UK Audit of Retained Tissue Samples
Ministerial Statement
William Hay (DUP)
: The Justice Minister wishes to make a statement to the House. Before I call the Minister and before we move to questions on the statement, I remind the House that we are dealing with very sensitive issues. I ask Members to bear that in mind in their questions. Members should also be mindful that certain matters may well end up before the courts and be careful in what they might say in the House this afternoon. I remind Members that the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice is the only Member who has some latitude in formulating his questions. No other Member has that latitude. I certainly do not expect further statements from Members.
David Ford (Alliance)
: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning the publication of a report today by the Association of Chief Police Officers, with the assistance of the National Policing Improvement Agency, into the retention of human tissues by police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the hurt and pain that some families have suffered as a result of the issues brought to light by this report. Echoing your comments, Mr Speaker, in this statement I will not be referring to any individual cases. I ask Members to take the same approach. Whilst the police acted within the law and there would have been important evidential and medical reasons for the retention of human tissue, it is an issue of deep regret and concern that families were not always involved in decisions that affected their loved ones.
Although the retention of human tissue following a post-mortem examination without informing families was common practice prior to 2006, not just in Northern Ireland but across the UK, I share the views expressed by Assistant Chief Constable George Hamilton: there is a great difference between acting legally and doing what is morally and ethically right. I know that those views are shared by the Chief Constable, who will hold a press conference on the matter today. The families affected must be uppermost in our thinking, and it is a matter of deep concern that those who have suffered bereavement have had to endure further distress and upset.
As to the background to the report, the Human Tissue Authority issued a direction in 2010 requiring all mortuaries holding post-mortem tissue samples to undertake an audit of that material. To ensure a consistent approach, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) advised Chief Constables in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to conduct an audit of all human tissue held in connection with suspicious deaths and murders. That included human tissue held by or on behalf of police following post-mortem examinations. Given the sensitivity of the issue and the impact across the justice system, I wanted to make this statement to the Assembly.
The PSNI established a dedicated team to carry out the audit in Northern Ireland. That audit identified 71 significant body parts that have been retained, originating from 64 victims. The cases go back as far as 1960. It should be borne in mind that that is not unique to Northern Ireland, as retained material has been identified in the audit returns from the majority of police forces in England and Wales. Although the audit did not strictly extend to the Office of the Police Ombudsman, that office identified seven significant body parts, belonging to four victims, that had been held as part of its investigations. That information has been included in the ACPO report.
I can confirm that 51 families resident in Northern Ireland where the next of kin could be identified by the PSNI have been contacted. The Office of the Police Ombudsman has also confirmed that three of the four families affected by its findings have been contacted. In all of those cases, the family liaison process is ongoing, and specially trained family liaison officers remain available to the families in the weeks ahead. Steps are being taken to inform the next of kin in 10 cases where they are resident outside Northern Ireland and to identify the next of kin in a very small number of outstanding cases. It was intended that those visits would have taken place before the details of the audit became public. Unfortunately that was not possible, because the outcome of the audit was leaked. That made an already difficult situation worse, as it created undue worry and concern for families, including, specifically, those families who were not affected by the findings but who will have feared that they might have been. The distress caused to those families is a matter of grave concern.
The samples identified as part of the audit were retained at post-mortem examinations to assist the police investigations into establishing the cause of death, as well as for evidential purposes. Further analysis or re-examination of such samples can often prove vital in identifying evidence that will bring an offender to justice. That is normal practice, and I must stress that all samples were taken under the appropriate legal powers.
Prior to the commencement of the Human Tissue Act 2004 in 2006 there was — indeed, there still is — no legal requirement to obtain consent for the taking and retention of human tissue at a coroner’s post-mortem examination, if it is required to help determine the cause of death. However, the 2004 Act puts in place strict requirements for dealing with that tissue after the coroner’s investigation has concluded. Those requirements do not extend to samples retained under the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 on behalf of the PSNI. The PSNI is not bound by the terms of the 2004 Act, but in 2006 it decided to implement the spirit of the Act’s intentions, which require that all families are informed if material is retained. That has made an important difference to the handling of recent cases and remains current practice. The PSNI will review the reasons for the continued retention of samples and ensure appropriate liaison with families. Although those body parts were kept for good and valid reasons, I am extremely mindful that they relate to families who have lost loved ones and have suffered further hurt since the issue came to light.
