Ending All Forms of Paramilitarism — Legacy Inquests

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 8 November 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion, as amended:

That this Assembly believes that, 18 years after the Good Friday Agreement, all paramilitary organisations should have ceased to exist; notes the Fresh Start panel report on the 'Disbandment of Paramilitary Groups' and the publication of an Executive action plan; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Minister of Justice to ensure the full and robust implementation of all 43 recommendations in a manner that aligns resources with needs, is prompt and innovative, engages and empowers communities, builds unequivocal commitment to the rule of law, supports transition, tackles criminality and that addresses the systemic issues that perpetuate paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly believes that, 18 years after the Good Friday Agreement, all paramilitary organisations should have ceased to exist; notes the Fresh Start panel report on the 'Disbandment of Paramilitary Groups' and the publication of an Executive action plan; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Minister of Justice to ensure the full and robust implementation of all 43 recommendations in a manner that aligns resources with needs, is prompt and innovative, engages and empowers communities, builds unequivocal commitment to the rule of law, supports transition, tackles criminality and that addresses the systemic issues that perpetuate paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so an additional 15 minutes has been added to the total time. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Before we begin, the House should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

Photo of Declan Kearney Declan Kearney Sinn Féin

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the five-year plan, advanced by the Lord Chief Justice in consultation with victims' families, to deal with the backlog in legacy inquests; and calls on the British Government, in recognition of their obligations under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to provide the funding required.

Members, yesterday we had a very temperate debate and agreed a motion on addressing the past. I hope that we can achieve a similar consensus on the motion this afternoon. It has been drafted to try to achieve that objective. Unfortunately, the amendments tabled distract from achieving the desired and required consensus.

In October 2015, the Assembly debated a Sinn Féin motion that called for our coronial court system to be resourced to function in a timely and effective way and to address outstanding legacy inquests. There was agreement during that debate that victims' families deserved the support of our local political institutions in having access to the necessary coronial mechanisms, with properly resourced legacy inquests key to that. In the previous 10 years, only 13 legacy inquests had been heard.

Later, in November 2015, the Fresh Start Agreement approved a framework to deal with the past, including addressing the issue of legacy inquests. The Fresh Start Agreement created the potential for victims to effectively pursue truth recovery and justice for their relatives. Importantly, it opened the door of hope for victims' families. However, during those negotiations, the British Government withdrew the political commitment that they made the previous year, 2014, to ensure that there would be maximum information disclosure to families. They insisted on having a national security veto, and they refused to draft the appropriate enabling legislation. That is the reason for the current impasse on legacy issues, and, unfortunately, it is directly attributable to the negative influence of the Ministry of Defence and the security services over this British Government's policy. The effect of all of that has been to compound families' disappointment and anger. The impact of the veto and the associated impasse affects all sections of our community, nationalist and unionist.

Photo of Declan Kearney Declan Kearney Sinn Féin

Not at the moment.

Over one year since that October 2015 debate and the Fresh Start Agreement, victims' families are still being failed, and for no good reason. Sinn Féin submitted proposals on how to address and end the impasse, and the British Government should answer publicly now why they reject that template. National security is a smokescreen. There is no arguable way in which the disclosure of information about the actions of state forces or agents 20, 30 or 40 years ago could in any way undermine British national security in the present day's geopolitical context.

I hope today that a similar consensus can emerge from this debate in support of the Lord Chief Justice's plan to deal with the backlog of legacy inquests and in calling on the British Government to recognise their obligations and release the required funding. Victims currently have no option other than to pursue the truth individually through the courts. The only article 2-compliant mechanism that exists in the North and is available to them is the legacy inquest, and there are now 56 legacy cases relating to 97 deaths, representing citizens from nationalist and unionist backgrounds, including groups such as the Ballymurphy massacre families and the Kelly's bar families.

Last February, the Lord Chief Justice proposed to fast-track these cases, which date back 45 years to 1971. He believes that, with PSNI and MoD cooperation and the release of the necessary funding, that could be completed in five years The Lord Chief Justice has requested £25 million in immediate funding, which he suggested could come from the £150 million politically committed by the British Government in 2014 to address dealing with the past. The British Government, however, are now blocking this approach by refusing to release those funds.

Photo of Declan Kearney Declan Kearney Sinn Féin

Not at the moment. I have a lot to say, but, if I have time, I will. I will talk to you later.

The British Government are using the DUP refusal to discuss the proposal at the Executive as a bogus excuse for doing so. The stance adopted by the British Government is an absolute disgrace because, regardless of the political disagreements in the Chamber and the Assembly or the disagreements in the Executive, the British Government have an international obligation to ensure timely and effective investigations into legacy issues that are compliant with article 2 of the European Convention. That is not an optional extra.

I charge that, after 45 years, it is well past time for the British Government to ensure that the coronial system here is capable of satisfying its article 2 obligations.

As the Lord Chief Justice reminded us in September, the pressing need to make progress was recognised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Its last report said that it was essential for the British Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the legacy system here was properly resourced and staffed to enable investigations to be completed. Now, the Lord Chief Justice has engaged extensively on his proposals. Experts like Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and Pablo de Greiff, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights, have advised on the principles that should underpin article 2-compliant legacy inquests here. Importantly, the Lord Chief Justice has also engaged with victims' families. His approach has helped to restore a level of confidence in our justice system here in the North. To paraphrase Sammy Douglas yesterday, the Lord Chief Justice's proposals actually help to restore and not defer hope. He has found a solution to the crisis facing our coronial system and the lack of available legacy inquests.

The motion seeks cross-party endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice's plan and for the British Government to comply with their article 2 obligations. The effective blocking of the Lord Chief Justice's proposals by the Government is wrong — quite simply, wrong. It constitutes malign political interference in developing a resourced and article 2-compliant coronial system here. That is why more than 30 families from nationalist and unionist backgrounds are now taking legal action against the British Government's refusal to meet their human rights obligations. It is offensive to human and democratic rights that those families have to go to court to secure access to legacy inquests. I can think of no other democratic society where that would have to happen. That shocking reality ought to concentrate the collective mind of the Assembly today. We should show cross-party political leadership on the issue.

Members, in today's debate, we should avoid the temptation to indulge in point-scoring, political recrimination and "whataboutery"

[Laughter.]

In case the naysayers at the other end of the Chamber did not know, the reality is that the blame game is a dead-end street. We all know that we do not agree on the past. We have rehearsed our multiple narratives — you have your narratives also — many times before. However, we owe it to the families being denied legacy inquests to show that there is the potential for a resolution of the issues that can transcend political differences. As more time passes, family members are beginning to die. Important witness evidence is being lost. Another generation is being denied closure, and that, Members, is not a laughing matter.

The Lord Chief Justice's proposals are a road map to the solution. Failure to agree is to fail the families once again. We should unite in bringing pressure to bear on the British Government to release the funds and meet their obligations. Yes, that will test the commitment of the state and its agencies to dealing with the past, but that is not what the motion is about; it is about information recovery and justice. It is about speaking truth to power. As the families have told me, legacy inquests should be treated as a free-standing issue.

This is about restoring confidence in the justice system here in the North. In conclusion, I quote directly some of the words of Lord Chief Justice Declan Morgan:

"We need to deal effectively with our past ... We cannot do that if we leave any section of our society behind. ... We cannot move on while we remain under the shadow of the past. Nor should we. But time is not on our side."

As I have said, time is not on the side of victims' families. Movement on legacy inquests is urgently required.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Declan Kearney Declan Kearney Sinn Féin

That is what the families deserve, and that is what we, collectively, should deliver.

Photo of Doug Beattie Doug Beattie UUP 3:45, 8 November 2016

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after "Assembly" and insert "notes the five-year plan, advanced by the Lord Chief Justice in consultation with victims' families, to deal with the backlog in legacy inquests; cautions against a continued hierarchy of investigations; further notes that the closure of the Historical Enquiries Team has left a large number of people without access to any review or investigation into their loved one’s murder; and calls on the Executive to bring forward proposals that are fair, balanced, impartial and proportionate.".

It is interesting: I am sitting across the room from Mr Kearney, and, at one time, we would have been physical enemies; now we are probably just political adversaries. The only thing we fire at each other is insults, which is a darned sight better than bullets. I am absolutely clear that you are passionate about getting justice for the people you represent and all people in Northern Ireland, and I hope you can look at me and see that I am exactly the same and want to get justice as well. We have been able to move on, but many of the victims, not just those who are looking for legacy inquests, have not been able to move on and have not been given justice. This is an important debate, and I acknowledge that.

