The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr. Peter
Atkinson
Battle,
John
(Leeds, West)
(Lab)
†
Clapham,
Mr. Michael
(Barnsley, West and Penistone)
(Lab)
†
Cooper,
Rosie
(West Lancashire)
(Lab)
†
Donaldson,
Mr. Jeffrey M.
(Lagan Valley)
(DUP)
†
Durkan,
Mark
(Foyle)
(SDLP)
†
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
†
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
†
Fraser,
Mr. Christopher
(South-West Norfolk)
(Con)
†
Gerrard,
Mr. Neil
(Walthamstow)
(Lab)
†
Hanson,
Mr. David
(Minister of State, Northern Ireland
Office)†
Henderson,
Mr. Doug
(Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
(Lab)
†
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
†
Lidington,
Mr. David
(Aylesbury)
(Con)
†
Mactaggart,
Fiona
(Slough)
(Lab)
Mullin,
Mr. Chris
(Sunderland, South)
(Lab)
†
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
†
Pritchard,
Mark
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
†
Rosindell,
Andrew
(Romford)
(Con)
†
Wallace,
Mr. Ben
(Lancaster and Wyre)
(Con)
†
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Mr. Iain
(Hartlepool)
(Lab)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Seventh
Standing Committee on Delegated
Legislation
Wednesday 1
November
2006
[Mr.
Peter Atkinson in the
Chair]
Draft Victims and Survivors(Northern Ireland) Order
2.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David
Hanson): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern
Ireland) Order 2006.
I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson. I look forward to
today’s deliberations on this important order, a draft of which
was laid before the House on9 October and agreed by another
place last week. I hope that members of the Committee will welcome it
and give it their full
support.
The order is
brief, but I wish to outline its main provisions to the Committee. Its
intention is to establish the position of a commissioner for victims
and survivors for Northern Ireland. It provides for that person to be
jointly appointed soon, I hope, by the First Minister and Deputy First
Minister of the Assembly. That is, of course, dependent on the return
of devolution to Northern Ireland. As the Committee will know, all
parties that are represented here today are making strenuous efforts to
ensure that the return of the devolved Administration comes to
fruition.
I am hopeful
that, by 24 November, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian
Paisley) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness)
will take their positions as First Minister and Deputy First Minister
designate for the full return of devolution on 26 March. In that event,
if the order is approved today the appointment will fall to those
individuals. In the absence of devolution, which obviously is a
condition that I do not wish to see, the appointment will be one for my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State.
The principal
aim of the commissioner will be to promote the interests of victims and
survivors of the events in Northern Ireland during the past 30 and more
years. Indeed, we have recognised in the order that the potential for
victims will go back to perhaps as far as 1966. The person appointed
will have a range ofduties, which are set out under articles 6
and 7 of the order. Those prime responsibilities include the duty for
the commissioner to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of
services provided for victimsand survivors by both statutory
and voluntary
organisations.
The
commissioner will be under a duty to provide advice on matters
concerning the interests of victims and survivors to my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, in due course to the
Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Most importantly,
the commissioner will be required by law to ensure that the views of
victims and survivors are taken into account in the exercise of his or
her
functions. The commissioner will have a range of duties, but the prime
responsibility will be to arrange for research, compile information and
provide advice or information on any matter concerning the interests of
victims and
survivors.
Provision
is also made for the commissioner to make arrangements for a victims
and survivors forum. Bertha McDougall, the current Interim Commissioner
for Victims and Survivors, is currently examining that issue in detail.
I pay tribute to her work as interim commissioner over the past 12
months or so that she has been in post. I have worked with her since my
appointment with responsibility for victims matters in May of this
year, and I have found her to be very focused, supportive and committed
to victims and
survivors.
As members
of the Committee will understand, work in relation to victims and
survivors and in addressing their needs is widespread and
complex.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): As always, it is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson, and this
afternoon is no
exception.
Will the
Minister reflect on the anticipated size and composition of the forum
for victims? Will he also acknowledge how difficult it will be for some
victims and survivors to sit alongside those who might well have been
responsible or whose relatives might have been responsible for their
being in that position?
Mr.
Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson, for allowing
the hon. Lady to contribute to the debate in such away. She
takes a great interest in these matters. I am awaiting a full detailed
report from the interim commissioner, Bertha McDougall, on the
proposals for a forum. She is working them through at the moment and I
expect to receive them
shortly.
