Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Apr 2024

Legacy Issues: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Senators Niall Blaney and Frances Black. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Raymond McCord, victims campaigner. From McIvor and Farrell Solicitors, I welcome Mr. Paul Farrell, solicitor advocate, and Mr. Ciarán O'Hare, solicitor. I thank them for attending. We recognise the importance of these tragedies to them.

Before we begin, I will read a note on parliamentary privilege. We read it to every witness, so it is not personal to anybody. It is standard procedure regarding the practice of the Houses as regards 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 are to 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 the parliamentary precincts does and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Witnesses are asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter of the proceedings should be given and should respect directions given by the Chair. Witnesses should respect parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should neither criticise nor make charges against any persons, 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 person’s or entity’s good name.

Members are 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, her or it identifiable.

I call on Mr. McCord to make his opening statement. As I have mentioned before, he is welcome to our committee.

Mr. Raymond McCord

I thank the committee for inviting the three of us down here. I am not used to reading speeches, so the members might excuse me at times.

The legacy Bill is nothing more than the British Government ensuring that the truth of its involvement and that of its agents in both loyalist and republican murder gangs is never revealed in a court of families seeking truth and justice. The religion or politics of victims is totally irrelevant as the security forces and its agents murdered at will, whether Protestants or Catholics in their own community or from the other community.

Loyalty to the crown or fighting for a united Ireland meant nothing to the murderers or those who sent and paid them. Many state agents will never face the courts for the countless murders in which they were involved. We must stand together in challenging the British Government in the British and European courts. Division among victims and politicians on the island of Ireland is what the British Government and its security agencies are hoping and pushing for. Defeat for this Bill will happen with unity of the people and political parties, particularly on both sides of the Border. Forget about green and orange politics, forget about political aspirations, forget about point scoring for or against any political party here. As a person from the unionist community who has welcomed and participated in cross-community and cross-Border events, I asked the British Government to take my murdered son's case to the European court. I remind the committee that young Raymond’s case was the first case of collusion proven by the police ombudsman's report in 2007 and accepted by the British Government and its then Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the then chief constable, that there was collusion in his murder by the special branch and its UVF agents who murdered young Raymond.

The special branch was warned by an agent, as verified in court papers, that my son was going to be murdered. The special branch allowed it to happen. He was 22 years old and murdered by State agents. One particular UVF state agent got weekend parole from prison to murder young Raymond. Released on Friday, he murdered my son on Saturday with the knowledge and permission of the special branch. Thanks to Nuala O'Loan's report, Operation Ballast, young Raymond’s case and the strength of his case needs to go to the European court. An Irish Government taking a unionist victim's case with collusion proven and the papers that come with it, is something that some unionist politicians and the British Government and its security agencies would never believe would or can happen. The credibility in the European Parliament and the European Court of such an action by Dublin adds so much more to the case. The Irish Government supporting a Unionist victim from a community that rejects unifying the island takes courage according to many. For me, it is not just courage. It is a clear indication that the Irish Government in Dublin has an ace in its hands in that such a strong case to support comes from an unusual background, as it is a unionist victim's case.

It is the community that is supposed to support the British Government. Yet, I, the murdered young man's father, reject the British Government and its immoral justice denying legacy Bill. I have led a campaign against it. I now ask the committee to support me with my son's case by having it taken by the Irish Government to the European Court.

I hold an Irish passport along with my British passport. Has Dublin the courage to support my call? I have spoken in the Irish Seanad, as has my solicitor Paul Farrell, thanks to the support and the kindness of several Senators, in particular Senators Mark Daly and Emer Currie, who have also supported victims by helping me to bring our cross-community "Victims Stories" film to Leinster House which was well received by the politicians who watched it.

I have a historical document that I drafted and that was signed in Belfast City Hall by every major party on the island of Ireland rejecting the legacy Bill. It is the only document in the history of Ireland that all the major parties signed, which is something that even the GFA failed to do. The then leader of the Irish Labour Party, Pat Rabbitte, raised my son’s case many years ago in the Dáil. Irish America continues to support me. The late US Congressman, Bill Delahunt, gave me a Congressional Hearing into young Raymond’s brutal murder. I will be forever grateful to him. It was the first Congressional Hearing into a Unionist victim of the Troubles and collusion. Father Sean McManus of the Irish National Caucus declares his support for what he calls this Belfast Protestant father, as he describes me. Richie Neal and many others in Washington who are great friends of Ireland, continue to support my battle for truth and justice and my opposition to this Bill.

I hope to come away today with the support of this committee for my call on the Irish Government to give this father from the unionist community the opportunity to have his son’s case taken to the European Court, as part, or along with, the Irish Government's challenge.