The problem is, in Northern Ireland, we have politically entrenched positions, where our views are intractable. You are looking at one narrative — you have explained that — and I am possibly looking at a different narrative. That creates issues.

Photo of Linda Dillon Linda Dillon Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat. I appreciate you giving way. Giving justice to one family, one set of families or one set of victims does not remove the opportunity for other victims to get justice. The debate is not about getting justice for one so that nobody else can get it; it is about dealing with this issue. That is something that needs to be addressed in the Chamber. We are not talking about justice for one against another; it is justice for everybody.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

I ask all Members to make their comments through the Chair.

Photo of Doug Beattie Doug Beattie UUP

I cannot disagree with that. You are absolutely right: it is justice for everybody. If it is not justice for everybody, what is the point?

There needs to be clarity and a little bit of lateral thinking if we are to get away from the intractable positions that we are in. We will lead victims down a cul-de-sac, and I am fearful of leading them down a cul-de-sac once again. Some will think that the issue is simply the state not giving up information because, they say, of national security. In some cases, the state is absolutely right not to give information if it will cause the death of an individual — we have seen that — or where there is an issue of national security. However, if it is not giving information to save its blushes and embarrassment, it should give it. Everybody is accountable. Soldiers are accountable for their actions in Northern Ireland, and, if they go outside the law, they should be held to account, as should paramilitaries and terrorists. I have said that on many occasions, but there are mechanisms that help release the information to help with some of the inquiries.

Some will say that the stumbling block is purely that the Westminster Government will not release the funding for the legacy inquiries. I sat with the Ballymurphy families and listened to their testimony. It was a harrowing testimony. I did not feel comfortable when I left the room having heard it, but it was important to hear it. They asked the Secretary of State very clearly, "Will you release the money?". He said, "If the Executive ask me for the money, I will release it". That is what he said, and he said it on three occasions. This will help to bring clarity: let the Executive make a statement on where the issue lies that prevents them from asking for the money. If somebody is blocking it —

Photo of Doug Beattie Doug Beattie UUP

I cannot, sorry.

If somebody is blocking it, bring it out so that we all understand what the issue is. I think I know what the issue is, and, on that, I probably sit with the DUP in many ways. The stumbling block is equality and parity and getting a system that is balanced, fair, impartial and appropriate for everybody. A lot of people see the legacy inquiry as something that gives a leg-up to one group while pushing the other group to the side. That might be a perspective, but, out in society, that is what people see.

To be article 2 compliant does not mean that you have to have a legacy inquest; it says that you have to have an independent investigation or inquiry. That is what it states; that is what you need, especially if a state actor has been involved. However, state actors were involved pretty much in every death during the Troubles. In July 1983, four UDR soldiers were killed when their unarmoured vehicle went over a mine. The state failed to protect them. Why are they not on the list of legacy inquests? In the Shankill bombing, it is thought that Stakeknife was involved. He was a UK human intelligence source, so there may have been state involvement. Why is that not on the list of legacy inquests? We can probably say that in an awful lot of cases. That is why I say that we need lateral thinking on how we get round it.

Each side is entrenched. We are entrenched in our position that everybody should get an equal shout at this, and others are saying, "No, let us get these legacy inquests up and running because the state was involved and it owes them." I can see both sides of the argument.

Our judiciary is impartial and independent. We need to respect that, and I hope that we all do. It is important that people understand that it is up to our Executive and Assembly to find a way. Nothing stops us from bringing out a bespoke way of dealing with these issues. The Historical Investigations Unit can be independent within the confines of it. We can use that to give everybody the same thing. That is incredibly important.

I have said this before and I say it again: I respect our justice system, our judges and their independence. We talk about the Lord Chief Justice's five-year plan: what is it? I have not seen such a plan. I have seen a statement and some paper articles, but I have not seen a plan that lays out how the Lord Chief Justice will deliver those inquests in five years. That is fundamental to your motion:

"That this Assembly endorses the five-year plan"

We have not seen it. It has not been published. Is the plan predicated on the assumption that inquest reform is the only option? Does it propose only non-jury inquests? What about requests for juries? What about multiple-case hearings? Will the inquest hear all the Ballymurphy families at the same time or individually? We do not know because we do not know the plan. We have not seen it. What about witness protection? What about if somebody is called to one of these legacy inquests, and he is infirm, he sees a doctor and the doctor says that he cannot come. Will there be a judicial review? Will that stretch things out? Can we get this done in five years?

The point I am making is that I have not seen and do not understand the details of the Lord Chief Justice's five-year plan. Therefore, we are debating something that we have not seen and which has not been brought before us.

I will go back to the very start, if I may, and say that I want justice for all, and I do not think that anybody should be able to avoid justice. This is not arguing for arguing's sake. This is not countering a motion with an amendment just for the sake of it. As passionate as Mr Kearney is about his motion and the people he is dealing with, I am the same, as are other people. That is important. As an Executive and an Assembly, we need to have lateral thinking and come up with something that works for all and not just for some. That is key.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the motion.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I beg to move

Insert after "inquests;" "notes the call of the Lord Chief Justice that the local Executive, legislature and the British Government should, as a matter of urgency, play their part in the release of moneys; further notes that the Executive have failed to agree a request to the British Government to release funding further to the Stormont House Agreement proposals;".

I start where we should start and end: with the victims and survivors who, over many years, have campaigned and are now within touching distance, on one level, of having a proper inquest into incidents in the past. When I meet any families who are dealing with their pain or are heading towards an inquest, be that the Shankill families, the Ballymurphy families or those of members of our party who were victims of killings in the murder triangle in previous years, I always remember the words of an ancient Greek, who said:

"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."

If there are any people and families in Northern Ireland who give expression to that wisdom, it is the families who have been campaigning for inquests, truth and accountability, and who have been relentless in so doing. I hope that, wherever we divide on this, we always remember that.

We will not be supporting the Ulster Unionist amendment because it removes the critical point, which is that this matter now falls to the British Government to resolve and they should resolve it now. However, I must ask Sinn Féin and Gerry Kelly in particular to reconsider not supporting our amendment. Our amendment contains the words of the Lord Chief Justice. They are not my words or the SDLP's words; they are the words of the Lord Chief Justice. Earlier this year, on the subject of the release of moneys, he said:

"I therefore call again on the local Executive and legislature, and on the UK Government, to play their part as a matter of urgency."

Those were his words, not mine. By relying on his judgement and all that he said about managing the issue, that should be a matter that should be supported rather than rejected. I ask Sinn Féin to consider that matter between now and the end of the debate.

What is this debate about? It is about two Governments refusing to live up to the requirements of the rule of law, the need for truth and international standards. The failure in the Executive here is with the DUP. It is the DUP, Mr Beattie, that is blocking this matter processing through the Executive. It is not Sinn Féin or the Justice Minister; it is the DUP. That is a failure to listen to the directions of the Lord Chief Justice and to live up to the rule of law and international standards. However, I do not think that we will convince the DUP to change its mind, because I am sure that the Justice Minister and Sinn Féin have tried mightily to do so. In the absence of one Government, because of the DUP veto, failing to live up to the requirements set by the Lord Chief Justice, it falls to the London Government to live up to those requirements. That is what the Lord Chief Justice said in his statement earlier this year when he called on the London Government to fulfil their responsibilities as a matter of urgency.

The fact is that the British Government have not done so, and the fact is that the Secretary of State meets victims and survivors and then denies them. I want to acknowledge that Mr Beattie was at the meeting when the Ballymurphy families met the Secretary of State. When he made it very clear that he was not listening to them, they made it very clear that they were not going to listen to him any longer, and we all walked out. He meets and then does not listen, and he does not live up to his responsibilities under international law and as the representative of the British Government to release moneys in relation to this matter. He should hang his head in shame that, on the one hand, he invites victims to meet him and, on the other hand, does not heed what they request.

We say to the British Secretary of State: do not deny the families, do not deny the Lord Chief Justice and do not deny international requirements. If that is what you do in respect of funding inquests in Northern Ireland now, what are you planning when it comes to what might be an imminent public phase of the consultation on legacy proposals? Will you again have a consultation on legacy proposals that denies families, denies the rule of law and denies international standards? That is the message that you are sending out by refusing to take up the challenge of the Lord Chief Justice and the failure of the DUP to respond to the request to release moneys to the inquests.

The SDLP met the Secretary of State about the matter, and we told him bluntly, "If you give a veto to a party in Northern Ireland on this, you give a veto to other parties on other matters". We know from history that you do not go down that road.

