Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Wednesday 11th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 hours, 1 minute ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:18
Tonia Antoniazzi
-
-
Tonia Antoniazzi
Welcome to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee session on the troubles Bill. I'd like to thank Sir Declan Morgan, the Chief Commissioner, Ronnie Armour, the interim chief executive officer, and Amanda Logan, the Assistant Commissioner for joining us today. So thank you very much, Sir Declan. Thanks for the information that you provided to our session in June. Yes. And your recent correspondence also on information sharing by the Irish government.
Have these arrangements improved since you were last before the committee?
Have these arrangements improved since you were last before the committee?
10:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
No. Not particularly. We have, I think, sent a total of 12 letters in relation to these matters and haven't had any reply. Oh, sorry. We have had an acknowledgement but we haven't had a substantive reply in relation to them. I think it's important to recognise that this issue is is is necessarily a complex one. The arrangements we have in place in relation to the United Kingdom is that Secretary of State acts as the guarantor in relation to. Matters of of national security. There are strict provisions within the act in terms of what the Commission can do in relation to that material.
There are criminal offences which are in place to ensure the protection and operation of those procedures. We have always aspired towards being able to have information disclosure protocols with Ireland, and exactly the same way as we have with agencies within the United Kingdom. But one can see that if we were to try to replicate the protections for Ireland's national security interests within the UK space and that it becomes extremely difficult to see how that works. And I think that means, therefore, that there is a need for a political solution to that particular issue. And I don't think, I mean, that political solution may be one which comes as we go through the legislative process, and we would hope that that would be the case.
But it seems to me unlikely that although there's goodwill from the Garda Commissioner, for instance, when we met him, to putting matters in place, and although it is the case that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland are putting together procedures, one of the things that occurred to me is what happens if there's an investigation in the Republic of Ireland in relation to a legacy matter? I mean, is there going to be reciprocation from our. Security service and others in relation to providing full and unredacted information to the Irish authorities on the basis that they're going to have some kind of method of protecting all of that?
I mean, that's really what we're talking about if we're talking about exchange. So that, I think indicates that this is a complex, difficult, sensitive issue, which the governments, I think are going to have to work out.
There are criminal offences which are in place to ensure the protection and operation of those procedures. We have always aspired towards being able to have information disclosure protocols with Ireland, and exactly the same way as we have with agencies within the United Kingdom. But one can see that if we were to try to replicate the protections for Ireland's national security interests within the UK space and that it becomes extremely difficult to see how that works. And I think that means, therefore, that there is a need for a political solution to that particular issue. And I don't think, I mean, that political solution may be one which comes as we go through the legislative process, and we would hope that that would be the case.
But it seems to me unlikely that although there's goodwill from the Garda Commissioner, for instance, when we met him, to putting matters in place, and although it is the case that the authorities in the Republic of Ireland are putting together procedures, one of the things that occurred to me is what happens if there's an investigation in the Republic of Ireland in relation to a legacy matter? I mean, is there going to be reciprocation from our. Security service and others in relation to providing full and unredacted information to the Irish authorities on the basis that they're going to have some kind of method of protecting all of that?
I mean, that's really what we're talking about if we're talking about exchange. So that, I think indicates that this is a complex, difficult, sensitive issue, which the governments, I think are going to have to work out.
10:21
Tonia Antoniazzi
-
-
Tonia Antoniazzi
And because, you know, we've heard that. And so that the the Secretary of State has also said that the legislation, the troubles bill, you know, in its passing through Parliament and then that the Irish government is in lock step, and then we will see legislation in Ireland that. So. And then it'll take time then, for you to reform the ICRIR into the Legacy Commission. That's going to take a. Could potentially take a very long time until you have that cooperation with with the Irish Government for them to give information to.
10:21
10:22
10:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
IR it would be helpful if they were to do that, but the memorandum of understanding would have to then look at the extent to which that would include sensitive information. That's really the the the issue that might turn out to be troublesome, because there would be a difference between providing non-sensitive information, which wouldn't require the same protections. But we also, of course, from the authorities in the United Kingdom have access to sensitive information, which in many cases can be very important in forming a view as to where the case should go.
10:22
10:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We've had no material. We've had. As a result, I think of the issue being raised before your committee chair. We had acknowledgements of receipt of our letters and an indication that. That this was part of the part part of the the ongoing process. But the position, as we understand it, remains, as explained by the Garda Commission to us in January when we met him, that the political direction was that they were not in a position to to provide information at this stage. And that's why it seems to me that it is the political resolution that will come with the passing of the legislation in this jurisdiction and in the Republic of Ireland.
That is the key to a serious discussion about how exactly the proper national security interests of the United Kingdom and Ireland are, are respected.
That is the key to a serious discussion about how exactly the proper national security interests of the United Kingdom and Ireland are, are respected.
10:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, we have as we've said before, there are approximately 500 deaths along the border in respect of which a number of support groups are intimately involved. And their indication to us is that many of the people who are. Who lost loved ones in those events are not going to take part in this process unless they feel that information from Ireland can be secured. And of course, you know, they if one looks at, you know, for instance, the Warrenpoint case, I mean the the bomb and the Warrenpoint case was detonated from the Republic of Ireland. I mean, that seems clear, but we have no information at this stage.
We would not be able to ensure that we could get information in relation to what happened there. And it doesn't seem likely that that will be provided to us until the political issues are resolved.
We would not be able to ensure that we could get information in relation to what happened there. And it doesn't seem likely that that will be provided to us until the political issues are resolved.
10:25
10:25
Adam Jogee
-
-
Adam Jogee
Thank you very much, Chair and Declan, colleagues, thank you for being with us this morning. And Sir Declan, thank you for your years of public service. Before I ask my question, can I just say that I have constituents down from Newcastle for Armistice Day, so I will have to go after my question. But it's no reflection or discourtesy to to you paying for us today. And I would also just like to join the chair in thanking you for your very helpful letter. We went through it again before your questions, and it it was very useful indeed in helping paint some of the picture.