I turn now to the points raised by the audit. The report makes a number of recommendations to ensure that best practice is followed in future. These recommendations cover police practice but also extend to both the Coroners Service and the State Pathologist’s Department. A copy of the ACPO audit report is being minister..." class="glossary">placed in the Library. I will be considering the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring that the recommendations are fully implemented, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That is important to ensure public confidence. A range of organisations have an interest, and I want to ensure that the approach is clear, coherent and co-coordinated. My officials and I have already been in contact with the Human Tissue Authority, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary to open discussions on the best approach.
Members of the Justice Committee have asked whether any tissue was destroyed prior to 2006, without a family’s consent. I believe that it is both entirely natural and sensible to pose this question. On Friday, I met the State Pathologist and a senior representative of the Coroners Service. The State Pathologist clarified to me that there were past occasions when human tissue was taken without the families’ knowledge and subsequently disposed of without family consent or knowledge. To many, that may seem a shocking statement. However, I need to put in context the substantive body of work that was done in Northern Ireland prior to 2006 to help build public confidence in post-mortem procedures and to recognise the proper place of families. That work was primarily in response to events at the Alder Hey and Bristol hospitals. It included the establishment of an independent Human Organs Inquiry, which critically reviewed post-mortem procedure and practice in Northern Ireland. That work covered all post-mortems, whether conducted by hospital pathologists or the State Pathologist.
The recommendations of the inquiry were far-reaching and led to a public information leaflet, which explained how families could enquire if organs had been removed or retained at a post-mortem carried out on a member of their family, being widely distributed across Northern Ireland. A dedicated human organs enquiry line, which was promoted via an extensive media campaign, was also available. I understand that more than 300 families made enquiries through that line and had their concerns addressed as a result. In addition, a series of public meetings was held at which professionals, including the State Pathologist, explained the practices that they had followed and apologised for any distress caused. When the inquiry team’s report was presented to this House on 5 June 2002, the then Minister of Health, Bairbre de Brún, apologised for the hurt caused to families as a result of organs being retained. On behalf of the criminal justice system, I add my apologies to those of the then Health Minster.
Today, there is, as indeed there has been for the past number of years, a very different approach to such sensitive issues around post-mortems. Medical practice is more centrally focused on the needs and interests of families, while meeting the requirements of the Coroners Service and Police Service, which have legal responsibility for the investigation of such deaths.
In the light of all that has been done in response to the Human Organs Inquiry and the current audit, I believe that a further review of how post-mortems were conducted in the past would result only in further pain and distress for many families. However, I know from the PSNI and the State Pathologist that any family that has outstanding concerns in this area can raise those concerns with either organisation and have them responded to in a sensitive and open way. In the first instance, the helpline established by the police, in conjunction with the victims’ service and Victim Support, will be an appropriate point of contact and will refer individuals to the organisation that can assist them best. I have spoken to both the Commission for Victims and Survivors and Victim Support Northern Ireland, and I will review these arrangements with them in two weeks’ time. That will provide an opportunity to assess whether anything further needs to be done to support victims.
As regards my responsibilities looking forward, my focus is on ensuring that the recommendations of today’s review are implemented fully in Northern Ireland. I am currently discussing with the relevant organisations how best to achieve that, taking note of the approach to be adopted in England and Wales.
In conclusion, I repeat that I deeply regret the fresh pain that families have had to suffer since this issue became known. I appreciate that it will be difficult for families to deal with, both in terms of the shock of hearing that body parts were retained without their knowledge and the fact that their views were not sought on how the remains should be dealt with when the police investigation concluded. We cannot change the past, but lessons have already been learned on how we need to deal with such sensitive issues. I assure Members that I fully appreciate the gravity of the issue, and I will ensure that the audit’s recommendations are implemented fully.