I entirely
accept the point made by the hon. Lady. It will be difficult for all
victims and survivors to look at how we move forward on the problems of
the last 30-odd years in Northern Ireland, without forgetting those
problems. Many horrendous events have occurred, but there are also many
opportunities for people to consider how we can make that move forward,
and the proposals that I expect shortly from the interim commissioner
will be important in helping to frame that consideration. I would
rather wait until I receive her report in full and hear the composition
of the potential forum, because the issues are complex and sensitive.
Nevertheless, I can undertake to the hon. Lady that I want individuals
in Northern Ireland to have an opportunity to respond to the
commissioner’s proposals, because there is understandably still
a lot of pain in many people’s lives, which needs to be
recognised. We need the sensitivity to deal with that constructively
and that is both the commissioner’s purpose and the purpose of
the order.
As I said,
work in relation to victims and survivors is very complex. I expect
that the commissioner will have a number of functions. One will be as a
strong voice to reflect the concerns of those who have suffered during
the troubles in Northern Ireland—to the Executive, to the
Northern Ireland Office and to the Secretary of State. The
commissioner’s work should inform the future direction of policy
on victims and survivors,and the commissioner should work
strongly with Government to ensure that there is a proper approach.
The
order provides that the detailed work of the commissioner will be
subject to a work programme that will be agreed with the First Minister
and the Deputy First Minister, acting jointly in the Assembly, or with
the Secretary of State in the event that devolution does not return.
The commissioner should produce an annual report giving details of the
work that he or she has done, and that report should be laid before the
Northern Ireland Assembly or the House, depending on the situation
concerning devolution.
Lady
Hermon: Will the Minister clarify a smallbut
important issue on the commissioner’s work programme? Who will
have the last say on that? Will it be the commissioner, whom we all
want to have a strong voice, or the First Minister and the Deputy First
Minister acting jointly? I see from the order that they will have a
significant input to the work programme. If there is a conflict, who
prevails?
Mr.
Hanson: Ultimately, the First Minister and the Deputy
First Minister agree a work programme, and I do not wish to build
conflict into the production of it. Under the order, the commissioner
will, by the very nature of the office, produce a forward work
programme, which must be agreed with the First Minister and the Deputy
First Minister. The commissioner is independent of the Assembly in that
respect, but the work programme must be agreed by the Assembly through
the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I expect there to be
partnership and I am hopeful that there will be a joint programme. As
the responsible Minister, I regularly meet the interim commissioner to
discuss her work programme, and it would be a brave First Minister or
Deputy First Minister who refused to accept suggestions for a work
programme from the commissioner. The commissioner is not responsible
for a budget for expenditure on victims’ issues; the
commissioner is an adviser to the Government. So there needs to be
buy-in from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister because
they are ultimately responsible for the level of budget and for the
programmes of expenditure.
The proposed draft order has
been subject to public consultation and there is, and has been, general
support for the idea of having a commissioner. There is clear
recognition of the need to give support to victims and survivors in the
issues that they face. I am aware that one issue of concern has been
the definition of victims and survivors and I have received comments on
that. I am extremely sensitive to the fact that many people believe
that a distinction should be drawn between those actively involved in
the conflict as participants on one side or another and those who have
been innocently caught up in violent incidents or been victims of the
conflict. The Government have considered the issue with great care. I
understand the feelings of those who wanted only the innocent victim
approach to be understood, but we have concluded that to draw a
distinction would be counterproductive to hopes for a peaceful and
stable future in Northern Ireland.
I cannot create a hierarchy of
victimhood, but I want to ensure that all who regard themselves as
victims of the conflict during that time have an opportunity to
consider how they can work with victim and survivor issues, working
with the commissioner for the good of all and for a positive future for
Northern Ireland.
Mr.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): The Minister does
not want to create two levels of victims. Perhaps I should declare an
interest: I myself was injured in Northern Ireland. Is he saying that
he can rule some out categorically? Let us say that a man was sent down
to the Maze for life imprisonment and suffered psychological trauma as
a result of that sentence. Would that person be considered a
victim?
Mr.
Hanson: We define victims and survivors as people who
define themselves as victims and survivors. I do not wish to draw an
artificial distinction between a person who, for example, might feel
hurt because they were involved in an incident that resulted in their
family being killed by a bomb in a major city in Northern Ireland and a
relative of somebody who was killed in conflict with the British Army
or others.
