Written evidence from the Northern Ireland
Community Relations Council
SUMMARY
— All recommendations need to be properly
debated.— A courageous effort from the Victims Commission
to embark on sensitive and meaningful work that provides opportunities
to move forward. — Before any new institutions are established
the functions and objectives of the Reconciliation Forum need
further thinking and much more detail.
— Agreement on a structure and delivery
mechanism for the Victims' Service is a matter of urgency.
— The role and remit of a Victims' Forum
needs further explaining.
— Consideration must be given to supporting
individuals facing hardship not represented through victims and
survivors groups.
— Information Recovery processes are key
to dealing with the past and the "work" of the HET and
Police Ombudsman must continue. Further clarity on mergers.
— Public enquiries and public hearings
should remain an option.
— Seek clearer guidelines on planning and
management of community memorials.
— The development of a framework for the
creation of public memorial should have been considered.
— A public day of reflection will act as
a marker of progress.
— Timeframe is not appropriate.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Community Relations Council (CRC)
welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry on the
Report of the Consultative Group on the Past. It is particularly
pertinent to the work of Council and we hope our comments make
a positive contribution.
1.2 Northern Ireland is a deeply divided society
and the long-term after-effects of conflict continue to shape
life and experience in Northern Ireland. The conflict created
much suffering and the hurts of the past will not quickly or easily
be overcome. The Council believes that in order for society to
move forward in building a shared, inclusive and peaceful society,
we must effectively deal with our past. Our goal is to
lead and support change in Northern Ireland towards reconciliation,
tolerance and mutual trust and promote sharing over separation.
We work by promoting constructive and relevant dialogue, by actively
supporting those taking real risks for relationship building,
by acting as a practical bridge between groups in society and
between the public, private, voluntary and community sectors and
by promoting wider learning through developing better practice.
The Community Relations Council proposes that
peace building is properly recognised as a process which allows
communities to work through and beyond the legacies of the past.
It involves an investment of time and resources in building relationships
which acknowledge both differences and interdependence.
2. FUTURE PROVISION
FOR VICTIMS
& SURVIVORS IN
NI
2.1 General. Since 2002, CRC has acted as
the Intermediate Funding Body for groups working with victims
and survivors, and this role, in particular, has made CRC acutely
aware of the sensitivities and extreme difficulties associated
with addressing the legacy of the past. This inquiry is of particular
importance as it re-focuses attention on the needs of this sector.
Over the last 12-18 months there have been a number of very
important developments at government level ie the appointment
of four Victims Commissioners and a consultation on a draft strategic
approach for Victims and Survivors. However there are many outstanding
issues which have not been addressed which continue to have a
negative impact on the work of this sector ie clarification on
the setting up and remit of a Victims and Survivors Forum, the
setting up of the Victims Service and a final ratified and actionable
programme of work for the Commission for Victims and Survivors
Northern Ireland (CVSNI).
2.2 Issues. The sector has been hampered by delays
in appointments and the development of strategies etc so there
is an urgency to take appropriate and deliberate action. Council
is therefore particularly interested in the recommendations of
the Eames/Bradley Report and how they put the needs of individual
victims and survivors, groups and volunteers first, and bring
clarity to the bodies responsible for this sector. The report
correctly identifies the many issues affecting the V&S community:
Funding sustainability, the complexity of needs—those of
individuals, groups and carers etc, difficulties accessing services
and duplication of services, the need to promote best practice,
and ensure it promotes reconciliation long-term and the difficulties
around this, trans-generational related issues, mental health,
and addiction etc, alternative support eg be-friending.
In Council's recent submission to OFMDFM on
the draft strategic approach for V&S we reaffirmed the need
to address all of the above issues. Furthermore Council identified
key areas that must be dealt with in any final strategy:
2.3 Definition of Victim. Council believes
it is unfair and inappropriate to place this sensitive matter
within the remit of the Victims Forum as it could potentially
alienate individuals and groups who represent victims and survivors,
and one which might never be resolved by a forum with so many
differing views. It is a divisive piece of work. Council recommends
either a re-affirmation of the current definition or immediate
work carried out by responsible politicians to develop a new definition—an
agreed definition must be in place before the strategy is rolled
out. This would prevent future delays around this highly sensitive
issue and ensure the forum does not end up as divisive structure.
