The Report of the Consultative Group on the Past in Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Contents


4  Promoting Reconciliation

Financial support for victims

55. We have already noted that the Consultative Group's recommendation that £12,000 be paid to the families of all those killed in the conflict provoked real outrage among some victim and survivor groups and politicians. This was reflected in much of the evidence that we received, and such depth of feeling cannot and should not be ignored. However, there is a need to look at the matter of financial support for victims in Northern Ireland in a more measured manner. The recognition payment did not derive solely from the minds of the Consultative Group without any evidential support. It was proposed as a response to two desires expressed to the Group by a number of those bereaved during the Troubles, namely a desire for recognition and a desire for financial recompense. In relation to financial recompense, the report comments:

    Concerns about compensation, expressed during the consultation, largely relate to the amounts paid in the 1970s and 1980s to the families of people killed as a result of the conflict. There was almost unanimous agreement that many payments were inadequate, not least because compensation was primarily based on loss of earnings and did not take into account the loss felt by the family.[38]

56. Concern regarding the financial support available to victims was echoed by the Commission for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, which acknowledged the strength of the public reaction to this recommendation, but supported the proposal on the basis of financial need. Patricia MacBride told the Committee:

    […] there is no doubt that there is a lack of public consensus or support for that particular recommendation at this time, In terms of how we as a Commission approached it, we took a very pragmatic approach to the idea of a recognition payment. We deal on a daily basis with people who have real and genuine need […] We have a huge number of people who have been under-compensated or not compensated but the money simply does not exist to revisit the issue of compensation and to pay people what they would have expected or what they felt was due to them as a result of the loss or injury that they sustained, so we took a corporate, very pragmatic approach that this £12,000 would address need in some of those instances. It is fair to say that one of our colleagues took a position that he felt that because the recognition payment was not targeted specifically at need and because it had the potential to create division within families who may not agree as to whether to take the money, or indeed whom within the family should receive it, it was probably not a good recommendation, but overall as I say the corporate view was that we welcomed the payment.[39]

57. Several witnesses expressed similar views. For example, the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council told us:

    Council does not have a fixed view on the appropriateness of an acknowledgement but we acknowledge the spirit in which [the Recognition Payment] was conceived and recognise that the many different circumstances within the victims and survivors sector create difficulties for some. At the same time, we are also aware that this proposal would address real hardship issues for others. Their needs must be addressed and enhanced individual support should be considered through mechanisms such as the Memorial Fund.[40]

58. The Corrymeela Community also noted:

    The Consultative Group's proposal on a recognition payment to the nearest relative of someone who died as a result of the conflict has been deeply controversial and will almost certainly not proceed. However, there are significant hardship issues among some victims and survivors which need to be considered. Numerous individual victims and survivors are not catered for by existing groups, community and voluntary organisations, and statutory services, etc. In addition, victims and survivors have a diverse range of needs and this required to be recognised.[41]

59. The Secretary of State acknowledged that this recommendation had been made on the basis of evidence received by the Consultative Group in the course of their consultation and that such a payment would be welcomed, at least by some. For this reason he invited views on this recommendation as part of the consultation into the report of the Consultative Group launched by the NIO on 24 June, despite having earlier played down consideration of any payment in the proposed form.

    […] in reaching this recommendation (and in subsequent discussions I have had with the Consultative Group), I am very firmly of the view that this was not an idea promulgated only by the group; nor, indeed was this an idea solely from one section of the community in Northern Ireland. I believe, therefore, it is important, as we live in a democracy, that, despite the views that I have expressed about what I am minded to do, which clearly reflects the Government's position, nonetheless, we allow, however much of a minority voice it may be amongst some parts of Northern Ireland, people to put forward their arguments for and against this proposal. So I am entertaining, and I would have to have, very strong cogently argued arguments for and against this proposal; not because I have changed my position but because I genuinely believe Eames and Bradley reflected proposals they have heard. I think, in good faith they reflected them in their Report, but perhaps they took them a little far into formulating them into a permanent recommendation.[42]

