loyalist friend who I got to know as a boy in Long Kesh asked me where that spirit of goodwill all went to. Any contribution to help in the process of dealing with the legacy of our recent past conducted in the manner outlined by Mr. Yeates has to be positive. I do not think anyone has anything to lose by taking part in it.

Mr. John Green

I was chairman of Glasnevin Trust from 2007 to 2019. At the time, we were addressing how we were going to act in the decade of centenaries. We went back to O'Connell, who was our founder, and saw his inclusivity. In the midst of the fight for Catholic emancipation, he set up Glasnevin Cemetery and said it should be a place where perfect freedom of religious rights can comfort the living and, according to their creed, look after the dead. That was epitomised in 2014. On 31 July, we had the State commemoration of the start of the First World War. One year and one day later, we had the start of the 1916 commemorations, marking the O'Donovan Rossa funeral.

Under the radar, during that period, I met many people, though not hundreds, who were on a journey. They had been former combatants. They came to Dublin and visited Glasnevin as part of that trip. They were often astounded by the fact that there was a cross of sacrifice or that there were Commonwealth War Graves Commission and National Graves Association graves side by side. Going back to what Martin Mansergh said about First World War commemorations, with at least 200,000 people in the Allied armies during the First World War, it would be impossible for those of us alive today not to have ancestors who had fought. While we were explaining the complex history, the one thing that always came at the end was the necessity to sort out legacy issues. It was a constant, but not loud, hum from whatever side or whoever came. It was extraordinary.

When I retired as chairman of Glasnevin Trust in 2019, I met Mr. Yeates and I came on this journey. I fully accept that I am an outsider to the situation but I have many friends from my days in Trinity and who I made in the time that I was chair. I definitely get the impression that we are on the right track and that the time has come for politicians to show leadership on this. As Mr. Lavery said, there are many victims who are under the radar. We all know about the victims. I am not denigrating or downing what they have but we all know about them. As Martin Mansergh said, 50,000 people have been maimed or killed. It is impossible for somebody in the North not to know or have among their relations somebody who was affected by the Troubles. Whether we have a united Ireland or Northern Ireland as part of the union, if we want it to function as a normal society, we have to address the reconciliation matter.

Mr. Andrew Pollak

I will not add very much. I just want to say that one of the most powerful presentations at our conference last month was from a man who was the senior negotiator for the Colombian Government in its negotiations that led to the peace process with FARC in that country. He said the one thing that was missing from the Irish peace process was legacy and the way to provide recompense and truth to the many victims, survivors and their families. He showed a moving video where a senior Colombian army officer stood up and addressed the mother of a victim of an atrocity that he had overseen. He apologised and said he was sorry. It was a very moving film. That has never happened here. I do not know if a senior British Army officer or a senior Provisional IRA combatant would do that but what is happening now in the North is not working. Trying to do it through legal and juridical forms is not working. A tiny handful of people, mainly those in Derry and Ballymurphy, have had any kind of recompense or truth. It is time, as Mr. Green said, to give a truth recovery process, based on relatively successful experience in countries like South Africa and Colombia, a try in Ireland.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I extend a warm welcome, as the Cathaoirleach did, to Ms Liz McManus and her colleagues today. I thank them for their work in this regard. We all participated in committees with Ms McManus when she was a distinguished Member of the Dáil over many years. It is good to see her in the committee room again. I welcome any engagement on the issue of reconciliation legacy. On many occasions, we have different groups here, whether victims or advocates for reconciliation and legacy issues. The one extremely disappointing thing is the British Bill which is before the House of Lords at present. As we all know, it is a legacy Bill offering immunity to people responsible for the most heinous of crimes on the basis that they co-operate with a new truth recovery body. If that Bill was enacted and implemented, it would put an end to core proceedings and inquests. We are all conscious and most of us have worked with different families who have been seeking the truth. The reality is that, today, the likelihood of prosecution for crimes which happened half a century ago is very limited. As each of the contributors said, families want the truth. In my constituency, there were bombings and deaths. We all know where the bombs emanated from but there has sadly never been co-operation from the British or Northern Ireland authorities to bring successful prosecutions.

On 28 December I attended the 50th anniversary of the bombing in Belturbet where two young teenagers were killed. Their families, whom I have worked with over the years, say to me that we are all getting older. Memories will fade. It is an issue that needs to be addressed and it is not straightforward. I saw a comment attributed to Bertie Ahern recently. When the issue of truth and recovery came up he said that there are not too many left from around the negotiating table when he introduced this particular subject. We all know that we need progress on this issue and that it will get more difficult as we go on. The first thing the British should do is withdraw the Bill they have proposed. It is a shame there was not a determination on the part of the British Government to implement the Stormont House Agreement. It had the potential to achieve some of the issues we all want to see addressed.

Mr. Yeates mentioned the disappeared. Four of the people who are known as the disappeared are still missing. In Monaghan, which is in my constituency, the search goes on for the late Columba McVeigh. There are people out there who have information that would be relevant. We cannot say it often enough in public fora that if anybody has a scintilla of information they should provide it to the authorities. Great credit is due to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains for the work it has done over the years. We all want to keep echoing our support for this work.

I am not very familiar with the truth and recovery processes in Chile and Colombia. I have some familiarity with what happened in South Africa. Perhaps someone will expand on what has been achieved in these two countries. How successful has it been? They are ongoing processes, I assume.

Mr. Yeates said that a truth and reconciliation process "would enable victims and their families to request information from former combatants and expedite access to state records and compensation". The first thing I think of is the inability of the British Government to co-operate with requests for information. In 2008, 2011 and 2016 both Houses of the Oireachtas unanimously passed motions calling on the British Government to provide access for an independent international eminent legal person to all files and papers pertaining to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. This request was repeated by a sovereign Parliament to a neighbouring sovereign Parliament and Government. To date we have not received a worthwhile response to it.