The issue of inquests, of course, is a touchstone of three other fundamental issues on dealing with legacy. The first is that the Lord Chief Justice has made it clear that he needs multiple millions of pounds to take forward his legacy work. Mr Beattie has left the Chamber, but the High Court, through Lord Justice Kerr, called in barristers and solicitors representing families and the state and interrogated them on what was happening on inquests. The Lord Chief Justice is not making this up as he goes along. He had formal hearings through Lord Justice Kerr, and he then had separate meetings with the families to outline what his programme of work might be. He has indicated that he needs multiple millions of pounds, and, since the British Government said they would give money for legacy not only has that request come in but the Stakeknife moneys request came in, which is £35 million for up to seven years, and so on and so forth. The British Government, in dealing with inquests, also need to deal with money for not just inquests but everything to do with legacy. The budget required to deal with that has escalated over the last number of years beyond what it was in even Stormont House. If, on the far side of this, the Lord Chief Justice says, "I'm not getting the multiple millions of pounds to do my work", the Chief Constable is not getting the money to do Stakeknife and the rest of us are not getting the money to do all the legacy proposals, we will let down victims and survivors even more than we have in the past. If the Secretary of State recognises his error and the fundamental offence he is causing in not dealing with inquests now, when he deals with it, if he ever deals with it — if he ever stands up to the DUP veto — he must deal with the money.

The second relevant issue on inquests was spoken about at length by Mr Kearney. Inquests are about much more than disclosure, and legacy is about much more than disclosure, important and central though it is. The experience with inquests has been the resistance of the state to providing the information in good time and in full so that it can then be shared as fully as possible with other people. That is the experience of inquests. The Lord Chief Justice was trying to navigate through that in a way that got it to a better place. If, on the far side of this, that is the approach of state authorities to disclosure or the approach of those who were in command and control of any organisation, state — the Government or their agencies —or paramilitary, during the years of conflict about their role and orders on anything that happened around murder and atrocity in Northern Ireland, we will let down victims and survivors again. If inquests are dealt with, let the issue of disclosure be dealt with. Otherwise, we are just selling something to people that they will see through on day one, and their hurt will be compounded.

The third issue — this is a reflection on the families — is that, if we do not support the families through all the legacy mechanisms — the history archive, the HIU, the ICIR, the IRG and the inquests — with money, advice, assistance and representation —

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker 4:00, 8 November 2016

Can the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

— they will not believe the process is wholesome and worthwhile. Let that also be dealt with if the Secretary of State ever gets around to making the right call on the issue.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Thank you, Deputy Principal Speaker — sorry, Principal Deputy Speaker. I always get that mixed up.

We will not support the motion or any of the amendments, although I will place on record sincere gratitude for the way that most Members so far have spoken on this sensitive issue. I also commend Doug Beattie for what he said about equality. He gave me a compliment earlier, so I will have to return that favour. What Doug Beattie said today is very close to our position.

People throughout the ages have fought and campaigned for equality. Is it not just as important to fight for the victims and survivors to ensure that they have equality and to make sure that justice is served? Nowhere in that statement does it say that one set of victims should be left behind or treated differently from another set of victims. That is the crux. When some system, Government, Department or judicial system leaves victims behind or puts other victims at a higher level, more hurt and more pain are placed on those victims.

I have worked throughout the years with some of the family members of the Teebane victims. It was horrendous. I remember the day well. I was in the development where one of the victims lived. I saw the police cars going up first to speak to his wife. I was only out on the pavement in a parked car when it all happened. I quickly realised that the atrocity had taken place and quickly realised, too, that I had lost a friend I had grown up with. I have been working with those family members ever since, especially since I became involved in politics. You can rest assured that, when there is some outcome or something is completed and the victim and survivor of that atrocity, whatever it may be, comes forward and there is a briefing and someone says, "We have got this and we have had this and we are still not satisfied", it puts a dagger even further into the hearts of those victims and they feel forgotten — even more so. Every victim who was involved in the Troubles and every survivor who got caught up in the Troubles need to go forward, but how do we pick and choose?

I know that the legacy inquests are a special category, and there is an onus on the Government — on both Governments, in fact — on the issue. I would like to see them moving forward, but look at what money and resources we have — £150 million. Would £150 million look at 56 cases? I do not know. Does anyone in the House know?

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

I thank the Member, and I agree with a lot of what he says about victims. Any victim has to have our sympathy. I know that he and his party talk a lot about judicial processes: will he accept that the inquests that we are talking about are judicial processes? I think that you said a moment ago that they were a different situation. Some of the relatives are in the Chamber today, and they have been waiting some 45 years for this. It is a judicial process. This is not something that had to be searched for but something that existed and is being held up. Is the Member arguing that that should be held up on the basis of other victims? I have sympathy for all the victims in these cases, as he does.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

No, I am not saying that it should be held up; I am saying that the legacy inquests should continue. Three have been completed this year, and the Lord Chief Justice says that he will complete two next year. I asked the previous Justice Minister — I could ask the current Minister this today — at the Justice Committee whether he was sure that all the muscle and sinew of his Department and the police force was going into tackling paramilitarism and crime.

The Minister said, and I remember it well, that you have to be careful about how you answer that, because resource is limited. That is the crux. A lot of this comes down to cost. We have to make sure that we treat people fairly and equally. The Lord Chief Justice said:

"It is impossible to see how the issue of legacy can be moved forward politically without progress having been made on the new legislation" —

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

He said:

"It is impossible to see how the issue of legacy can be moved forward politically without progress having been made on the new legislation and in the absence of a clear assessment of the costs involved in implementing all of the elements of a legacy package."

It is important that we move forward together —

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

— in agreement to make sure that we serve all victims.

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

Today we have all shown our concern for the victims of the past by adopting three somewhat different approaches. The Sinn Féin motion endorses the Lord Chief Justice's plans for inquests and then calls on the British Government to provide funding for them, but it says nothing at all about Executive responsibilities. The Ulster Unionist amendment only notes the Lord Chief Justice's plans, although, in proposing it, Doug Beattie did not seem to know what he was noting, and calls on the Executive to produce a balanced plan to move forward in all areas of dealing with the legacy of the past. The SDLP amendment endorses the Lord Chief Justice's plans and notes the failure of the Executive to deliver so far, while also putting responsibility on the British Government to deliver.

It is absolutely clear from what has been said that the Executive have failed to live up to their responsibilities and deliver. As the memory of the Stormont House Agreement of two years ago and of the so-called Fresh Start of one year ago fade, we are still doing nothing to meet the needs of victims. When the Lord Chief Justice, at the beginning of September, made his speech to start the legal term, he said something extremely significant. I think that some people, because of the measured language that he uses as a judge, did not notice the significance of his criticism of the Executive for their failure to deliver. It is now a year since he was given responsibility for the Coroners' Courts and since he, Lord Justice Weir and a number of other judges — it was Lord Justice Weir, Mr Attwood, not Lord Justice Kerr. You downgraded Brian Kerr, but we will not worry about that. It is absolutely clear that the work being done to review the possibility of progress in all outstanding inquests — a lot of good work has been done to move things forward by the judiciary, including by a number of judges who have taken responsibility for inquests, the Courts and Tribunals Service and policy staff in DOJ — has been let down by the failure of the Executive to agree any way forward.

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister had a paper from me as Minister of Justice before the election that they would not table at the Executive. They then would not enable me to take an urgent decision. It is absolutely clear from what emerged during the election campaign that the First Minister is the person exercising the veto. The British Government may or may not be hiding behind that, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the veto at this stage lies anywhere other than with the First Minister.

Mr Kearney's rant blaming everything on the British Government was perhaps inevitable coming from a Sinn Féin spokesman, but maybe we should let him into a secret: in April 2010, justice was devolved to the Assembly. It is a Minister of Justice and the Executive in Northern Ireland who bear responsibility for moving things forward. Yes, the funding is supposed to come from the Treasury, but the rant on what the British Government should be doing rather suggests that Mr Kearney and possibly other Members from Sinn Féin do not believe in the devolution of justice at all.

We all know that there is a non-aggression pact in the Chamber and, indeed, other places between Sinn Féin and the DUP, but it is carrying that to extremes for either party to suggest that the fault for the blockage at the present time lies anywhere other than with the DUP. If the First Minister had not blocked progress on the initial package to start the inquest process, we could have got the process under way and delivered something for some families. Indeed, the DUP could then have said to Sinn Féin, "We have delivered something. Now you start delivering on your side". However, by digging her heels in, the First Minister has guaranteed that nothing at all will happen.