I thank members for inviting me and giving me this opportunity to put young Raymond’s case. We will always be friends. This is an opportunity for the Irish Government to make a statement of intent that all victims of the Troubles can and will be represented by the Irish Government. Each community in Northern Ireland still has the bigots who practise sectarianism. In my own community, politicians and self-promoting campaigners with their own agendas still regard the Irish Government as anti-unionst and anti-unionism. No one can deny the Irish Government has questions to answer relating to the Troubles. Having said that, so do Stormont and Westminster. However, when will the religious and political divide allow Governments to show support for those with different political aspirations in making decisions that the British Government believed would never happen? That is reconciliation, equality, anti-sectarianism, unity and strength in a court in Europe but, most importantly, it clearly states and shows that unionist victims are equal with nationalist victims. The Irish Government will prove that, not just talk about it, in an action that proves it in the European Court. Coming and standing together is our strength. I thank the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. McCord for his moving contribution. The loss of any son or daughter at any stage is something nobody can ever forget or put out of mind. However, when that son or daughter is murdered it is such an evil act, I despair just thinking about it. We all know Mr. McCord's commitment to getting truth and justice for his son. If as a committee we can support him in any way, I would be happy to support his recommendation. It is a matter for the committee. He is entitled to due process and he has been denied it. That is the reality. That is what he needs to get. He is right in that it applies to everybody who has suffered grievously. When a mechanism is closed to you, made unavailable by this legacy Bill, it means that justice can never been achieved until we address it as best we can, and in particular, the role of the Irish Government.

We call on the individual parties, who have ten minutes to speak, ask questions and elucidate the issues. It is informal. It is Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and the Independents in that order, if that is acceptable. I call Deputy Brendan Smith.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I welcome Mr. McCord and his colleagues, Mr. O’Hare and Mr. Farrell. As the Cathaoirleach said, it takes a person of great character and substance to be able to come before a parliamentary committee and outline what his family has been going through since 9 November 1997 when Raymond Jnr was murdered. None of us have the words to comprehend adequately the grief that Mr. McCord and his family, as well as Raymond’s friends and extended family, go through. All we can say is that we fully support his efforts to get to the truth. He graciously includes all other victims regardless of what background they come from. That is extremely important for all of us. We can all have our political views but we want to see justice for everybody.

In fairness, in this Parliament, in both the Dáil and the Seanad and at all committees, regardless of party, everybody was vehemently opposed to the legacy Bill. I do not know how many times we discussed the matter here with different groups. We discussed it with senior British politicians. Successive Governments were totally of the same opinion as the Oireachtas. We are totally ad idem regarding how deplorable the legacy Bill is. It is a charter for the perpetrators of crime and murderers. In layman's terms, people who committed heinous crimes, including murder, inflicted grievous bodily harm on other individuals and created mayhem could literally give themselves an amnesty. In what democracy that we would regard as one does that happen? In particular, in democracies of the western European style, we always hoped there would be basic civil rights, basic human rights and basic justice. All of us in public life, particularly those of us who are from the province of Ulster or a Border county, are very familiar with families who have campaigned for justice and who have been denied it. People know full well that it is very hard to get convictions after the long periods since some of these crimes. Some of the families I have supported lost loved ones 50 years ago, and that still does not take away from the grief. I am sure that as time goes on it becomes intergenerational. It probably gets more intense as time goes on with no truth established. Then a mechanism is put in place by a government to stop whatever pathways there might be to establishing the truth. That is absolutely deplorable. Mr. McCord makes a plea on behalf of all families and all victims.

The police ombudsman report, going back to 2007, I think, found that there were a number of failures in the original murder investigation into Raymond Jnr. Then a coroner's inquest into the death of Raymond was ordered but it has not yet commenced. What type of lame-duck excuses has Mr. McCord been given for non-commencement? Was there any real effort to commence such an inquest at any stage?

Mr. Raymond McCord

No. As was quite rightly said, every time I went to court - and it will be 27 years this year - it was a charade. That is the nicest way I could put it. Judge after judge kept changing, so there was no continuity. This year, we have had several different judges looking at it. The biggest problem we have probably had, practically in every case but particularly in young Raymond's case, is the lack of documentation, despite judges ordering years ago to hand us over disclosure for the inquest to go ahead. The State has refused to do it. Several years ago, a senior judge told them to go ahead and start handing the documentation over in order that when the time came to start the actual inquest, it would mean that my legal team would not have thousands of pages of documents. That never took place. It is 27 years this year since my son was murdered and there is still no inquest. We were in court several days ago; we are supposed to be in court tomorrow. A couple of days ago, in front of another judge, as regards tomorrow's case, they turned me down twice for legal aid. We appealed it. They are still turning us down. Then they refused to give us a hearing in court the other day in front of a decent judge, who actually sits as president on the Victims Payments Board, Gerry McAlinden. They quashed the two decisions for no legal aid. Automatically, you take it for granted we will appear in court tomorrow and legal aid will be granted. We were told we just had to reapply. We did reapply yesterday and they have turned us down again. The courts and the system, particularly the system, are determined that young Raymond's case will never be heard at a British court.

