Mr. Paul Farrell:

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

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

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

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

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