Mr Frew may talk about the costs and how far £150 million would go, but the DOJ knew at the time of Fresh Start that £150 million would not be adequate for all that was needed under legacy. As long as the Executive fail to take any steps whatsoever, they have no prospect of getting any more money released from the Treasury. We certainly need some initial action from the Executive. At that point, money may be forthcoming from the Treasury, but unless we have something rational being done here, we will not get the opportunity to ask the Treasury to pay what it should be paying.

I understand the points made by the Ulster Unionist Party about the hierarchy of victims, but, at the moment, there are people whose inquests could proceed if the money were released, and they are being let down by the system because of the failure to agree on that money. That is why it is simply not realistic to blame others.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker 4:15, 8 November 2016

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

The clear point is that, if we are to recognise responsibilities, we must ensure that the Executive and, subsequently, the UK Government act —

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Deputy Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

They must move on it now.

Photo of Pam Cameron Pam Cameron DUP

As with yesterday's motion on addressing the past, we must recognise the importance of legacy inquests in helping Northern Ireland to progress. It is a massive issue that continues to prevent us from moving forward and one which must be addressed and dealt with in a respectful and impartial manner. It is clear to me that the structures in place are the stumbling block that is holding up many of the processes. I believe that there is the political will to resolve the issue but that the current system has been caught up in dealing with incredibly complex and sensitive cases involving vast amounts of information. The judicial will to move forward, that of the Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan, is also very clear, and I would like to acknowledge the work that he and his staff have already done to progress matters.

Given the current difficulties that surround legal aid, I feel that we are using a disproportionate amount of money to look at state-related cases rather than using it for day-to-day policing. This focus has also led to families and survivors of non-state-related cases feeling ignored and excluded from the process. We need a resolution for all victims.

As I mentioned yesterday, the pain and suffering of those who have lost loved ones cannot be quantified or measured. It is therefore equally important that everyone, regardless of the circumstances, is dealt with on an equal footing. No one family's suffering is greater than that of another. As we are all acutely aware, how we deal with the past is a matter on which we have squared the circle in the 18 years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. We must reach agreement on how best to address legacy inquests and deal with the huge backlog of cases in order to allow victims and survivors to move on.

The Lord Chief Justice's five-year plan focuses on the establishment of a dedicated legacy inquest unit overseen by Mr Justice Colton. All cases would be reviewed and managed before being transferred to the coroner for hearing. As presiding coroner, Mr Justice Colton would see all related material in an unredacted format and work to ensure that the victims remained central to the process.

Under the current system, only 13 legacy cases have been delivered in the last 10 years. That situation cannot continue. It is completely impractical if we are ever to move on. It is clear that in order to progress towards resolution, greater financial means must be allocated to engage the human and technological resources required to competently complete the work. Addressing legacy inquests is key to moving forward. However, without the additional funding, we might not be able to carry these out in an appropriate timescale. We cannot continue to fail victims and prolong their pain through not coming to a satisfactory conclusion.

I am aware that the Justice Minister is equally frustrated by the current situation and is keen to advance the Lord Chief Justice's five-year plan. I appreciate that she has met the Secretary of State to discuss that. I am also aware that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have had in-depth and ongoing discussions with the UK Government. I trust that these will continue in order to secure the necessary funding to bring these outstanding legacy inquests to a close.

In closing, the need to provide independent, impartial and inclusive legacy inquests is indisputable. I fully appreciate that there is much more to dealing with the past and legacy inquests than there is time to go into today, but for the victims and survivors of Northern Ireland's past, I cannot stress enough the need to bring these matters to a close. I believe that the Secretary of State is committed to seeing this happen. Whilst it will be a process that could take a number of years, at least, for the victims, an assurance that an inquest for their loved one is imminent might be a step in the right direction. The finances needed to take this forward are required urgently. I trust that the discussions between the Secretary of State, the First Minister and deputy First Minister will be positive and that the inquests can finally begin to move forward.

Photo of Michaela Boyle Michaela Boyle Sinn Féin

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important motion on legacy inquests. I thank my party colleagues for bringing the motion to the House today.

Over the course of yesterday's debate and thus far today, a lot has been said about the past. However, many families have waited and waited. Many members of those families are no longer with us. We remember them here today. Families have heard from the Lord Chief Justice, Declan Morgan, on the future of legacy inquests and how they will be dealt with through the vision of a five-year plan. They hope that they may now get the truth and justice that they rightfully deserve.

Last Friday in my constituency, I spoke with the families of Tobias Molloy and Eamonn McDevitt. They have welcomed the Lord Chief Justice's five-year plan and the review led by Judge Reg Weir. The families conveyed to me that, after almost four decades, they feel more confident and have confidence in the justice and inquest systems. However, that came with a caution: they are concerned about the resources in relation to legacy inquests. It is their understanding that, unless the resource issue is resolved, only two further legacy cases can be conducted.

The Lord Chief Justice's approach to the issue and his extensive engagement with the families has helped to restore a level of confidence in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chief Justice and his staff have to be commended for that. The opportunity may be undermined if the provision of adequate resources is not forthcoming. Indeed, it could cause significant damage to public confidence in the rule of law in general. We know that around 54 legacy cases relating to the deaths of 97 people from different backgrounds could be completed within five years if the PSNI and the British MOD were fully cooperative with the Coroners Service and the funding was provided. The British Government must immediately release the £50 million in funding for legacy inquests that has been requested by the Lord Chief Justice. If the British Government are serious about dealing with the past, they need to commit to an immediate and intensive negotiation on dealing with the legacy of the past, as my party colleague Declan Kearney stated earlier. The British Government have an international obligation to undertake timely and effective investigations compliant with article 2. They cannot delegate their responsibility to the Assembly. The Irish Government cannot be let off the hook either; their silence on the issue is deafening. As co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements, they need to step up to the plate and challenge the British Government over their continuing failure to live up to their commitments on dealing with the past.

All the families have felt long-running frustration and a deep sense of anger about the failure to deliver prompt and effective inquest proceedings. The Ballymurphy families have been waiting for 45 years on an article 2 compliant inquest into the death of their loved ones. Their walkout of the meeting with Secretary of State Brokenshire on 19 September reflects the frustration felt by all the families over the continued refusal of the British Government to honour their state obligation to deliver on the issue. The Lord Chief Justice's five-year plan demonstrates to families that they may now be on the cusp of getting near to the truth and justice for their loved ones. They must not be failed. Sinn Féin believes in justice for all.

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy Deputy Speaker

We have now had three motions here in just two days that have all touched on aspects of dealing with our past. This issue has been talked about for many years in the Chamber. I am sure that there is an amount of public frustration because of how much talking there has been and how little action. We await to see whether the Secretary of State comes forward with a public consultation. There will be much interest to see what form, if any, that takes and whether it leads to any progress on these issues.

We in the Ulster Unionist Party have long argued that legacy issues should have been included in the package of measures for dealing with the past that was discussed during the three talks processes of recent years. We see no reason why, if a Historical Investigations Unit and an Independent Commission on Information Retrieval were to be formed as part of a comprehensive way of dealing with the truth and justice aspects of our past, legacy Coroners' Courts could not sit as part of that. There should be no hierarchy of victims and no hierarchy of investigations.

It would be concerning that, even if a comprehensive package of bodies were to be agreed, some people would have an extra option for investigation that others would not have access to. If the aim is to find an all-encompassing way to deal with our past that allows equal opportunity for those seeking truth or justice, keeping legacy inquests outside of this tent seems to contradict the motivation. We want to know more on why anyone would be so opposed to this. Surely that would signal a lack of confidence in the proposed HIU.

We must bear in mind the people who have been left with no option of review since the Historical Enquiries Team closed its doors. Those people were patiently waiting for the HET to work its way through its caseload, getting ever closer to a review for their loved one until that hope was removed. Those people have been left in limbo. They are ageing and fearful that they may never find out the truth about what happened to their loved ones and why, and they may never have a chance of finally seeing justice done.