A great supporter of mine - and he supports other victims - is Fr. Seán McManus in Washington. Each year in Washington, at the Northern Ireland Bureau breakfast, he has asked chief constables and secretaries of state - and he is not demeaning of other cases when he says this - what is it the British Government is so frightened of in the Raymond McCord Jnr. case, more so than the Scappaticci case or the Pat Finucane case? That is an Irish Catholic priest speaking up for somebody from the unionist community. He is an Irish Catholic priest who is a great friend of mine. He accepts me as a person and a father who has lost his son. He does not see me as a unionist or a nationalist. He puts it the right way: he sees me as a father fighting for my son. Seán McManus is originally from Fermanagh and a great man. He is fighting for young Raymond's case in Washington, which is what my politicians or - I will correct myself - the unionist politicians should have been doing from 1997. The unionist politicians and other ones know how long Raymond's case has gone on, and in all those years there has not been a unionist politician who has walked into court with me.

We had a screening of our victims' film last night and I referred to it at that. I refer in the victims' film to the Ballymurphy cases. Nationalist and republican politicians, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, come down to the courts to support the Ballymurphy families because I have been there supporting them too as well as people affected by Bloody Sunday and other cases. People have their own opinions about politicians coming into the court as a point-scoring exercise. I watched the genuine support given by some Sinn Féin politicians, whose politics would be different from mine, and I like to emphasise this too because people think Ray McCord is coming down as a unionist. I am from a unionist community but I do not vote for a unionist party, the reason being I have friends within unionism and within the parties, but I will not vote for parties that I see as sectarian in any way or parties that have never supported unionist victims of the state, in particular.

I go back to the point that the system - I have to watch my words here - has an agenda. We are talking about people within the British Government security agencies. They are determined that my son's case will never be heard in a British court. The only option I have is for Dublin to take Raymond's case with them and to hear the truth and what has not come out in the courts here, which is essentially being censored by the courts, so it can be told in Europe and support the Irish Government's challenge.

Mr. Paul Farrell

If I may, Chair, to develop the question that was asked about resistance to the-----

An Cathaoirleach

Sorry. That is no problem. You can do that, certainly. Just before you do, I will just say the next slot is Fine Gael's, to be followed by Sinn Féin. Go ahead, Mr. Farrell.

Mr. Paul Farrell

First, I should thank the committee for inviting us down and allowing us the opportunity to address it. The significance this committee has is not lost on us, the responsibilities it has are not lost on us and the power it has is not lost on us, and we really appreciate its engagement with us.

To develop the Deputy's question, it is important also to contextualise what has happened over the past almost three decades, as Mr. McCord said. We have clear evidence of staggering blocks along the way presented by various state-led matters. It is also important for the committee to recognise that Mr. McCord has entered this whole process about truth recovery and justice in good faith and in a manner that has been persistent and consistent.

Along the way, although these were procedural matters, and I am not necessarily saying they were blocks to achieving the truth, we postponed the inquest initially because of the investigation of the then police ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, Operation Ballast, which was highly significant. The significance of that should not be lost on the committee because it was the first ombudsman's report that uncovered collusive behaviours between police and paramilitaries. We had to allow that process to take place. That was a huge undertaking by the police ombudsman's office. Once that report came back with a negative finding against the police, we then had a meeting with senior police officers who told us that there were still evidential matters that they wished to allow to proceed.

Acting in good faith in a consistent manner, Mr. McCord once again agreed to postpone his son's inquest in order that the police investigation could be carried out. Many years later, that investigation amounted to nothing. Agreeing to allow it to take place meant that the inquest was put back. Then, to our horror, the legacy proposal came through Westminster and, effectively, applied a guillotine to any opportunity Mr. McCord would have had to uncover the truth about his son's death. It is very important to recognise the good faith that Mr. McCord has shown. He has trusted the system, as he describes it. Unfortunately, the system has let him down. That is where we are.

We are emboldened by the Irish Government's interstate case against the British Government. We recognise the significance of that. As I understand it, there are approximately 14 interstate cases before the court at this point. This is only the second time the Irish Government has taken an interstate case against the UK Government. We appreciate all the efforts the Irish Government has put behind the legacy proposals and Mr. McCord's case as well. I thought it important to put on record that we have done everything we could have done to allow the process within the system to be completed. Unfortunately, we have been gravely let down.

An Cathaoirleach

As we said at the beginning, the committee would be happy to fully support Mr. McCord's case in every way. There is total clarity on the wrong that has been visited on him and his family. The other point is that people are getting older. People may never get accountability and truth if this continues to be delayed or totally avoided by legislation.

Senator Emer Currie

Mr. McCord, Mr. Farrell and Mr. O'Hare are very welcome. As we approach 1 May and the guillotine that is coming to deprive people of truth and justice, it is really important that this committee is meeting them today. We have recently seen the findings of the Project Kenova report. The committee has done considerable work on the legacy Bill. Mr. McCord's presence today makes sure that that work continues in resistance to an egregious Bill which is designed to stop families from getting the answers they deserve.

Mr. McCord has moved mountains in the past 27 years. It has been done in good faith and done in a way that treats people not based on the communities they are associated with but as victims first and foremost. No one should feel that their grief is only seen through the eyes of one community; grief is universal. That is the essence of Mr. McCord's work. He stands up for all victims whether they are victims of the IRA, the UVF, loyalists, republicans or state forces. I have seen up close the work he has done in recent years and I thank him for it.

