Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
welcome the work of the Consultative Group on the Past and recognise
the significant time, energy and careful thought that all members
of the Group put into compiling their report. The Group consulted
widely among communities in Northern Ireland and produced a report
which attempted to outline a way forward for everyone. This enormously
difficult task was bound to provoke an emotional reaction from
all areas of society affected by the Troubles. The final report
was the product of a broad consultative exercise, conducted in
good faith by the members of the Group. (Paragraph 16)
2.
We endorse the Secretary of State's decision to set aside the
recognition payment proposed by the Consultative Group in order
to facilitate discussion of its wider recommendations. (Paragraph
22)
3. Whether
or not any or all of the 31 recommendations are implemented, the
report provides an opportunity for reflection on the extent to
which society as a whole in Northern Ireland has progressed towards
reconciliation, the degree and nature of remaining tensions in
Northern Ireland, and the work that remains to be done. While
we believe that the five-month gap between publication of the
Consultative Group's report and the Government's launch of public
consultation upon it was unnecessarily long, we hope that the
public will have put emotional responses to one aspect of the
Group's report to one side and engaged fully with the consultation
to establish where consensus lies in relation to the remaining
30 recommendations. (Paragraph 23)
4. A
Legacy Commission would add real value only if it were qualified
fully to take over the functions of bodies such as the Historical
Enquiries Team and Police Ombudsman. It is not clear to us that
it would greatly enhance the activities of bodies such as the
Commission for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, the
Northern Ireland Community Relations Council or Healing Through
Remembering, unless it were a replacement for, rather than a complement
to, them. There is a danger that Northern Ireland could become
overburdened with bodies addressing the Troubles. This would be
unhelpful and likely to lead to confusion for the public, with
work being replicated unnecessarily, representing an inefficient
use of limited resources. We believe that it would be more helpful
to give greater support to existing bodies to enable them to fulfil
their roles as effectively as possible. (Paragraph 30)
5. Given
the absence of cross-community consensus regarding the nature,
aims or work of such a body, we believe that the conditions of
cross-community consensus required for the creation of the type
of Legacy Commission proposed by the Consultative Group have not
yet been achieved. (Paragraph 37)
6.
We note that the Government completed its consultation on the
Consultative Group's report in October 2009 and that the Commission
for Victims and Survivors intends to undertake similar activities.
These periods of consultation and discussion are necessary. Decisions
must be taken, however, on the best way to address the past in
Northern Ireland, and these decisions cannot be put off indefinitely.
We recommend that the Government announces a time frame for any
recommendations that it hopes to implement, following this period
of consultation, and following detailed discussion with the parties
represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly and, bearing in mind
the imminent general election, with the Opposition at Westminster.
(Paragraph 39)
7. The
precise time frame required by a Legacy Commission could be determined
within the context of the needs of Northern Ireland, only if and
when cross-community consensus was found on its role and mandate.
We believe it likely that any Commission would require a five-year
mandate at the very least but support the idea of a time-limited
mandate in order to prevent such a body from running indefinitely
and prolonging the effects of the past by so doing. (Paragraph
45)
8. We
suggest that the Commission might be more helpfully chaired by
a local figure, as an active chief executive, rather than by a
foreign figurehead. Northern Ireland is in a position where it
is able to run its own institutions, such as the Assembly, on
a cross-party basis, and that position is vital in the rebuilding
of a sense of normality. While there may be political advantages
in bringing an international figure to such a role, it would,
at this point in Northern Ireland's progress towards lasting peace,
be a much more positive move if any future Legacy Commission were
chaired, or jointly chaired, by appointees from within Northern
Ireland who could unite communities, with cross-community agreement
and support. (Paragraph 48)
9. The
reality of devolution must be acknowledged: much of the money
required for a Legacy Commission would fund activities in the
already devolved areas of health and social care, and in the field
of policing and justice, which we hope will be fully devolved
in the very near future. Devolution should be seen to be progressing,
and, therefore, seeking such additional funding from the UK Government
looks like a step in the wrong direction. We believe that any
significant additional funding should be voted by the Northern
Ireland Assembly, rather than the UK Government. Decisions over
funding levels and, by extension, the exact nature of any Legacy
Commission would, therefore, be a matter of policy choice for
the Northern Ireland Executive, rather than the UK Government.