I
understand that there are distinctions, but I want to look forward for
the future, so that the commissioner can take on board the issue of
reconciliation, dealing with services for those defined as victims and
ensuring a positive future for Northern Ireland as a whole. The
Government have taken the view that to draw a distinction might create
a poor start to the commissioner’s role. The interim
commissioner, who will be defined as a victim herself because of her
loss during the troubles—I am not breaking confidence, because
people know her history—has taken that view also. We need a
broad definition of victims and survivors so that we can provide decent
levels of service, examine the issues affecting those individuals and
help Northern Ireland establish a positive
future.
I very much
hope that the commissioner’s appointment following the
order’s approval, as well as the other work that we are doing in
Northern Ireland—establishing the Assembly, considering the
possibility of power sharing, gaining Sinn Fein’s acceptance of
the role of policing and creating developments such as this
week’s demolition of the Maze prison for a regeneration site for
sport, business and retail—are all signals that Northern Ireland
can have a positive future. The commissioner’s role will be to
help examine the needs of those who have suffered, for whatever reason,
during those 30-plus years of conflict and to advise Government on what
serviceswe need to
provide.
I
believe that the order will make a valuable contribution to meeting the
needs of victims and survivors and to building a better future for the
people of Northern Ireland. Nothing will ever change the fact that the
conflict in Northern Ireland during the past40 years has been
damaging to the people who live there in all parts of the community. It
has split lives, killed over 3,500 people and caused tremendous
suffering. The order will be one step toward helping the reconciliation
process and ensuring that those who have suffered during those 40 years
receive support and advice with the dignity that they deserve under the
commissioner. I commend the order to the
Committee.
2.45
pm
Mr.
David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): I thank the Minister
for his opening remarks. Usually, when we debate Northern Ireland
affairs, I tend to be sceptical about measures to create new agencies,
commissioners
and inquiries, but I will certainly make an exception today. I have
found my meetings with different groups of victims during the past
three years to be undoubtedly the most harrowing and moving that I have
had with any group of people in that part of the United
Kingdom.
As Northern
Ireland moves towards what we all hope will be an era of normal life of
the sort that those of us who represent constituencies in England,
Scotland and Wales have always been able to take for granted, it is
vital that people who have suffered physical and mental trauma and the
most appalling bereavements are not forgotten. They must have an
individual and an organisation to stand forth clearly as the defender
of their interests and their champion in making representations to the
Government. I, too, pay tribute to the work that Bertha McDougall has
already done. I have been to see her, and she is a formidable and
determined lady who has already made a good start on the work that
needs to be done.
I
have two points to put to the Minister. The first is relatively minor,
but it could have some significance. Under the heading “Duties
of the Commissioner”, the order
states:
“The
Commissioner shall advise the Secretary of State, the Executive
Committee of the Assembly and any body or person providing
services”.
I hope that
the term “any body or person” will extend to other United
Kingdom Ministers. There might be occasions, particularly if we were
discussing the disparities in compensation payments between Ulster
Defence Regiment widows who lost their husbands at an early stage in
the troubles and those who lost their husbands later on, when a
commissioner might want to make representations direct to a Secretary
of State for Defence or a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope there can
be no question but that a commissioner would be free so to
do.
My second point
is more in the way of an observation than a question. The Minister said
that it is important that the definition of victims and survivors
should be broad. He talked about the difficulty of drawing a
distinction between people whom everyone might describe as innocent and
those whom he termed direct participants in the conflict. I support the
order, but we have to be very open with ourselves about what we are
doing and what we are asking many victims and survivors to
do.
The definition
here places on the same level a woman whose husband was murdered in a
sectarian killing such as the Kingsmill massacre in south Armagh, or
the Ulster Volunteer Force or Ulster Defence Association killings in
Belfast or Londonderry in more recent years, with the relative of an
active volunteer in the IRA, UDA or UVF. We are putting the serviceman
who has lost a limb, the policeman who has suffered mental trauma for
years, the widow or orphan of a prison officer or the victim of a
sectarian attack on a par with someone who has been an active
participant in a paramilitary organisation that deliberately sought to
defy the law and, in the case of the Provisional IRA, to overthrow the
lawful authority of the
state.
I welcome the
fact that we are moving into a period when it would appear that the
republican movement
might be on the brink of completing the transition from terrorism to
democracy. It might finally be willing to recognise the legitimacy of,
and give active support to, the police, the courts and the rule of law.
However, the wide-ranging definition in the order asks a great deal of
people who stood up for the rule of law when it was under the most
vicious and ruthless
attack.