All of us in the various groups in which we participate raise this particular issue, whether at this committee, at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly or through questions in the Dáil. Our colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, spoke about it recently, as have other colleagues, and at every meeting where we have an opportunity to meet the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Foreign Secretary we raise it. I am throwing out the question as to how confident anybody could be of the British Government giving access to state records when it has refused to give access to an international person to the papers on the two awful crimes that occurred in Dublin and Monaghan. This worries me. I hope my worries are badly based but they have not been to date. This is a weakness that I see in it. Perhaps I can be reassured that Truth Recovery Process is more confident. Successive Irish Governments have said they will provide information that will lead to truth and proper investigations. I have no doubt that whatever Government is in office it will do so on behalf of the Irish people. This is what the Irish people would wish for.

I have known Andy Pollak for many years and his work at the Centre for Cross Border Studies. He has been a powerful advocate of, and worker on, the promotion of cross-Border activity and all-Ireland work. We have seen how much has been achieved without any fanfare. So much has been addressed on a cross-Border basis. There has been the growth of the all-Ireland economy. The work of the centre has been important in highlighting the potential and getting the message out on what has been achieved. As a society, we have a lot of work yet to do.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

None of us would pretend to be an expert. All we can say is that we have engaged with people. Wilhelm Verwoerd has written an article, Legacy Matters, and I have copies of it.

An Cathaoirleach

We have it here.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

It is a profound piece by someone who worked in the process and revised his opinions of what should happen and what happened as a result. There are many criticisms in it, including of institutional failings. Looking back, he feels they should have begun with the institutions and worked their way back rather than starting with victims or former combatants and dealing with them first. By the time they finished that process they had run out of steam.

In a way, this echoes the Irish experience. We have had a series of continuous legal cases involving individuals, whether soldiers who have been accused or victims who have brought cases or people seeking reviews of inquests. This is what we have had. We have not had that big block, that institutional constituency, if you like, that has to be addressed. We believe our process is a way of doing this. As we fully admit, and as we have said to the committee, we rely on the British and Irish Governments to achieve it. It is out of our hands. We can only appeal for it but politicians North and South and in the UK are the people who can put pressure on the two Governments to set up something in line with the Good Friday Agreement that will call to account the institutions and will also allow non-state actors to be called to account.

The more information we have, the more information will flow and this is an important point. It is like a brick wall. If we take out one brick we will have a bit of a view through it. Sergio Jaramillo made the point that when they began the process in Colombia they did not expect a lot of engagement from state actors or the army, whose members were the prime suspects for many cases. As time went on and more information became available, many people in the army and other organisations began to think they should tell their version of events before someone came knocking on their door. This is a very important part of the process. We have to have these institutional questions addressed. The only people who can do it are the politicians.

Mr. John Green

Some of us tend to look at South Africa and remember Archbishop Tutu. Some of it was almost farcical. I have spoken to Wilhelm Verwoerd and Kader Asmal, who some members might remember was a professor of law here, then went back to be a minister with responsibility for water and then returned here. He used to say we should remember it was not about the outcomes but the process. It was a catharsis. It was when people realised there was a change in society. It was not perfect. I was very impressed with Wilhelm Verwoerd. He said that if we took the whole of what happened and all of the hearings they were significant. Rather than picking and choosing we should consider the number of people who went through it. Similarly with Chile and Colombia, representatives at the conference spoke about how important it was that people knew the process was happening and how it brought in everybody. People saw the change. People were made accountable who were not accountable before.

With regard to the British Government and whether it will or will not reveal the facts, I am told, by people who are much more expert at this, that most of the information we need is out there but we have to understand how to get it. It is available under the ten-year rule but it is about pulling it together because there are codes. We have been working with several people who have helped individuals by knowing where to look.

Our main thrust of this is that the Governments must participate.

With the greatest of respect to this building and the people in it, when I go up to counties Tyrone and Fermanagh there are many people who feel that we have been behind the eight ball in revealing information as well.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Smith would like to come back in.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I thank Cathaoirleach. Has there been any opportunity to engage with people at a political level in Britain or with some of the human rights advocacy groups there? Thankfully, Mr. Starmer, the leader of the British Labour Party, has come out against the present legacy legislation. This was a change from the initial position adopted by some of his party colleagues and this is a welcome development. It is very important in this context if there is an opportunity in this regard. I again compliment anybody who makes any effort to deal with the issues of reconciliation. The legacy issues are extremely important.

Regarding what is on the public record, information was provided to me from the University of Nottingham which I put on the record of Dáil Éireann and which has helped to give momentum to an investigation into the Belturbet bombing of more than 50 years ago. This information all came through research done in the National Archives in London on the different departments and statutory agencies in Britain. The point made in this regard was relevant to the information provided to me and which I was then able to put on the record of the Dáil. This had not been in the public domain previously. It is also an important point.

An Cathaoirleach

Would Ms McManus like to come in?

Ms Liz McManus

No.

Mr. John Green

Regarding engagement, we have engagement with individuals in all the political parties in the United Kingdom, but we have failed to get engagement before the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. My computer is worn out sending emails to all the members of that committee, so we are very disappointed about this. Engagement with civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office, NIO, has been relatively good, but they must follow their political masters. Individual politicians have also been supportive and we would hope to follow up on this.

Ms Liz McManus

We have not got to do that yet.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy Feighan again.

Deputy Frankie Feighan

I am delighted to see everybody here again. Ms McManus is very welcome back to Leinster House. I am very proud to have served with her over the years. We did not serve in government because she retired in 2011. It is great to see her and so many good friends here.

