Mr. Brian Gormally:

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan raised the issue of conflicting demands. This is well recognised and has been addressed in the Eames-Bradley report, Haas proposals and Stormont House proposals, in that one could argue that there is something for everybody. There is an investigative and, potentially, prosecutorial system. There is the information retrieval commission, the oral history archive and the IRG dealing with narrative themes from the conflict. Even the HIU goes as far as it can in the direction of prosecution. After that, if it is not possible, we will give a report to the families, and it seems to be a good method.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan also noted the delay in the justice system in the North and she is correct. While it is not like it was during the conflict, there is still an unacceptable delay in remands, particularly regarding non-mainstream republican elements who are accused of terrorist offences. Delay is endemic in the terms of the disclosure in inquests. There are all kinds of issues of people being off sick or needing training. We have done a comprehensive, exhaustive analysis of the existing measures, and at the end we went back to the beginning and called that compilation the "apparatus of impunity", which is what it amounts to. The report, like others, is available on our website.

Deputy Pringle said what had come out so far did not augur very well for the Stormont House Agreement. Mr. O'Connor is correct that we have already won some things - for example, I mentioned the obligation on State agencies to provide documents and archives to the HIU. It is not perfect, given that presumably the HIU will have to ask for documents, and one does not know what is there if one does not know what is there.

There will be an issue, particularly with the secret security service, MI5, and its activities. The national security veto to which I referred to is a very negative development but it is onward disclosure from the historical investigations unit, HIU. It does not come between government records and the HIU investigators. At least, it should not. While it is negative, it does not necessarily compromise the effectiveness of an investigation.

There are many other issues. As I said, we want to be able to support this because we think it is the best chance in a generation. If it is not human rights compliant, it will be worse than useless. If that is the way legislation turns out, we will oppose it.

What could be done here? It is pressing on some of those really crucial issues, in particular the question of independence. We would like the independence of the HIU to be guaranteed on the face of the legislation. It does not look like this will happen, however. In a sense, we will have to reserve judgment on that to actually see how it operates in practice. As I said last week at our conference, it is a question of eternal vigilance when it comes to the implementation and practice of these institutions.

On the question of a HIU in the South, Mr. Paul O’Connor is quite right. A consultative document published earlier on this year stated the deaths that were to be investigated were restricted to those occurring within Northern Ireland. We only got the actual updated material yesterday. In my quick flick through it then, I did not notice any mention of a unit for the South. There were some issues about not being able to give the HIU extra-territorial jurisdiction. That is, of course, true but it does not stop one opening an investigation and asking for co-operation from the place where the deaths actually occurred - for example, if the planning and the people were all from the North but the deaths occurred in the South.

As for the question as to whether there should be a HIU in the South in terms of co-operation with the Northern HIU, as far as I understand it there is a suggestion that the existing security co-operation arrangements will be adequate for security co-operation between the HIU and a special unit that is to be set up in the Garda Síochána. Whether the latter is called the HIU is another matter. It is not an official proposal but what has been discussed.