I do not argue
with the Minister’s eventual conclusion. When I meet relatives
of republicans, I can see that the grief of a widow is no less,
whatever her husband did or did not do. We need to be clear-eyed about
what we are asking people to do, and the fact that the person of the
commissioner and his programme of work will, if devolution takes place,
have to be approved jointly by the right hon. Member for North Antrim
(Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr.
McGuinness) shows the scale of the challenge. It will be for people in
Northern Ireland to come to terms with the definitions we are debating.
Despite those concerns, the order is right and we will support
it.
2.51
pm
Mark
Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): It is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson.
Like other hon. Members who
have spoken or intervened, I welcome the order. I have questions about
it and issues to raise, and there is more that I would like to see in
it, but that just means that there is more of an agenda of work that we
all have to carry out to fulfil our obligations to victims and
survivors.
Eight and a
half years ago, the Good Friday agreement made promises to victims and
survivors, and those promises have not been fulfilled, partly because
of people holding back on bits of the agreement and the institutions
being undermined and compromised in suspension, but partly because the
process obsession in and around stand-offs and stunt politics has meant
that, at times, the needs and concerns of victims were
relegated.
The
political process—both Government and political
parties—addressed victims in an awkward and at times evasive
way, as often the political process became intoxicated with all the
talk of progress, moving on and bright new tomorrows. Many people were
embarrassed when victims asked hard questions about where they fitted
into this brand new future and whether—in our concern to rush
forward to the future and to progress, which we obviously have to
do—we were going to leave them, their loss and their hurt
forgotten.
That is why
the issue of victims and survivors has been a recurring concern of the
Social Democratic and Labour party at the various talks that took
place, whether at Leeds castle, Weston Park or Hillsborough in 2003.
One thing that we welcome about the order is that at least it mentions
the possibility of a victims and survivors forum. In the talks at
Hillsborough in 2003, the Governments produced a joint declaration that
said that consideration would be given to the establishment of such a
forum. We wanted that declaration to say more about the function and
purpose of the victims and survivors forum—that they would be
about bringing forward ideas and proposals to meet victims’
needs on three key issues: truth, remembrance and
recognition.
A previous Minister with
responsibility for victims in Northern Ireland, who is now Secretary of
State for Defence, told the SDLP at the time of the joint declaration
that the reason that mention was made only of the consideration of a
victims and survivors forum, not of what it might do, was that in the
discussions at Hillsborough neither Sinn Fein nor the Ulster Unionist
party agreed with it. I raise that not to upbraid either party, but to
make the point that we could be locking ourselves into more
difficulties than we want to be locked into. If, in providing for the
new victims commissioner, that person’s work programme has to be
approved, and can be modified, by the First and Deputy First Ministers,
little might happen because one or the other might feel uncomfortable
and so evade any responsibility for allowing things to move things
forward.
In an
intervention, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked some
questions aboutthe idea of a victims and survivors forum. I
welcome the fact that the order makes provision for the commissioner to
bring forward proposals. When we proposed such a forum, we did not say
that it had to have a fixed membership and be a delegate-based body in
the style of, say, the Northern Ireland consultative forum. We want a
body that can meet in various formats and perform its functions in
different guises and roles for different victims, who have not only
sensitivities about who they might be sitting down with, but their own
needs, circumstances, stories and questions. A victims and survivors
forum could be tailored to accommodate those different needs and be
sensitive to the feelings of all victims and survivors.
We need a victims and survivors
forum that can work alongside the commissioner. We have never said,
“It is either a commissioner or a victims and survivors
forum,” because we think that both concepts would complement
each other well. The order establishes the Office of the Commissioner
for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, but because so much is
subject to the First and Deputy First Ministers, it is important that
the commissioner can show them, as well as the Executive and Ministers
in the Assembly, that many of the issues that he or she is bringing
forward have been washed through—talked through—in the
forum and can say, “This is not just built on a wee anecdotal
notion that has come from here or there. It is not just a ricochet from
some partisan agenda. It is genuine and has been well thought
through.”
We
think that the forum has strong merit. In particular, we want to be
assured that a victims and survivors forum would have some say in the
work programme of the commissioner, because if the commissioner is
meant to be promoting and serving the interests of victims and
survivors, there is no reason for provision not being made to ensure
that they themselves are satisfied that that is being done, and can
show it, and can make common cause with the commissioner in moving the
agenda forward.