Paul Givan (DUP)
: I thank the Minister for the speed with which he has brought the statement to the House, recognising its important nature. I express my heartfelt sympathy to the families involved in this, and I offer them my support as they go through what must be a traumatic occasion for them.
The Committee looked at this last Thursday, and it is clear to most that there was systemic failure not just on the part of the police. The Minister rightly said that how things were carried out was morally and ethically wrong, albeit not illegal. There was a failure on the part of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the State Pathologist’s Department, so, right across the criminal justice system, there has been systemic failure. It surprises people that, although the Office of the Police Ombudsman was newly formed, that culture seems to have carried over to it. In 2002, when the State Pathologist’s Department apologised following the inquiry into the retention of organs in the health service, one would have thought that it would then have undertaken a review of the criminal justice system. Clearly, that has not happened.
Therefore, we call for an independent inquiry across the criminal justice system into how this has been handled. People will want to know the truth to give them full information and disclosure to help them to deal with this. Moreover, it is needed to restore confidence in the criminal justice system and to assure people that this will not ever happen again. When the Minister reviews the situation in two weeks’ time, will he consider calling for an independent inquiry?
David Ford (Alliance)
: I thank the Committee Chair for his comments at the start of his contribution. It was indeed difficult to get this issue to the Committee last week and to the House today as speedily as possible while seeking to be as factually accurate as possible.
I have no doubt that work will need to continue. He correctly referred to the issues as they apply right across the criminal justice system, not just to the police. It is my understanding that the Office of the Police Ombudsman was not involved at the very beginning but that, in becoming aware of the inquiry that was being carried out, it reviewed its practice and procedure. Indeed, the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales also did so. That body is also involved in this, although not directly, coming under the authority of ACPO.
Mr Givan enquired specifically about whether I will consider an independent inquiry. My focus, as I have tried to make it today, has been about the needs of the families of those concerned. That is why moves have happened so speedily to ensure that the helpline is operational for them today, and that is why I said that I will do the review of how that is operating in two weeks’ time. That will allow enough time to gather evidence of gaps in the way in which the bereaved relatives are being treated without allowing it to carry on too long before we ascertain what may need to be done. The key issue is to find ways of ensuring that the system is joined up and deals with the needs of those who are currently suffering anguish because of what happened in the past and that those who face the prospect of post-mortems on loved ones in the near future know that they will be fully involved. It may be that an inquiry is appropriate at that stage, and that is one of the issues that I will consider when I look at matters in two weeks’ time. At this stage, we need the focus to remain on the needs of the families.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
: Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle agus buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin inniu. I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo the sentiments of the Chair of the Committee. Obviously, this is a very complex and sensitive issue, and we all have to be very mindful of the families who are experiencing trauma. The Minister said that he will revisit this in two weeks’ time, so he should be mindful of the fact that, in the statement, there is an acceptance and, indeed, an acknowledgment that many families will be wondering whether human tissue belonging to their loved one —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
: — has been retained and been disposed of without the family being made aware of that. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those people are also informed?
David Ford (Alliance)
: I thank the Deputy Chair for his comments. He raises the issue of those families who will have concerns about practice in the past.
When I referred to those who contacted the enquiry line previously, I said there were over 300 families. In fact, there were 340 calls that related specifically to coroners’ cases as opposed to those related to the more routine hospital cases. Many of those who may have had concerns about the past had the opportunity to follow them up when that helpline was operational between 2003 and 2005. It is an issue that may arise and concerns may reappear for some of those people.
It was also noticeable that the O’Hara report in 2002 noted that, although some relatives were distressed to learn that organs had been removed without their knowledge and then been disposed of, the distress was:
“greater among those where organs of a loved one lay for years in containers for no reason which anybody can explain”.
So, it is clearly a matter of significant sensitivity for a number of different families who have been affected in different ways. The important thing for us today is to ensure that the work being done by the helpline and by the organisations involved, including the Coroners Service and the State Pathologist’s Department, deals with addressing those enquiries as sensitively as possible in the case of each family.
