Speeches by Hanna.

“Many in this House believe in the rule of law and in the equality of every person in front of the law. Between 30,000 and 40,000 people were properly convicted of paramilitary offences, and 300,000 soldiers served under Operation Banner. Can the shadow Secretary of State outline how many of those have been in court?”

“Alyson, will you give us a view on disclosure, and on the review of the restrictive notices as they have been used in public inquiries and their application in the proposed inquisitorial mechanism? Do you think that they will boost confidence or do you have concerns about their role in the disclosure regime?”

“This is not related to disclosure, but while I have you here, can I ask whether you been able to engage with, or do you have views on, victims who have experienced a so-called punishment attack or other humiliation practice by paramilitaries, like tarring and feathering or kangaroo courts? Are you assured that there wi…”

“Several stakeholders have reiterated their concern that the national security veto power is maintained in the new regime, and that that risks seriously undermining confidence. Do you have a view on that, Joe?”

“The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners on the advice of relevant persons. Is that satisfactory? Do you agree with the calls for more independent governance and oversight? Do you think his duty to take advice and to say publicly who he has taken it from is sufficiently transparent?”

“I think that is what the witness is saying. She is providing suggestion and clarification.”

“I do not think that the statistics would bear that out, David. That is what I will say.”

“Should be investigated, and the pathways, too, with judicial proceedings.”

“On basic justice and after the Soldier F case, you said that you wanted to see fairness for all, but would you agree that that fairness means that everyone is equal before the law, and that no person who created victims, whether a state or a non-state actor, should be beyond the reach of the courts?”

“Do you agree that exposure of some of the levels of collusion would help to tackle some of that revisionism and to expose just how squalid and sectarian the Provisional IRA’s war was?”

“Will you be engaging with those veterans and asking them to participate in these structures?”

“David, you said you have been engaging with veterans. Will you be encouraging them to deal with these new bodies? And specifically, have you had any engagement with the British Army’s Military Reaction Force and the Force Research Unit?”

“Will you have proposals for how that might be addressed in the Bill?”

“Alyson, I will put to you the same question. Also, the Secretary of State has told us he expects the ICIR will want to check information with the Legacy Commission as part of that substantiation. Do you have any views on that? How would you like the Bill to deal with it?”

“I agree, but I suppose essentially what you are saying is that on the face of the Bill, this is an improvement and an encouragement, but some of the legal cases that are currently being fought would appear to go against the spirit of what is in the legislation.”

“I am going to ask each of you about the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval. I will start with you, Joe, and also add my warm wishes on your role—it is really important that such a constructive group as the one you represent will have a voice in this phase. Do you have any concerns about how information pro…”

“David, do you agree that the definition of sensitive information is too wide? Do you agree that it could prevent the disclosure of information that demonstrates, for example, co-operation between state and non-state actors, which would ultimately help to counter some of the narratives that you have expressed concerns a…”

“Because there wasn’t a serious investigation.”

“Therefore tiny numbers have been brought before the courts.”

“That’s wrong.”