I have spent time in Colombia. I was sent to the inauguration of the new president of that country last year. It could be felt that there was a great movement of hope. Mr. Eamon Gilmore, the EU special representative to the Colombian peace process, certainly did a lot of great work there. As I said, truth and reconciliation encouraged Colombia to build a new country. They felt they were on the right track. Regarding social, economic, political, cultural and environmental rights, they felt the one thing they needed was generosity. It is right what was said in this regard, because generosity was included. I refer to seeing representatives of the Colombian army coming out and saying what was done.

We are in a stalemate here. It is about who goes first. If the process opens up, then I think people will say we do not yet have this generosity. Where there is a future, there is the truth. Again, what has happened with the legislation that is pulling the shutters down on further investigation is very clumsy. As politicians, we need to work together, perhaps not shouting from the rooftops, but behind-the-scenes to try to get the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs to meet with the witnesses. They represent the voice of reason and extensive experience.

One area in which I am delighted to be involved, in the context of the contributions of Mr. Donaghy and Mr. Green, is the commemoration of the First World War. A very poor signal was sent out from the Twenty-six Counties when we air-brushed nearly 50,000 men out of our history. We have come a long way in the last ten years in respect of commemoration. It sends out a powerful signal. I was in Sligo last Friday at the commemoration at the Great War Memorial Garden. There were 620 men from Sligo involved, and 126 men from Boyle, where I come from. We just air-brushed them out of history. History is not history unless it is the truth and I think we are beginning to face the truth. These are only simple things. What the witnesses are dealing with is much more difficult and much more recent. We can deal with issues after generations, but we must deal with them as quickly as possible.

It stated that "Former combatants would include members of the security forces and paramilitary organisations". What is meant by the statement that people would get an amnesty? I refer to the context of former combatants and to there being engagement "with those who have suffered by their actions". Could the witnesses elaborate a little on this point? As was said, Derry and Ballymurphy have been successful breakthroughs, but we need many more. If there is any way in which we can assist, cross-party, in what the witnesses are doing, because their organisation is the right vehicle to undertake this process, I, for one, would be only too delighted to do so, as would, I am sure, all the members of the committee. I wish the witnesses good luck and wish them the best. I thank them for all their great work.

Ms Liz McManus

Before Mr. Yeates answers, this is a good opportunity for Mr. Donaghy to talk about commemorations.

Mr. Harry Donaghy

It has been referred to. Although the research into this aspect was completed several years ago, it dealt with the experience of family histories and those who had family members involved in the experience of the island of Ireland in the First World War. We found that from a parochial, local perspective some 500 or 600 men from the Falls Road area of Belfast alone enlisted in the 6th (Service) Battalion of the Connaught Rangers at the outbreak of the First World War. They were trained here at the British army facilities at Fermoy and then went off to fight and take part in the conflict.

My grandfather was one of those individuals. When he left Ireland, it was still part of the UK and the Empire. He survived the turmoil and carnage of the war while his brother and two of my great uncles were killed. They did not return, but when my grandfather came back he said it was to a situation where the process of partition was under way and then confirmed in 1921.

I do not want to labour too much on this point, but when people had those conversations that were honest, open, respectful and compassionate, we saw that it was not just study or research into a particular regiment but a synopsis of and a window into the island of Ireland of more than 100 years ago. It showed what had led to those situations at the time and, more importantly, what took place later. Hopefully, the compassion, understanding and ability to encourage the spirit of generosity will allow us to assist in whatever ways we can in building a level of maturity that will allow people to talk to and engage with one another concerning important issues of the day.

National identity was a feature of the processes under way on the island of Ireland leading up to 1914 and what came later. It is still an issue today.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

I will come back on the question. Like many people, I have been in court from time to time. I have been a witness, a defendant, a plaintiff and, most of all, a reporter over the past 50-odd years. I have never been in a courtroom, whether the case was civil or criminal, or where there was an inquest or whatever, where I felt I was in a reconciliation process because I was in the presence of a contest between lawyers. The facts and alleged principles come in very far down the line.

I have also been a trade union activist. As such, I have been involved in a fair bit of mediation through what used to be the Labour Relations Commission and is now the Workplace Relations Commissions; I am showing my age. It was where some sort of progress could be made provided people engaged honestly and fairly with each other. What we are proposing is an option. We are not saying, as the British Government does, that this would replace the courts. We absolutely accept everyone's right to go to court and to use the criminal justice system and, indeed, the civil courts to achieve justice. We are saying that we all know, as does everyone in this room, that the vast majority of people will never get justice in the courts. It is just not possible because the number of cases is so great and also due to time. I am of an age where I can remember the start of the Troubles and the civil rights movement. Most of the people I knew in 1970 and 1971 are dead, including people who had information.

There has to be some alternative. We cannot just park it. I am fairly tired of hearing politicians and lawyers, in particular, saying they will get truth and justice, will find a way of doing it, will bring in legislation and will have talks and negotiations, but nothing happens except that another case trundles through. Every case that trundles through those courts adds to the legacy problem. I have friends who got a case into court relatively recently. It happened to involve the British army but it could have been anybody. Their hopes were quite high that they would get a result. They did not get a result but it re-traumatised them. They had to go through the ordeal, when the people concerned were acquitted, of having to walk out of that court building at Laganside. Naturally enough, in what was a perfectly human reaction, the soldiers and their supporters were celebrating. My friends had to walk through that. It could have been the other way around. It is not a one-sided street. That is the problem.