2.4 Funding criteria & sustainability.
The sector must be offered something more than the perpetuation
of their current status. Government cannot build "a shared
and better future" without engagement with the difficult
process of acknowledgement and reconciliation beyond single identities.
Council believes that criteria for funding should include the
need for groups to plan strategically and to evaluate the impact
of their activity on an ongoing basis in order to extend their
scope. In the absence of such thinking there is a real risk that
the delivery of change on the ground is becoming stagnated. Effective
evaluation tools should be in place to better communicate the
exact nature of such progress. If there is to be less money in
the future for service delivery then effective evaluation models
need to be in place now in order to focus service delivery on
those interventions which are shown to have the greatest impact.
2.5 Needs assessment. It is important this
takes place to ensure needs are being addressed by the appropriate
bodies. It enables those responsible for Victims & Survivors
to plan around budgets and work plans. Any needs assessment should
include both qualitative and quantitative information. Qualitative
information should be used to help assess why some victims &
survivors make use of such services and others don't. Such information
should be used to inform longer-term targeting of resources. It
is important that this also takes place in an area-based context
in order to promote consortiums of groups who can deliver services
across a geographic area. This won't happen in all places due
to relationship difficulties but must be actively promoted to
ensure the survival of these services, with the added benefit
of developing reconciliation.
2.6 The need to identify best practice,
with subsequent development of standards in order to quality assure.
2.7 Data Collection. Council has concerns
over the repetitive nature of data collection during the application
processes for support and assistance. There is a growing sense
of frustration among individuals etc who face a "bureaucratic"
system each time they try and access help and support. Council
therefore recommends the installation of a central database housed
in a central location but which can be accessed by the various
structures and services responsible for V&S—this would
remove the "burden of proof", and therefore help minimise
the re-trauma of those seeking help and support. It would also
provide accurate data for monitoring and evaluation which could
be used to identify gaps and ensure the strategy is meeting the
changing needs of the V&S community.
STRAND 1
2.8 Reconciliation Forum. Council welcomes
the emphasis in the Report on healing and reconciliation as a
critical element of dealing with the past. Council is absolutely
convinced that all government institutions and bodies have a role
to play in building trust, inclusion and reconciliation. Council
is also not in principle opposed to a body that promotes societal
reconciliation. However we remain seriously concerned about the
potential for overlap and duplication in the current proposal,
not least with our own work.
2.9 Over many years, CRC has been energetically
committed to the practical promotion of reconciliation on the
basis of fairness and equality, respect for diversity and a commitment
to build a shared and better future for all. The wealth of social,
community and organisational practice and knowledge that has been
created as a result must obviously be central to any institutional
commitment to reconciliation. As it stands, the current proposal
for a Reconciliation Forum creates uncertainty about the relationship
of the work of a legacy commission into the past and the role
of CRC. Furthermore, the role of the Commissioners for Victims
and Survivors and the relationship of a Reconciliation Forum to
the Victims Forum is not made clear in the document.
2.10 Clearly, any redrawing of roles and
responsibilities would need to be carefully and precisely reworked
in order to minimise confusion about responsibilities and roles.
This is a complex area of work and it requires an infrastructure
which is streamlined, outcome-focussed and the resources dedicated
to the task at hand rather than the bureaucracy. The end goal
is to ensure that real change to a shared and better future, together
with an emphasis on, better services and real support for those
who have suffered most.
3. STRAND 2,3,4—TRUTH
& JUSTICE
3.1 Council has a keen interest in the area
of truth and justice.
3.2 Investigations and resolutions can help build
confidence in the criminal justice system and deliver the justice
that many families seek. The work of the Historical Enquiries
team and the Police Ombudsman must continue as vehicles to attaining
truth & justice; it is important supporting mechanisms continue
to bring closure.
