Examination of Witnesses (Questions 860-879)
RT HON
PAUL MURPHY
MP, ANGELA SMITH
MP, MR MARK
SWEENEY AND
MR JOHN
CLARKE
9 MARCH 2005
Q860 Mr Beggs: Victims are presently
the responsibility of a minister. How do you persuade them that
the establishment of a Commissioner is not to downgrade their
concerns?
Mr Murphy: I think it should enhance
the position of victims because it is not instead of, it is as
well as, so you have a ministerial advocate for victims and survivors
but you also have someone who is now a Commissioner acting as
a person whose entire job is about being a champion for victims
but also, of course, although this depends a bit on the consultation,
on how that person will be administratively responsible for victims
issues as well. The mix between all those different things is
some of what the consultation is about, the relationship, for
example, between the Minister and Commissioner and how far is
the Commissioner a champion and advocate as well as running victims
issues. It is going out to consultation on what are quite difficult
areas because this is something quite new but we need to talk
to people about it. We have got commissioners in other fields,
we have got the Children's Commissioner in Northern Ireland, and
we have got various commissioners as a result of the implementation
of the Good Friday Agreement, but this is completely new and that
is why we need to talk to people about how they fit these different
roles in with a new system.
Q861 Mr Beggs: Why does it take the Commissioner
to do that when there is presently clear ministerial responsibility?
Mr Murphy: As I said earlier on,
I think it is fair to say that unless you specifically have a
minister whose sole job is to deal with victims then inevitably
it can only be part of a ministerial job in the same way we have
ministers who have responsibilities for children in Government
and there are Children's Commissioners who act as a very special
champion and advocate. The actual role and relationship between
ministers, commissioners and administrators is something we are
going to talk to people about over the next few months because
it is a very important area to examine.
Q862 Mr Beggs: Will victims be involved
in any way in selecting the Commissioner or at least contributing
to the personal and job specifications? What process will be used
to select the Commissioner?
Mr Murphy: I think that first
of all the idea of people who are involved in victims groups in
the consultation suggested that the method by which they could
be appointed is not a bad one. The actual method of appointment
I would guess is the method that is laid down at the moment.
Mr Sweeney: As the Secretary of
State says, the consultation is a vehicle for people to shape
the actual role. As to the job and person specification, I imagine,
particularly if the individual was to be involved in administering
or advising the administering of public funds, they would need
to be a public appointment, so they would need to go through the
usual procedures of an independent public appointments process
and that would be fully open. Criteria and a job and person specification
would be made available as part of the pack for that and that
would necessarily be informed by the results of the consultation
on what the Commissioner's role would be.
Q863 Mr Beggs: What assessment has been
made of the likely cost for this new post?
Mr Murphy: Between half a million
and one million pounds.
Mr Clarke: We are consulting upon
the actual functions as well.
Mr Murphy: We cannot give a precise
figure until we know exactly what the person is going to do, but
between half a million and one million pounds is a guestimate.
If we get very strong views coming back after consultation that
the Commissioner should do this or that, or not do this or that,
that will determine the precise nature of the cost of it.
Reverend Smyth: That is true, but do
not forget you do not start to build a tower if you have not counted
the cost from where you have started.
Q864 Mr Beggs: How do you reconcile the
creation of another new body with responsibility for helping victims
and survivors with the aim of creating a one-stop shop for victims?
Is there not a danger that victims will see more and more money
being spent on bureaucracy and money not get getting to them?
Mr Murphy: I think as a result
of the consultation we will see if they really do feel that. I
hope they do not. I hope people see this as being something which
is very specially created in order to ensure that people's awareness
of victims issues is now much higher and they would see this person
as being someone who could really speak up for them as victims
groups throughout Northern Ireland. Clearly we will get some ideas
when we go through the consultation process whether my views are
accurate or not. At a very general level, I think the bulk of
victims groups would welcome the appointment of a Commissioner
but the detail will come later.
Q865 Mr Tynan: Minister, I am obviously
delighted you are here this evening. I would like to come to the
issue of victim support groups and the financial support that
is given to them. How much at present—2004-05—is the
total annual Government budget for support of victims?