We need to find some other way of doing it. We are saying that if people come forward in good faith and give information, and if it can be verified from other sources, which in many cases it can be, then there is a basis by which people can reach the truth and agree the facts. They may not agree anything else but unless we can do that, we will end up with the usual story of one side wins while the other side loses and they each bring out their version of history or of what happened. Someone recently said to us at the conference, "What about subtext? What about the circumstances?" We have loads of subtext. We are falling down and could bury this country with the number of books and propaganda being produced on history. What we do not have are people who are willing to get up and tell the truth. That is what we need.

I will add one other point. It is a matter of record that I am a former combatant. I have never yet been in a room with a group of former combatants where I was contradicted when I said that we all know people who went to prison for things they did not do, because we do. The reason for that is the only way people could prove their innocence, as they were usually stitched up by somebody, was to say, "It was not me. It was him." or by turning informer and, unless they were a supergrass, they would not do that. People will not leave their communities and they will not become outcasts and have their families suffer the results of their decision. We need a new way of doing it. We need a different way before it is too late.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Senator Currie want to come in? There are a couple of minutes left.

Senator Emer Currie

It is great to have somebody in the room who has the experience of being on this side of the questions. We are all in agreement that something needs to happen when dealing with legacy. Otherwise, the past will just continue to haunt us. The time to do it is now for the reasons outlined in that the people concerned are dying, the information is harder to obtain the longer we go on, and there is consensus regarding the British Government's legacy proposals. Why not the Stormont House approach? From my experience, the truth is not coming out through the use of goodwill. Even when we look at the issue of the disappeared, in respect of which there is an amnesty, we have not seen all of the people who were murdered returned to their families. There is a culture of omerta and the people who have the information still have a huge amount to lose. Why does Truth Recovery Process believe its way would get the truth, when we do not have the signs we need indicating people are willing to engage in a process like that?

An Cathaoirleach

Our time is running out. If it is agreed, we will extend each time slot by five minutes. Is that okay? This is so everybody gets the same time.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

I will raise one important matter to which I probably should have given more emphasis. The Stormont House Agreement reference in the ICIR section, and the following section on reconciliation, could be amended relatively easily to facilitate what we are proposing. That needs to be addressed. I am sorry but I have forgotten what the other point was. I will come back in.

Senator Emer Currie

I will finish the point. In my experience, criminal investigations are required to get to the truth because people are not showing they are willing to come forward. What is it about the Truth Recovery Process approach that it believes would change that? In addition, verifying the truth is an important part of this as well. We have seen that through our deliberations on and analysis of the British Government's legacy proposals. There is no threshold for truth in its current proposals. What would be different about the Truth Recovery Process proposals?

We all are in agreement that something has to be done. Why this approach instead of something like the Stormont House Agreement, which relies on the European Convention on Human Rights and access to criminal investigations to seek the truth? I agree on the point made about the chances of getting prosecutions, but that is up to the families and the particular cases. I suggest we have also seen that, in order to get to the truth, a justice route is also needed to get there. You may not get to that destination but you certainly need that path.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

As was said, we accept fully that there are options. We are proposing an option. We are not saying we have the answer. We have one possible answer. At no stage have we ever said we would stand in the way of people taking prosecutions, whether they are taken by the police or families are appealing for that. I want to make it absolutely clear we are not saying that. We are talking about cases where people have information and are willing to give that information in return for a conditional immunity. There would be compellability and if people do not act in good faith, they will lose that immunity. It is conditional.

That, in itself, is a pressure point. Over the years I have known many people who died violently and many others who survived in one way or another. I could have counted on two hands the number of people I knew who would engage with that process. I can now count them on one hand because people have died. One person has dementia, so he is gone also. They are all men. The point is that there are people willing to give information. Their motives vary enormously, but that is a resource that should be tapped into and should be facilitated. From my background and social circle, I am of the view that if it worked for some, others would come forward because people want reconciliation.

Mr. John Green

It would have a snowball effect. We represent an alternative in parallel with and complementary to the system. Operation Kenova is the big white hope in the area of justice. It has lost its key witness. There may be 32 participants, with maybe five or six expected to reach the bar. We are talking about catharsis. In other words, once people see this happening, others will come forward. It is incumbent on the Governments to lead on this. At our conference, it was suggested that some paramilitary groups would participate if the conditions were right. It is up to us, society, to say that the conditions are right and to get them to participate. This is too important.

The problem is that we are not strong enough in drawing people out. There are people who have information. All our emphasis is on the governments and I am quite happy to have that. There are other groups of people who are dying off, who must provide that information. If they want the society they claim to want they must participate in this. That is the problem. We do not have any way of doing it. We can lead by example. The Governments are taking the high moral ground. There is an opening in this regard. With the greatest of respect, I do not think the justice system is producing truth. It might produce-----

Senator Emer Currie

If it was allowed to produce the truth, it could.

An Cathaoirleach

I must move on to the Sinn Féin slot. We are doing 20 minutes per session. I want to be fair to everybody. I do not want people complaining that I did not give them enough time.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

There is a lot to process on the broader issue. There is also much to process on the basis of the conversation so far today. My remarks will centred on the comprehensive papers the witnesses furnished in advance of this meeting. They will appreciate that at least one of us spent a good bit of time reading over them. I thank them for that and thank them for coming in today.

It is a timely and important intervention. It provides the committee with an opportunity to discuss the very important issues of truth and justice for the relatives of all those who died in the conflict, irrespective of who was responsible for the death or injury, and the best way to achieve this long-awaited objective. In approaching this understandable and powerfully emotional issue, I believe it must be relative centred. In other words, we must ask ourselves will relatives, in as broad and inclusive a way as possible, accept what is being proposed today. Will they see the proposals as achieving what many of them have been campaigning for for nearly 50 years, some of them for more than 50 years? If it does not meet that test, no matter how well-intentioned the proposers are - I have no doubt that the authors of today's presentation are well-intentioned - then, like my colleagues, I believe it will be tremendously difficult to achieve.