60. It should be recognised that there is a need for greater financial support to be made available for victims in Northern Ireland. Compensation has not been adequate or consistent in many cases. However, financial need must be disaggregated from the separate desire for recognition. If it is not, any attempt to address the needs of victims will be in danger of becoming a matter of political and cross-community division, in the same manner as the proposed recognition payment did. Lord Eames emphasised that:

    This was not about compensation. None of us have the moral right to put a figure on any human life. It is about humans and human suffering. At the root of this question is simply this: who is a victim?[43]

61. The proposal was clouded by an attempt to combine a response to financial need with the desire for victims to be recognised in some way. Patricia MacBride, one of the four Commissioners for Victims and Survivors, suggested that the Legacy Commission could constitute a means of addressing the needs of victims and survivors through adopting a broader role in improving services for victims:

    […] what I am hopeful of is that the package of measures that is delivered as a result of addressing societal need will in some way ensure that people's needs are met. It may not be through a recognition payment; if it is through improved services that people require to help them deal with the past, if it is through the delivery and investigation and it addressed need that is far more important than whether the money comes to them as a £12,000 cheque into an individual household or whether it is streamed through a methodology for addressing their needs.[44]

62. The Northern Ireland Community Relations Council also suggested that support is needed by those other than the bereaved who have been affected by the Troubles and noted that the recognition payment "does not take those who have suffered physical injury and mental trauma into account and this has caused considerable upset and anger in some quarters."[45] The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has similarly noted the absence of references to other kinds of human rights abuses in the report of the Consultative Group:

    […] in the Report there is no reference to violations of human rights short of killing; whilst great attention is given in the document to the need for what might be termed "macro" or "big picture" truth, the Report does not address in any significant detail issues around injury, sexual violence, including rape, torture, maltreatment, violations of property rights, violations of rights of association, assembly and expression, and so on […] [46]

63. We note that in August 2009 the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister published proposals for consultation on the establishment of the Victims and Survivors Service. This is to be welcomed and will improve support to both Victims Groups and individuals affected by the Troubles. We hope that the Northern Ireland Executive will implement this service as soon as is practicable.

64. We believe that there is a need for greater financial support and services to be made available for those affected by the Troubles in Northern Ireland and share the view that this should include those physically and psychologically injured by these events.

65. We commend for consideration by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister the establishment of a fund to be operated on the basis of criteria which command cross-community support.

Defining "victims"

66. The strength of the public reaction to the proposed recognition payment reflects the reality that the way in which victims and survivors are defined remains a matter of difficulty for communities in Northern Ireland. In the course of their consultation, the Consultative Group encountered a need for some kind of recognition of suffering from families in all aspects of the conflict. In relation to the proposed recognition payment, Lord Eames told the Committee:

    […] time and time again during the consultation period we were urged to produce something which would give recognition to the trauma and suffering of those left behind. They range from the families of security forces, including families of British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland but then still lived on the mainland, from families of the UDR and the RUC victims of the Troubles to civilians caught up in the tragedy. There was a widespread feeling that once the media spotlight and sympathy from their local community passed away from a family after a funeral, society forgot about them. Politicians, social workers and victim's groups were among those who urged that some recognition of this human reaction must be found in our Report. There were words like 'there is no difference between a mother's tears' […] This was not about compensation. None of us have the moral right to put a figure on any human life. It is about humans and human suffering. At the root of this question is simply this: who is a victim?[47]

This question lies at the heart of much of this difficulty surrounding the reconciliation of communities in Northern Ireland.