Now, in that letter you. Site that the Irish Government has taken a position that it can't share information with the Commission because it's not a law enforcement agency. However, of course, with operation can over. We know that there was some significant engagement with. So why do you think the situation is different with the ICR?
Now, in that letter you. Site that the Irish Government has taken a position that it can't share information with the Commission because it's not a law enforcement agency. However, of course, with operation can over. We know that there was some significant engagement with. So why do you think the situation is different with the ICR?
10:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, we are not. I think one has to. To understand that the ICR. IR is not a law enforcement agency. Canova was set up under the auspices of the PSNI to carry out a criminal investigation. It wasn't there to provide. It wasn't actually there to provide reports, although it did. As an addendum to its criminal work, provide reports. It's important to understand that we have sent 12 letters, but so far as I know, there are no laws which have been sent and in other words, international letters of request. Because we because we're not a criminal law enforcement agency would not be able to send them.
And if they are to be sent, they will be sent by the Public Prosecution Service, and they will only, of course, be sent in relation to cases where we are in a position to proceed and are proceeding with a criminal investigation so that I . Laws wouldn't be applicable in cases where we were. We had reached the stage where we concluded that there was no real prospect of a criminal case, but that we still felt that we wanted information in order to explain to loved ones what had happened to their family members.
And if they are to be sent, they will be sent by the Public Prosecution Service, and they will only, of course, be sent in relation to cases where we are in a position to proceed and are proceeding with a criminal investigation so that I . Laws wouldn't be applicable in cases where we were. We had reached the stage where we concluded that there was no real prospect of a criminal case, but that we still felt that we wanted information in order to explain to loved ones what had happened to their family members.
10:27
10:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Information, the the you know, we have to be clear about we we start every case on the basis that it is a criminal investigation. But we have to be clear about the fact that in the vast majority of cases, it's unlikely that there will be prosecutions and whether or not prosecutions that that we will be seeking to provide answers for the family members. I am on record as saying that I believe that when we stand back and look at our work in ten years time, we will be seen as a truth recovery body rather than as a law enforcement organisation.
And I know that at the moment, I think it's something around third of the cases that we have through the investigation space have already been identified as cases which are going to proceed as non-criminal cases, and I would expect that number to increase significantly.
And I know that at the moment, I think it's something around third of the cases that we have through the investigation space have already been identified as cases which are going to proceed as non-criminal cases, and I would expect that number to increase significantly.
10:29
Adam Jogee
-
-
Adam Jogee
Thank you, chair. Just one last question, if I can. That is obviously linked, but slightly different. What what assessment do you make of the feeling that we've picked up as a committee, that there are perceived delays when it comes to legislation being taken through the orchards in Dublin compared to here? And are you concerned that there is that there's a there's a feeling that Ireland is waiting for the United Kingdom to finish its job before it starts doing.
10:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There's absolutely no question about the fact that Ireland is waiting to see the bill that the northern that that the United Kingdom passes. I don't think that there's anything hidden about that. I don't think there's. It's anything that, you know, they have tried to hide either. I mean, all their their political pronouncements that I have noted have tended to indicate that their commitment is to pass their legislation, which they claim they can do expeditiously. Are desire is to see the implementation of the legislation, both both sides of the border at the same time, so that it gives the new commission the opportunity to have a clear slate, as it were, as to how they can proceed.
10:30
10:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, I was concerned concerned until the 19th of October, about the position in this jurisdiction. I was delighted to see that things went as as they did. And I hope that in the other place they the position will be the same. There's always a touch of nervousness when you've got somebody who's given you a promise, but you haven't actually seen the fulfillment of it. And there's always the worry that somebody could, you know, decide that some aspect of the legislation has passed didn't suit them, and that that would be a way out. So from that point of view, there are those who would suggest that Ireland is reserved, as it were, its position as to whether or not it plays ball or not.
But I can understand why people might think that. I mean, I'm not saying that that's anything that I have any reason at all to think is the case, because all the pronouncements are the other way. But I can understand that people are concerned until they actually see the thing done and that that there could be difficulties. Thank you.
But I can understand why people might think that. I mean, I'm not saying that that's anything that I have any reason at all to think is the case, because all the pronouncements are the other way. But I can understand that people are concerned until they actually see the thing done and that that there could be difficulties. Thank you.
10:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you very much. Good, good. Good to see you. You have touched on this in your answers to to colleagues, but I wanted to ask, were you satisfied or to what extent do you think the government took on board your feedback about the operation of the bill and the body, and what engagement have you had with them since the package of amendments they brought forward last month?
10:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, we've we have engaged with them in a number of areas. But if I can say first, I think there are aspects of the bill that are very positive in terms of securing public confidence. The Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, I think, is important. The extent of the oversight arrangements that are in place, both through the Oversight board and through the regular two, three and five year five and seven year reviews, the involvement of the HMRC in terms of the way in which we conduct these things. I mean, all of these are designed to achieve public confidence, and I welcome anything.
And that is going to do that. And I think it can only be of assistance to the the new Commission to have the advice of all of these extremely efficient and well run organisations and the people who are also involved as victims and survivors as well, in looking at the way forward, there are some aspects of the bill which are necessarily going to require us to think about, you know, what the skills are that are necessary in relation to some of the roles. So the indication of the two directors, for instance, is something that, you know, we we wonder exactly how that relationship is going to evolve and what the role of the chief executive officer is in relation to that.