Angela Smith: The total 2004-05
for support of victims comes from a wide range of sources. There
are programmes managed by the Office of the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister—OFMDFM—specific funding from
them of some £5 million. Looking across at the Victims Unit
programme funds, the Strategy Implementation funds and other funds,
including EU measures, those came to around £5 million in
2004-05. Around £28 million has been provided from all sources
up to March 2004.
Q866 Mr Tynan: That is not only from
Government sources?
Angela Smith: That is EU Peace
2 money that is included in that as well. There is a range of
sources.
Q867 Mr Tynan: I was looking purely for
the Government figures, not the EU figures.
Angela Smith: It is £1.3
million, so we are talking about just under £4 million.
Q868 Mr Tynan: I was in the Shankhill
with the Committee last week and one of the groups we visited
was staffed by courageous people, people who are doing a tremendous
job in order to assist victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland
and they find themselves in a situation where they do not have
the money or the money is drying up. From what they have said
to us, although they are greatly valued by the victims, they have
little security as regards funding and some of them rely heavily
on European funding which will dry up in the near future. Since
the problem of the victims is going to be with us for a considerable
period of time, would you not agree that support for those victims
groups has to be a major priority of the Government? If they are
going to lose European funding I do not think they can be left
in isolation, they have to have that support. Would you agree
with that?
Angela Smith: I think it is one
of the things that the Commissioner has to look at in terms of
funding of groups. There is a core funding scheme for the groups
that has been extended to 2005-06 and the consultation paper's
proposal is to set up a three year plan for victims groups in
each Health Board area. If those plans are rolled through year
on year we need those plans to inform future funding decisions.
A lot of groups provide services that in some cases the Boards
or trusts buy into, counselling services for example, so some
of the groups get funded in that way but there is a whole range
of different avenues of funding for groups. I have not got the
figures for all the Government departments, that would be quite
complex to look at. I imagine that would be quite an early task
for the Commissioner to look at those funding issues.
Mr Tynan: Obviously the groups we have
spoken to have concerns about the longer term funding because
there seems to be short-term funding and they go from crisis to
crisis every year. Obviously if the Commissioner is going to look
at that then that is something that would be worthwhile as regards
the Commissioner's role. I am sure the groups would welcome that
if it means that at the end of the day they have security regarding
the long-term funding. Could I turn to another issue which is
the greatest number of casualties that occurred in the early 1970s
when support through criminal injuries compensation was much less
generous than it is at the present time. What has been done, if
anything, to redress the inequality in the help for victims who
missed out on what they would think was appropriate payment as
regards criminal injuries?
Q869 Mr Luke: Before you response to
that, can I reinforce that point because there is also the issue
about money moving from the ending of the Peace 2 programme and
the transition from Peace 2 to whatever replaces that. That was
a general worry about the funding.
Angela Smith: The number of groups
has increased enormously and the number of people accessing services
from groups has increased as well, so I think that is an ongoing
issue. As I was saying to Mr Tynan, if the Commissioner can look
at that issue fairly early on it can give some sense of security
to those groups so they can have some certainty in their future.
On the issue of disparity of treatment, we recognise that compensation
arrangements in the early years of Troubles led to awards being
made then which nowadays would be considered inadequate and that
was a grievance of a number of people I met. Some of the early
widows brought up children on their own in quite remarkable circumstances.
We talk about numbers of people but when you talk to individuals
about the circumstances they lived through at that time you can
understand their grievance on this issue. There is a lot of money
put in, £28 million, supporting the work with victims. This
includes support through the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund that
has been made to earlier victims to help alleviate difficult circumstances
they may have but it is not an issue that has been addressed in
terms of providing additional compensation at this stage.
Q870 Mr Tynan: Would the Commissioner
look at that? Would that be part of the Commissioner's work?
Angela Smith: It could well be
if as a result of the consultation that is one of the issues the
Commissioner is to look at. We are still consulting on exactly
what the remit of the Commissioner would be.