Given the progress made on inquests in recent years, how did Mr. McCord feel about other inquests having had their days in court when he has not? While he has touched on it, why does he think that is? This committee has heard from people who have said that the success of the inquests in recent years has led to the introduction of the legacy Bill to stop them. Why does Mr. McCord feel that his case in particular has gone round in circles for 27 years?

Mr. Raymond McCord

What would come out in Raymond's case was the use of the term "collusion". When Raymond was murdered, it did not take me long to find out who murdered him. I did not know what collusion meant. Those of us from the unionist community would have heard nationalists and, in particular, republican politicians speaking about collusion. John Taggart was with me last night. As the Senator is aware, we are great friends. I went to the Ballymurphy inquest. I commented that I would like to see more people from the unionist community go down and support them because it was about murders. It does not make any difference that the British Army did it; they were murders. Just because a person wears a uniform, it does not make them immune from prosecution. Unfortunately, some politicians in my community had a totally different opinion than I had. They are afraid of the truth in young Raymond's case.

Years ago, I got a call from a very senior journalist and arranged a meeting. After I met him, I saw how serious it was. He told me he got a call from a certain individual in London. He did not name the person. The person was obviously in a prominent position. He knew this man was a friend of mine. He asked the journalist to send me a message but not to tell me whom it had come from. As the man could not tell me over the phone, we met up. He said he was just told to tell me to keep doing what I was doing because it was causing ructions in Downing Street. They did not say in Parliament or among political people, but in Downing Street.

Tony Blair was Prime Minister at the time when Raymond was murdered. It did not make any difference whether the British Government was Labour or Conservative. Over all those years, the people we would label civil servants - the security agencies, MI5 or whatever label it has on it - have been determined to ensure that young Raymond's case would not be heard in a court because they were frightened, not just of where it leads to but whom it leads to. That has continued. As the years went by, instead of improving or getting closer to it we have been driven further away from it. You would think the Government, its agencies and the system had passed a secret Act in Parliament that the Raymond McCord Jnr. case was not to go forward.

Recently, a sensitive document in Belfast was brought to my attention. It was mentioned by the judge the other day. I am not expert in law; my legal people are the experts. I refer to a disclosure point or a disclosure document. It turns out it is a very sensitive document and we hope to see it. If we see it, I will come back to this committee with it. This is part and parcel of what the state has been trying to do and what it has achieved. That is stopping not just justice but the truth. People get to go out and tell the truth. I know the truth about my son’s case. I know all who killed him. I know the names of the special branch officers who allowed it to go ahead. We tried to get them charged but the public prosecution service does not want to know this. My legal people have to be careful about what they say. I do not have as many of those restrictions, so I can be more open than my solicitors. That is not a criticism of the solicitors or barristers; they have to abide by the rules of the court.

Raymond’s case is not just about young Raymond. This is about all victims. There are other cases with people from unionist and nationalist communities. Whether people were political or were like myself, with no interest in politics, it does not make any difference. It affects their cases. Over the years in courts, I have met many different individuals from both communities. The difference has been - I find this and I see it - that the nationalist victims have been fortunate by getting support from their community. It seems it was a "hidden" crime – that is the word – and that if you are from a unionist community, you do not go against the state. You do not speak out against the state or the security forces or their actions. I believe it is a way of the state’s authorities saying, "We will put this man in his place". Never mind his son was murdered by our agents, never mind that the leader was paid at least £80,000 for murdering Protestants and Catholics, embarked on a sectarian campaign. By leader I mean of the Mount Vernon UVF and, as it was raised previously here, whose chief of staff also worked for the state. Those people were protected and the system continues to protect them by ensuring that young Raymond’s case will not go to court.

I am involved with a group in Dublin called the Truth and Justice Movement. It is completely cross-community, with no interest in politics or pointing the finger at the other side, which was a problem for years here in the justice system. The state used it - it was “them”. It was always one side pointing at the other. We have achieved something within our group in that that does not exist. We saw all political parties sign a document in Belfast several years ago. There was no political or sectarian narratives at the event at Belfast City Hall. It was about truth and justice. Many other victims know the truth and the state knows the truth. In essence, the state could have an inquest for Raymond on Monday - or tomorrow. It has all the evidence. We know what the decision would be if it was all put in front of a judge. The state was guilty of a murder and the state was guilty of young Raymond’s murder. The reason they want to stop Raymond’s case more so than any other is that the evidence cannot be refuted in any way. It is not "intelligence" - that is what the police used to tell me - it is evidence. I will go back to what Séan said. If they were not so frightened of young Raymond’s case and they had nothing to hide, why after all these years will they not hand these documents over? If you have an inquiry in Dublin with regard to anything for justice, whether it is housing and so on, the evidence is put in front of you. You do not wait 27 years for it. This will happen. The recourse we have and my family has is through Dublin. Imagine a person from a unionist community having to come to Dublin the way I went to America to seek justice.