The present situation is clearly unsatisfactory and imperfect, and there are issues to be addressed. I want to highlight some of the imperfections of the present situation. The House will know that I have long been involved in the campaign for truth and justice for the Kingsmills families, who were devastated after the massacre by the IRA of 10 innocent Protestant workers in January 1976. I again pay tribute to those families, the sole survivor, Alan Black, and the groups and individuals who have supported the campaign and their persistence and dogged determination to pursue justice. After a prolonged public campaign and battle, we eventually succeeded in having a fresh coroner's inquest convened. This has been hearing over the past few months. However, just one week into the fresh inquest, it had to be stalled because of new evidence relating to the existence of a palm print, which led to the reopening of the criminal investigation of Kingsmills. On the face of it, this should have been a welcome development, except that the existence of the palm print had long been known about, and we might have expected earlier progress in the criminal investigation in the 40 years since the horrific events of Kingsmills. Understandably, families and campaigners are rightly concerned and cynical about the resulting delays and that the public hearings of the inquest are currently on hold. Clearly, this is an unacceptable situation for the families, and it must be addressed as a matter of urgency. It is time for the truth about Kingsmills to finally emerge, however difficult and inconvenient.

The wider point relevant to this debate is that the current system is clearly unsatisfactory but any new system must be properly and fairly structured; we must avoid, at all costs, any attempt to rewrite history.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

Before I came in here today, I was approached in the Great Hall by a couple of men who I should have recognised but, to my shame, did not. They were two representatives of the McGurk's Bar families. There was an atrocity there in 1971. I imagine they are in the Public Gallery, and it is good to see them again. They gave me quite a detailed account of their position on the lack of progress on that particular incident. I said that I would read it and raise it here again.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)

As I went upstairs, I was shown a copy of 'The Irish News'. There is an article in it that says that the army file on McGurk's Bar will not now be released until 2056. For those of you who doubt your arithmetic, that is 85 years after the event took place — 85 years on. There will not be anybody left with any recollection of what happened.

What does that say to me? I try to keep an open mind on these things because there are always two sides, and sometimes what appears obvious is not what actually happened and vice versa. It says to me that the authorities and the army have something to hide. Why would you want to bury something for 85 years?

Other people have mentioned the Ballymurphy families, and it is well known that I have been supportive of them for quite a few years now. I pay tribute to Doug Beattie, who is the second member of the Ulster Unionist Party to go to see them. Danny Kinahan's visit lasted only 10 minutes, but Doug went for a whole session — and a particularly revealing session it was, too.

Not for the first time, we went to see the Secretary of State; actually, it was the first time with this Secretary of State. He listened, he talked, and he said that he could do nothing. Once again. He said it with a bit more grace than his predecessor, I will say that, but, frankly, it was a major disappointment; another setback to a group of families that has been waiting 45 years.

Some of the people whom I have dealt with since my involvement with Ballymurphy began are now dead, and the contemporaries of the people who were killed are of an age — they will not last much longer. They are entitled to their day in the sun, to justice and to the truth about what happened. For the life of me, in the case of Ballymurphy, I wonder — I have said it before — what on earth is there for the state to protect? In fact, there is nothing. What happened at Ballymurphy is self-evident. It is self-evident from the evidence in the army files, never mind in the other file, but there is plenty of evidence there. That is an inquest that could go ahead quite reasonably, and I am sure that there are others.

The Lord Chief Justice has weighed into this discussion in a very helpful way, and I am sure that he must be feeling quite disappointed at the turn of events and the fact that, frankly, the DUP is blocking the process once again. The motion refers to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that, apart from establishing a right to human life and the state's obligations, it:

"requires an effective and proper investigation into all deaths caused by the state", as well as imposing an obligation to protect life.

What is the state? I am not a lawyer, but in this situation, to my mind, in European terms, the state must be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Is it reasonable for the British Government to hide behind DUP intransigence? Or should they be bypassing the DUP and trying to do something about it off their own bat? That is what is needed here.

You might have thought that we were getting somewhere with the Stormont House Agreement, which set up the Oral History Archive, the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group, but a year later, Fresh Start watered it all down. What we are doing here is passing the parcel; it seems to be about anything but making progress. The people who put us here must be —

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker 4:30, 8 November 2016

I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close, please.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

— wondering what is going on here. I plead with everybody involved to try to move this process forward as quickly as possible.

Photo of Eamonn McCann Eamonn McCann People Before Profit Alliance

I do not know whether many people take the trouble to read the Hansard report of the daily proceedings; I used to do it, but then I am a sort of political nerd and would not usually admit it to anybody. It is even worse than watching 'Stormont Today'.

If they had read yesterday's proceedings and then sat down tomorrow morning to read today's proceedings, the first thing they would think is that it was all one debate, because it is all about the past. It overlaps and inter-penetrates in all these discussions about legacy and inquests and who is telling the truth — which nobody involved in these matters really is.

In one way, I agree with everything that is being said because everybody is saying that there should be no hierarchy of victims; everybody agrees with that. If we all agree on those things, what is the problem? Where is the difficulty if we move forward? The difficulty is political. The Sinn Féin motion does not even acknowledge or mention the fact that its partner in government, the DUP, is mainly holding this thing up and is responsible for the deadlock. It is one thing to move on from the past and all that and for all of us to be nice to one another and cooperating on the Executive, but, when that means that there is no movement for people who desperately need the truth to be told outside, you have to question whether all this is worthwhile.

I agree with the Lord Chief Justice. We have already said that, which is terrific. Who could disagree, whether on humanitarian or philosophical grounds, with what the Lord Chief Justice said or with his proposals? Everybody agrees. I do not think that it will work; it will not work for the same reasons that we all, or some of us, spelled out yesterday that, if it is to be successful, it depends on the truth being told.

If the British Government and others had any willingness to tell the truth, they would have told it already. People are talking about all the money that needs to be involved, but sure if they had told the truth from the outset, there would be no need for any money to be spent. The only reason why these things take time and why lawyers earn fantastical sums of money is that nobody is coming clean.

We have had inquests. Remember this: some of the cases that we are talking about have already had inquests. A couple of weeks ago, I sat down, in connection with something that I was writing, and reread the inquest papers into the deaths of Mr Robert Johnston and Mr Robert McKinney in 1972. If you look at those deaths, you will see something interesting emerging.

There may be people here who do not know who Robert Johnston and Robert McKinney are. Think about it if you do not, as I am about to tell you who they are. They were murdered by the First Battalion, Parachute Regiment in the first week of September 1972 on the Shankill Road. Robert Johnston was a well-known character around the Shankill. Just before he died, before the bullet hit him, fired by — I could name the para but, do not worry, I will not — and blew his brains out, he was a man walking around. The last thing he shouted was, "I walked these streets in my bare feet in the 30s". He was a well-known character who came out of his wee house in Manor Street and out of the pub. The other man, Mr McKinney, was back after 30 years in Canada. On his first day back in Belfast, he went out around the area where earlier there had been rioting, and he was shot dead. The two people who fired those shots had also been involved in Glenfada Park in the Bogside and Bloody Sunday. I know their names and know exactly what they did.

Why are those men forgotten? I will tell you one of the reasons why they are forgotten: the people who should have represented them and stood up for the interests and lives of working-class Protestant people in Belfast did not want to go against the state. They have said to me, "We could not do that, Eamonn, as we would have been seen to have been supporting the likes of you" — as he put it — "in Derry in relation to Bloody Sunday". That political conundrum and political contradiction should be kept in mind when you are examining some of these cases.

My advice to relatives is to push it all the way, and I will be with you. There was also McGurk's bar and Kingsmills. Danny, tell the relatives — you are in touch with them and know them personally — that, if they want to come out and march with the rest of us on Bloody Sunday weekend in Derry, they will be made extremely welcome. I say the same to the Birmingham victims, people from McGurk's bar, Ballymurphy and all the rest.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Photo of Eamonn McCann Eamonn McCann People Before Profit Alliance

Victims should stand together; it is not just a question of us standing together. The only way we ever get anything in this country is by going out, organising and fighting for it.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of Eamonn McCann Eamonn McCann People Before Profit Alliance

Victims should join together, and they will find a big enthusiastic welcome from people who would conventionally be regarded as being on the other side, so to speak. Let us do it together.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

It is indisputable that all are entitled to the truth just as they are entitled to justice, but does not end there, because the process that delivers that has to be fair and equitable.

In the debate, we heard some of the one-sided exposition of demands for legacy inquests. I am not disputing the need for legacy inquests, though I am not impressed that some of those demanding the loudest are those associated with an organisation that denied to its victims not just justice but the most fundamental right of all: the right to life.

I recognise that, in making its demand — I speak of Sinn Féin — it sees within that, of course, a stratagem for state bashing. It sees within it an opportunity to validate its determined rewriting of history, hence the enthusiasm for the legacy inquest system so that it can be abused in that sense and the information garnered can be put to the ends of state bashing that it wishes to advance. The same people have nothing to tell us. There are people on these Benches in this House — I am looking at some of them now — who could tell us a great deal about the innocent victims they removed from this scene of time but choose to keep those dark secrets in their heart, yet they are on the highest of horses demanding justice for those they present as the victims of the state.