67. The legal definition of a "victim" in Northern Ireland, as adopted by the Consultative Group, is contained within in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, passed at Westminster before the resumption of devolved government in May 2007. It classifies a "victim" as:

a)  someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident;

b)  someone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for an individual mentioned in paragraph (a); or

c)  someone who has been bereaved as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident. [48]

68. This definition was discussed in the Seventh Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the House of Commons, which debated the draft Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order on 1 November 2006. That Committee was attended by members of the Northern Ireland political parties which sit at Westminster, including members of our Committee. It must be noted that that Committee had no power to amend the Order. There was cross-party acknowledgement that the definition, while presenting a challenge for the people of Northern Ireland, was the only way to avoid a "hierarchy of victims". The draft Order was debated in House of Lords Grand Committee on 25 October 2006. The motion passed without division in both Houses. During the Commons debate, the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland, David Hanson MP, commented:

    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.[49]

69. Mr Bradley told us that it was not within the Consultative Group's mandate to challenge that definition:

    That is the definition of this House. We are not in a position, nor did we desire to go and seek the changing of that definition. That definition came about, not out of the blue; it came as a result of a number of reports. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield had already done two reports, Bertha McDougall, who was the interim Victims Commissioner, had also done a report, and it was quite clear that within those reports this issue about who a victim was could not be grasped.[50]

He acknowledged, however, that the issue of how victims are defined remains a barrier to peace in Northern Ireland:

    The truth of the matter is that in Northern Ireland we are still fighting about who a victim is or who a victim is not [...] [51]

The Commission for Victims and Survivors emphasised to the Committee that they are statutorily required to work with the current legal definition. They told us that they undertook their work from the perspective of addressing the needs of everyone who approached them:

    We as a Commission as four individuals regardless of our corporate togetherness on the issue of working to the statutory definition, define a victim or survivor of the conflict based upon the need that they present to us. We define a human face, we define the needs that walk through our door, we define the needs that are sought out to be addressed with our assistance. You cannot simply categorise an individual because of the circumstances of their loss, you have to have the capacity to consider the human impact of the conflict on these individuals.[52]

70. Many of the submissions we received noted issues surrounding the definition of "victim". The Northern Ireland Community Relations Council, for example, believed the current definition should be either reaffirmed or altered.[53]A submission from FAIR , a victims' support group, contrastingly described the definition as "erroneous".[54]

71. The existing legal definition of "victim" focuses on those left behind rather than those who died. This facilitates the work being done by bodies such as the Commission for Victims and Survivors, who provide support to people affected by the Troubles; it is the living who need such support, not the deceased. However, the definition clearly does not reflect the everyday understanding of a "victim" as expressed by many of those who found the recommendation of the Consultative Group so offensive, for whom the term "victim" clearly reflects some sense of innocence. The submission from the RUC GC Foundation highlighted this disparity:

    A great sense of hurt was generated by the definition of "victim and survivor" found in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 — a definition which has been followed by the CGP, The definition of a "victim" in the Oxford English Dictionary reads "a person harmed, injured or killed as a result of a crime or accident". This definition is much preferred.[55]

72. The controversy surrounding the recommendation on recognition payments once again demonstrates the continuing relevance of language in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. The definition of a "victim" provided by the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is currently the accepted legal definition of "victim", and should remain so until such time as an alternative gains cross-party support within the Assembly. However, it is clear that further public debate is needed in order to build a clear consensus on this issue. It will ultimately be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to establish an accepted understanding of who constitutes a "victim".

Reconciliation Forum

73. The Consultative Group recommended that a Reconciliation Forum be established, through which the Legacy Commission would work with the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland (CVSNI) to address various social issues arising from the conflict. This would include working to address sectarianism; promoting remembering activities; working with young people; providing improved services for healthcare needs; ensuring an even spread of economic benefits; and helping those exiled from Northern Ireland during the conflict to return. The Forum's function in relation to these activities would be to:

  • analyse the activity undertaken to address these issues;
  • consider the need for further activity including the need to address any gaps, and, drawing on the expertise within the membership of the Forum, to assess what would make the most impact;
  • give advice on policy to Government and other policy makers;
  • advise on strategies to enable the focused targeting of needs and the promotion of best practice, drawing on local, national and international experience;
  • advise on the development and delivery of services; and
  • decide on priority areas of activity and assist in influencing others to take those priority areas into account in the development of their policies and allocation of their resources. The members of the Forum should also work to ensure that their respective organisations take account of these priority areas.[56]

