Ms Claire Hanna:

I will not go over the ground that colleagues have covered. They will be familiar with the SDLP's views on this Bill which would chime with theirs in the context of what we have been doing to oppose it in Westminster and to encourage and galvanise other actors in this space with regard to some of the other legal institutions and so on. We fundamentally believe that all the progress that has been made around the rule of law and strengthening justice institutions will be undermined by this as well. I thank Mr. Reavey and Mr. O'Hare for sharing their experiences. As Senator McGahon said at the outset , that cannot be easy. One of the big regrets we have about this Bill and the way issues relating to legacy generally have been dealt with over the years is that every time there is negotiation, those such as Mr. Reavey and Mr. O'Hare have to go through that and think it all through. The outcome gets a little bit worse each time for survivors and families. I am genuinely sorry about that.

Colleagues have touched on the prospects or otherwise of the Bill. We are hearing very mixed signals about intent and warm words about change and accepting fundamental change. Ultimately, however, the fundamental purpose of the Bill is inimical to justice for families. As we did when the Bill was before the House of Commons, we will put specific amendments to try to neuter parts of it but the fundamental core of the Bill is unamendable and it cannot go forward in any form that would be acceptable.. However, there are things we could do such as releasing and removing seals on documents. It could technically still be done within the words of what the UK Government is trying to do. The documents issue would affect cases such as that of Mr. O'Hare's family.

I wish to ask about the Boucher experience because that is where some glimmers of hope can be seen with regard to defeating the misinformation from the UK Government to the effect that nothing can be sorted.

It is relying on a belief that legacy is unresolvable rather than recognising that all paths to justice have been blocked, thwarted, unfunded and so on. I want to ask Mr. Reavey about his experience in that regard. We keep in touch with Jon Boutcher and Operation Kenova. We try to keep an eye on the latter's progress. I know Glenanne-related cases are one of Mr. Boutcher's major areas of focus. There is not a lot of time left, so I ask Mr. Reavey to comment briefly on his experience of that process, as a member of a survivor family, and his hopes for how it will play out.