Let me be very clear: I do not put on a par the eight IRA murdering men who went out to visit devastation and death in Loughgall with innocent shoppers going about their business on the Shankill Road or anywhere else, or innocent people sitting in a bar in Greysteel done to death by hideous terrorists. There is no comparison. Yet the hierarchy that has been created is that, for those who put themselves on the front line of terrorist activity, there must be legacy inquests, but for those whom they and their colleagues butchered — nothing. That is the hierarchy that has crept into this.

Therefore, the DUP is right to have vetoed the progress — if you want to call it that — on this matter until the inequality is recognised, but it was wrong at Stormont Castle to embrace the beginning of that inequality. In the Stormont Castle agreement of two years ago, it agreed £19 million a year to legacy inquests and £6·5 million to the HIU for the overhanging HET inquiries. There is a source of the inequality. That was agreed by the party that now has woken up to block the inequitable progress on this matter. Pity it did not waken up at Stormont Castle when it was agreeing those figures, but better late than never.

I am very clear that, yes, it is right that individuals are entitled to the truth, but there can be no hierarchy —

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close, please.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

— a hierarchy particularly inspired by engendering an opportunity for state bashing while ignoring the horrendous terror of the terrorists.

Photo of Claire Sugden Claire Sugden Independent

I thank Members for bringing the motion to the Assembly, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this very important issue. My position is very clear: families have waited far too long for legacy inquests into the deaths of their loved ones. If we are ever going to bring some measure of closure to bereaved families, we need to reach political agreement on this and other legacy matters now. I have not experienced the loss of a loved one in the way that the families have, but I have met a number of family members who have lost husbands, daughters, brothers and sons. I have seen the very real pain and suffering that they live with on a daily basis, and they have told me of the stress and anguish brought about by this continued delay.

What struck me is the similarity of the stories that the families bring to me, regardless of their background or the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved ones. They have all suffered unimaginable hurt and loss, and they acknowledge that no one's family is greater than anyone else's. We need to listen to the voice of victims’ families and be guided by them. The management of these complex inquests is not easy, but the continuing delay is having an unacceptable impact, not only on victims’ families but on our wider community and our justice system. It is simply not acceptable that some families have had to wait 30 or 40 years to have their loved ones' deaths investigated. For some, it has been too late. To make the progress that is so urgently needed, the legacy inquest process must be better focused, equipped and resourced to meet the needs of bereaved families.

The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was appointed as president of the Coroners' Court on 1 November last year, with responsibility for providing leadership to the judicial officers who act as coroners. He immediately commissioned a review of the state of readiness of the outstanding legacy cases, and that was undertaken by Lord Justice Weir in January. On that basis, and following a series of meetings in Strasbourg, the Lord Chief Justice proposed a new model for progressing legacy inquests. He concluded that, with the support of a properly resourced legacy inquest unit in the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and cooperation from the relevant justice bodies, including the PSNI and the MOD, it should be possible to complete the existing legacy inquest caseload within a period of five years. Having discussed the Lord Chief Justice’s proposals with him, I am confident that they provide the basis for transforming the way that we manage legacy inquests in Northern Ireland. His proposals, which should ensure that all the outstanding legacy inquests are completed within five years, offer real and tangible hope to victims’ families that their cases will finally be brought to a conclusion. We owe it to the victims and to their families to make the Lord Chief Justice's vision a reality.

The Stormont House Agreement includes measures to address a number of issues relating to Northern Ireland’s troubled past. It is the only mechanism that we have to provide some resolution for victims, and I will do all that I can to progress it. The Stormont House Agreement proposals may not give the families everything they want and will not bring back their loved ones, but I believe that they will go some way to giving them what they need.

The Stormont House Agreement made proposals covering two areas that fall within my remit as Justice Minister, one of which is to improve the way that legacy inquests are concluded and the other to establish a Historical Investigations Unit. The UK Government subsequently held cross-party talks to consider how best to progress the existing commitments to address the complex issues relating to Northern Ireland’s past. Those talks resulted in the Fresh Start Agreement. Whilst that agreement paved the way to resolving a number of difficult issues, including an end to paramilitarism, it did not address how we deal with the legacy issues of our past. However, discussions are continuing between the Northern Ireland Executive and the United Kingdom Government to resolve those outstanding issues, and I remain confident that agreement will be reached on establishing the new institutions proposed in the Stormont House Agreement and on improving legacy inquest arrangements.

Funding forms an important part of those discussions, including access to funds for progressing the Lord Chief Justice’s proposals. The justice system was never funded to address legacy issues. This funding gap has exacerbated the situation and undermined our capacity to address this complex problem. I am working with Executive colleagues to resolve the outstanding issues and to secure the funding needed to allow legacy inquests to proceed in line with the proposals by the Lord Chief Justice. I have asked my Department to review the funding requirements of the Lord Chief Justice's proposals for legacy inquests, and that work is ongoing. However, it is important to recognise that any funding bid under the Stormont House Agreement will have to be agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive before being submitted to Her Majesty’s Government as part of the overall funding package for dealing with the past.

Since the Lord Chief Justice’s appointment, a review of the available resources has been undertaken, and he has made a number of significant improvements in advance of agreement on his wider proposals. In February, a High Court judge was appointed as presiding coroner to oversee the management of cases and consider issues relating to scope and disclosure. The presiding coroner, in conjunction with the Lord Chief Justice, determines which cases will be listed for hearing and when. A new coroner was also sworn in in February and a further coroner was appointed in April, bringing the Coroners Service back to its full judicial complement.

The Lord Chief Justice has assigned a County Court judge to deal with some of the more complex inquests. New counsel were appointed to the panel of counsel in November last year to provide advice to the coroner and to present evidence at inquests. In March of this year, a coroner's investigator was appointed to provide advice and guidance on appropriate and effective investigative opportunities in practice and procedures for inquests as required by the coroners. She also conducts investigative opportunities with the relevant legal officer.

In addition to those improvements, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland was commissioned to undertake an inspection of the arrangements in place in the PSNI to manage and disclose information in support of the coronial process in Northern Ireland, and its report is expected to be published in the near future.

Members will recall that the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service undertook a review of the overall operations of the Coroners Service, with a view to ensuring resilience in the service and to contribute to the development and implementation of arrangements for the processing of legacy inquests in the context of the Stormont House Agreement. Ten of the 13 recommendations arising from the review have been fully implemented and are already bearing fruit. Improved listing arrangements, for example, have helped clear the backlog and ensure the more timely progression of inquests, with fewer adjournments.

Progressing the Lord Chief Justice's proposals to streamline and reform the legacy inquest system is essential. However, progress in dealing with the past, including the Lord Chief Justice's proposed enhancement of the legacy inquest process, can be made only following agreement on the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement and the release of the associated funding that it provides.

Resolving the legacy inquest blockage is only one part of the necessary solution to dealing with the past. I am confident that the new Historical Investigations Unit, when established under the agreement, will make a real difference in progressing future cases and will ease the burden on coroners in conducting the often complex investigations that have fallen, by default, to legacy inquests in the past.

I am unclear from amendment No 1

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance 4:45, 8 November 2016

I thank the Minister for giving way. She has expressed confidence in the establishment of improved legacy inquest arrangements and the Historical Investigations Unit. To try to reassure victims, does she have any idea of timescales? When does she think that those will be put in place?

Photo of Claire Sugden Claire Sugden Independent

I thank the Member for his intervention. Truthfully, I do not have a specific timescale for how we are going to progress legacy inquests. I have said in the House on previous occasions that I am keen for it to happen sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, that is the only answer that I can give now. I assure the Member and other Members that it is something that I am progressing with my Executive colleagues and the Northern Ireland Office in order to see how we can move forward with the Historical Investigations Unit and legacy inquests together.

I am somewhat unclear as to whether amendment No 1 is supporting the Lord Chief Justice's proposals. He is our most senior judge, so it is important that we listen when he makes proposals on such an important issue and that we act on his carefully considered recommendations. I am certainly not in favour of any hierarchy of investigations. I believe that all families should have access to a review or investigation of their loved one's death. That is why I support the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. It is only through its implementation that the outstanding investigations will be completed in a professional, impartial and timely manner.

Photo of Emma Little-Pengelly Emma Little-Pengelly DUP

I thank the Minister for giving way. On comments that were just made in the House, will the Minister confirm — especially in the context of there being no hierarchy of victims — that there is no profile that has been, or had been, agreed over the last number of years on the financial arrangements between inquests and the HIU? That needs to be worked out very much on the basis that everything is moving forward together.