I mean, for what it's worth, I think the chief executive officers, on one view seems to have enormous responsibilities within this act. But I think if you think it through that the chief executive is really there to make sure that the conflict of interest issues are properly addressed and to resolve any difficulties that may arise between the two directors. But hopefully the two directors will be grown up. The chances of those issues arising will be minimized as a result. So I think when you read the bill, you've got to start thinking through, well, how will you operationalize this?
And I think, you know, we've been talking to the Nioh about that. There's still a way to go, I think, in relation to inquisitorial proceedings, which are also an important part of providing confidence to, to people. The we need to make sure that these are effective. I mean, I've had a number of meetings with people in various areas of government and supporting government, and the unanimous voice coming back to me is that public inquiries are very expensive, that they're they take a long time to put in place. They're not necessarily as focused as they should be.
And I think there are a lot of lessons in there for us in the way that we should approach inquisitorial proceedings. And my my own aspiration is that if we do this properly, that we might shine a light on how inquiries of this kind might be put in place in a more focused and efficient way, in order to ensure that people will feel more comfortable about having further public inquiries.
And that is going to do that. And I think it can only be of assistance to the the new Commission to have the advice of all of these extremely efficient and well run organisations and the people who are also involved as victims and survivors as well, in looking at the way forward, there are some aspects of the bill which are necessarily going to require us to think about, you know, what the skills are that are necessary in relation to some of the roles. So the indication of the two directors, for instance, is something that, you know, we we wonder exactly how that relationship is going to evolve and what the role of the chief executive officer is in relation to that.
I mean, for what it's worth, I think the chief executive officers, on one view seems to have enormous responsibilities within this act. But I think if you think it through that the chief executive is really there to make sure that the conflict of interest issues are properly addressed and to resolve any difficulties that may arise between the two directors. But hopefully the two directors will be grown up. The chances of those issues arising will be minimized as a result. So I think when you read the bill, you've got to start thinking through, well, how will you operationalize this?
And I think, you know, we've been talking to the Nioh about that. There's still a way to go, I think, in relation to inquisitorial proceedings, which are also an important part of providing confidence to, to people. The we need to make sure that these are effective. I mean, I've had a number of meetings with people in various areas of government and supporting government, and the unanimous voice coming back to me is that public inquiries are very expensive, that they're they take a long time to put in place. They're not necessarily as focused as they should be.
And I think there are a lot of lessons in there for us in the way that we should approach inquisitorial proceedings. And my my own aspiration is that if we do this properly, that we might shine a light on how inquiries of this kind might be put in place in a more focused and efficient way, in order to ensure that people will feel more comfortable about having further public inquiries.
10:35
10:35
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
10:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I suppose two things. First is that there's no reason at all why it should lead to a different result from the result that would be generated by the Public Prosecution Service. And secondly, there's no doubt that some people think that it might. So I think you've got to take both of those things on board and recognise them as realities. Whatever way this works. There's a long history of litigation in Northern Ireland, in a way, in relation to judicial review of decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. The Bloody Sunday case is an example of, I think, 2 or 3 court hearings before eventually the case was prosecuted and then the soldier was acquitted.
So there is a judicial oversight no matter which way you go. But the choice as to how one approaches that particular issue is one which is needs to be. It needs to be looked at, I think. I mean, you know, I'm a mere judge or was a mere judge until they told me that I was over five years retired and therefore wasn't capable of being one anymore. But I this is a this is a classically political issue.
And I think I'm going to dance my way off that particular podium. Thank you very much.
So there is a judicial oversight no matter which way you go. But the choice as to how one approaches that particular issue is one which is needs to be. It needs to be looked at, I think. I mean, you know, I'm a mere judge or was a mere judge until they told me that I was over five years retired and therefore wasn't capable of being one anymore. But I this is a this is a classically political issue.
And I think I'm going to dance my way off that particular podium. Thank you very much.
10:37
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, in the end it depends with with all of these things. I mean, there may be issues on which each side takes a different view. But, you know, as I've said before, if they're grown up about it, then they'll understand the bigger issue here, which is what we can do for victims and families. And, you know, there may be some element of give and take that some things what one side gives and one the other side gives in another.
I mean, that's well beyond my pay grade, Paul, I'm afraid.
I mean, that's well beyond my pay grade, Paul, I'm afraid.
10:38
10:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I don't know whether it's a but I mean, I do know that it shouldn't make a difference, but that it will be perceived by some people as potentially making a difference, and that those are the factors that people will need to take into account in deciding whether or not it should be retained, and no doubt will be the subject of discussion in another place, I suspect. Yeah. Thank you.
10:38
10:38
10:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I mean, one's got to remember that in some of these cases there are. Well, in a lot of these cases, there are materials which are available from previous investigations and in some cases, even from previous court hearings about what has happened. So if you have cases in which there is already been some form of inquiry statement taking, setting out a position, you need to think very hard about whether and to what extent there is value in going back 30, 40, 50 years later to those who may have been involved in making those statements or making those contributions.
And it seems to us that the duplication provisions are there to make sure that this only happens if it's necessary to do it, because you have the material from the from the earlier investigations, which you're able to make judgments about. So if you've got a detailed statements from a previous investigation, those are the starting point on which you proceed. And you would have to have a reason for going back to any of the people involved.
If you were conducting either a criminal or another investigation.
And it seems to us that the duplication provisions are there to make sure that this only happens if it's necessary to do it, because you have the material from the from the earlier investigations, which you're able to make judgments about. So if you've got a detailed statements from a previous investigation, those are the starting point on which you proceed. And you would have to have a reason for going back to any of the people involved.
If you were conducting either a criminal or another investigation.
10:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So that's actually a very, very interesting answer because obviously, a lot of controversy is around people being newly questioned. And, you know, many people would say that, you know, even at the time, recollections may vary, which is why debriefing takes place almost immediately. So really, I suppose that leads to the question of is there any value now, 50 years later, to interviewing people on on what happened at the time? Because you'd be well aware that what I'm driving at, is there any value in that?
10:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I mean, I think the point I've made is that I can't see that there's value. If, in fact, you've already got an account of what people say happened at the time, where there may be value is if you find that somebody who is identified as a central player hasn't made a statement or for some reason or other wasn't interviewed or something of that kind, and you might want to go back at that stage. But of course, every statement, as it's clear from, you know, the umpteen court cases which have occurred in this area, I mean, every account that somebody gives, particularly the longer the period of time about which they're speaking, needs to be seen as being vulnerable in terms of its reliability and its accuracy, and that in this sort of territory where you're looking back over many, many years at events which, you know, some of which may be memorable, some of which may have passed in a cloud of other experiences that people have had during that time, means that you really have to be quite careful about thinking that there's a need to engage further.
But as I say, there will be cases where potentially something, some new material has emerged, which maybe is relevant in terms of following up with somebody who maybe wasn't questioned at the time to see if they have anything to contribute. But all of that, it seems to me, is perfectly consistent with the need to ensure that you produce an efficient and expeditious report, which will comply with any legal obligation nationally or internationally.
But as I say, there will be cases where potentially something, some new material has emerged, which maybe is relevant in terms of following up with somebody who maybe wasn't questioned at the time to see if they have anything to contribute. But all of that, it seems to me, is perfectly consistent with the need to ensure that you produce an efficient and expeditious report, which will comply with any legal obligation nationally or internationally.
10:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank you for that answer, because I think there's I think there's some very, very important aspects to what you've just said. They're worth taking into account. Secretary of state retains significant powers to prevent disclosure of sensitive information. Are there any safeguards you would like to see included in the bill to maximize public confidence that national security considerations are not applied more broadly than necessary?
10:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I welcome the fact that the Commission has been given the power to appeal against the Secretary of State's determination in relation to national security, and I think that that is an important part, and it's important that the commission, the new commission, should be seen to be exercising that role. So I'm I think for me, that is the the biggest plus for the commission that it can be seen to be the because the Commission will be in a good place to make a judgement. It will have seen the material. It will form the view. It will understand as in terms of the dialogue, it will have with the Secretary of State what the national security issues are, and it will understand what the public interest issues are on the other side.
So I think it's helpful for from everybody's point of view that the Commission should be a party to those proceedings and should be in a position to initiate them if it considers it appropriate.
So I think it's helpful for from everybody's point of view that the Commission should be a party to those proceedings and should be in a position to initiate them if it considers it appropriate.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, I imagine that that is entirely possible. I wouldn't like to speculate on exactly what the circumstances might be that would lead to that. But I think the part we wanted the power for a reason, and the reason was that we thought that there may be circumstances in which we would take a different view, and it was important for us to be in a position to demonstrate that , rather than coming in, as it were, the back door behind the a requesting individual who would have had to initiate things that. This way we can demonstrate our.
Are view of what the public interest requires in a particular circumstance.
Are view of what the public interest requires in a particular circumstance.
10:45
10:45
Tonia Antoniazzi
-
-
Tonia Antoniazzi
Okay. I introduced an amendment to the troubles bill on behalf of the committee, which was to remove from organisations such as the PSNI the costly administrative burden of categorising the sensitivity of evidence that it passes to the Commission. What impact do you think that that would have on your organisation's work and give you a break, Sir? Declan? I'll ask Amanda. Thank you.
10:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
At the minute we have processes in place whereby we receive information from not just the PSNI but other other holders of information, and that is marked as secret or sensitive. Sorry. On our systems. I, I think putting the onus on the Commission is obviously an additional burden that that we don't currently have. I think there is a degree where sometimes it's very obvious if a piece of information is sensitive, but other times there's the aggregate, there's the collective piece that only the originators from that material would know. So I think we would have to work in partnership with those agencies to make sure that we are all satisfied that the information is tagged appropriately.
10:48
10:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Absolutely. And we did a piece of work towards the end of last year in terms of identifying the investigative model that would suffice for the Commission to deliver on its responsibilities. And that went through a rigorous scrutiny panel, an independent panel that was brought forward by the the NIO in January of this year. And that panel concluded that the commission needed around nine syndicates. And we talk about syndicates. There are 58 investigators and support staff in a syndicate. However, they also concluded that if we were able to utilise artificial intelligence, that we could reduce that to seven.
So that's about just over 400 investigative and investigative support staff. When we talk about support staff, we're talking about intelligence officers, analysts, the MIR that are taking in that information. And our case support the front door, if you like. At the minute, we have 189 operational staff in those roles. So we have less than half of what the commission needs in order to fulfil its function. So absolutely, we need the resources to be able to do it. And if we if if it's helpful to resource other parts of the system, that would reduce the impact on us in order to get the information and archive it in the first instance, that would be helpful.
So that's about just over 400 investigative and investigative support staff. When we talk about support staff, we're talking about intelligence officers, analysts, the MIR that are taking in that information. And our case support the front door, if you like. At the minute, we have 189 operational staff in those roles. So we have less than half of what the commission needs in order to fulfil its function. So absolutely, we need the resources to be able to do it. And if we if if it's helpful to resource other parts of the system, that would reduce the impact on us in order to get the information and archive it in the first instance, that would be helpful.
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I always think it's useful for the originator of the information to mark that information as sensitive or non-sensitive, because they know where that information has come from. And, you know, we have the keys to the castle, as John put it, but we don't necessarily have a blueprint. We don't know where that information is held. We don't know where it's come from. And it has been very challenging to work in that arena. So I, I would welcome as much assistance that the commission could get at the front end as possible.