Tom Elliott (UUP)
: I thank the Minister for making a statement at what is a very distressing time for the families involved. Following on from Mr McCartney’s point about the relatives, does the Minister have any indication as to where the leaks about the affair that he referred to in his statement came from? What process was immediately put in place to inform families and provide a helpline and support them?
David Ford (Alliance)
: I thank Mr Elliott for his comments. It is my understanding that it was always anticipated that the report would be published this morning, and arrangements were in hand for announcements to be made this morning both here and in London. Somebody chose to leak the report. The basis on which they did that I cannot guess, but it is absolutely clear that distress has been caused to a significant number of families, many of whom are not in any way involved in this but had feared they might be. That is an issue for those who chose to leak the report.
As a result of the leak, there were difficulties, but the Police Service, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, sought to be as clear and as open as possible last week. The comments from ACC Hamilton were extremely helpful in reassuring people as to what was being done. I asked officials to go to the Committee last Thursday afternoon, accompanied by the ACC and the State Pathologist, to ensure that the information could be given as accurately as possible at that stage, and I sought to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. The key issue is to ensure that those who want to use the helpline are made aware of it and get the opportunity to have their fears addressed.
If I can take time a little more of your time, Mr Speaker, for the benefit of the media, the number for the helpline, which is operational from today, is 90279100. So, if Members or their constituents have concerns, they can contact the helpline at any stage.
: I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. The Policing Board considered this matter at meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of last week and will meet the Chief Constable again today to discuss it.
Does the Minister agree that this was a systemic failure in the PSNI, the Coroners Service, the State Pathologist’s Department and the Office of the Police Ombudsman? That systemic failure extended not just to the handling and policies around the management of that material, but also to communication with the families for whom this matter has such terribly hurtful consequences.
Will he confirm that that systemic failure extended to communications within what we today call, “the system”, and that, like the Policing Board, he was only made aware of the existence of the APCO review in very recent times?
: Does the Minister agree that such reviews, given their sensitivity, should not be kept secret by those bodies from those to whom they are accountable?
David Ford (Alliance)
: I thank Mr McDevitt for his positive comments about the way we are dealing with matters and his appreciation that the Policing Board, alongside the DOJ, has a significant issue to address.
I certainly agree with his general point: there was clearly a systemic failure. That failure did not just affect the agencies he named; it also affected health service bodies across the UK in the years up to 2006. The problem has been since then. Although current procedures are significantly better, there has clearly been a failure in going back to address those historical issues. I hope that, in giving the reassurance we are now seeking to provide to families, we will see what further work may need to be done. However, the exact management of it lay with the Police Service, and the Member and I may have views as to whether issues could have been shared more widely in a way that was rather more constructive than in just the past few weeks.
Stewart Dickson (Alliance)
: Minister, thank you for your statement to the House at what must be a very distressing and difficult time for the relatives of victims. The House is to be congratulated for the very sensitive way in which it has been dealing with these matters.
Minister, you said in your statement that you will be taking note of the approach to be adopted in England and Wales. Will you tell us a little more about how you will be taking note of that and, in light of the report that is being published today, what actions will be taken in Northern Ireland to ensure a co-ordinated approach right across the United Kingdom?
David Ford (Alliance)
: I thank my colleague, especially for his references to the way the House is treating this sensitive matter. This will, clearly, cause significant difficulties as we look to see that we address matters properly in the future. I am concerned to see that we get the system right for the people of Northern Ireland but there will, clearly, be lessons from the recommendations of the ACPO report. We will be able to learn from what is being applied by police services across England and Wales, as well as seeing that the justice system acts in a joined-up way, involving the State Pathologist alongside the police and the Department of Justice here.
The important thing will be to see that we keep up with best practice being implemented by other police forces at the same time as identifying the needs of local people. That is why my officials have already had discussions with a number of agencies, including the Human Tissue Authority, CJINI, or others who may have a role. Indeed, the new HMIC responsible for the PSNI was in my office on Friday and I had the opportunity to discuss this matter face to face with him. Aspects of this matter clearly relate to different regulatory authorities. The important thing will be to get a joined-up system so that nothing falls between the agencies but that we do not have overlap. There will also be lessons to learn from the way matters are being conducted across the water. I am determined to see that we get that system joined up. At this stage, however, I have not gone further than preliminary enquiries with the various agencies to see how we will do that.