Photo of Claire Sugden Claire Sugden Independent

I thank the Member for her intervention. I can speak for my time as Justice Minister by saying that I am not aware of anything particular about a hierarchy of investigations. I am merely referring to what the amendment refers to.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

Would the Minister care to look at the schedule to what became known as the Stormont Castle agreement, the one that had to be squeezed out of the Executive parties and that sets out, in tabular form, £19 million of funds for legacy inquests, £6·5 million for the new Historical Investigations Unit for overhanging HET cases, and £5 million for Police Ombudsman's cases? It is there in black and white.

Photo of Claire Sugden Claire Sugden Independent

I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that he is alluding to the necessity for funding for addressing the past. Indeed, I agree that we need to resource properly all the mechanisms that we are taking forward in dealing with addressing our past. It is something that I and my Executive colleagues, and the Northern Ireland Office, are working towards progressing.

Photo of Claire Sugden Claire Sugden Independent

One more time, sure.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I thank the Minister and appreciate the change from yesterday in her approach to taking interventions. When it comes to the release of moneys for legacy inquests, which the Lord Chief Justice said that he needed as "a matter of urgency", where is the impediment at an Executive level? If there is an impediment that you have no time frame for resolution, have you told the Secretary of State that it is your view, individually, that he should get on and fund now?

Photo of Claire Sugden Claire Sugden Independent

I thank the Member for his intervention. I have made it clear to the Secretary of State that I believe that legacy inquests are a way of progressing this within a five-year time frame, and I have made my feelings quite clear about the fact that we need to fully resource it. I do not have that resource in my Department, so it has to come from a wider Northern Ireland Executive resource or outside of that, whether that is the Northern Ireland Office or elsewhere.

I can speak only about my time as Justice Minister. The previous Justice Minister mentioned what he felt the impediment was. Five months into the mandate, we are at the stage of looking at it again. We have to appreciate that we have another Secretary of State in position, and he will look at how he wants to progress it. It is a matter of process at this stage. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a time frame. I would like to be in a position to do so, but I assure the House that I am confident that it will move forward. I know that I have said this before, but in respect of how we deal with addressing the past, the Stormont House Agreement and Fresh Start Agreement are what was agreed, and we need to use both mechanisms so that we can finally move on.

I come now to amendment No 2, and I agree that, as mentioned, we need to support the Lord Chief Justice's proposals as "a matter of urgency". I have been clear on that from the outset, particularly in a number of meetings that I have had with the Lord Chief Justice. From my engagement with Executive colleagues and the Secretary of State, I know that there is a strong desire to resolve the outstanding issues and move ahead with the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.

In conclusion, it is important that, when considering legacy matters, we keep the needs of the victims' families at the heart of our thinking. The continued impact of our current arrangements on victims' families and our wider community is unacceptable. Our justice system is neither designed nor funded to deal with the legacy of our past. We must act now to obtain adequate funding for the Stormont House Agreement institutions for dealing with the past, including improving our legacy inquest arrangements. We must act now to resolve the issues of our past and finally bring some measure of closure to those who lost loved ones as a consequence of that past. I am working with Executive colleagues to make progress on the establishment of the HIU and to obtain the release of funds to progress the Lord Chief Justice's proposals for legacy inquests.

I support the motion, and I will continue to work with Executive colleagues and Members to resolve this issue in an urgent and timely manner for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

At the start and end of the debate are the victims and their families. We must remember their pain and suffering, and, importantly, we must remember their future, which we have within our control to help or hinder. We have highlighted where we believe the problem lies in this matter. The DUP is refusing to allow a request for funding for the inquests, and that is a terrible failing of those families. I reiterate that the Secretary of State needs to recognise that he has the ability to unlock this scenario and deliver the funding required to address the concerns of families and victims. He must not allow the DUP to have a veto on the matter of legacy and inquests. To do so would set a dangerous precedent and set us back in this process rather than enabling us to move forward.

Some Members who contributed to the debate suggested that no one family's suffering or pain is greater than that of another. However, by wilfully blocking a resolution to any of these problems, we are failing and letting down all families, and that is unacceptable. We heard from Trevor Lunn how the Stormont House Agreement had offered hope. We suggest that there was also hope in Eames/Bradley and other initiatives, but the problem is that we continue to be let down, and that is unacceptable.

I commend Mr McCann on his contribution, which was a powerful contribution. It highlighted to us the importance that the truth will be able to be heard and will help all of us to be able to move forward. He also made a powerful contribution on the point that all families and victims should work together because the collective voice, working as one, will help us to be able to unlock the funding that will deliver results and a resolution to these matters. I welcome the Minister's admission that families have waited too long to get a resolution to their suffering, and I also welcome her determination to do all that she can to pursue the matter. However, I say to the Minister that you are not going to get a resolution from this Executive, so it may be a bit of a waste of time looking for that. You should be making your way to the Secretary of State to directly advocate for that money to be made available to the families of victims in Northern Ireland to help them get the truth that they require.

It is difficult for families of victims of the Troubles to move on without adequate and appropriate closure of the atrocities that the families endured. We need to see justice prevail, we need accountability, and we need acknowledgement. In short, for that, we must have the legacy inquests. It is time that we take narrow and vested interests out of this and work again to try to get a resolution for the victims and their families. In my constituency of South Down, we had many incidents and tragedies over the years. The people of Loughinisland suffered significantly when six local men were murdered in 1994. With the misery and suffering that the families of these individuals have had to endure, recent revelations of collusion, destruction of evidence and wilful interference have compounded the pain that they must face.

There must be closure. There must be conclusion to the outstanding issues, and there must be an apology for the wrong that has taken place. Inquests will allow this process to begin for dozens of families. The victims seek this. Their families seek it, and we must comprehensively and ethically address the past now. I believe that our amendment details the best way to achieve this, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I rise in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Doug Beattie and others. I am conscious that I am thinking of the many victims in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism over many years. Three and a half thousand people were murdered, and many were maimed, with the difficulties that that has caused for their families. Many have spoken of the legacy inquests, but I think that it is important that we also remember that there are many who have yet to have their case even reviewed since the end of the Historical Enquiries Team's activity. I am also conscious that many, many victims' families suffered loss and no one was ever brought before the courts. They have suffered loss quietly. The families have had to get on with life. There are many, many victims, and it is important in going forward that we do not create a hierarchy of victims. That is the reason behind the amendment to the motion in the name of Doug Beattie and my colleagues.

Going forward, we need a widespread agreement in a way that can gain support from everyone and take all victims forward. Doug Beattie touched briefly on the issue that information that might be released could lead to deaths, and this is not hypothetical but has happened in Northern Ireland. He is right to say that there are occasions when information should not be disclosed. He is also right to say that, if it is just about saving somebody's blushes, that is not due reason and it should be disclosed. He said that he was present when the Secretary of State indicated that, if the Executive collectively called for the release of money, he would give it to them. What he wants and what we want is fairness for everyone. If we can get that agreement, there is the potential of moving this forward for the benefit of all victims. That is certainly what the Ulster Unionists want. The power is with our Executive in that. If you think of others as you argue your separate corner and reach agreement, there is the potential to move forward.

Doug also highlighted the danger of the five-year plan, the lack of detail and the cost. Legal cases are renowned for exceeding their time and their costs. What is important for justice in Northern Ireland is that other forms of justice do not suffer because of what might commence. It is important that there is a detailed and deliverable plan that deals with all aspects of justice.

As has been highlighted by a number of Members, Declan Kearney strangely directed all his fire at the British Government. Obviously, that was the non-aggression pact in action again. He failed to recognise that the Secretary of State has said that, if the Executive can agree, he will give the money. So, why is Declan Kearney not saying that the difficulty is with the Executive and ensuring that there is resolution there? He urged that the legacy inquests should be treated as a freestanding issue, but there is a real danger that we could end up creating a process that focuses on a relatively small number of Troubles deaths, tragic as each of those are for each of the families. Let us remember that 10% of Troubles-related deaths were a result of state forces. There is almost an implication that some are trying to minimise the impact of the 90% of deaths that were caused by republican and loyalist terrorist groups. It is important that there is justice for all of the other 90% who suffered as a result of terrorism and that there is a process for them to seek justice as they would wish. That was highlighted in particular by Jim Allister and Paul Frew. My colleague Danny Kennedy highlighted the issue of the Kingsmills families and the palm print that was known about but not progressed, and he stated his concerns about undue delays.