On
community relations and a shared future, given my experience as Deputy
First Minister, I have concerns about the role that is being given to
the First and Deputy First Ministers in approving and amending the work
programme for the commissioner. That concern is not so fundamental that
I will oppose
the order, but I am conscious of the fact that whenever, during the
previous period of devolution, we commissioned a former civil servant
to look at some of the challenges of a shared future and the costs
involved in providing segregated services, a report would be prepared
and submitted to the First and Deputy First
Ministers.
No
such report was published during devolution, and nor was a consultation
document sought on the shared future. Why? Because the First and Deputy
First Ministers could not agree. We could not agree on something as
basic as, “Should the concept of a shared society be mentioned
in a consultation document?” The then First Minister felt that
there would be neuralgia in the Unionist community if the concept of a
shared community was consulted on and that it would understand
“shared” to mean “neutral” in terms of
Britishness—that it was about turning down the dimmer switch on
Britishness and pumping up the volume on Irishness. He felt that that
was how Unionists would read the concept of a shared
society.
As far as I
was concerned, those concerns and sensitivities, if they were real,
were all the more reason why we needed a consultation. However, the
fact is that because of the powers and functions, and the joint nature
of the office, we ended up gridlocked. It was not until suspension and
direct rule that some of those consultation documents saw the light of
day. I am not blaming either the right hon. Member for North Antrim or
the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster for the situation, because I have been
in that role, but the issue caused a problem between David Trimble and
myself, and we must be fair and realistic about the sensitive issues
involved. It could become a real frustration for the commissioner, and
for the victims and survivors. We must give the detail a bit more
consideration, which is why a victims and survivors forum might be a
means of assisting us so that things are not automatically referred to
the First and Deputy First Ministers, who could be caught in a
deadlock.
On the
appointment of the commissioner, it is important to ensure that the
First Minister and Deputy First Minister—or the Secretary of
State if, sadly,it falls to him—do not repeat the way
in whichthe interim commissioner was appointed. That is no
criticism of the interim commissioner. Bertha McDougall is doing a very
worthwhile job and was a very worthy appointee. However, the manner and
circumstances of her appointment, with one party boasting about being
consulted and the papers deeming one party to have approved her
appointment when other people were not even consulted, did a disservice
to the whole notion of that office and to a very good public appointee.
We want to ensure that there is proper consideration of and
consultation on future
appointments.
In terms
of the commissioner’s work, we also want to ensure that the
commissioner gets due co-operation from Departments. We are not saying
that the commissioner should necessarily have the same range of powers
and capacities as, say, the Commissioner for Children and Young People,
but we must be wary when the order is as silent as it is on what level
of engagement and co-operation the commissioner can expect from
Departments. It is one thing for the commissioner to be able to give
advice, but there are
issues about whether the victims commissioner will be able to get the
quality of attention and response from Departments that the
Commissioner for Children and Young People gets. We also need to
address that in the future.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury
(Mr. Lidington) rightly referred to the many meetings that
he has had with victims while he has been in his position. I have had
many meetings with many different victims as well. I know that the
difficulty of the definition of victims has been raised, and we must be
careful that we do not find ourselves almost generating a jealousy and
a tension between different victims and different people who might see
themselves as victims. One of the most common concerns that victims
have is not necessarily what is happening for other victims or what
other victims are getting; it is what they are not receiving. The
problem is that promises turn out to be platitudes and victims are
often patronised and ghettoised by the political process. So do we
deliver, in straightforward terms? We pat them on the shoulder, and
when they ask a basic question, we shrug our shoulders and say,
“We don’t know. It’s awkward. It’s
hard.” Even during the work done this summer by the Committee on the Preparation for Government, which looked at the past and the victims,
parties again ended up at sixes and sevens on some things. That shows
again that if the political process cannot deal with and address those
matters properly, it is time to devolve them to the victims and
survivors, and to make things good with the political process, where
the Government have failed, even with the best of intentions. We should
allow victims to come forward, which reinforces the value that there
could be in a victims and survivors forum. I am very conscious that
many of the victims that I have spoken to, even in recent weeks, want
to see progress. They want theSt. Andrews deal to bring about
the restoration of the institutions established by the Good Friday
agreement; they want to see us make good the opportunities afforded to
us by the agreement.