74. The Consultative Group recommended that the Commission for Victims and Survivors should take responsibility for convening this Forum and that the Chairman of the Legacy Commission and the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council should be key members. It suggested that other bodies and groups could be invited to specific meetings, depending on the issues being discussed. We asked the Commissioners for Victims and Survivors whether they would be content with this role. They replied:

    We are happy with the concept. I have to say we are a wee bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "forum" and concerned that that might be somewhat misleading by creating an expectation of large numbers of people engaged in this. We know from discussion with the Consultative Group that they envisaged the key agencies who have responsibility for societal matters — principally ourselves, the Community Relations Council and any new body created out of the Eames-Bradley Report — that this would be a tripartite mechanism that the Commission for Victims would convene to address these matters.[57]

75. Particular strategic concerns in relation to the provision of services to victims and survivors clearly need to be addressed. The Consultative Group's report noted:

    In some localities a number of victim and survivor groups showed how they had worked in some collaboration with one another. But in other cases several different groups had been delivering similar services in the same locality and were competing for limited resources. Too often the knowledge and experience of the best ways of meeting the needs of victims and survivors were not shared among groups and the opportunity to share valuable experience was lost. The reasons for this were complex but a major factor was the lack of interaction between groups representing different communities and, in some cases, the came community.[58]

76. The Consultative Group further noted that some victim and survivors groups had a tendency to become agents with specific political ends and "claim to represent more than they actually do".[59] This inevitably leads to the exclusion of those who feel that such groups do not represent their own views.

77. Evidence to this Committee reflected the view that strategic provision of services could be improved, particularly with regard to provision of mental health services for those affected by the Troubles. Mr Raymond White from the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association observed:

    We were very fortunate in respect of the Patten Agreement; it recognised the heavy psychological impact that the four decades of the Troubles had on our membership and as a consequence of that the PRRT was established at Maryfield. They have ten psychologists in employment, seven of which as it were are looking after the interests of serving and retired police officers. Some 250 new cases are still presenting themselves on an annual basis to those people, so you can estimate for yourself the number of ongoing new cases — that is not people who have been treated and put back into care of the National Health Service, this is 250 new presentations each year in respect of their services.[60]

78. We visited the PRRT facility at Maryfield, on the outskirts of Belafst, during the course of this inquiry and saw the range of services it offers to serving and former police officers, and to their families, including children who have suffered trauma as a result of the work done by their fathers and mothers in policing Northern Ireland. These officers and families have sometimes had to deal with varieties of trauma and levels of danger more akin to military than civilian service. We pay enthusiastic tribute to the work done at the centre in enabling serving officers and their families to deal with the conditions they face and in helping retiring officers to make the transition towards new interests in employment or in education, after their years of service.

79. The Consultative Group identified issues surrounding the provision of healthcare and sufficient services addressing trauma. The report noted that "[t]he provision of mental health services needs to take fuller account of the mental health legacy of the conflict and reflect this in both the provision of services and ongoing operational priorities".[61] Lord Eames hoped the Legacy Commission would help resolve some of these issues:

    There are some tensions still existing between the voluntary independent sector and the statutory sector around [the treatment of psychological trauma relating to the Troubles]. That has not resolved itself and part of what we put in to the Legacy Commission was a task that would actually coordinate some of that.[62]

80. The Commissioners for Victims and Survivors similarly believed that the existing inconsistency of approach to mental health services and treatments was an example of the need to encourage more strategic provision and coordination:

    […] within the health field it is a concern that there is a lack of consensus in Northern Ireland about a concept of conflict related-trauma. There is a lack of agreement among theorists, academics and practitioners about the best models for treatment — indeed whether the medical concept of treatment is appropriate — and there is no clear agreed strategy for the whole of our society. Within health trauma is an example of a profound issue which needs urgent work done and strategic thinking applied to it, we would like to think that in the kind of mechanism envisaged by the Consultative Group there would be a place where three important perspectives could meet, each of them having a view on health needs based on their work.[63]

81. There is a need to ensure that physical and psychological services and support are available to all who need them. The need for adequate healthcare services is of particular concern. However, we are not persuaded that the Reconciliation Forum as proposed will necessarily add value to existing bodies such as the Commission for Victims and Survivors. The aims of the Consultative Group might be more effectively and efficiently delivered if such bodies empowered to take on a wider strategic role in coordinating and developing existing services for victims and survivors.

FUNDING SERVICES FOR VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS

82. The Consultative Group recommended that a £100 million bursary be made available to the Reconciliation Forum in order to support its activities. The report commented:

    Many strong views were expressed about the inadequacy of funding that is generally available to meet the needs of, and provide services for, victims and survivors. The chief criticism was the lack of strategic focus evident in the piecemeal and short-term approach to funding. Many groups argued that this impacted on their ability to secure and retain good staff in the longer term and ignored the fact that often the needs of victims and survivors do not emerge for a long time after a traumatic event.[64]

83. The need to ensure continued funding for services to victims and survivors was reflected in the evidence we received. Again, funding for healthcare provision was a particular concern identified by various witnesses. Submissions from the Northern Area Trauma Advisory Panel and TMR Healthcare Professions noted:

    The Report recognises the value of the work already undertaken by the myriad of non-statutory groups and many of the statutory organisations but this has, overall, been a very "piecemeal" approach. The approach was revenue dependent and the DHSSPS and local government agencies never fully addressed the level of commitment to long term funding policies that would embed the range of trauma services into core health and social care provision.[65]

84. The Corrymeela Community also emphasised the importance of the work being undertaken by these organisations:

    It is important that the Trauma Advisory Programme is maintained. This programme has brought much good support to victims on the group, specific to their needs and has gained much learning from its work. Many of its programmes are systemic, address the relationships of the family and some reconciliation components. Many of the victims who would not have found support through the "normal" (perceived as medical) system have found much to aid them in their recovery. All such holistic programmes must be encouraged.[66]

85. Existing healthcare services for those bereaved and injured during the Troubles are under pressure, particularly mental health services. We encourage the Northern Ireland Executive to give these matters serious consideration. We recognise that £100 million is a very large sum, and it might be put to more productive use in finding a scheme to help those injured or bereaved, as proposed in paragraph 65 of this Report.

REMEMBERING ACTIVITIES

86. The Consultative Group discussed at length the importance of activities aimed at promoting reconciliation through remembering. The report commented:

    Whether and how the past should be publicly remembered featured heavily in the consultation. Many groups and individuals shared their view that public remembrance is a crucial element of healing a post-conflict era. It allows them to reflect openly on the past and come to terms with its impact upon their life. It is an important way of celebrating and honouring the lives of those who were lost in the conflict. It provides a way of rebuilding, pointing to the shortcomings of the past, and shaping resolve for a different future.[67]

87. The Consultative Group envisaged a role for the Chairman of the Legacy Commission, through the Reconciliation Forum, to promote storytelling schemes and memorial projects and to develop the concept of a day of shared reflection, presently existing as the Day of Private Reconciliation organised by Healing Through Remembering on 21 June. The Group concluded that at present a physical or living shared memorial would not be appropriate, as such a project "remains a contentious issue for many and poses many challenging issues around which we could not see any consensus".[68] However, they believed that storytelling activities were important as a means for individuals to come to terms with the conflict and promote wider social reconciliation:

    […] storytelling is a means of confronting their past and articulating their stories, involving elements of both narrative and moral reassessment. Through storytelling, people realise that, although they feel their cause was just, not all that they did in pursuit of it was either the right thing to do, or altogether necessary.[69]