Sinn Féin fully supports the Stormont House Agreement and the mechanisms it outlines to ensure truth and justice for relatives and survivors. We have repeatedly called on the British Government to abandon its plans to introduce its legacy Bill, a call that has been reasserted today. It has no support in Ireland, the EU or the USA. This committee, the Seanad and the Dáil all oppose the legacy Bill of shame. I believe the Stormont House Agreement provides the best way forward. It has the support of relatives, the Irish and British Governments and most of the political parties across Ireland because it was set within a legally binding framework and was Article 2 compliant. If the Stormont House Agreement is implemented - Senator Currie touched on this in her contribution - then the ICIR is the body to do what the witnesses want to see achieved.

The committee also needs to consider the paper we received in advance of this meeting from Relatives for Justice, which was sent to this committee in response to the witnesses' proposals. I hope we can discuss that with Relatives for Justice in the time ahead. Drawing from the Good Friday Agreement, Relatives for Justice's paper sets out the need for an independent judicial, inquisitorial and investigative process which balances the rights of all victims and perpetrators. This approach is the surest away to achieve an outcome that meets the needs of relatives and society as we continue to deal with the legacy of the conflict.

Mr. Pollak spoke earlier about the current system in the North not working. Rather than just saying that, we sometimes need to name the problem and say why the process is not working at present. That is primarily because one actor in the conflict has reneged from an agreement and is pulling away from the process of truth recovery and justice. Deputy Howlin spoke about the refusal to give access to papers relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Britain's Supreme Court has also ruled that the British Government is in breach of its legal obligation to carry out an investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane. Just this week the Police Ombudsman's report into the murder of Independent councillor Patsy Kelly was published. His family wants a new inquest into that murder. We know the legacy Bill will close that avenue down for them and for many other families from all walks of life.

It is an interesting conversation about the issue of reconciliation in its broadest sense. One of the cornerstone, one of the fundamentals, of true reconciliation is a process of giving people truth and justice. That is a really important way to reconcile it. Obviously, we need to look to international models because we have no indigenous model pertaining to the more recent phase of conflict. When we emerged from the Tan War - we are now in the centenary of the Civil War - there was never a truth recovery process after that. There was never a real process of reconciliation following that. We need to look at this process. It needs to be viewed through the prism of it being national, of it being deep rooted and of it being as comprehensive as possible.

I thank all the witnesses for the presentation today and the information provided. It is an important intervention as the committee considers the broader issues of legacy and truth recovery and now reconciliation also. It is a very worthwhile consideration for us and I am sure it will help shape our discussions and our views on this.

Mr. Francie Molloy

I thank the witnesses for the presentation today which is a very important input into the discussions on legacy. I would like to remind people that the Troubles did not just break out. The Troubles resulted from the denial of civil rights and justice. I am old enough to have been involved in the early civil rights marches and campaigns. They related to the very basic demands of a job, a house and a vote. The state would not and did not deliver that. We then finished up in a conflict situation which lasted for another 30 years. It is important to remember that the denial of rights was the big issue that brought all this to a head. We are now again in a situation with the denial of rights for victims to get justice and truth.

While the current system may not be working correctly, it has certainly brought a lot of information and satisfaction to families who went to inquests, etc. The legacy Bill of shame would quash that and wipe it out completely. It is important to look at the options that were proposed. As Senator Ó Donnghaile said, just because someone does not participate, it does not mean that we need to change and take a different route because that is just part of the tactic of delay.

The Stormont House Agreement is not a republican document by any means; it is an agreement reached between Mr. Richard Haass, representing the US, and the Irish and British Governments, and combatants on both sides. That agreement was not implemented, in the same way that the Good Friday Agreement has never been fully implemented. The latter is what this committee is about. That the British Government has walked away from things does not mean things have to be dropped. The Stormont House Agreement still has to be dealt with and will probably finish up being the only way of getting to get the results we need.

Senator Ó Donnghaile posed a question about the document put forward by Relatives for Justice. I would like to pick up on the point on the importance of the relatives agreeing to any proposals about truth, recovery and justice. The Stormont House Agreement needed that thinking within it. I draw attention to a written response by Relatives for Justice to the witnesses proposals. It was sent to this committee. It refers to a comment in an article in The Irish News by Ms Sandra Peake, the director of WAVE, in respect of the witnesses' proposals. She said the witnesses are basically following the Northern Ireland Office playbook and that the proposals give perpetrators power over victims and survivors. How would the witnesses respond to the concern expressed by Ms Peake? Can they understand the reactions to the legacy Bill across Ireland and from the EU, US and British Government? It is basically presenting an amnesty. The proposals for truth and recovery again present an amnesty. Many relatives and victims do not agree with that. What effect would the witnesses' proposed amnesty have on relatives who lost loved ones? What would be the response to that?

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Molloy will not be aware that we received the correspondence he referred to after Monday, but Monday is the closing date for correspondence. Therefore, our witnesses have not seen it and the committee members have not discussed it. That does not mean the witnesses may not wish to respond to the correspondence – it is up to them – but they do not know about it and have not seen it. We have not circulated it to them. I say this to be fair to them.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

We have not seen it. We would not want to respond to something we have not seen.

An Cathaoirleach

The witnesses can give a considered response later when they see it, if they want, in writing or otherwise.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

We would very much welcome the opportunity to respond at some future date.

I remember well reading Sandra Peake's letter in The Irish News. We actually replied to it and the newspaper carried our reply. Off the top of my head – I am showing my age – I cannot remember exactly what Ms Peake said, or what we said, but I do know she did not revert to us on the points we made. We requested a meeting with Ms Peake several times to discuss the issues. She responded to some of the requests initially and said she would meet, but it never happened.