3.3 Council supports the premium of getting
information and gaining confidence within the community and therefore
supports an Information Recovery Processes. Confidence in this
process will depend heavily on the co-operation by all those who
have information to give.
3.4 Council accepts the principles that
this work needs to continue but these recommendations replicate
what is already happening elsewhere, and many will feel that the
creation of new bodies will delay the truth recovery process.
We also seek further information on the accountability and oversight
structures of these strands of work. More information is required.
3.5 Council is concerned at the proposal
that there should be no more public inquiries. This proposal is
absolute and to close this avenue of addressing the past will
create many dilemmas. It is important this option is still available
to those who wish to pursue it. The Report should have made recommendations
on how to manage future inquiries—as resources seem to have
been a major factor in this recommendation.
3.6 Under thematic areas it is important
public hearings are an option—in light of what may emerge
from examinations it would be in the public interest to keep these
issues transparent and open and to keep the public informed.
3.7 It is imperative these processes adhere
to Human Rights standards.
4. THE RECOGNITION
PAYMENT
4.1 Unfortunately, the issue of an acknowledgement
payment has become hostage to a bitter public debate. The public
reaction to the proposal from some quarters has only heightened
feelings of outrage and disillusionment with the report in its
entirety, and the consequence has been the withdrawal by the British
government on any future action. Council does not have a fixed
view on the appropriateness of an acknowledgement but we acknowledge
the spirit in which it 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.
4.2 This recommendation 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.
4.3 Clearly allegations of leaking this
aspect of the report to the media did not best serve the sensitivity
of this issue, and has negatively impacted on attention to the
rest of the report and the other 30 recommendations. It is
important the rejection of this recommendation does not prevent
a proper debate on the remaining recommendations.
5. REMEMBERING
5.1 Community Memorials—Council is
particularly interested in the "shared space" debate.
There is a need to remember what has happened during the conflict
but it is how this is done within the context of shared space.
Generic principles were set out for the planning and erecting
memorials, however Council would have liked detailed guidance
and criteria eg dialogue, consultation at community level (cross-community),
who should be involved, what statutory organisations need to consider.
Ultimately we need to create welcoming, accessible, good quality
and safe spaces where people and communities do not feel excluded
or isolated.
5.2 Societal Memorial—Council felt that
the report should have made firm recommendations on how society
remembers ie a memorial. The group was in a unique position in
that it had been given authority to examine and make decisions
on a way forward. Council believes the group should have developed
a process, but unfortunately it has been postponed for future
consideration.
5.3 Day of Reflection—Council is supportive
of Healing Through Remembering's Private Day of Reflection and
of the process for making it a Public Day that allows everyone
to participate. This is a process that has to be monitored and
one which represents a marker for how society has moved forward.
6. TIMEFRAME
6.1 Council does not feel the proposed timeframe
is realistic. We would urge the Committee to consider the reality
that many victims and survivors have only recently come forward
requiring support. This may become more apparent as victims &
survivors receive new information on the circumstances of the
deaths of family members as a result of historical enquiry and
information recovery processes. There is a growth in the number
of voluntary self-help groups being set up particularly to undertake
befriending work (most noticeable in the West). In addition, ex-service
groups (UDR, RUC, etc.) have increased in number over the past
two years, requesting support for respite, befriending and welfare
assistance. It is clear that, many new groups have been recently
established, there remains a great need for support and resources
to meet the needs of our community.
6.2 While Council agrees with the need to have
a vision and an end goal we are also of the view that this process
will not be completed in a single planned moment. Instead the
process of dealing with the past will require continuing attention
as well as delicate and sensitive handling. We therefore believe
that any institution or Commission should make recommendations
on future work at the end of five years rather than drawing an
arbitrary line underneath uncompleted work. A monitoring and evaluation
process might record achievements and outcomes in order to influence
any further recommendations.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 It is extremely important the relevant
recommendations in the Report are closely examined and decisions
made on their value for society. Council is hopeful that our involvement
in this particular inquiry will make a positive contribution and
look forward to engaging with the Committee in the future.
10 April 2009
| 