I see Mr. Hazzard. Several years ago, I came to Dublin and spoke at a Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis. I got abuse from certain individuals in my community – not too many. The people who criticised me the most were senior figures in unionism. I remember reading in a unionist paper saying that "Ray McCord got into bed with the IRA". I have criticised the IRA, the UFV and the UDI.

That is what happens to unionist victims. The politicians do not support you rather they do the opposite. They try to find fault and a reason for your own community to reject you. My community has not rejected me. They want justice for Raymond. They did not believe what I was saying at the outset and I accept that because people were nearly brainwashed into thinking that the British Government cares about victims. I brought with me to this committee a letter I sent to King Charles. I stated it, and I will state it now clearly. My father was in the Orange and the Black and the Orange apprentice boys. I was not in them. People labelled us a strong unionist family but my mother was just Ulster unionist. I have no hesitation saying that, because of what has happened to young Raymond’s case and what has happened to this legacy Bill, I have no allegiance to the crown. I have no allegiance to Parliament. My allegiance is to my family, my friends and, most importantly, to get justice for my son. It is a terrible indictment on the British justice system where I have to come to the Parliament in the capital city of a country that we were led to believe was against all unionists and put my case for the Irish Government to take Raymond’s case. I cannot be any clearer than that. If the Irish Government does not do it, if Raymond’s case goes to Europe and it wins, it is not just Raymond and my family who have won, it is all victims who have won. Again, this is a big moment for the Irish Government.

The Irish Government supported the hooded men, and I know one of them. I met him at an event in Dublin and he gave me a lift home – Francie McGuigan. We have become friends. Who would have said to me years ago, Ray McCord, from the family he comes from, would become friends of one of the hooded men? I have no problem saying it because he was a victim too.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

I thank Mr. McCord for his contribution. I found it very engaging, as always. It speaks to the great dignity, compassion and reflection that I have always felt that victims, survivors and those who campaign for truth and justice have always brought to the conversation ever since I have been involved in recent years sitting in courtrooms with the families of Loughinisland, Thierafurth and, more recently, even in London with Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney.

I saw at first hand just how much of a shambles the state is when it comes to allowing truth and justice, and in following normal democratic norms, which was also alluded to by others here today.

I wanted to ask why Mr. McCord felt there was an agenda as such. Mr. McCord said that he feels the courts and the system will never allow that case. He has touched on that greatly and has probably answered that.

My second question to Mr. McCord is on how the legacy Act makes him feel? What impact has it had on families? Obviously the guillotine on existing cases is set to come down next month. Has Mr. McCord thought about what happens after that? What are his general feelings on it? I believe the conversation today has covered many of the other points I was going to raise but perhaps Mr. McCord has some thoughts on that.

Mr. Raymond McCord

On 1 May when the guillotine comes down, I intend to determine whether it is a temporary guillotine. We all have to fight, as I have said, to ensure it is a temporary guillotine. The Government and the people who are imposing it on us do not live in this country. I do not know many of the MPs or the system of Parliament but we will listen to the 350 or 360 Conservative MPs debating in Parliament. Those who spoke - I will say they are characters to put it in a nice way - emphasised in their arguments and their speeches in Parliament that it was going to help victims move on and will get the truth. They said the justice system did not work. The justice system will not work because the state will not allow it to work. People have to get this into their heads. A lot of people are realising it now. A lot of people who were supporting the system, and certain political people in Belfast, are realising that the British Government does not care whether one is Protestant or Catholic. It does not care whether one is unionist or nationalist as long as it can hide the truth about victims' murders. It tries to play the loyalty card for people and for victims by saying, "Remember who supports you". Speak to any victims and we will say quite clearly that the state has done anything but support us. It has helped to cover up and has offered no assistance in any way whatsoever. I am talking about assistance to get justice. It is not those MPs who are going to tell us the truth or find out the truth for us. Yet they put it across that they are the experts on the justice system. They are bringing in a system where it is no longer the courts making decisions on who is innocent and who is guilty. Now it is the Conservatives with their majority who will decide what is a crime and what is not a crime. I put it to Mr. Hazzard that this makes a total mockery of the system. One can get fined for not having a TV licence but one cannot be investigated for murdering one, two, ten or 20 people. The families cannot have an inquest, to which they are entitled under human rights law. The British Government has signed up for all of this. Since it does not suit its agenda, it says, "You are better off not having that".

Not one of those politicians spoke to my family or any family I know. I speak with victims back in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to victims from down here in Dublin and I have spoken to victims and families of the IRA bombing in Birmingham, including Ms Julie Hambleton. They have not been consulted.

Let us ensure we do it through the legal process, or bring in a Bill making it legal. Bring in a legal process, which is really illegal itself under human rights law. I do not care. We, and all the victims, appreciate the Irish Government's challenge in Europe. We were there last year to show our victims' film in the European Parliament. I would also like to see all European Union governments that sit in Strasbourg and Brussels come together before the challenge to say, "Right, we all support the Government and we support all the victims of the Troubles, in particular we support the victims who will be affected by this legacy Bill." For me, that is a way forward.