88. The Consultative Group recommended that whoever chairs the Legacy Commission should encourage the collation of stories in some form of archive and "seek to influence the criteria for receiving funding in order to ensure that storytelling initiatives have reconciliation at their heart."[70]

89. The Day of Private Reflection was launched on 21 June 2007 by Healing Through Remembering as an opportunity for remembrance and private consideration of the consequences of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

90. The Consultative Group supported this idea and praised Healing Through Remembering for its work in implementing the day. It recommended that this concept be developed and taken further over time, remaining as a private day initially, but evolving to include more public events, when appropriate. This, it said, would include a keynote speech by the First Minister and deputy First Minister reflecting upon the past "in a positive way and to confirm their commitment to lead us towards a shared and reconciled future".[71] The day would also be renamed "a Day of Reflection and Reconciliation".

91. The evidence that we received in relation to the recommendations of the Consultative Group was largely supportive of moves to promote these kinds of remembering activities and the Day of Reflection, in particular.[72] However, there was concern that Northern Ireland was not entirely ready for all of the Group's proposals in this regard. The Corrymeela Community commented:

    Rituals of remembering are important if society is to establish a sense of the common ownership of the past and to offer an opportunity for people to participate in an event that collectively remembers and reflects. A movement from a Private Day of Reflection to an Annual Day of Reflection is to be encouraged but a Day of Reflection and Reconciliation may be a step too far at this time. The involvement of Northern Ireland politicians in key note addresses etc could be important as long as it is not about telling politicians what to do.[73]

92. It was also emphasised to us that it is important to allow individuals to chose when and how to participate in remembrance activity.[74] This concern was acknowledged by Lord Eames:

    […] one family's remembrance is a very individual act on their part, what they want to remember, how they want to remember it, and I would always want to protect the right of a family to have their say in how they are left to remember a loved one. That I think is vital. The trouble with our Report and the trouble with our thinking which produced the Report is that to magnify that onto a community site, a community level and a community broad site, it is almost impossible to encompass all the various attitudes to remembrance that there are in Northern Ireland society at the moment.[75]

93. Storytelling activities and events, which encourage both private and collective remembrance and reflection, have already assisted in promoting reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Any Legacy Commission established in the future may have a role to play in terms of encouraging the development of such initiatives, in liaison with other public bodies engaged in this field. In the meantime, there should be continued support for organisations such as Healing Through Remembering presently undertaking such projects. We emphasise that consensus must be the basis for taking forward initiatives such as the Day of Reflection. Not everyone will feel able to participate in collective remembrance and this should be understood. It is important that leading political, church and other community representatives should be seen to show the way towards reconciliation.


38   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p. 91 Back

39   Q 69 Back

40   Ev 48 Back

41   Ev 45 Back

42   Q 118 Back

43   Q 1 Back

44   Q 72 Back

45   Ev 48 Back

46   Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Preliminary Position Paper: Report of the Consultative Group on the Past July 2009, para 26 Back

47   Q 1 Back

48   SI no. 2953 (N.I. 17) Back

49   HC Deb 1 November 2006, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, col 6 Back

50   Q 2 Back

51   Q 3 Back

52   Q 83 Back

53   Ev 48 Back

54   Ev 39,  Back

55   Ev 76 Back

56   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, pp 139 - 140 Back

57   Q 61 Back

58   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p. 85 Back

59   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p 87 Back

60   Q 103 Back

61   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p 88 Back

62   Q 46 Back

63   Q 66 Back

64   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p 86 Back

65   Ev 64 Back

66   Ev 45 Back

67   Report of the Consultative Group on the Past, January 2009, p96 Back

68   Ibid, p 104 Back

69   Ibid, p 98 Back

70   Ibid, p 141 Back

71   Ibid, p 101 Back

72   Ev 76, 71 and 70 Back

73   Ev 45 Back

74   Ev 76 Back

75   Q 51 Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 16 December 2009