10:53
10:53
10:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Please do. One of the things that has been, you know, we hope might be a bit better is that we've had one case, as you know, which is reported, and it's spent two months in the Secretary of State's office for security checking. The second case has just come out last Friday, and it has spent two months in the Secretary of State's office for security checking. My understanding is that part of that is finding out from the various agencies what the national security issues may be in relation to these cases, and if the agencies don't respond as quickly as they might do that, that leaves the Secretary of State, as it were, having to utilise the full 60 day period that they provision provides.
So I suppose my my qualification to all of this is whatever we do, I would like to see something that ensured that, you know, the people who need to, to understand and explain what the national security issue is, do so expeditiously, because that is, is what's keeping us from publishing.
So I suppose my my qualification to all of this is whatever we do, I would like to see something that ensured that, you know, the people who need to, to understand and explain what the national security issue is, do so expeditiously, because that is, is what's keeping us from publishing.
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
Simon Hoare
-
-
Simon Hoare
I thank you. My apologies for being late. So, Declan, you referenced in answer to Sir Alex question about national security and the powers given to you to appeal a decision by the Secretary of State. I think we all realise that praying in aid, national security, with that sort of very knowing nod of the head and sagacious look on the face, has been used quite often to sort of effectively say, we don't really want this in the public domain because it may cause embarrassment or discomfort, etc. it's nothing to do with national security. It's more to do with personal embarrassment.
Is it your hope that, given the fact that you now have a right to appeal, a determination by the Secretary of State that might encourage both the Secretary of State and those who advise him or her to be somewhat judicious in praying national security in aid, knowing full well that it could be appealed, and the spotlight placed more forensically upon the reason.
Is it your hope that, given the fact that you now have a right to appeal, a determination by the Secretary of State that might encourage both the Secretary of State and those who advise him or her to be somewhat judicious in praying national security in aid, knowing full well that it could be appealed, and the spotlight placed more forensically upon the reason.
11:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I agree with that, because, you know, the advantage that we have is that we will see the full picture against which the national security issue is sought. And therefore, if it appears to us that there was any kind of misuse for the type of purpose that you've suggested, that is at the very least, that is something that we would have to take to a judicial tribunal to examine. So I agree that that, you know, as with all of these things, they you don't have to actually use the statute as long as you have the backing of it behind you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
11:01
Simon Hoare
-
-
Simon Hoare
So do you think one of the byproducts of that may be that it should give confidence to those who've been suspicious of the process, that the state will continue just to find an updated way of, as they would see it, covering up certain things, that they can have greater faith in the process, knowing full well that a a praying in aid of national security does have the capability of having an intense scrutiny for the justifications. In so doing.
11:02
11:03
11:03
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
Okay. Well, before okay. Before I ask you about Peter May, which I'm due to ask you about, can I ask you another quick question? If the legislation goes through in its current form, broadly, we'll end up with two parallel systems. We'll have the Legacy Commission , and we'll have the historical coronial system. With regard to our already open inquests, what's your view of those two parallel systems coexisting? Is it sensible?
11:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I suppose you know, I, I have a personal affiliation with the inquest system, since I actually set up the inquest plan and it was travelling along quite nicely until people came along and mucked it about and they. I think the important thing in terms of the investigative process and the inquisitorial process is I think we need to get the investigative and inquisitorial processes much more in line with each other, so that we have a very efficient investigation process. Why don't we take some of that process into the inquisitorial regime and ensure that we start every case by looking at and conducting an investigation, so that you can then do what we want to do, which is to focus the hearings on the thing that actually matters.
And I think that's where we have the opportunity as an inquisitorial proceeding to take a view which is different from the the approach that generally has been taken in public inquiries in order to make this work as being an efficient, cost effective, focused way of producing outcomes so that the bits that we establish through the investigation wouldn't need further investigation than any open hearing. That would simply be a given, and you would go on to the things that really need to be examined. So, and that would mean that you're also aligning the investigation process under the the commission, largely with the inquisitorial proceeding as well.
And the inquisitorial proceeding would have the add on of the hearing in relation to the things that remained.
And I think that's where we have the opportunity as an inquisitorial proceeding to take a view which is different from the the approach that generally has been taken in public inquiries in order to make this work as being an efficient, cost effective, focused way of producing outcomes so that the bits that we establish through the investigation wouldn't need further investigation than any open hearing. That would simply be a given, and you would go on to the things that really need to be examined. So, and that would mean that you're also aligning the investigation process under the the commission, largely with the inquisitorial proceeding as well.
And the inquisitorial proceeding would have the add on of the hearing in relation to the things that remained.
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:19
11:19
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Ask Ronnie to take the question. Thank you sir. Declan. Significant progress has been made since the last time we reported to the committee. There are only three of the. recommendations that are still active and in progress. The remainder have been implemented and we continue to monitor that implementation. It might be helpful to the committee, just to give a flavour of some of the. structural and governance changes that have taken place over the past number of months. So, you know, one of the key areas I think that Peter identified was around finance. So we've now instigated a finance committee with an independent chair looking after that, we've strengthened our governance relations with the.
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Now in place that's. overseeing the work of the commission in terms of our corporate services, for example, that engagement with the NIO is now much more regular than it would have been in the past. We've improved. communications with our staff now. I think I'd be the first to recognise there's still more to do in that area, but I think you know that that is much more positive now than it than it would have been.
We have formal industrial.
We have formal industrial.
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I know you're particularly interested in those recommendations that we haven't yet fully delivered. And I want to assure the committee that work is actively in progress in each of those recommendations. So works underway, for example, to clarify the respective rules of land management and the corporate centre, which is. recommendation for. And that's a detailed piece of work. We have a project lead who's taking that forward, and we're working to achieve that in the next 3 to 6 months or thereabouts. In terms of the. development of a formal lessons learned project, which is. recommendation 18. Again, we're advancing there and our senior.
leadership team has agreed that a structured exercise will be. undertaken in that.
leadership team has agreed that a structured exercise will be. undertaken in that.
