Mr. Kenny Donaldson:

To touch on Deputy O'Reilly's question about the Stormont House Agreement, from our perspective, the issue around disclosure and the different commitments that exist are very important. We have raised this in the public domain and with political parties across the board and the two Governments. Unsatisfactory answers are coming back. Our constituency has looked at what has happened in respect of the Kingsmill case and that has not instilled a great deal of confidence that comparable commitments will be given south of the Border. Let us remember that Prime Minister David Cameron got to his feet in Westminster and rightly made redress for Bloody Sunday. That needs to be replicated across the board in all these issues. There is provision within the Stormont House Agreement for acknowledgements. What this means has not been teased out in that paper but we believe that if things are not to repeat themselves, we must put a line in the sand.

It goes back to a point I made at the start. The two governments and all proscribed organisations must make a commitment that the taking of life in the advancement or defence of a political objective is not justified. It is simple. If everybody across the board can make that commitment, where is the issue? It is a matter of consistency. I appreciate what people are saying here about grievances in the past. Minorities in this State could say likewise. There is no question that there were issues for minorities in Northern Ireland to deal with but the point is that this in itself was not a justification to go out and take your neighbour's life. In the areas we represent, people were not murdered while they were in uniform. They were murdered whenever they were milking their cows, delivering meals or visiting families. They were murdered when they were at their most vulnerable. That is not conflict. That is not a war. It cannot be described as that. We must break this cycle of violence once and for all and that is across the board. There was no legitimacy for any organisations involved in it, including any state involvement.

Ms Peake mentioned the welfare issue. Likewise, certainly within the Haass discussions and latterly in the run up to the Stormont House Agreement, we have made representations where we feel there is a very strong case for a special dispensation to be given to victims. Picking up on Deputy O'Reilly's point around it being more easily deliverable for the physically injured, we would have shared that analysis.

Something else can be done in terms of the Stormont House proposals. The actual rationale that would be used around the re-investigation of cases that have already gone through the Historical Enquiries Team, HET, process is very unclear. The HET process was effectively a desktop review. It did not amount to an investigation and there are many families out there who are very dissatisfied with what has happened. As this process sits, the remainder of the cases will be examined and then only in very special circumstances will a previous case be looked at again. The emphasis is almost being put on families and paralegal people to come up with the evidence rather than the actual law makers. We think a re-balancing is needed. One cannot put a time-line on justice. Justice does not belong just to victims. It is the bedrock of society. We should not make a victim choose whether they want justice or truth. Justice must always champion and this must be the bedrock of society.