It is not just the Irish Government but all the parliaments must become involved. No one can then turn around and say this is about a unionist victim or a nationalist victim. This is about victims. When people start talking like that, the British Government will be completely isolated and will be even bigger fools than it makes itself out to be now.

I will say this to the committee. Young Raymond's case is not going away. Of the friends who were with me last night, John Taggart, Billy McManus, and Kate Nash - Julie Hambleton was not able to come - none of their cases is going away. We will beat the British Government on the Act and on the guillotine of existing proceedings. We will beat it with the support and help of the Irish Government.

Mr. Ciaran O'Hare

Mr. McCord mentioned the guillotine date of 1 May, and how Mr. McCord feels about that. In the Raymond McCord Jnr. inquest, the guillotine date has effectively been brought forward because the inquest was shut down in February. That is a major bone of contention with us now because we say that the legacy Act has already come into effect in the McCord case, which we say is entirely unfair. We are in court in relation to that issue tomorrow. The guillotine date of 1 May is already having negative effects across the board. I just want to make that clear.

Mr. Raymond McCord

I am glad Mr. O'Hare brought this up. It goes back to the point that the British Government is so keen stop Raymond's case, it applied the guillotine to my son's case several months before the Act comes into law. One must ask why. I have explained to the committee why. The reason is it is frightened of young Raymond's case.

Mr. Chris Hazzard

Has Mr. McCord had any engagement with the British Labour Party? I am just mindful that while we can never say anything with certainty, it looks likely that the British Labour Party will be in the next government. We have heard sounds that it is set to repeal the legislation. Has Mr. McCord heard this from it or has he had any engagement with it to date?

Mr. Raymond McCord

Last year when Peter Kyle MP was shadow secretary he was really good and took a hands-on approach. When we were in Westminster last September in regard to the Bill, a promise was given to me by Peter Kyle. We were in the Public Gallery and Mr. Kyle was in the Chamber with Hilary Benn MP. Mr. Benn told Mr. Kyle that he would be meeting me soon. It was another promise from another politician that was not kept. I am glad that this has been brought up because we discussed it on our way here. With the Labour Party, one is saying it is going to scrap the legislation and one is saying it will repeal it. What is to repeal? It is just tinkering.

At the hearing with the Labour Party, I made a very simple request, that it make it part of its election manifesto and then we would believe it. There must be no more false promises. We have had them for 27 years. Some other victims, such as those of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday, have had them for 50 years.

Given young Raymond's case and the cases of other victims I am associated with, the party should put it into its manifesto. If it does not go into its manifesto, how can we trust it. If the party is not prepared to put it in – I raised this last night with a couple of victims – the Irish voters in England should be told not to vote for Labour. The party should be pushed into it. Tony Blair was Prime Minister when collusion was proven. I am referring to the first case of acceptance that the state colluded with UVF terrorists, who were agents who murdered my son. Why did Tony Blair not call for an inquiry then? If part of the state, the security department, the Special Branch, colluded in young Raymond's murder and if it has been proven in other cases that the unit was involved, why did Tony Blair not call for an independent inquiry at the time? The last Chief Constable to meet me was Hugh Orde. I think it was the day after the O'Loan report was issued. No Chief Constable will meet me. I got word yesterday that Jon Boutcher is going to meet me next month, but all the previous Chief Constables refused. Secretaries of State refused to meet me, yet they will meet other victims' families. I welcome that they are meeting them. I do not feel bad that Secretaries of State are meeting them rather than us. I am glad they are doing so but it goes back to the point that Chief Constables will not meet me. No British Prime Minister would meet me or any member of my family in 27 years. What does this tell you about the case?

Mr. Chris Hazzard

I thank Mr. McCord.

An Cathaoirleach

We have Dr. Stephen Farry online. He is a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Stephen Farry

Good morning to Mr. McCord and his colleagues. It is good to see him again. I pay tribute to him for his persistence in pursuing justice for Raymond Jr. and all the other victims and for being a very consistent, outspoken advocate on the wider legacy issue.

I want to touch on two practical points on which I encourage some of Mr. McCord's colleagues to contribute also. Could they talk us through the very direct implications of the deadline coming up, 1 May, and the implication for inquests that will flow from that? That is a cliff edge looming. What more can we do to vocalise the implications of this very significant inflection point?

Do the witnesses have any comments or observations on the ruling by Lord Justice Colton on the challenge taken in the Northern Ireland courts, wherein the immunity aspect was struck down? What does this mean for the wider ICRIR? I am conscious that it has said in the past that it wants to be very mindful of operating in a manner consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of us are very sceptical that this is doable but it seems determined to continue with its work regardless of the implications of the ruling. I am happy to hear any comments or reflections on those points.

