Mr. Kartik Raj:

What we come back to is the research on the basis of which we make our recommendations. Our research focused on the existing investigative mechanisms in Northern Ireland and we found them to be fragmented and piecemeal. That is not to say we are not aware or cognisant of the fact that there is a lack of effective mechanisms across the board or that families of people suffering human rights abuses in Britain do not have recourse to parallel mechanisms. As the Deputy pointed out, this has created anomalies, where families in one jurisdiction must reach out to a mechanism in another.

In general, the recommendations we make are based on the research we have conducted. We encourage the Irish State to ensure adequate provision of support and comply with inquiries where they are needed. These mechanisms require co-operation from the authorities and agencies on both sides of the Border, but as we know from the most recent high profile tribunal, this was a particular stumbling block in the provision and disclosure of information. These are difficult issues, but they are precisely the kind of questions that need to be addressed in taking forward the Haass proposals.

I will return to two earlier questions. Mr. Durkan made a point on intelligence files, not just PSNI intelligence files. This is something I highlight in terms of the work of the proposed Historic Investigations Unit, HIU. A serious amount of clarity is required in terms of how any post-Haass investigative body would access intelligence information held beyond the PSNI such as that held by other police forces in the United Kingdom, security services, Government Departments, the Ministry of Defence and law enforcement agencies in Ireland and how it might request information held by law enforcement agencies in other states. What is absolutely necessary is a discussion from this moment, rather than a day on which the Haass proposals will begin to be implemented, of what precise legislation would be needed here in Ireland, Westminster and Stormont to enable that provision of information in order for these investigations to be effective. Non-access to intelligence information cannot be the stumbling block every investigation hits at some point. I encourage members, across the board, to focus on this issue, but it has repeatedly been the obstacle to accountability.

The second question was put to us by Deputy Brendan Smith and reiterated by the Vice Chairman. It concerned our views on an enhanced historical enquiries team, HET, or an HET+. We have spoken to the Northern policing board about this and, as things stand, have not, to date, seen a proposal for a historical enquiries team that would satisfy international human rights law and standards. We have not seen such a proposal and none has been put forward. What was put forward following the latest crisis and the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary was an HET that appeared, on all points, to be less independent than the one before it in terms of its answerability in the chain of command. This is not a positive development and I cannot say we have seen any proposal for one that might be better, but the historical investigations unit may well offer the way forward in this regard.