It is in the long-term interest of everyone involved that such
decisions be taken by those who represent the people of Northern
Ireland, and that the Executive be accountable for the financial
consequences of such decisions. (Paragraph 51)
10. We
reiterate our previous sentiments regarding cross-border co-operation
and note that, while we do not recommend that the Legacy Commission
go ahead as proposed, there is scope for collaboration between
the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, both in terms
of providing support for those affected by the Troubles on both
sides of the border and the ongoing work of the Historical Enquiries
Team. However, the exact role to be played by the Irish Government,
and the legislative framework for such involvement, remain unclear
in the report of the Consultative Group. Greater clarification
is required as to the exact role of the Irish Government and any
financial contribution it would make if any such Legacy Commission
were to be pursued in the future. (Paragraph 54)
11. 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.
(Paragraph 63)
12.
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.
(Paragraph 64)
13. 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. (Paragraph
65)
14. 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". (Paragraph
72)
15. 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. (Paragraph 81)
16. 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. (Paragraph 85)
17. 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. (Paragraph
93)
18. If
and when a Legacy Commission were established, serious debate
would be required on its taking over the task of reviewing historical
cases from the Historical Enquiries Team and the Office of the
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The logistics involved
in transferring these activities would be complex and costly,
and questions arise over the real benefits to be gained from doing
so. Unless it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that a new
situation would be significantly more efficient, effective and
economical than is the case under the present arrangements, we
recommend that historical investigations continue to be carried
out by the Police Ombudsman and the Historical Enquiries Team.
(Paragraph 105)
19. We
believe that the proposed mechanisms for truth recovery and thematic
investigation do not represent viable courses of action with which
families, victims and paramilitaries will engage. In treading
carefully, the Consultative Group appears to attempt to reconcile
two mutually inconsistent positions. Despite the Group's intentions,
the proposals, if enacted as proposed, might well in effect constitute
a de facto "amnesty". Yet, at the same time, they might
not provide sufficient assurance to those who might engage in
truth recovery. (Paragraph 113)
20.
Truth recovery could work effectively only if there were open
and honest engagement by those involved in past events. It may
be that such engagement would be achieved only if those who participated
in such events, from whatever section of the community they may
come, were guaranteed some amnesty in return for their openness
and honesty. This would be an exceedingly high price to pay, and
we are not convinced that either Northern Ireland or the rest
of the United Kingdom is ready at present to contemplate such
a step. We believe that the Consultative Group's proposals in
this respect are likely to prove unworkable. The proposed system
also raises complex issues in relation to legal process and human
rights. We recommend, therefore, that no additional processes
of truth recovery or thematic investigation should be undertaken
at present by any newly formed Legacy Commission. (Paragraph
114)
21. We
recognise that there may be public demand for an alternative process,
outside the traditional court system, that allows information
to be disclosed and families to seek a different form of resolution.
Public debate will be required to establish what further investigations,
if any, should be pursued following completion of the work of
the HET. We hope that once all cases that could lead to prosecution
have been investigated, a clearer consensus will emerge as to
how to approach further investigation in a manner that will benefit
society as a whole. Any initiative along these lines, if it is
to have any prospect of success, must come from the Northern Ireland
Executive and be endorsed by the Assembly. (Paragraph 115)
22. We
recognise the role that public inquiries play in terms of holding
the Government and other public bodies to account for their actions
in relation to the events of the past. We also acknowledge that
such inquiries promise some degree of resolution to families who
feel that their cases have not been effectively dealt with through
the normal court system. However, there remains a risk that such
lengthy investigations are not necessarily conducive to promoting
reconciliation and may not come to any new or satisfactory conclusions.
(Paragraph 119)
23. In
our 2008 Report on Policing and Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland,
the Committee expressed a view that any public inquiry beyond
those currently under way should depend on cross-community support
from within the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, the continuing
demand for a mechanism to pursue investigation cannot be ignored.
If demand still exists once the existing public inquiries and
reviews of historical cases have been completed, there may be
a role for a body such as the proposed Legacy Commission to undertake
some form of thematic investigation as an alternative. We would
expect the full devolution of policing and justice to have been
achieved by the time that any such decisions are taken. We recommend
that necessary funding should then come from the Northern Ireland
Executive, rather than the UK Government. (Paragraph 120)
24. Whatever
the outcome of the Government's consultation, and whatever emerges
from the Consultative Group's report, that report should be seen
as a further step in seeking to build a broader and stronger consensus.
We believe that reflection on and constructive criticism of the
Consultative Group's report should help towards a joint acceptance
which can, in time, enable Northern Ireland to put its past behind
it. (Paragraph 123)
| 