11:27
11:27
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Once we have a sufficient number of cases that have reached the reporting, the reporting stage. So that's very much work in progress. And then the final recommendation that we're still working on is. recommendation 11, which goes to the heart of our awareness and understanding of the budgeting process. Now, I think we've come a long way here in that we now have a much better. understanding than we did a year ago in terms of Amy and the. implications of me, but we're still working at that aspect of it in terms of building in the headroom for future budgets, and that will be a work in progress moving forward.
So in summary, I think. overall significant progress has been made in terms of.
So in summary, I think. overall significant progress has been made in terms of.
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Working closely with with the NIO at our last meeting in October, the oversight group agreed that the remaining actions is surgical and is indicated, should be treated as business as usual and are now being monitored under the sponsorship. arrangements that I mentioned. As part of our restructured and strengthened governance processes. So I think that is positive. I think it was a vote of confidence from the Department that we are.
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Brings with it assurance some of the cultural things in terms of the cultural things we are working with our staff and with our trade union partner. So we have undertaken recently a pulse survey amongst our staff, which has been. encouraging but challenging at the same time. So I think what the pulse survey tells us is that we have a staff who are very committed, who are very focused, who are very determined to deliver the business of of the organisation. But they still have some concerns around internal communication. They still have some concerns around the cohesion of leadership, and we're working at those things.
So in terms of some of the cultural stuff we have, we have a consultant that we brought in who's working with the senior. leadership team and has had a number of sessions with us as a team, and I think that has helped to bond the team and, you know, has been encouraging in that sense. So we still have a number of sessions to go, but those are .
So in terms of some of the cultural stuff we have, we have a consultant that we brought in who's working with the senior. leadership team and has had a number of sessions with us as a team, and I think that has helped to bond the team and, you know, has been encouraging in that sense. So we still have a number of sessions to go, but those are .
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Have a specific contact? What is their role as well? Well, I think different people in the commission with different. responsibilities engage with different people in the department. In terms of my role, I'm working closely with the chief operating officer and her team. So when I talk about the new sponsorship.
11:35
11:35
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Those arrangements, that committee is chaired by the chief operating officer. So I will attend that along with my senior colleagues, and she will attend with with her senior colleagues. But there are a range of. interactions on a day and daily basis with different people within the department. But through .
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So we have a current underspend. Now that can be. explained in that just over. 7.5 million of that is in relation to lease accounting arrangements. So we're still in discussions with Treasury around that amount amount of money. So our underspend is probably around 6 million for the life span of the commission. But in terms of our actual .
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
You'll get the result of your business case for the more funding? Well, we've been we submitted the business case in the summer of this year. We're still actively engaging with Treasury officials. They've asked a number of questions, which we and the NIO have obviously been been answering. We are hopeful that it won't be too much longer until we get the outcome of the .
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And how much do you think you're going to need? Is that the. 60 million that's that's in relation to the, the, the business case that we have submitted. So we've put forward a business case to Treasury seeking 628 million. Now that includes the. 230 watering. That includes the. 232 that we that we currently that we currently have. And it also includes the cost of the. inquisitorial proceedings that Sir Declan referred to referred to earlier. So we're awaiting the outcome of that. That business case will allow us to scale up in terms of our staffing. Amanda mentioned earlier that we are we're significantly understaffed for the work that we're currently doing.
So we do need to scale that up so that the business case will, if we're successful in that, provide the funding to allow us to start scaling up to the the seven .
So we do need to scale that up so that the business case will, if we're successful in that, provide the funding to allow us to start scaling up to the the seven .
11:43
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It doesn't get approved or contingency plans? Well, we're working at that. We we know what our budget will be next year, for example, as part of the spending review. So we are working through the detail of that in terms of what that will enable us to do in the year to come. We know that we have somewhere in the region of. 150 to 160 million still left of the 232.
So we're able to project. But but the. implication for us in terms of. delivering would be very significant if we're not.
So we're able to project. But but the. implication for us in terms of. delivering would be very significant if we're not.
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We're dealing with. 293 deaths and. 310 people who've come to us. We have less than 200 investigators. The cases include cases like Guildford, which has probably six, seven, eight different . events other than the bomb that went off in Guildford that have to be. investigated as part of dealing with that, the. M62 bomb, the 18 people who were killed at.
11:46
11:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean trying to deal with those. cases with these sorts of resources is simply not possible. And, you know, we need to impress upon those who are making these decisions that in the event, because the question you ask is what happens if in the event that we end up in a position where we can't deal with these cases, there is going to be a shedload of people looking for public.
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Among them veterans who will , veterans, families who will find that they're not being given the truth about what happened. And I just can't see, you know, they, they, they, they, they, the adverse impact of us not being able to, to have a workable basis for dealing with all of these cases, including these cases that are very resource heavy, like those that I've .
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are going to get a three figure numbers of cases coming through from that alone, never mind the the confidence that will come from the fact that the Bill has gone through, because one can't. underestimate the effect that the controversy over whether or not the bill is actually going to be there has had. But if if these legislative provisions on both sides of the border come into play, this is going to be the. opportunity .
11:50
11:51
11:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And we're looking at a time frame now, which is actually a month or so short of seven and a half years. So we're really talking about trying to produce what are close to. 80 to 90 outcomes per year on average, and that will be higher, you know, in a couple of years time than it is at the moment. Our target at the moment is that by the time the new commission comes into play, which we estimate might be something like, we've taken a date of. the 1st of September as a date to work to that.