I will read the correspondence and let the committee-----

An Cathaoirleach

That is fine. We will leave it there, in fairness to everybody, including Ms Peake.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

I reiterate that we would very much welcome the opportunity to talk to Ms Peake.

An Cathaoirleach

Perfect.

Mr. Peter Lavery

Let me respond to a point. Senator Ó Donnghaile started by asking whether the proposal would meet all the objectives of the victims' families. The answer is that it probably will not. However, one thing that is common is the truth. All the victims want the truth. The proposal can deal with that side of it. There are really uncomfortable truths for the British, Irish, all the paramilitary groups and everyone in between. The people who participate in this process should have faith in the response. I am not talking about myself here but about those to whom I have spoken all over the place. I have spoken to so many about this because I did not want to come down here and talk from my perspective. I went to the trouble of speaking to many people to get a sense of the pain and suffering they went through. They all want the truth. One should have faith in their response. They will appreciate the truth, uncomfortable as it is, from all the parties.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I asked my question from a very respectful point of view but also with a view to trying to understand further how the witnesses believe that what they suggest will come about via the model in question. Mr. Lavery does not want the proposal to apply only to state actors but also to people across the board. However, in light of examples from outside a legally binding Article-2-compliant process, what makes the witnesses believe people will take part and essentially give them the outcomes they want?

Mr. Peter Lavery

I do not know the answer to that question. Mr. Yeates and the team involved with the legalities-----

Mr. Padraig Yeates

I know people who would come forward. That is what it is based on. I ask people.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Mr. Yeates can understand why that feels a wee bit anecdotal.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

Absolutely. Could I reiterate what we said in our statement? We believe the ICIR is the best vehicle by which to proceed. We do not believe the proposal would take much changing and amending to make it effective. Mr. Michael Lynn and other legal people are examining it at the moment to see how this could be done. If the Stormont House Agreement is in place and the British and Irish are signed up, we are not asking people to reinvent the wheel. I could never emphasise enough that all we are saying is that our proposal is an option; we are not saying the shutters should be pulled down.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

If the Stormont House Agreement is implemented fully, will the witnesses be content? Will it achieve what they want?

Mr. Padraig Yeates

We believe it could but there would have to be an additional dimension to it. This would involve saying to people that they are still entitled to go to the courts but that they have an option. One of the problems with Article 2 is the procedural dimension. The difficulty with Article 2 is that if I get into court and can make a prima facie case that a relative of mine died as a result of something done by, or negligence on the part of, the British state or, indeed, the Irish State, I am entitled to use the Article 2 process. Once that happens, one is getting the case financed by the taxpayer on both sides - by both the defendant, or the Government involved, and the plaintiff. I am sorry to say I believe we have a legal industry in the North based on legacy cases. That is not good for society. It is not good for lawyers either because they should be doing other things. That statement will not be popular with people but it is a fact. Many in the North feel there is a legacy industry pursuing cases in order to generate income.

Ms Liz McManus

It is very striking that, at the conference we held on 1 April in Queen's, which has been mentioned already, none of us expected the turnout, or that people would stay to the very end. The general feeling, or certainly the one I had, was that people believed we need to do something to understand families' needs first and then try in some way to meet them, and that this was not happening. We all want people to have the right to go to court, but realistically that might not happen. It is certainly not happening in all cases. There is an issue. Archbishop Eamon Martin made a very powerful speech in which he said he was speaking on behalf of all the churches in recognising a new approach had to be adopted. I was very struck by his direct speech, honesty and belief that the churches would play their part in this. It was very encouraging. We have seen the process we are referring to in other countries, although it does not mean we have to have the same model. It happens in other countries and it happens in prisons. It did not happen after the Civil War because nobody understood the need for reconciliation. Everybody understood the reason to keep quiet and say nothing. We live in a different world.

I suggest we ask ourselves "why not?". Why not open up another line of communication and another line towards the truth? If we are wrong and we are all deluding ourselves, then we will know, but we may not be. There is a real chance that this is a way of reaching the truth for people who have suffered. As the Senator knows and I know - I have lived in the North and I have family from the North - that the extent of the suffering is often unspoken. That is what we must think about.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I am not entirely surprised that the conference was well attended because this is a mobilising issue that galvanises people. It is important to remember, given that we are speaking about it, that the public consultation on the Stormont House arrangements was one of the biggest public consultations in terms of response in the North ever, with more than 20,000 submissions. I am conscious of the sincerity with which these proposals are made and the genuine place they come from but contrast "I know people" and 20,000 submissions to these proposals. That is the agreed route with the vast majority of government, albeit the British Government has reneged on it with the political parties and, it seems, with quite a substantial proportion of the population.

Mr. John Green

In response to what Sandra Peake said, the truth and recovery process does not work unless the victims participate as well. This is not giving power to former combatants or perpetrators or whatever they were. It is vital.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

That is a fair point.

Mr. Francie Molloy

May I come in on that particular point?

An Cathaoirleach

Before Mr. Molloy does-----

Mr. Francie Molloy

-----I know the committee did not get the document but one of the points made is that the power actually is gifted to perpetrators and the victims are more pressurised again. Dealing with the reality is that we had the Stormont House------

An Cathaoirleach

I do not think Mr. Molloy can hear me. I want to extend the time for Sinn Féin. We will run the clock.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Mr. Molloy is getting more time.

An Cathaoirleach

I am trying to give Mr. Molloy more time. I am his friend on this one. Before he starts again, I wish to make it clear that normally it would be the SDLP and Alliance but they are not present today so we are going back to Sinn Féin. We have given 20 minutes to parties. I apologise for interrupting.