Peter Weir (DUP)
: I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, our thoughts are very much with the families directly affected by this but, in his statement, the Minister also spoke of the families not directly affected by the findings but who feared that they may have been. Will the Minister confirm that the helpline will be able to give information to families to indicate that their relative is not one of those affected and, therefore, give them some peace of mind?
David Ford (Alliance)
: I thank Mr Weir for that important point. I am not sure whether those directly answering the helpline will be able to give individuals information as to whether they are or not affected. That is the responsibility of the Police Service or the Police Ombudsman’s office. As I said in my statement, 51 families in Northern Ireland have been identified and spoken to by the Police Service, and three by the Ombudsman’s office.
The important thing will be that those manning the helplines know what other services may be necessary and appropriate, whether specific information from the State Pathologist, emotional support from Victim Support, or a range of other options that will be available. The key thing, however, is that the helpline will be the signposting point. We will be able to see the needs of the families and how to address them when we do the review in two weeks.
Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin)
: Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his statement and, along with other Members, I am very pleased that it is a victims-based response that we are getting. Safeguards were mentioned. The important question for everybody now is what the safeguards are so that this will not happen again. Will he go into some detail about that and, specifically, is he contemplating legislative change? In his statement, he said: “However, the Human Tissue Act put in place strict requirements for dealing with that tissue after the Coroner’s investigation has concluded. Those requirements, however, do not extend to samples retained under the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order on behalf of the PSNI.”
Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin)
I was putting the question in context, Mr Speaker.
Is there a possibility of bringing in legislation in which that can be covered? I know that the PSNI has said that it is going to do it in the spirit, but so that families will definitely be told if that —
David Ford (Alliance)
I will try to take the questions amongst that. I appreciate the welcome that Mr Kelly has given to the comments. We are talking about the failings of the system more than six years ago. Since the new legislation came in in 2006, the police have been guided by the legislation as it applies to the health side of things as a manner of best practice, and there have been no concerns raised as to how that is done. At the moment, therefore, I do not see that there is any necessity to change the legislation. If it is guiding police practice and, apparently, problems are not arising from that, it seems that there is little need to move in that direction. At that stage, there were reasons why the legislation applied to the health system, rather than the justice system only. The important thing is to learn lessons and to see whether anything emerges from the operation of the helpline over the next two weeks and whether that may be necessary. However, at the moment, I doubt it.
Jim Wells (DUP)
As the Minister is aware, the then Minister of Health and the state pathologist apologised for the retention of human tissue in 2002. Surely, at that point, the Department of Justice, under direct rule, as it was then, should have thought, “Hold on here, maybe we are also retaining human tissue without informing the relatives.” First, it is inexcusable, surely, if that question was not asked. Secondly, does that not make it even more imperative to have a public inquiry into the issue?
David Ford (Alliance)
There is absolutely no doubt that Mr Wells makes a valid point as to what happened six years ago, but I am afraid that I have a very great difficulty in answering for what happened. In the context of what went wrong previously and whether there is appropriate information that would make an inquiry worthwhile, I have doubts about whether there is any value in having an inquiry into the failings of the system under direct rule in the period that led up to six years ago and which actually also covered a period of devolution prior to 1972. So we need to be cautious in assuming that an inquiry will do anything to meet the needs of families or to relieve their grief and distress. I am open to seeing whether that is appropriate, on the basis of what we discover over the next two weeks, but, at the moment, I am not persuaded that that is appropriate.
Ross Hussey (UUP)
I too express my sympathy to the families concerned, and I express an interest as a member of the Policing Board. The Minister said that: “Steps are being taken to inform the next of kin in 10 cases where they are resident outside Northern Ireland and to identify the next of kin in a very small number of outstanding cases.”
How quickly can we expect the families of those 10 that are outside Northern Ireland to be informed?