Mr Sweeney: You will probably
find, once the Commissioner is established and the Victims' and
Survivors' Forum has been established by the Commissioner, that
issues like that are certain to be raised and the Commissioner
will therefore have to consider them. The process of deciding
what he or she will consider will not stop with government at
all and that is part of the intention.
Mr Clarke: Let me say a little
bit extra in relation to the sustainability groups and the reassurance
about future funding. Part of the consultation paper which has
been mentioned to you relates to a three-year rolling plan to
be developed among all of the agencies, the victims' groups and
the statutory sector. The idea of that is to create a three-year
planning horizon in which people can start to operate and see
at least for some time ahead how service development is to be
carried forward with the involvement of the groups. Part of that
notion is to address the issue, which has been put to me in discussion
with victims groups, of insecurity in relation to the future.
Angela Smith: There is tension
between the groups themselves on this. There are groups that have
staff and administrative support. There are others that are volunteers
who do not receive core funding and the tension between those
two different types of groups is quite acute at some times. It
is quite a tall task to ask for the Commissioner to look at all
those issues. It has to be addressed in the round looking at all
the different types of groups that there are: those that provide
services, those that are befriending, those that have staff, those
that do not have staff. Some have professional staff that they
have trained up professionally for counselling.
Q871 Mr Tynan: I think it is important
that you recognise that because obviously the victims groups have
made it very clear that they are concerned about the short term
nature of the funding at the present time. If they had some security
then obviously they could do a far better job than they can do
at present, although they do a marvellous job.
Angela Smith: A three-year rolling
programme would benefit them enormously. Several victims and victims
groups have complained about the amount of money that is spent
on needs assessments and similar studies. The consultation paper
refers to several more studies being under way or proposed. How
much do you expect these various studies to cost and how can you
convince people that this will be money well spent?
Mr Murphy: I do not think it is
possible at this stage to put a figure on that. I do appreciate
that when the needs assessments are undertaken it seems to some
people that they could find a better use for that money, but it
is important to scope to see what the needs are. There needs to
be a more systematic and comprehensive method of assessing needs
so that we do not duplicate effort at any time and that is proposed
in the March 1 consultation paper, and again if we can look directly
at the services that are provided that would be a way to assess
the needs and the provision of services related to that. Sometimes
what has not been clear is the connection between the needs assessments
and the progress on the ground, so it seems as if it happens in
a vacuum. We are hoping that through the consultation paper we
can get views on this, that we can make connection in people's
minds so that they do not see it as some sort of isolated, separate
process.
Q872 Mr Tynan: I think the fact that
the consultation process is taking place gives an opportunity
for the groups who feel that needs assessments are taking up too
much time and too much money and are not directed in the right
direction to make their views known, so I am sure you will receive
considerable representation on that. The consultation paper on
that basis is to be welcomed. It is important to convince people
that this is not money being wasted; it is money being directed
at needs.
Angela Smith: We have to show
people the purpose of it and if we fail to do that they will complain
again, so it is key to show the purpose of the needs assessments.
Mr Clarke: The needs assessments
proposed in the paper emphasise the fact that the victims groups
will be involved in the process.
Q873 Reverend Smyth: If we could turn
away from money and look at the question of justice, you have
made a statement, Secretary of State, about the Serious Crime
Review Team. It is a little bit early but are you in a position
to report any progress on it?
Mr Murphy: Do you mean on the
policing of the past announcement that we made yesterday?
Q874 Reverend Smyth: That is right.
Mr Murphy: Not yet. It was only
announced yesterday. It has been with the Chief Constable's team
over the last number of months—I do not have the details
of that but I am sure we can provide you with them if necessary—but
so far as the announcement yesterday is concerned, we thought
it was necessary because of the 1,800 cases of murder which are
unsolved since 1969 to 1998. We did really want closure to come
for the families of the victims. The only way we can do that is
by investigating them. In some cases it may be that it will lead
to judicial proceedings; in others it may not. In others the family
may require something different, but the point is that in each
individual case there is closure about something which obviously
is of enormous importance to those individual families. We have
set aside, as you know, between £30 million and £32
million over six years to deal with this issue and there will
be a new review unit headed by a recently retired commander of
the Metropolitan Police, Dave Cox, plus officers who are both
serving and retired from the PSNI and other police forces of the
United Kingdom. The purpose of that, of course, is that there
will be a separate unit altogether from the police so that the
police can get on with policing what is happening now rather than
trying to police the past as well, and the complication both in
terms of resources and of manpower is enormous. That is why this
has been set up. We think that there is general support for this
particular development and we hope that it will, as I say, bring
closure for literally hundreds and hundreds of families in Northern
Ireland who have been affected by the Troubles over those years.
