To ask the Minister of Justice what are the implications for the justice system of legacy issues not being included in A Fresh Start.

Mr Ford

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 4, 7, 9 and 15 together. I am extremely disappointed that legacy issues were excluded from the recent political agreement. Whilst there is progress in certain areas, the failure to address or make a commitment to the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House Agreement leaves a major hole in how we address the issues of our past.

There are immediate implications, as well as potential long-term implications, for the justice system and the families of victims of Troubles-related deaths. Without the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU), the responsibility for carrying out legacy investigations remains with the existing bodies involved in this important work.

A key ingredient of the Stormont House Agreement's approach to dealing with the past was the £150 million promised over a five-year period to fund new legacy structures and arrangements. I met the Secretary of State last Monday on legacy matters. At the meeting, I raised a number of issues of concern, including the UK Government's obligations under the ECHR; the implications of non-agreement for victims; the financial implications of managing legacy issues without the new institutions; and funding for existing legacy institutions. The failure to agree to the establishment of the HIU means that significant burdens fall to my Department. Those legacy issues are much wider than the remit of my Department, and responsibility for dealing with them lies with the Executive and the Government. There is no "do nothing" solution. In the absence of political agreement on dealing with the past, it is crucial that existing structures are adequately funded to fill the gap. Without the necessary additional resources to address outstanding Troubles-related deaths, we will fail the families of victims and fail to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We will be potentially throwing away the best opportunity for a generation to resolve issues of dealing with our troubled past.

Mr A Maginness

I thank the Minister for a detailed reply, and I agree with much of what he said. The failure in the recent talks to agree on the HIU leaves a terrible gap in dealing with the past. Is the Minister telling the House that there is no additional funding coming to the PSNI to deal with legacy issues either from the Department or through it from the British Government? Is that the position, or can some of the moneys that were, at least, notionally committed by the British Government during the talks come forward to assist the PSNI, at least in the interim period?

Mr Ford

I thank Mr Maginness for that supplementary; he puts his finger on a significant issue. There is, at this point, no additional funding for the PSNI. There is, at this point, no additional funding for the Police Ombudsman. There is, at this point, no additional funding for legacy inquests. I have made the point strenuously to the Secretary of State, although it is not a matter solely for her, because it is an issue that also engages the Executive. Given that the Government were promising £150 million for legacy institutions, there are major questions about the responsibility that the Government have to deal with those issues in the absence of the legacy institutions. Certainly, there were to be no new institutions for inquests, and the police and the ombudsman have to carry out functions, including those that, at times, are court-ordered or are ordered by the DPP, in the absence of funding. It is simply not sustainable to expect them to deal with the past on the budget for the present. There will need to be an arrangement to find that funding if we are to meet the needs of the victims of the past.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat)

Mr Lyttle, your question has been answered: do you wish to ask a supplementary question?

Mr Lyttle

Yes, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his stark warning about the implications of failing to adequately deal with the past and, indeed, to fund the institutions that are required to do so. Can he provide any insight into where the blockage to the delivery of a comprehensive mechanism for legacy issues lies? Does he believe that the UK Government will honour their responsibility to adequately fund existing structures to ensure that victims and survivors get access to the information, justice and services that they deserve?

Mr Ford

I thank my colleague for that expansion of Mr Maginness's point. It is not easy to define where blockages currently sit. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I know that she has said that the money that was committed by the Treasury is still committed if legacy institutions are established. The challenge is that the work has to be done whether or not legacy institutions are established, and issues such as those that would be dealt with by inquests would be done without new institutions. I believe, therefore, that the commitment that was made by the Treasury on the back of the engagement with the Prime Minister a year ago shows that there was a recognition that the work had to be done. At the end of the day, the obligations under ECHR are obligations for the state party, even though they are carried out by devolved institutions, and it will be the UK Government who will answer in Strasbourg and in other international fora if they fail to provide the necessary resources.

Mr G Kelly

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I agree that doing nothing is not an option as far as victims and survivors are concerned. Does the Minister agree with me that the lack of disclosure, which I think he mentioned earlier, by various agencies of the British Government, including the PSNI, to families and, indeed, to inquests and other courts is a huge issue and that justice delayed, in some cases for a number of decades, is justice denied?

Mr Ford

I thank Mr Kelly for the question. I am not sure that he and I would necessarily have an identical view on issues of national security, but there are difficult issues that need to be worked through in that area. There is no doubt that there are a number of legacy inquests where there are not concerns about national security and it should be possible to make progress. I welcome the work being done by the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Weir to carry through the examination of the state of each potential inquest. The provision of additional resources at judicial level, including the provision of a High Court judge to take on the role of coroner in one complex inquest, the work, which I have already highlighted, being done by Judge Sherrard in another one and the examination of the whole package as one by a single judge in January will be very beneficial. However, there will be issues, and I will continue to engage on the issues of disclosure and how they are carried through in order to best meet the needs of families.