Examination of Witness (Questions 260-279)
DR BRANDON
HAMBER AND
MS KATE
TURNER
19 MARCH 2008
Q260 Chairman: You are a South African?
Dr Hamber: Yes.
Q261 Chairman: Motivated by your
experience in South Africa?
Dr Hamber: Yes, very much so.
Partly linked with, I suppose, some of the weaknesses I would
outline within the South African process which are that although
there was a large amount of civil society participation, that
dwindled over the life of the process in South Africa particularly
once the Truth and Reconciliation Commission began. What I was
focused on and why I got involved in the project was very much
from the perspective of wanting to engage with as many people
across civil society, middle leadership people if you want to
think of it in that way, in the debate about dealing with the
past. I know Kate has said the organisation has 108 members, but
those are 108 very diverse individuals strategically placed in
a lot of key organisations across society. I see it as a very
key mover in its ability to put issues on to the table, which
is what it has done, so each of those sub-groups has delivered
different recommendations in different forms. For example, the
Truth Recovery Group has outlined in a large document, Making
Peace with the Past, five very clear options to debate around
truth recovery. The Day of Reflection Group has implemented a
day of reflection as a way of assessing whether that is possible.
The Museum sub-group, for example, has collated a database of
over 400,000 items that could possibly go into a museum were it
to be put in place. It was a two year project tracking all the
different museums and what they have, et cetera. It is very much
laying the groundwork for a very wide process of dealing with
the past and we are very much attracted to that.
Q262 Chairman: You heard what Sir
Kenneth said about the Truth Commission and all that, give us
your views.
Dr Hamber: I can give you my personal
views and then as the Chair I would have to talk in terms of what
are the views of the actual organisation. In terms of the organisation,
the organisation has outlined in the document, Making Peace
with the Past, at this stage five different options for truth
recovery, of which one is a Truth Commission. The other is what
one could call drawing a line under the past or not doing anything
more, because it is not the case one can actually draw a line
under the past because there are processes in motion from the
HET and others, but that is one of the options. The third would
be a collective story-telling process, a bottom-up type process
of collecting testimonies. The fourth would be what is termed
an investigation-type mechanism similar to the way the Disappearances
Commission has worked with liaison groups within the various structures
who might be able to give information that people might request.
The final option focused on the idea of a more hands-off historical
account of what happened.
Q263 Chairman: These are not mutually
exclusive.
Dr Hamber: No.
Q264 Chairman: What is your personal
preference and what is your order of priorities?
Dr Hamber: The way I would be
approaching the debate at this point in terms of my personal preference
would be to approach it first from a matter of principle and the
first principle is do we actually think that at a bare minimum
victims have a right to truth. There are different international
legal debates about this question, but if we come to it from a
moral position and say we do think victims have a right to truth
then there is an onus on us to think of what is the best mechanism
for doing that. My position at the moment very much would be to
say I would like hear coherent arguments as to why we should not
pursue that. Many of the arguments that are put on to the table,
for example people will not play ball, they will not come forward,
it is too costly, are equally arguments that you could make as
to why there should be an all-encompassing truth recovery-type
process that could cross jurisdictions. For me, at this point
in time the argument I would be making is let us put a Truth Commission
up as an ideal type, and when I say ideal type I mean a body that
has cross-jurisdictional powers, powers of search, subpoena and
other powers, can compel people to come forward to give evidence,
but ultimately is charged with the responsibility of trying to
outline the causes, nature and extent of the conflict. I would
like to debate an argument as to why we should not do that rather
than saying it is simply not possible.
Q265 Chairman: You heard Sir Kenneth's
views. This is not asked critically but just for information,
how long have you been in Northern Ireland?
Dr Hamber: I have been living
here for about seven years and I started to work here in 1996.
Q266 Chairman: So you really do not
have any, or very little, direct experience of the 30 years of
Troubles, 1968-98.
Dr Hamber: That would be correct,
yes.
Q267 Chairman: You are bringing,
therefore, the benefit of your experience in your native country
and you are seeking to tell us here that is the best way forward.
Dr Hamber: I am not seeking to
tell anybody anything.
Q268 Chairman: That is the clear
inference I draw from you remarks.
Dr Hamber: Basically, from my
own experience I am willing to put issues on to the table for
debate and that is very much why I have engaged with the Healing
Through Remembering project, which is what it has been engaged
in. I do not think it is helpful to make bland comparisons between
different contexts. I can simply relate what the experiences are
from other contexts and if people find that helpful then that
is helpful, and if they do not—
Q269 Chairman: You did say a moment
or two ago that you did favour the Truth Commission, something
that Sir Kenneth took a different line on, and you did say you
thought it was incumbent upon those who disagreed with you to
prove their case rather than for you to prove yours. That was
what you said.
Dr Hamber: What I was trying to
say was not necessarily that at this stage I am fully committed
to say, "I think there should absolutely be a Truth Commission",
I am saying we should engage in a debate about the principles
of what it embodies, and one of the key principles within that,
which is an international standard, is around the question of
what are the rights of victims within these processes. That is
very much what I am focusing on.
Q270 Chairman: What about the way
in which we are seeking to tackle things within the United Kingdom
and within Northern Ireland in particular with the Historical
Enquiries Team and so on? How do you regard that?
Dr Hamber: Again, speaking from
my personal opinion, not the organisation's opinion, the Historical
Enquiries Team is a very unique process compared to—
Q271 Chairman: It cannot be very
unique, it is either unique or it is not.