By that stage, we want to ensure that there is a report a week available to come out, which means that given the time it spends in. representations that we want to and we've talked this through with our all parts of the. organisation that we will want by certainly the first quarter of next year to have a flow of,
By that stage, we want to ensure that there is a report a week available to come out, which means that given the time it spends in. representations that we want to and we've talked this through with our all parts of the. organisation that we will want by certainly the first quarter of next year to have a flow of,
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Don't we? We just need to get them off the Secretary of State's desk. We're actually making allowance. I mean, it's not necessarily the Second State's fault. Depends who else is doing what they need to do. But given what's I mean, taking you know, I think if you've got if you've got an issue which is taking time, then face up to it and then see what you can do to, to get the outcome you want. So the reason that we want to make sure that we get this flow of cases going through by the first quarter of next year, is that when you're looking at coming out the far side in terms of the publication of the report, it's going to be, you know, the summer before those will come out.
And we want to create a flow so that the new commission coming in has the confidence of this, this line of cases waiting to come through, so that they will then build further. confidence in the public, the public .
And we want to create a flow so that the new commission coming in has the confidence of this, this line of cases waiting to come through, so that they will then build further. confidence in the public, the public .
11:55
11:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Necessarily. prioritize the simpler ones simply to get it out? It's not. I mean, that's the thing that I don't think we can do, because we have a duty to the people in the complex cases as well to ensure that we. recognize their interests. So we can't just park, you know, these bigger cases and say, sorry, you know, and if we were to park them, we would have to do that in a very formal way, which would be by. engaging with the the request, requesting. individuals and others who are interested in this sphere. Because I think a decision to park any of these cases would be of such.
magnitude that it would really have to involve .
magnitude that it would really have to involve .
11:57
11:57
11:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
When do you think we might see further reports released? The the the report that has actually now emerged from the Secretary of State, the second one to emerge from the Secretary of State's office involves some criticism. So we will have to go through a 30 day. representations period in relation to that. And then we have a 30 day period with the Re. So we will not get that report out before Christmas. I mean, I think we have to be honest about that. But we have three other reports which at the moment are with the Secretary of State.
In addition to those first two, we have a further case where I'm going to write the the executive summary tomorrow, and it will be with the Secretary of State over either just before the weekend or just after the weekend, so that the Secretary of State will be back to having four cases there. And there are three cases which the. investigators provided to us at the start of this month. So we have in total now nine cases where the. investigation has been complete. Got one report out. We've got one which has been through the Secretary of State's office.
We've got what will be four additional cases with the Secretary of State and three that we will now be working on with a view to ensuring that we have those with the Secretary of State early in the New Year. And, you know, we have we have been looking at the speeding up our. investigative processes with the help of our external advisory group, who are part part and parcel of, of where we work. And that's why, having looked at all of that, talked to Amanda and her colleagues that were confident that we, by the time of the new commission, will have the flow that we need to make sure that .
In addition to those first two, we have a further case where I'm going to write the the executive summary tomorrow, and it will be with the Secretary of State over either just before the weekend or just after the weekend, so that the Secretary of State will be back to having four cases there. And there are three cases which the. investigators provided to us at the start of this month. So we have in total now nine cases where the. investigation has been complete. Got one report out. We've got one which has been through the Secretary of State's office.
We've got what will be four additional cases with the Secretary of State and three that we will now be working on with a view to ensuring that we have those with the Secretary of State early in the New Year. And, you know, we have we have been looking at the speeding up our. investigative processes with the help of our external advisory group, who are part part and parcel of, of where we work. And that's why, having looked at all of that, talked to Amanda and her colleagues that were confident that we, by the time of the new commission, will have the flow that we need to make sure that .
12:01
12:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You getting about the commission's work, and. particularly in line with that first report? Well, can I say first that for me, I mean, I. remember all about that case because I went with the Keith Surtees and Fleur Havlin to speak to Roger before he died. And it was a very, very moving occasion and has been captured really by his sister Anne in her personal statement, which is extraordinary. I mean, and I've always had huge respect for her. She was a young barrister in Northern Ireland for about 6 or 7 years, and before she she moved to France and is, you know, a hugely impressive person, I think, in in the broad impact, I think, in Northern Ireland is that people were taken aback by.
And statement in particular because of how.
And statement in particular because of how.
12:04
12:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, for requesting. individuals what it means for them to actually go through a process where, you know, they're told about something that they hadn't anticipated, it wasn't what they thought had happened. And I do think that. That it has been. impactful in terms of helping us to get across the proposition that that's what we're there for. We're .
12:05
Chris Bloore
-
-
Chris Bloore
There to help people who need to have that kind of experience. Just on that, you're absolutely right. The personal statement in response to the meeting and the report itself was was very encouraging and clear. It made the report had made a huge difference to the family. And as you mentioned, Roger passed away sadly, the year before. I think that the question I was asking is just looking at some of the feedback from some of the. families of other cases that are perhaps coming up. I think there were questions raised about whether new information was being and discovered by the Commission, by the reports, and there was a concern that perhaps it was simply existing information was being.
rereviewed and not new lines of .
rereviewed and not new lines of .
12:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Investigation taken. So do you do you reject reject that sort of. It would be, you know, I can't reject it completely. There are some cases where it will not be possible to get any material, new information. We have to be clear about that. But we've also got to understand that part of the reason for doing this is that these are families who, who, who don't believe that there has been an adequate attempt to find the truth in relation to what happened to their loved one in cases, and they're possibly in some ways, you know, very hard cases in cases where we are not able to find anything.
significantly new, it is just as important for those people to walk away knowing that every stone has been looked at and everything has been done in order to get such information as there was. We don't pretend to people that we always find the truth of what happened. What we do indicate is that we will take every possible step to try to do that, and as long as people walk away from that, it gives them the opportunity then to I'm not saying move on, but at least to think about the future as well and feel that they have done everything that they .
significantly new, it is just as important for those people to walk away knowing that every stone has been looked at and everything has been done in order to get such information as there was. We don't pretend to people that we always find the truth of what happened. What we do indicate is that we will take every possible step to try to do that, and as long as people walk away from that, it gives them the opportunity then to I'm not saying move on, but at least to think about the future as well and feel that they have done everything that they .