Mr. Francie Molloy

The victims become pressurised once again. Within Stormont House was agreement with all the parties. I remember Deputy Coveney appearing before this committee and saying that the British Government was not participating so we have to move to a different situation. What is the point in making agreements on how we move forward if, time after time, the British Government reneges on it? An important point in some of the presentations made is that the Irish Government has to be sure that some of the information it has in relation to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings is also brought out into the open. A lot of co-operation happened between security services North and South. It is important that all of the information the Irish Government holds is also made available to the victims and their families.

An Cathaoirleach

You are now in Sinn Féin time so you have 18 minutes.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I like that, Sinn Féin time.

An Cathaoirleach

You are not in government yet, by the way.

Mr. John Green

Sticking with the Stormont House Agreement, we are bending over backwards to try to put this into the Stormont House Agreement, but it is naive of us. It is 25 years on from the Good Friday Agreement and eight years on from the Stormont House Agreement and there has been New Decade, New Approach and the St. Andrews Agreement, all of which have failed. That is the problem. That is why we suggest this. They failed and they failed relatives. Where do you put the bar on relatives? The important thing about our proposal is that relatives can participate voluntarily if they want to come in. We have people who will provide information for them and the relatives are approached. That is the difference in what we are proposing. We hope it will work. It is naive of us to sit here and say that the Stormont House Agreement is the only game in town. We find most frustrating that the two Governments are not talking to each other. It is extraordinary. They are whispering against each other. They need to get out and it needs to be in public. Civil servants should be meeting and saying they are trying to resolve this. At the moment, it is never the twain shall meet.

An Cathaoirleach

I hear everything Mr. Green said. The relationship between the British and Irish Governments has improved significantly recently with the first meeting between the two Prime Ministers. What Mr. Green said was true in the recent past but I do not believe it is true now, generally. I accept the genuineness of Mr. Green's point.

Mr. John Green

I accept that but on this particular point I do not think they are meeting.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

Where does the Truth Recovery Process get its funding?

Mr. Andrew Pollak

We have no funding.

An Cathaoirleach

Do you raise funds in America?

Mr. Chris Hazzard

Does it raise funds or is there any external funding?

An Cathaoirleach

I do not think that is a fair question.

Mr. John Green

We are happy to bring it out in the open.

An Cathaoirleach

We have never asked that question of anybody else.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

We have asked that question of other organisations that have come before us.

Mr. John Green

We can tell the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

If the witness wants to.

Mr. John Green

We have received voluntary contributions. Some people in the Gallery have helped us. People here on the committee have put their hands in their pockets.

An Cathaoirleach

The Truth Recovery Process is very welcome here. That is the main point. If the witnesses upset some ideas, there is nothing wrong with that either.

Ms Liz McManus

There is no official money.

Mr. John Green

We have applied to the reconciliation fund. What was the other one?

An Cathaoirleach

Why not?

Ms Liz McManus

Why not, exactly.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

We applied to the reconciliation fund and the shared island fund and they said no. We worked on the basis that we will have to fund this ourselves.

An Cathaoirleach

Talk about peace and reconciliation.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

Is this Sinn Féin time or is the Chair's time?

An Cathaoirleach

I will give Mr. Hazzard extra time now that he is here, no problem.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

There is an important point I would like to make, which is that we still could not have done it out of our own pockets except for John Barry, a politics professor in Queen's University. He provided us with a venue and paid for the catering. Otherwise, we could not have done it. Everything else, we paid for.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

With the Chair's remarks in mind, my question is not about the Truth Recovery Process being unwelcome here today. I do not want those words put into my mouth. However, what was unhelpful was the comment about the legacy industry in the North. That was similar to when Theresa Villiers used the word "vexatious". I have worked with Loughinisland families and others. I think that was regrettable.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

Mr Hazzard is right. I was going to come back at the end and say that. I accept that. There are cases which I would argue with but I accept the comment was unfair and was a blanket condemnation of people

Mr. Chris Hazzard

That is helpful.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

I absolutely withdraw that and apologise. We have had an improving relationship with the Committee on the Administration of Justice Northern Ireland recently. I do not want to damage that. We look for practical ways of doing this. We are not trying to win battles, we are trying to facilitate different groups coming together.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

I welcome that. It is helpful.

An Cathaoirleach

There are other speakers on the line who may wish to contribute.

Mr. John Finucane

I will follow on from Mr. Hazzard's last question. I was looking forward to engaging in reference to some of the papers provided in advance. I must say I have been very disappointed by that comment. I have not been reassured by what sounded like a qualified retraction of the comment - which was very deliberate - that there is a legal industry in the North based on legacy cases. People have made similar comments before, for example, Mr. Hazzard referenced Teresa Villiers. The right-wing English press has made those statements before. I have never heard the families themselves make those statements before. There are families like the Ballymurphy and Springhill families, or Patsy Kelly's family last week and others who have been forced to go to the courts or enter into a legal process, whether that is civil or with our ombudsman.

I am not aware of any example where those families have turned around and felt let down by their lawyers or saw their lawyers doing anything other than advocating for their rights to the best of their ability. That comment was disgraceful and I do not use that word lightly.

It also comes in a context where in respect of legacy, lawyers have been vilified for the work they do, particularly when they take on the state in certain areas. Mr. Yeates's retraction was a qualified one. He referenced that he tried to have improved relationships with the CAJ. The CAJ are not practitioners. There are a number of small firms in the North that are practitioners and have fought very skilfully and professionally for a number of years to the best of their ability on their clients' behalf. The comments he made have been rightly condemned by the Law Society of Northern Ireland whenever they have been made by other political persons and the press. Because of that comment, I see no point in engaging with him any further on the opening statement that has been provided or the legal analysis that had been provided which, in advance of today, I had looked forward to. I want to take this opportunity to register my disappointment that he used the platform today in front of our committee to make the comment he made.