David Ford (Alliance)
Mr Hussey’s question is entirely reasonable. My understanding is that the majority of those 10 are elsewhere within the United Kingdom. One could assume, therefore, that, in co-operation with local police services, it will not be very long until they are informed. However, I believe that a minority of them are beyond the United Kingdom, and it is very difficult to give any timescale for them.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Given the sensitivity of the issue, I do not want to go into it in any great detail. The Minister mentioned the distress and devastation that the families who are affected by this are feeling. He did not mention this in his statement, but is he prepared to put a support package around those families? I believe that they will need support in the weeks and months to come.
David Ford (Alliance)
Yes, and that is an entirely reasonable point about the support the families may need. I think I did say in the statement that the family liaison officers would remain there for the weeks ahead. Obviously, in the cases of some families, that will be a very short time; others may need support for longer. The operation of the helpline, involving victim support, will involve those who are particularly qualified and experienced in dealing with those who have suffered trauma as a result of crime. I do believe that a support package is there, being provided by different agencies, but the point of having the review in two weeks’ time is to ensure that that is being adequately addressed.
Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle agus mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith as na freagraí go nuige seo. I thank the Minister for the way that he has dealt with this extremely sensitive issue. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families as they try to come to terms with this very difficult matter.
I want to pick up on Ms McCann’s point: will the Minister outline what support and resources his Department has set aside for working collaboratively with other Departments on issues such as counselling, where required, or practical measures such as burial costs?
David Ford (Alliance)
We all echo Mr McGlone’s comments about the families concerned being in the thoughts and prayers of us all. It is fair to say that, at this point, the Department has not seen the need to set aside any specific resources to deal with the matter. In the future, we may have to address the additional work to be done by, for example, Victim Support, but I have no doubt that any resources required will be found within the Department’s existing budget line. I do not think that they will be particularly large, but that will depend on how many people need support and the depth of support required.
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. I thank the Minister for his statement and, especially, for providing information on the helpline, because I also declare an interest as one of the families who needed reassurance.
A number of things are puzzling to say the least. The matter has been known about since 2010, which leads me to ask why you and others were not aware of it. Also, the same state pathologist who looked into the issue from a health —
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
— perspective in 2002 did not feel it appropriate to look into the policing issues as well. Will the Minister accept that an inquiry into all the relevant issues is needed?
David Ford (Alliance)
The way that Mr Craig raised the issue shows how sensitive the issue is for all in the House. His comments were similar to those that Mr McDevitt made about awareness across the criminal justice system, specifically the board and Department, at an early stage. Those are issues, but I am not sure whether they are necessarily issues for today, when our focus should be on meeting the needs of the bereaved. The way in which the state pathologist related health and justice matters is clearly an issue of some concern. However, if I were convening an inquiry, I would want to do so on the basis of it being one that established something beneficial to those currently distressed, not one that merely raked up cases that might add to their distress without making any substantive difference to the outcomes.
Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle agus buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin inniu. In response to my colleague Gerry Kelly, you said that there was no need for legislation, but the Human Tissue Act came into force in 2006, and the issue has not been dealt with until now.
David Ford (Alliance)
I thank Mr Lynch for continuing that point, but, as I see it, we have not had problems since the legislation was introduced in 2006. The way in which the inquiry into historical practice was conducted over the past three years is a different issue from that of whether the legislation is adequate. The impression that I have been given is that the police are adhering to best practice as it applies legislatively to the health side. Therefore, at this stage, there is no reason to believe that we need to change the legislation. However, the clear issue is that we ensure that we learn lessons from the inquiry and from the way in which families respond.
Sydney Anderson (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister for his statement and express my sympathy to all the affected families at what must be a very difficult and stressful time. The Minister touched on the 2006 legislation, but is he satisfied that the legal and administrative arrangements in place since then are adequate to ensure that such a dreadful situation will never happen again?
David Ford (Alliance)
I appreciate Mr Anderson’s comments. It would be a foolish Minister who stood in this House and said that nothing would ever go wrong in the future. All I can say is that the evidence shows that the system now works in joined-up way and that it addresses, in a sensitive way, the concerns that individuals raised in the House today. That ensures that the police are adhering to best practice, and, as I just said, as that best practice applies legislatively on the health side. However, it would be foolish to say that nothing could ever go wrong in the future.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I join with other Members in expressing my heartfelt sympathy to those families who have endured this news over the past week. Indeed, my prayers go out to them.