Dr Hamber: It is a unique process
related to many other international contexts in terms of its very
systematic approach of working through case-by-case. In a lot
of other societies they have attempted, for example, Truth Commissions
which try and do that but which have never actually done quite
that. I would rate the systematic approach incredibly highly in
terms of various international standards. From having a lot of
contact with various victims groups it has certainly built the
credibility of the Police Service within its ability to engage
in a process like the HET. At a personal level I would have a
very positive view of the Historical Enquiries Team.
Q272 Kate Hoey: Having visited it,
I share a lot of your views on the HET. What on earth do we need
a Truth Recovery Commission for? Northern Ireland is a very small
country, practically everybody knows everybody or knows somebody
who knows somebody. What on earth would be the point of setting
up another hugely expensive, lawyer-driven, whatever you say,
inquiry? To do what? To rake over things over and over again,
most of which have already been gone through by the HET or the
Police Ombudsman, and a lot of people in Northern Ireland who
are not members of the victims industry are just getting on with
their lives having put up with some terrible things and maybe
do not want anything to do with any of this.
Dr Hamber: The main issue would
be about trying to meet the various needs that are out there.
One could make an argument that the Historical Enquiries Team
could meet those needs in terms of perhaps getting to issues around
the truth. However, I think for a lot of victims what they are
also seeking is a wider form of social acknowledgement. Whether
that has to be through an all-singing, all-dancing Truth Commission
is something one could debate, but the only element the Historical
Enquiries Team lacks, in a sense, is that public acknowledgement
process which might be important to some victims.
Kate Hoey: What do you actually mean
by that? What does that mean to Mrs Smith sitting somewhere?
Chairman: Who might be a very private
person and might want private satisfaction.
Q273 Kate Hoey: And comes from a
generation, perhaps, who do not want to talk publicly about some
of the things that happened to them in their private lives.
Dr Hamber: Absolutely. One of
the biggest challenges within the process of dealing with the
past is that you have a whole range of people with a whole range
of different needs, so it is very difficult to do one thing that
would meet all of those needs. It is quite clear that not every
single person would want to engage in a very public type of process,
and that is what the Historical Enquiries Team for some families
has done very effectively, they have been able to engage with
it, they have been able to get the information and various forms
of feedback from the Police Service and other sorts of issues
and that has been very effective. When I talk about the issue
of acknowledgment, I mean it as a wider, social and political
process of people engaging in the past and saying, "Yes,
there is something that we need to acknowledge in relation to
the way that it happened", whether that is acts of omission
or commission. It is a much wider level I am talking about at
a political level.
Q274 Kate Hoey: Are you sure it is
not just academics and well meaning people thinking this is what
people want when maybe it is not?
Dr Hamber: I could give you a
range of research in relation to victims that would say that is
what they want. Not all victims, as I said, but that is something
that could be substantiated by evidence.
Q275 Mr Fraser: You have passed various
comments about the independence of the Commissioner, and I referred
to some of those comments earlier not knowing you were sitting
at the back. You were quite direct about the two paragraphs in
the report Sir Kenneth has put forward about state violence and
then you go on to say: "any process that is interested in
taking forward truth recovery will have to be seen to be independent;
to include the views of victims in all their diversity, not just
in its definition but also in its actual working practices"
and say, "to ensure that any sense of a hierarchy of victims
is to be avoided." You are suggesting here that there is
a hierarchy.
Dr Hamber: Which report are you
quoting from there?
Q276 Mr Fraser: This is your point
45, your submission, Making Peace with the Past, page 61.
Dr Hamber: That is the Healing
Through Remembering report. I just wanted to clarify that.
Could you maybe try and rephrase that question?
Q277 Mr Fraser: Do you believe there
is a hierarchy of victims and is that right in your opinion, because
you have said here that you want truth and recovery for everybody
equally but I think you have also accepted that is not possible,
have you not?
Dr Hamber: If I am speaking from
the Healing Through Remembering side of things, the view amongst
many of the members would be that there is certainly a perception
that there are different hierarchies and it depends who you ask
whether they say they feel there are different hierarchies.
Q278 Mr Fraser: But that is inevitable,
is it not?
Dr Hamber: It is absolutely inevitable.
I think what that report will be getting at is saying what are
the different ways by which we can try and deal with that, which
is largely the perceptions of different groups that they are receiving
perhaps preferential treatment or their cases are being dealt
with, and that comes out of a context. Healing Through Remembering
is an organisation where you have to understand there are incredibly
diverse people who would be signing off on that, so they would
be quite concerned at looking how that could be dealt with in
a way that meets the needs of those with very different perspectives
and perceptions of that issue.
Q279 Mr Fraser: If we had a Truth
Commission, or whatever it ends up being in the way you have described,
you can always point a finger and poke at the person who is going
to be running it, because you have done here. The implication
of what you are saying here is that Sir Kenneth in the role he
had was not fair and equal, so that means you could go and do
that with the next person because you have said here you want
to avoid the process being mired in political controversy. By
suggesting that the chairman of any commission is biased, which
is the inference, does precisely what you are trying to avoid.
You are drawing it into political controversy by making those
suggestions surely.
Dr Hamber: No, I think it is exactly
the opposite. I do not think that Healing Through Remembering
is the type of organisation that makes those sorts of accusations
publicly. What it is trying to say is that there are people out
there who have a perception of Sir Kenneth in a certain way and,
therefore, those are the types of issues that we need to be addressed
in any type of process.
| 