12:08
Chris Bloore
-
-
Chris Bloore
Can to deal with the issues of the past. Thank you, sir. And I have to say was my question is sort of trying to dig deep on this. I completely share your perspective on this. And the response from the families were was. revelatory in terms of almost closure, I think was the the feeling that I got from reading the statements. My last question just I'm from the West Midlands. I represent a seat just south of Birmingham. And the Birmingham bombings. Pub bombings was a huge part of our collective psyche. And the question I was asking about in terms of confidence of the Commission and moving forward, is you will undoubtedly know that a lot of the people.
campaigning for an inquiry into what happened, a public inquiry, and I'll put on record. I have previously signed support for such an inquiry. They do not seem convinced yet that the Commission is the direction of travel, that they should be going to try and find what happened in that fateful night in those pubs. With this report coming out in September and with more coming out where you said they've perhaps been challenging of the state's role and the Secretary of State and criticism included, how do I go back to the people that I represent in my constituency who were impacted by that bombing and say, listen, read this report.
This is the way forward. This is how we get .
campaigning for an inquiry into what happened, a public inquiry, and I'll put on record. I have previously signed support for such an inquiry. They do not seem convinced yet that the Commission is the direction of travel, that they should be going to try and find what happened in that fateful night in those pubs. With this report coming out in September and with more coming out where you said they've perhaps been challenging of the state's role and the Secretary of State and criticism included, how do I go back to the people that I represent in my constituency who were impacted by that bombing and say, listen, read this report.
This is the way forward. This is how we get .
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Answers for something that now has been going on, you know, half, half a century. Yeah. I mean, I think you've got to start off. recognising that the people that you're talking about feel that they have been shabbily treated in the past, and therefore their. confidence in. anybody which is presented by government as a way of doing these things. If it doesn't meet, if you like, the. expectation that they've given themselves of a public inquiry is always going to be problematic. Are, are I mean, I have always taken the view that, you know, as we produce.
outcomes And I think it's it's not enough to say what you're going to do. It is important that you do what you say and that people can see that you're doing what you say, and that people can see that there are those who've gained confidence as a result of it. In terms of the Birmingham and the work that we're doing in some of the cases that I've mentioned are all really part and parcel of that terrorist campaign in.
outcomes And I think it's it's not enough to say what you're going to do. It is important that you do what you say and that people can see that you're doing what you say, and that people can see that there are those who've gained confidence as a result of it. In terms of the Birmingham and the work that we're doing in some of the cases that I've mentioned are all really part and parcel of that terrorist campaign in.
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And it was a terrorist campaign that was. characterised by a number of bombing incidents. And that raises the question as to who made them and whether or not they're connected. And you know, what steps can be taken to follow those up in terms of. Working that through. So to some extent, you know, we've got some of these cases and you can see why there might be advantage to everybody.
From the more cases we have, the more information we will have, and therefore the better position we'll be in in order to . produce outcomes that may .
From the more cases we have, the more information we will have, and therefore the better position we'll be in in order to . produce outcomes that may .
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, and explain what we're doing. I think our report writing is, has got to be part of an iterative. process where there's an. engagement in a personal basis with families. Now, sometimes that's engagement can be with people who've been with them on the journey, such as their case support workers or their investigators. And it's important to understand and appreciate that because somebody new coming in doesn't.
necessarily have the same confidence because of the, you know, the relationship has been built up with others. But I think if I get to the core of your .
necessarily have the same confidence because of the, you know, the relationship has been built up with others. But I think if I get to the core of your .
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Actually more extensive than the actual published report at the end? It's it may be . It may include some details that are not included within the report. But we do have to be careful. I mean, we don't, for instance, share any sensitive information of any kind. And, you know, we don't want to create the impression that there's, you know, unless there's and sometimes there is a good reason for not disclosing some things publicly.
People might be nervous about the disclosure of certain aspects of the.
People might be nervous about the disclosure of certain aspects of the.
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which we, they, they, they requesting. individual would have been told about anyway, because as we go along, information is disclosed to the requesting individual so that this doesn't come to them as just suddenly out of the blue, here is the answer. There will have been a process of. engaging and explaining where the investigation is going to, and how things have started to emerge, and ensuring that by the .
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Therefore, this is one of the. criticisms of of the Icrier. Yeah. And we we recognize the importance of that. I mean, we we recognize it in two ways. One, that you have to be. extraordinarily careful about people who might live in areas where association with the report could be a problem. And, and therefore, jigsaw. identification is something that we have to be very careful about, never mind just not including the name in the report. But, you know, we need to tailor the. reports to what are the needs of families. We've got to be family centered.
That's what this. organization is all about. And therefore where the. publication of some material is a problem for families, we .
That's what this. organization is all about. And therefore where the. publication of some material is a problem for families, we .
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Something that they may be very, very afraid of. Yeah. And we're conscious, I mean, obviously, Sandra Peake has been quite vocal in this. And I've explained to her, you know, and others have within the. organisation have explained that the way in which the report is written has got to be. respectful of what the needs of the families are. I mean, in some cases, you actually need to be careful because there's a section four issue as it is under this act. But even where there isn't a section four issue, we've got to be careful of. respecting what the impact is upon the family, even if there's no risk at all attached to it.
The fact that somebody may be nervous about the publication of some detail or or significant parts of the detail,
The fact that somebody may be nervous about the publication of some detail or or significant parts of the detail,
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:09