Mr. Raymond McCord

I will respond briefly and then let the legal people present contribute. The legacy cases are going to be dealt with by Sir Declan Morgan's team. I met Sir Morgan a couple of months ago in his office in Belfast. I understand why many will not speak to him. I totally oppose the ICRIR under him. I wanted to ask the man questions. In one of the questions I asked, I made it quite clear that I opposed what he had set up and become involved in. When he sat on the bench, I believed he gave us a fair shout each time. When I asked him what he would do if the courts ruled that the Bill was incompatible with human rights obligations, he said, "I get up and walk away, Raymond; I am unemployed." He made it quite clear. Now that Mr. Justice Colton says the immunity is illegal, Sir Morgan wants to continue with the inquest. I do not have confidence in it because I do not believe it will work. Sir Morgan did not state that if part of the measure were not ruled illegal, he would continue. It was quite clear from what he said to me at my meeting that if the court ruled against the measure, he would walk. That has not happened. I spoke to Mr. O'Hare and Mr. O'Farrell before I came in. We do not want a part of this new commission that is set up. I believe it is illegal. Every victim we have spoken to has the same opinion and we want to see it all gone. Speaking to barristers, I believe that in the case of young Raymond alone, there are at least 100,000 documents. That is just one case. How can it work? There are so many legacy cases. It is not practical in any way whatsoever. If people think that by giving us a couple of tidbits, we will accept it, they are badly wrong, because we are not accepting any part of the legacy Bill.

In the document I referred to that was signed by all the political parties, including Deputy Smith's, the parties totally reject the legacy Bill. When there was an amendment on the inquest in the House of Lords, those Members from the DUP went along with the British Government and supported it, contrary to what was in the signed document. Some present and their parties supported this. I saw them in Westminster. We got people to sign a document stating they rejected the legislation, yet in the House of Lords they were prepared to accept the British Government's proposal. We will not accept that. Mr. O'Hare and Mr. O'Farrell will explain the legal side better.

Deputy Brendan Smith took the Chair.

Mr. Paul Farrell

Dr. Farry was asking about how we regard the impact of the case currently before the courts. That will go through an appellant system, so it would probably be unfair to speculate or comment on where it will ultimately land. However, the point we are here to make very clearly is that this is one public outworking of a challenge to what the Conservative Party is attempting to do regarding the affairs of Ireland, particularly the legacy proposals. We are here to assist in any way we can with the Irish Government's interstate case, because the two are not mutually exclusive. The persuasive power of the Irish Government within Europe regarding the case and the general support across the European community for people like Mr. McCord and other victims of the conflict in Northern Ireland in trying to seek and achieve justice are not lost on us. It is reflective of good work under the Good Friday Agreement, the associated structures and the committee that we have had progress on legacy issues in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement was an attempt to reconcile the differences between the two communities, and part of reconciliation is truth recovery.

No system is perfect but we were working through a coronial system. We had a newly established independent police complaints system and there were also opportunities for civil litigation for uncovering the truth. Although we have seen justice done in other cases, particularly in the Ballymurphy inquest which was of huge significance, and we are delighted the Ballymurphy families saw justice, the way things have fallen in Mr. McCord's case is that we can simply smell an injustice. While that smell of injustice lingers, questions will remain unanswered in the public domain. Questions will remain about the involvement of the intelligence agencies, the special branch and the further details on collusion that Nuala O'Loan uncovered in her report. None of those questions are not away. Unfortunately, with the way things are and the proposals that have been put forward by the UK side, we may never find out the answers to those questions. That is a sad reflection on this legislation. It does not take into account human feelings and emotions, and what victims need. Victims need answers and we are not getting them under the proposals that are making their way through at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I see Deputy Wynne, who was online earlier, is now in the Dáil Chamber. Do other members wish to contribute?

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Yes. Mr. Hazzard has already spoken, so many of the questions have been answered. I welcome the witnesses and thank him for their contribution this morning. From the start, the committee has taken a strategic and focused approach to the legacy Act and its implications. The Acting Chair will concur that while there are many things on which members of the committee from different parties do not agree, we have been rock solid in our absolute focus on this issue. We understand that any divisions in the Irish approach only serve to perpetuate the shutting down and closing off of things, as we heard. That has been the committee's position from the beginning.

The committee has met members of the British Government and the MPs who were the driving force behind the legacy legislation. We have done everything we possibly can, on a cross-party basis, to ensure they knew where we stood on the Act. We had hearings with Amnesty International and other human rights groups, as well as family and victim groups, to have a co-ordinated approach. The committee has, in no small way, informed the Irish Government's decision to take an interstate case.

The contribution of the witnesses is crucial, even at this stage with the deadline of 1 May looming. Members attended the Ballymurphy inquest and the Springhill Inquest to show our solidarity with the families involved. For me and many others who have lived in the South or in England all our lives, it was an eye-opener to see the lack of humanity shown in those cases and in the way families are treated across the board. No family should be treated differently from any other family. We will continue with that approach right up until we get a resolution here.

Mr. Hazzard spoke about the British Labour Party's approach and referred to Hilary Benn. I hope Mr. McCord has a meeting with Mr. Benn, whom the committee has met. We raised this issue with him and, as recently as late February, he reiterated that the Labour Party would replace the legacy Act with legislation that returns to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement. We will certainly hold the Labour Party to that.

