Mr. Mark Durkan:

I note the emphasis in that last answer on the importance of the bill of rights which, of course, was a key promise of the Agreement. A number of promises in the Agreement, including those dealing with victims and with the past, have not been properly fulfilled. In the context of the very strong message that we got from former US President Bill Clinton about finishing the job, it is important to point out that finishing the job does not mean not dealing with the past. It actually means delivering on the promises made to victims in the Agreement in respect of the past. It also means the development of a bill of rights, among other measures. One of the things that struck me about the recent case in London was that the court based its decision primarily on the evidence of Jonathan Powell and Peter Hain to the effect that it would be critical and fundamental if the word of a State official was not upheld, even if that word was in a letter that was issued by mistake or that contained a mistake. They suggested that the sky would fall in if the promise of the State in a negotiated process was not upheld. The fact is that the State has made many promises that have not been upheld, including promises to the Finucane family and the to the general public about the conditions and circumstances under which a public inquiry would be held and so forth. The Hain and Powell evidence also drew on Weston Park quite a bit. They said that this was agreed by all parties in Weston Park when actually there was no agreement in Weston Park about this or indeed about anything else. We did get agreed papers from the two Governments after Weston Park to which parties could respond but not all parties agreed with the priorities therein. It was suggested that there was an all-party agreement and as a result, the State gave its word. As we heard from Deputy Brendan Smith, there was clearly a united, all-party demand from the Dáil to the British Government but it is not respecting that. It is a question of double standards where there is an absolute about the word of the State and therefore a promise has to be upheld, even if it was given privately and in an arrangement that was only agreed with one party. At the same time, elements that are actually part of the Agreement or solemn promises given in the process since the Agreement are not being upheld. For all of us involved politically in the process, that should be an added consideration, over and above the particular sensitivities that were voiced in the aftermath of the court decision last week.