Mr. Padraig Yeates

I again apologise for what I said. I did go overboard. I accept that fully. It involved frustration about the reliance on doing it through the courts when it comes to dealing with legacy issues. This reliance on doing it through the courts has not been successful. It has perpetuated legacy. That was the point I was trying to make - very clumsily and badly - for which I apologise. I appreciate that in Mr. Finucane's case, he must take it personally and I apologise for anything I said that caused hurt to him or anyone else. I apologise unreservedly for that. If Mr. Finucane wants to suggest ways in which I can make some amends, please do. I would urge him not to throw the baby out with the bath water and, on the basis of those comments, not consider anything else we have been saying.

Mr. John Finucane

I do not make my comments in a personal capacity. It is obviously well known that I am a solicitor by profession and the son of Pat Finucane. I stand over the comments and they are not personal. It is right that Mr. Yeates's comments are called out for what they are. He said he made those comments out of frustration that families have had to go to court. Perhaps if that was the case, he would diagnose the problem more accurately as to why families have had to go to court or, in some cases, why families have had to fight to go to court - for up to five decades or longer in some cases. That is not because of the practitioners to whom they turn. It is because of the circumstances and obstacles, which Mr. Yeates will be very well aware of, that have been placed in front of them. I think I have made my point so I do not wish to labour it.

Ms Liz McManus

The view that has been expressed does not represent the Truth Recovery Process. It is important that it is seen in that light. We do not consider that view to be part of our work. Recently Mr. Finucane made a statement about victims, namely, that there was unfinished business and nobody knows that more than him. We are simply trying to see if there is an alternative route that people can choose or not. Obviously, the route to the courts is well established. I know it is difficult. Mr. Finucane made the point that some people have had to struggle very hard to get their day in court. This is not in any way antagonistic to that and it is unfortunate that we have reached this point. I do not want Mr. Finucane to feel in any way that we see that as confrontational in any form. What we are talking about is simply an alternative if somebody chooses to take that up. It is used in other countries in post-conflict situations. To us, it is important that we at least we look at this fairly and with an open mind. That is why we are here today and that is why we want to pursue this course. It is not to come into conflict with the work being done by Mr. Finucane and organisations like him.

An Cathaoirleach

I think that has been very clear. I acknowledge that Mr. Yeates has apologised sincerely for the offence he caused and I accept that his apology is genuine. I would ask Mr. Finucane, whom I have known for some years, to accept that. I believe it is genuine.

Last night, I was watching a programme about the Civil War, explaining what really happened and how it affected people. I saw a man in his seventies in tears talking about a relative who had been murdered during the Civil War for which he had no closure. This happened 100 years ago. It is an indication of how much people on all sides in the North, particularly victims, still suffer. Anything I have heard from Mr. Finucane today is about peace, reconciliation and getting at the truth. That is what we all want to work for.

There will be a debate on 1 June in the Dáil on our report, which we published recently. The committee might put forward some ideas for that debate - issues on which we can all agree, namely, getting at the truth and getting closure for families in particular. The key thing for me everywhere I have been involves the victims on all sides who have suffered. They must get closure. As was pointed out, time is very limited, people are dying and information is very difficult to come by when people are no longer there.

A comment was made about Irish families in the past. Two brothers on my father's side fought in the War of Independence while a member of my mother's family was in the RAF and was killed on the last day of the Second World War. We spoke about the two men who fought in the War of Independence but we did not talk about the other man at all when we were growing up. This goes to the heart of some of the things that were mentioned. Sometimes in the nationalist tradition, which I am strongly from, there is a parallel relationship with England and the British Army. It involves acknowledging that and looking to the future. If we can find the solution and get the Executive in the North up and running, that is what we want. Anything that brings closure and peace to people is hugely important.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I mentioned earlier my great admiration for the different advocacy groups and representative organisations that work on behalf of victims and work towards reconciliation. There are quite a number of bodies. Reference was made to the WAVE Trauma Centre earlier. It does exceptionally good work. I visited the centre in Belfast on a number of occasions and I know some of the families on whose behalf it has worked. Its work is very commendable and we all learn so much from it and its experience supporting people who are still grieving and suffering.

Queen's University had an excellent 25th anniversary commemoration of the agreement at which there were outstanding contributions from people in government today, former Heads of Government and people who were key to the achievement of the Good Friday Agreement. However, one thing that was sadly absent from Prime Minister Sunak's speech was any reference to the legacy Bill. It was a significant lacuna and miss from that speech when he gave no indication of an understanding that this legislation is unacceptable in any shape or form. I do not think any of us can say that often enough.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses for coming here. Perhaps Ms McManus wishes to sum up.

It is very important that the witnesses came before us and gave us the benefit of their opinions.

Ms Liz McManus

We are grateful for the time the committee has given us. Before we came in I advised the committee there may have very few people attending because so many other things are going on. In actual fact there has been such good attendance and we really appreciate it greatly. To recap quickly, members have heard it before but what we are doing is seeking a way forward for at least some families to get the truth. It is not in any way to deal with court issues or even legal issues. Having said that, the British Government clearly wants to close down the route into the courts. The legacy Bill is cruel. The British Government is determined to implement it now. Maybe it will be challenged, who knows? However, that is the issue we all face. We want to continue to ensure that whatever the changing landscape is, whether or not the British Government gets sense, there is an option to choose a route elsewhere adapted to our needs on this island that is going to relieve pain and suffering. We all know people who are now facing old age without having that resolution. That is the important matter we discussed today.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.12 p.m. and adjourned at 3.14 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 11 May 2023.