Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness (Questions 300-306)

DR BRANDON HAMBER AND MS KATE TURNER

19 MARCH 2008

  Q300  Sammy Wilson: I just wonder how widespread this desire for a public Truth Commission happens to be. Let me give you some of the information which we have received and you would imagine these would be people who would be particularly interested in truth. The Historical Enquiries Team yesterday told us that about 55% of people they have contacted so far and told them they were going to look at a case and wanted to interface with them were prompted. A very small minority of people actually go to the Historical Enquiries Team and ask, "Would you initiate an investigation into my case". Even when prompted only 55% have asked the Historical Enquiries Team, "Keep me informed, I want to know what is happening", et cetera. That is amongst people who have lost relatives, which would indicate to me that there is not a massive desire for this. Take Stephen's point, I do not see any mad push within the communities which were perhaps most affected by the Troubles to have all of the past spelt out again in some kind of truth and reconciliation group. I take it that people from your group are self-selecting, people who for one reason or another want to be there, either because they like talking about things or sometimes have an agenda, they want to find a mechanism to get the state under the spotlight again through truth and reconciliation. What evidence do you have that wider society actually wants this opening of the box to spell out what happened in the past and the reasons why it happened, who did it, why they did it and where they did it, et cetera?

  Ms Turner: From our very beginning, as I said at the start, we were set up to exist for a week, we did not think there was that much interest in this debate, but the organisation has grown and continued to grow because more and more people are interested. We get newspaper clippings and in the early days we got a few a day, but now we are getting dozens of clippings each day because there is more and more stuff in the media about the past and dealing with the past. We are living in this uneasy peace and are very wary of doing anything that unsettles it. A lot of people will say, as you heard earlier, that they are scared that looking at the past is going to destabilise that, and I agree that is a very common feeling. A lot of the people who are involved in Healing Through Remembering have that view. There are people in the organisation now who say, "I sat outside the organisation four or five years ago and thought what are these people doing, but I started to look around and realised we need to decide what we are doing about dealing with the past or else it is going to come back and affect the future". There are people in each of the groups who do not think that the recommendation we are looking at is a good idea and that is part of the dialogue we have within the organisation. Healing Through Remembering is definitely not a group of people who are saying, "We want a Truth Commission", it is a group of people saying, "We want a dialogue about how we deal with the past", and part of that dialogue is around truth recovery, not even necessarily around a Truth Commission. The difficulty is that when you talk to people who have not been debating on this issue they immediately think any kind of truth recovery means a South African-style Truth Commission and they perceive that as being a big, public, televised, media-driven event. They also see it as an event where victims and perpetrators encounter each other. Brandon can explain better that these perceptions are not what happened in South Africa, but it is also not what happened in the 30-odd other countries where there have been Truth Commissions, so the trouble is the debate is at a fairly naive level, which is understandable, and that is why the group who are undecided on this issue produced this report, Making Peace with the Past, because they wanted to inform the debate.

  Q301  Chairman: You keep using the word, "the group" and you have used the word "members", and you have told us there are 108 members. Is the group and the 108 members one and the same body or do you go out and embrace a lot more people because that is very relevant?

  Ms Turner: When I refer to "the group", I am referring to one of the sub-groups. That is a group of between 16 and 26 people looking at this issue on a month-to-month issue.

  Q302  Chairman: But drawn from the 108?

  Ms Turner: Yes.

  Q303  Sammy Wilson: I am at a loss to understand. If you say, first of all, one of the reasons we need to talk about the past and truth and reconciliation to remember and whatnot, that strikes me as something which if it is going to have wider public benefits needs to be public, yet you are saying it does not necessarily have to be public, this can be something which can be done presumably between individuals or behind closed doors or whatever. How do you get this wider reconciliation if it is not at the public Truth Commission level where it is all going to be held in public?

  Ms Turner: You should come and join one of the sub-groups, this is the kind of thing we debate on a month-by-month basis. The second option in this report is about internal investigations and, as Brandon said, it was mirrored on the disappeared and is about going to an intermediary who goes to organisations to get individual answers. That does not feed the wider debate in society about dealing with the past but the group recognise maybe that cannot be done through truth recovery and that is why they presented that as one of the options for discussion, but when we took that out to our 12 public roadshows we have had with this report, that was the one that the audience in a whole range of venues said, "That is not going to give us answers".

  Q304  Chairman: What sort of audiences? What size of audiences?