Q875 Reverend Smyth: Have you consulted
with the bereaved families about what they want to obtain from
such a review process?
Angela Smith: In all the work
we do, whether it is as the Victims Minister or any of the ministers
out and about in Northern Ireland, families tell us their views
on this one. I have met a number of families recently who feel
very aggrieved in that they do not feel their investigation has
been adequate. In some cases it is clear that we will not be able
to get to the perpetrators; it may not end in a conviction, but
the fact that people are trying to get evidence and information
for the families means a great deal to people.
Q876 Reverend Smyth: Is it more information
that they will be looking for, because often a crime takes place
and nobody comes back to tell folk what has happened, or are they
waiting for judgment?
Angela Smith: Different people
will be looking for different things. I have had some people say
they just want to know what happened; they do not care if it ever
goes to court. Others are saying that they are not looking for
revenge; they just want justice. It is not possible to say that
victims and survivors want something because everybody will react
differently, but there is a whole range of opinion. Most people
who have raised this with me want a case investigated further.
Q877 Reverend Smyth: You understand there
will be difficulty in bringing a summons to a conclusion, but
if there are cases which are successful in bringing perpetrators
to court how would you expect the legal system to deal with them?
For example, should an amnesty be made available or a form of
conditional release, as in the case of early releases under the
Belfast Agreement? We understand that there might be differences
between those cases which took place before the Belfast Agreement
and those subsequently. What way do you expect the court to deal
with them?
Mr Murphy: It will depend, of
course, on the individual case but as to whether the sentence
is different because of whether it was under the terms of the
Good Friday Agreement or not, at least there will have been a
proper prosecution and investigation into that case so that people
know what happened. I think very often that is all they want.
It could be that on the other hand it would go much further than
that. It will depend individually on the case.
Q878 Mr Tynan: Have you had any suggestions
from the bereaved families that some of them may not want the
prosecutions because they believe that it would mean that they
would have to relive a situation that they experienced in the
past? We have been told that many of the victims know who committed
the crime and they just want to move on. Have you had any indication
that that is the situation?
Mr Murphy: Operationally it is,
of course, a matter for the Chief Constable in all this, but obviously,
because of the nature of a lot of these cases, much of it will
depend upon the wishes of the family. No-one will want to drag
a family, perhaps if they are elderly as well, through a complicated
court process if they do not want it. Some would though. Some
want to see justice done because of the murder of their loved
one. Others would take a different view. We do have to look at
it on an individual basis as we go through, but one thing that
is certain is that unless we attempt this particular project there
will be many people in Northern Ireland who will regard themselves
as being let down.
Q879 Mr Campbell: I appreciate there
is a diversity of views amongst relatives, but on the issue of
those who want to see justice I would put forward the view that
they are going to be quite numerous. For those people whose relatives
were murdered prior to 1998 how would you reconcile their demand
for justice and what is likely to follow if there is new information
and the perpetrator is identified? How are you going to reconcile
their demands for justice and the inevitable outcome of that person
coming before the court with the conditions of the early release
scheme?
Mr Murphy: That issue is not a
new one. The issue was the same when the decision to have early
release was taken at the time of the Belfast Agreement. I think
it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to have different
procedures now from 1998 when the Agreement was signed, because
people who felt aggrieved by the points you make would obviously
still feel like that except that this is under a different dispensation.
In other words, the argument, the discussions, the debate about
those things occurred in 1998, not now. We cannot do things differently
now from how we treated people back in 1998.
| 