One of the concerns I have is that the interstate case is likely to go on for three or four years. Have interim measures been identified that could be taken to help Mr. McCord's case and all the other cases?

Mr. Paul Farrell

There are provisions within the rules of European Court of Human Rights on interim measures but it would not be for us to comment on how the Irish Government approaches that. Interim measures have been raised in relation to interstate cases where there are pressing issues regarding medical treatment or life situations. It is something we have discussed although, again, I am extremely conscious that I do not want to stand on ground when I am unable to do so given that this is a matter for the Irish Government side. We wondered whether this case was of such significance for truth recovery that interim measures could be petitioned before the European Court of Justice by the Irish side to suggest a continuation of the system as it stands until such time as the court makes a definitive ruling. The Deputy is quite right that retrospective judgment on something as important as this could potentially take three years. As was stated earlier, none of us is getting any younger and people need answers while we still have an opportunity to receive those answers. It would be a matter for the Irish Government as to what interim measures it may petition the court for.

In the challenge before the Belfast court at the moment, which I have no doubt will end up in the UK Supreme Court, it will be a matter for the UK courts to determine whether the legislation should be struck down in its entirety. There is a difficulty that I see arising. As Mr. McCord referred to, if there is a piecemeal judgment that some parts of the proposals are non-compliant with human rights principles, that will leave us in something of a quandary as to the overall authority of the new system if it is partially declared to be unlawful in certain areas of inquiry. The case going through the Belfast court will take some time. This really is a quandary. We are here to offer our full-square support the Irish Government fully in its case against the UK Government.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I thank Mr. Farrell for that. I also acknowledge the resilience of all of the families. This would not be happening were it not for the steadfast resilience shown by Mr. McCord's family and all the other families.

Mr. McCord referred to a document in the court in Belfast. How confident is he of getting that document? Why are such efforts being made to conceal that document from him? Perhaps he cannot talk about it.

Mr. Raymond McCord

It will go in front of the court.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

If Mr McCord does not want to-----

Mr. Raymond McCord

It is a matter for the court but I will make just one point.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

Mr. McCord may want to leave that issue .

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

That is fine. Do Mr. Farrell and Mr. McCord wish to add anything that could help the committee's work? I assure them that we will stay focused on what we need to do to support Mr. McCord and all of the families.

Mr. Raymond McCord

I brought a couple of documents along. The irony is that we are supposed to be living under the Good Friday Agreement where we are at peace and have a ceasefire.

There was a trial at the Belfast court last year for the Convie and Fox murders, which were carried out by the same unit that murdered my son. I went to support the Convie and Fox families and sat in the court with them. To put it the legal way, there was a clash between me and the UVF people who came to support the defendant. Members may have seen in the newspapers that they came into a court of law wearing hoods and masks. We are living in a place where we are supposed to have peace and the men in suits in these organisations are still receiving funding. I raised this the other year. The week after the court case, in November, the police called to my house-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

Is this information in the public domain?

Mr. Raymond McCord

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

It is already in the public domain.

Mr. Raymond McCord

People were made aware of it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

We just want to be careful. I am not doubting anything but we do not want to stray into anything that might do damage.

Mr. Raymond McCord

It is not a legal process. What happened was that the police came to warn me there was a threat to my life. These things are supposed to have been done away with but I want to point out to the committee that they are still ongoing when you are fighting for justice. That is what comes with it when you are speaking out against people within your own community who class themselves as our defenders. It is not just that you are fighting the courts and the British State. You are fighting to stay alive at times. That should not be happening but it is part of it.

We will drive back up to Belfast today. It comes down to whether you have faith in the courts and the justice system. I do not have that faith. We have been let down so many times. As the years have gone by, it has got worse for us. This Bill is the worst thing that has ever happened to victims, all victims. It is not just about young Raymond's case by any means. For all the victims, this is the worst thing that any government can do in relation to justice issues. They can do no more. As was said, what are they going to do next for the murderers? Will they give them knighthoods? If they come forward and tell the so-called truth, are they going to go on an honours list? That is the way the British Government has treated us victims.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Brendan Smith)

I thank Mr. McCord very much. I have listened to him on previous occasions and in public forums. He is a person of great strength to be able to come and address an issue that is so personal to him and his family, the terrible loss of his son. The criminal activity that still goes on has been discussed by this committee on a number of occasions. There is a committee, the name of which escapes me at the moment, which issues a report on paramilitary activity every year. Tim O'Connor, a former Secretary General to the President, is a member. It is so disheartening to see the thuggery, violence and criminality that takes place. As Mr. McCord said, people worked very hard to achieve the Good Friday Agreement. We all want to see the era of peace, truth and justice.

Some of the members who were here earlier had to leave to go to the Dáil Chamber. There are several meetings taking place at the same time. The Seanad and Dáil are meeting, as are other committees.

I thank Mr. McCord, Mr. Farrell and Mr. O'Hare for attending. As the Chairman outlined, members are very conscious of the presentation our guests made and their very detailed responses to our questions. I thank them for their presentation.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.45 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 April 2024.