The victims also have mixed
feelings. The progress that we are on the threshold of making also
brings home to many victims the utter futility of their loss. People
are settling for a new beginning to policing, Executive power sharing
and north-south ministerial co-operation—people who spent years
opposing those concepts, through either violence or political
vehemence. Many of the victims that we are talking about lost their
lives unnecessarily in the years between Sunningdale and a settlement
that is basically Sunningdale digitally remastered. When people see
that control over the commissioner and the commissioner’s work
programme will fall to two people who were associated with either the
political vehemence or justifying the violence, they will understand
the mixed feelings that the victims may have.
We must address the victims
honestly. They feel that we are trying to tell them to draw a line
under the past. One widow asked me, “What happens if all you
have is the past?” That woman had lost her son and her husband
and had to sell the family farm. There is nobody to carry their family
name—it is lost to that townland on the Armagh-Tyrone border. By
using the office of the commissioner and the victims and
survivors forum, and by ensuring that parties address fully the need to
deal with truth, remembrance and recognition, we must lift the burden
of remembrance from that widow’s shoulder. That is the promise
that we made in the Good Friday agreement, and it is a promise that we
still have to keep. I welcome the order as something that goes some way
to taking us further toward that goal.
In making some of those points
and in raising some challenges, I am not criticising or raising
challenges for government, but raising criticisms and challenges for
the Northern Ireland political parties
collectively.
3.7
pm
Mr.
Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): I welcome the
opportunity to participate in the debate and the publication of the
order, with legislative provision to create, among other things, a
victims commission. That is something that I have long argued for;
indeed, I remember raising the matter with the Prime Minister just
after I was elected to the House in 1997 in discussions in advance of
the Belfast agreement. It has taken us a long time to get to this
point. Nevertheless, it is worth while that we are here. There is much
work to be done by the
commission.
Throughout
the political process and especially under the Belfast agreement, it
was often the case that the interests and concerns of the innocent
victims of terrorist violence were ignored. Indeed, the hon. Member for
Foyle (Mark Durkan) alluded to that. Well-meant objectives were set
out, but often they were not matched by delivery for the people who
have a real need for the recognition of their suffering and for an
understanding of how difficult the period of transition has been for
many victims.
My
experience of meeting many of the people who have suffered suggests
that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for addressing the needs of
victims. I have met people on all sides of the community: some have
lost people to paramilitary violence or know of people who died having
been caught in crossfire. Victims are individuals and so have
individual needs. They have reacted and responded to the transition
from conflict to—hopefully—a peaceful society in
different ways. There are people who have accepted the compromises that
have been required as a result of the process. Those compromises have
at times been deeply hurtful to many of the victims. The release of the
prisoners, for example, caused much consternation among victims in
Northern Ireland. There were others who accepted that that was part of
the process of moving forward, but it has been difficult. We must try
to create a framework within which people’s need for recognition
can be accommodated in the best way possible.
We have had much debate in
Northern Ireland about the concept of a forum for victims. I recognise
the work that the hon. Gentleman has done in this regard; he and I have
discussed the issue in the past. There is no consensus among the
victims, however, that we should follow a similar process to that of
the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa, for example.
Northern Ireland, with an average population during the troubles of
slightly more than 1.5 million,
has some 2,000 unsolved murders. That is a legacy of the troubles that
cuts deeply among those who have suffered. Many of those people feel
that they have been denied justice. Some of them have moved beyond the
point of having any expectation of justice, but many still want to know
the truth about what happened to their loved ones.
A forum has a role to play, but
we must be very careful with its design. I commend Bertha McDougall,
the interim commissioner, for the excellent job that she has done. She
has reached out to the victims, given them a voice and engaged with
them. More importantly, she has listened to them, and after reflecting
on what they have said, she has put forward four options to be
considered as a possible model for a victims and survivors forum. I
will not prescribe the form that the model should take, because that
should primarily be the role of the commissioner and the victims and
survivors themselves. We must be careful to create a forum that is
meaningful, which offers hope and the opportunity for people to share
their stories, as well as allowing them to gain proper recognition.
That includes financial recognition, because many of the victims have
not just suffered physical wounds, they have also suffered
financially.
In the
early years of the troubles, the compensation paid was inadequate and
that is recognised. Many people—widows with young families in
particular—struggled single-handedly to bring up children. Those
widows are some of the finest people that I have met in Northern
Ireland—indeed, in my lifetime. They provided for their families
despite the most difficult of circumstances, acting with dignity at all
times. They did not go looking for handouts; they just struggled on. We
have a duty to do something for those people. I know that Bertha
McDougall has been looking at the possibility of a commissioner
assisting with that important work.