  Ms Turner: Some of them were small. The largest one was about 50 and the smallest one was about four.

  Sammy Wilson: Presumably the Historical Enquiries Team does that on a one-to-one basis, the Police Ombudsman does that on a one-to-one basis with people who have had members of their families killed or whatever. Dr Hamber talked about something much wider than that. He talked about a kind of truth body which, I think I wrote the words down, "subpoena, search, et cetera". I know it was a personal opinion that he was expressing, but if that is the route we are going down I would see that as fairly one-sided for two reasons. First of all, if you are going to have people to search and subpoena, et cetera, you are more likely to be searching through police and Army records, et cetera, you are not going to be searching through the records of the paramilitaries or the UDA or the UVF, there is nothing to search there. It is going to be very much one-sided. I can understand why some republicans would love that because not only do they get what the Historical Enquiries Team is doing in a very controlled way at present but they get this done in the full light of publicity and, of course, they can learn lots of things from that. The second thing is I know lots of people who previously never were convicted but were involved in paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland and some of them are now teachers, some are businessmen, some look back on their past and wonder how they ever got involved in that, "Thank God, I was never charged. Thank God, I was never in a police station", but they know they were involved in it. Do you honestly think that those people who now have a stake in society, now have a job where they are looked up to, are ever, ever going to volunteer? You say we need a debate on this but this is one of the reasons why I think what you are suggesting can only go in one direction, and that is to expose the police, the Army, the state, to the full scrutiny and never get anywhere near the people who performed terrorism.

  Q305  Chairman: Could I ask you to make a fairly brief, succinct reply to that because we are nearing the end of our 45 minutes and there are some more witnesses to appear before us before we fly back to London. The essential point of Mr Wilson's question was that this would become rather one-sided and biased. How do you answer that?

  Dr Hamber: I will be succinct. Firstly, I feel I set the tone off in the wrong way at the beginning of the hearing. My task, or the way I saw what I was trying to say, was not to try and divert attention from the Healing Through Remembering project, which is what this is essentially about, it is about debate and a wider process and they are putting options on the table. I expressed an opinion, so I do not want that to be confused. When I raised that issue, what I was trying to say was I feel if we discount that issue we need to put out a very coherent argument saying why we are not going down that route. That is both a practical argument on some of the points you have just outlined as well as a principled argument because we need to bear in mind that in a lot of other societies around the world the opinion is they need to account for the past, there needs to be an uncovering of the truth, so if we are not choosing that route in this society we need to be very clear as to why we are not choosing that route. That is simply what I was trying to say and I feel I set the tone incorrectly and perhaps created the impression that Healing Through Remembering is advocating a Truth Commission, which it is not, and it has those diversity of opinions. In terms of the specific question, equally if we were to debate this as a simple point of debate rather than trying to put this forward as, "This is what has to be done", you could probably make an argument that if there was a wide-ranging process that looked at all the types of violations there would be very few armed groups in this society that would come out looking very good. For example, it is absolutely clear that paramilitaries killed more people than anybody else, so if there was a wide-ranging process trying to paint a broad picture of the past, there is the potential that could be balanced against other types of issues and, in fact, they could come out looking a lot worse from that process with very poor structures of how that was authorised, how they understood what was legitimate and what was not, et cetera. I am just saying at the level of argument there is the chance those issues could be looked at differently.

  Sammy Wilson: We do not need a Truth Commission to tell us how many people were killed by the UVF, the UDA and the IRA, there are books written on it, statistics given. If you ask for it in Parliament you will get that. If that is the only benefit you see, that everybody will come out looking bad, I have to say that is a fairly weak argument for having that kind of thing. Why have you given us a personal opinion? The answer Ms Turner gave links the two in. If this is going to be about some wider good for society and if you want to go down the route we are talking about then you cannot have it anything other than public and all the dangers that there are will come to the fore.

  Q306  Chairman: Do you want to respond briefly to that?

  Dr Hamber: No, it is okay.

  Chairman: Thank you very much. Thank you for seeking to clarify in your last remarks. I think we all accept and appreciate that you are seeking to do good and find a way forward. What you have said will certainly be taken into account. When you leave today, if you feel there are points you wish further to clarify, things that you have not been able to get across to us for whatever reason, perhaps you could send a further written submission to our clerk. We shall be continuing to take evidence for at least another couple of months, so there will be ample opportunity for any supplementary material to be read by all the Members of the Committee and taken into account. Thank you very much.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 7 July 2008