Dr. Stephen Farry:

I welcome the witnesses. I echo what other speakers have said and pay tribute to them for their dignity and determination over many decades in trying to bring closure to their beloved family members, find out the truth of what happened to them and give them a proper burial and a place where the families can gather over the years to reflect and remember them.

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are people on the island of Ireland today who have information that will lead to the recovery of remains. As others have said and I will stress, those people have a moral duty to come forward with that information and not go to their graves without revealing what they know.

I will use my time to highlight a couple of other points. I will reference in particular the case of Lisa Dorrian, which was referred to in Ms Peake's opening statement and to which others have also alluded. Lisa, because of the time of her disappearance, does not fall under the timeframe of the terms of reference of the commission. Her circumstances are very similar to those of others. Her family has also fought a very determined campaign to keep her case alive. There have been a number of false dawns, including in the past year, when trying to find her remains and discover what happened to her. The same point about people with information applies to her. In most of the cases we are talking about the IRA. In Lisa Dorrian's case we are talking about one of the various loyalist factions in Northern Ireland, but the pain is just the same.

It is also worth referencing a development in UK law, namely, Charlotte's law. I appreciate that this may not have any direct relevance to WAVE's cases, but it perhaps shows how thinking is evolving on this issue. Charlotte's law concerns a situation where somebody is convicted of a murder but the remains have not been found. That person would not be eligible for release from prison until he or she was fully forthcoming with information. I appreciate that in the absence of suspects and a criminal process, that type of law will not come into play in WAVE's cases, but it is something worth referencing for the future.

I appreciate it is not the direct source of our discussions today, but I will stress the absolute importance of ensuring we retain a rule of law and human rights-driven process around legacy. We have that with the Stormont House Agreement. The notion of an amnesty or a statute of limitations is not something we should consider. It is very important that we make clear that there is a very clear distinction between the very limited immunities that relate to the passage of information relevant to the location of remains compared with the forgoing of prosecutions. The UK Government, in particular, will often use that type of intervention to almost justify or rationalise what it is now proposing as just being one further step along the spectrum of interventions and that what has happened with the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains somehow sets a precedent. It is important that we send out a very clear message that it does not. We are talking about fundamentally different conceptions and applications and the two should not be conflated. I am sure the witnesses will agree with that particular point. I see Ms Peake wants to come in. I am happy to pass over to her at this stage.