Does the Minister agree that the person or persons who are responsible for leaking this information prior to it becoming public did nothing to help the families accept what they were going to be told and that they left a lot of people uncertain about whether they would receive a call? Does he agree that that person or persons should hang their head in shame?
David Ford (Alliance)
Just to take the last phrase, I am not sure whether those who engage in leaks such as this would understand the concept of shame. I agree, and I thought that I made this fairly clear in my statement, that there is no doubt that the distress of families, including those who are not in any way involved in this, has been increased because they felt that they might be involved. It is noticeable that this leaked in Northern Ireland and not in any part of England or Wales, but, had the plan to allow the police and the ombudsman’s office to make that contact gone through before there was any public announcement, individuals who heard about it today in the way that it had been planned would not have been distressed, because they would have already had the news that they either were or were not involved. Therefore, I agree entirely with the sentiment of what Mr McCrea said, although I doubt whether some people have any shame about such matters.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
The Minister said that some cases go back to 1960. Many of us were at school then. The Minister said that: “The report makes a number of recommendations to ensure that best practice is followed in future.”
Is that falling short of saying that this will not happen again? If the legislation is not adequate, will the Minister assure us that he will seek additional legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose?
David Ford (Alliance)
Certainly, as Lord Morrow highlights, we are talking about something that went on a considerable time ago. As I said to Mr Anderson, I do not think that I can ever guarantee that problems will not occur in the future. However, I believe that we have had a system in place for the past six years that has shown that things can be done right. I echo the point that I made to Mr Kelly and Mr Lynch when I said that, if there are issues of legislation, the Department will certainly consider them. To me, it appears that the police are adhering to the best practice of the legislation, and, therefore, there is no requirement to change it. However, if it appears that there is a requirement to change the legislation, I will certainly be prepared to promote that to the House.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
The Minister told the House that, over the years, there were a number of occasions when human tissue was not only taken without the family’s consent or knowledge but was disposed of without consent or knowledge. Patently, that is in addition to the 71 cases of significant body parts that have been retained. Will the Minister tell the House how many of those cases involved the disposal of significant body parts and whether those families will now be informed of the taking and disposal of those parts?
David Ford (Alliance)
Mr Allister has taken this to a slightly different point.
As I said earlier, issues were addressed in the work done for the O’Hara report, and the helpline that operated between, I believe, 2003 and 2005 sought to address families’ concerns after the information that the Member outlined came to light.
There were issues related to health and justice pre-devolution, after the devolution of health powers and before the devolution of justice powers, so I cannot give him any figures. However, I can say that individuals were contacted; there was an awareness campaign; meetings were held; and individuals got the opportunity to express their concerns. As I said a few moments ago, 340 families who had concerns about the retention and disposal of body tissue as part of the justice system had the opportunity to have those concerns addressed at that stage. If any of those families or others who feel that they might have been affected contact the helpline now, they will certainly be given whatever assistance can be provided.
David McIlveen (DUP)
I also thank the Minister for his statement. Of the 3,594 victims of the Troubles, only 64 families are affected by the announcement. What record-keeping is in place to give the families concerned some closure on why particular pieces of tissue were taken and others were not?
David Ford (Alliance)
I thank Mr McIlveen for his point. I just want to correct his numbers slightly: between the police and the ombudsman’s office, we are talking about 68 individuals — 64 plus 4. Not all were victims of the Troubles; over a lengthy period, in the region of 4,000 people were victims of a violent death. However, as he correctly highlighted, the great majority were victims of the Troubles.
The answer to his substantive point is that concerns were addressed in a number of cases when people had the opportunity to enquire previously. Individuals have the opportunity to contact the helpline now to ascertain what is happening with their particular concern. I believe that that sort of issue is better addressed by individual families, who can follow up on their concerns through the helpline and the relevant agencies, rather than seeking to do anything in a global statistical way.