Many valid points have been made, but why can we not listen to what has been said? Why can we not agree a way forward that will meet the needs of all families rather than focus on a small number of families?

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close, please?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I urge you to support our amendment.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

I have been taking copious notes, which is always a mistake. Members have repeated the words of other Members. I agree with Eamonn McCann — at least on this — that we have had the same debate over the last two days and that all the issues that we have been talking about have been the same.

A number of people have said similar things, but the Minister of Justice said that no loss is greater than another, and I absolutely agree with her. The difficulty, as we listened to Members in this debate was that, while we heard many say similar things, once they then elaborated, the truth of the statement was shown in its naked form. I point especially to Jim Allister, who has a clear hierarchy of victims and went out of his way to condemn people who were killed.

We have had the three debates over two days. This one was specifically about legacy inquests, and it is normal that we moved off that because the issues are all connected. However, this motion was about supporting action that has been taken.

Over the last couple of days, we have been talking about inaction. Here we have a Lord Chief Justice who took action. He came in as president of the Coroners' Court and was asked to do it in November 2015. By January 2016, he had instigated a review. I think that it was Justice Weir who was involved in that. The Lord Chief Justice met the Council of Europe. He met UN human rights bodies. By February 2016, he did what nobody else — certainly no Lord Chief Justice — had done before him by going to meet the families, who are suffering and have suffered over decades, to find out what their views are. He then said, "I can sort out the 56 outstanding legacy cases in the next five years because I have a plan". Indeed, the Justice Minister went through quite a section of that plan.

Doug says, "I need to see it", but I do not know why, because it was the Lord Chief Justice we gave the job to and he and the Courts and Tribunals Service are the ones with the expertise. He has said that he can rectify what has been missing in the past, and at the core of that, as was said many times over the last two days, was disclosure and the lack of it and funding. He called for money. He said that he could complete it in five years if he received £5 million per annum. If he does not get the money, as someone mentioned, perhaps only two further cases will be done. As someone else pointed out, only 13 cases have been done up to now.

There is the issue. There are people waiting. As I pointed out earlier, this is a coronial system. For the many families that have tried again and again and again to get something for their loved ones, we have for the first time — for some after 45 years — an action that will do that. What is the problem? We cannot get the resources.

Let me deal with why we tabled the motion in its current form, because a number of people have criticised us, saying that we are trying to avoid issues. Let me not avoid anything. Here is the issue: these are legacy cases, and the responsibility for them, under international law, is the British Government's. They are the ones who have to comply with article 2, and they are the ones who have the duty and the power to ask any other institution, including this one, to ensure that they also comply. It is their responsibility: it happened on their watch, and they are the people who have to pay the money; they are the people who have said that there is £150 million that should be used for legacy issues and have then refused to use it.

This is where I disagree with the two amendments. As they pointed out themselves, before they tabled the amendments, they knew that the Executive were not going to clear money for this. If the only issue was money and we had the power to give it, it would be given. The reason I disagree with the amendments and why we will vote against them is that they were put in as an attack on the Executive. Of course, the Executive cannot come to that conclusion, but we all knew that before. The SDLP acknowledges that and says, "So, we're not getting it there; let's get it from the British Government, because that's where it's supposed to come from". So, they agree with what we have said in our motion.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Are you saying that the deputy First Minister has not had conversations with the First Minister and the Minister of Justice about bringing a paper to the Executive in order to make that request to London? Is that what you are telling us? If so, there might be some validity in what you say, but it is the understanding of everybody that there have been conversations to try to get something through the Executive. In the absence of that happening, it should go through London.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

First, I am not on the Executive — neither are you — so I do not know what is happening there. I do not know why you are challenging this. You, Eamonn McCann, and a number of other people said that the difficulty is that we are afraid to say that we cannot get the money through the Executive. I am saying it: we cannot get the money through the Executive., but I am pointing out, as you did, that this is the responsibility of the British Government. The British Government have the money: there is £150 million for legacy issues, and they should release it. End of.

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

I appreciate the Member giving way. Of course the British Government have responsibilities for article 2, but it is also clear, given that his party was party to the Fresh Start Agreement, so-called, and the Stormont House Agreement, that that work was to be done by the Executive and then funded by the British Government.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

I am glad that the ex-Minister of Justice came in. I presume that he remembers that he was on the Executive and could have had some influence on this. Yet, now that he is off the Executive, he is trying to blame everybody who is on it.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

No, I will not give way again. I have already given way.

There are two or three issues that were mentioned by a number of people. One is the hierarchy of victims, which we have mentioned many times. Another term that was used was the hierarchy of investigations, which was used mostly by unionists. I want to deal with some of that in this way.

I am glad that people are starting to use our terms — equality, balance and all that — because I believe in the equality of victims, balance and all that. However, when you talk about the hierarchy of victims and the hierarchy of investigations, you need to know what you are talking about. For instance, conservatively speaking, there was something like —

[Interruption.]

Do you want to speak up, Chris, or do you want to listen?

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

OK. Well, leave then. Do the right thing.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

Could remarks be addressed through the Chair, please? There should be no interruptions from the Floor while a Member is speaking.

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Let us deal with the hierarchy of victims. There is a conservative estimate that 25,000 people from the nationalist community went through jails. That means that there are 25,000 files, and, if they were charged with more than one thing, you can multiply that number by 10. When you talk about information and the lack of information, how many of the state forces went through the courts? If you want to talk about equality, justice and people's rights, have a think about that. If we want to deal with equality in those terms, there is a lot of catching up to do.

With respect to equality of investigations, let me repeat what I said earlier. This is the coronial system. It is supposed to be working from the start. We are not talking about truth recovery processes or anything like that. We are talking about something that existed and was then refused. Earlier, our colleague Trevor Lunn reported what they now say about information on McGurk's bar: we will not get it until 2056.

There is one thing that I disagree with Eamonn McCann on, and I am quite surprised at him. He talks as though it is impossible to get at the truth, yet the Bloody Sunday inquiry did that, and we are getting investigations going. We are able to set up these institutions. What he is doing is almost saying to victims, "You will never get what you want", whereas I am saying that we can do this and get it —

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Photo of Gerry Kelly Gerry Kelly Sinn Féin

— but it needs people like the British Government to give the resources needed and also, frankly, to tell the truth.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 15; Noes 73

AYES

Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dobson, Mr Kennedy, Mr McKee, Mrs Overend, Mrs Palmer, Mr Smith, Mr Swann

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Aiken, Mr Kennedy

NOES

Mr Agnew, Mr Anderson, Ms Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Ms Bailey, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Carroll, Mr Clarke, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Mr Easton, Dr Farry, Ms Fearon, Mr Ford, Mr Frew, Ms Gildernew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Ms Hanna, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lunn, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyons, Mr Lyttle, Mr E McCann, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McMullan, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Mr McQuillan, Ms Mallon, Mr Maskey, Mr Middleton, Mr Milne, Lord Morrow, Mr Mullan, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Poots, Mr Ross, Ms Seeley, Mr Sheehan, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Wells

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Kearney, Mr Sheehan

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 20; Noes 68

AYES

Mr Agnew, Ms Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Ms Bailey, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Mr Durkan, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Ms Hanna, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr E McCann, Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Ms Mallon, Mr Mullan

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGrath, Mr Mullan

NOES

Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Ms Archibald, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Ms Dillon, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Ms Fearon, Mr Frew, Ms Gildernew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyons, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr McElduff, Mr McGuigan, Mr McKee, Mr McMullan, Mr McQuillan, Mr Maskey, Mr Middleton, Mr Milne, Lord Morrow, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mrs O'Neill, Mrs Overend, Mrs Palmer, Mr Poots, Mr Ross, Ms Seeley, Mr Sheehan, Mr Smith, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Wells

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Kearney, Mr Sheehan

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Deputy Speaker

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Main Question put. The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 43; Noes 45

AYES

Mr Agnew, Ms Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mr Attwood, Ms Bailey, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Mr Durkan, Dr Farry, Ms Fearon, Mr Ford, Ms Gildernew, Ms Hanna, Mr Hazzard, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr Lunn, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyttle, Mr E McCann, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McMullan, Mr McNulty, Mr McPhillips, Ms Mallon, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Mr Mullan, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Seeley, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sugden

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Kearney, Mr Sheehan

NOES

Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mr Lyons, Mr McCausland, Mr McKee, Mr McQuillan, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mrs Overend, Mrs Palmer, Mr Poots, Mr Ross, Mr Smith, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Wells

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Aiken, Mr McQuillan

Main Question accordingly negatived.