Ms Mary McCallan:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it today. WAVE has worked for a number of years to support families and individuals who have sought to obtain information on the circumstances behind their bereavement or injury. A specific case work service was established in September 2012. However, truth, justice and acknowledgement remain contested matters in a society with varying expectations across the community and the client base we work with. It is clear from WAVE's work that families and individuals affected by the conflict deserve access to information on the circumstances in which people were bereaved or physically and psychologically injured. Acknowledgement of hurt is a vital part of recovery in their health and well-being. The withholding of information from the bereaved and injured people prolongs their suffering and prevents individual and societal healing.

WAVE is a cross-community and inclusive support organisation and is accustomed to dealing with individuals from a variety of backgrounds. It believes that all families have a right to know the circumstances of their bereavement or injury. The provision of advocacy and support to families engaging in these processes is vital. NGOs, such as WAVE, should not be hampered in carrying out such important work, whether through a lack of funding or a perceived unwillingness of others to provide information. Accessing information allows victims and survivors to become empowered, take ownership and resolve difficult and sensitive issues. Engaging with legacy issues contributes to building and cementing peace in areas affected by the conflict.

Over the past 15 years statements and promises have been made to victims. There was little in the various agreements to specifically address the need for information recovery by victims of the Troubles. We were disappointed with Together: Building a United Community Strategy produced by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, OFMDFM. It contained some commitments to deliver support services to victims and briefly examined the issues of memoralisation but did not address the issue of information recovery in a comprehensive fashion. Many families and individuals regard the reluctance to deal with human rights violations and breaches of the criminal law as affording ongoing immunity to the perpetrators of acts of violence during the Troubles. The corrosive effect that has had on societal confidence in policing the criminal justice system and in the current political system cannot be underestimated.

A great concern for WAVE is the continuing trauma being experienced by families who will try any possible avenue to gain the vital information. It is worth remembering that what has been established, and commonly referred to as a package of measures, did not grow from a coherent logical policy. It was established in reaction to sustained campaigning by families and individuals such as the families of the disappeared and the establishment of the independent commission. Over the past number of years families and campaigning organisations have attempted to use legal mechanisms, and publicity that surrounded high profile cases, as vehicles to uncover hidden truths or as a means to apply political or moral pressure to individuals or organisations that may be in possession of relevant information.

WAVE has worked with people who have had positive and negative experiences of the various established investigative processes. It is important to acknowledge that some families have been satisfied. On contacting various bodies, they have expressed satisfaction with the work undertaken and found it valuable. Some families knew very little about the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved one so the opportunity to obtain some knowledge has brought comfort. In the recent high profile case of John Proctor, the Historical Enquiries Team reviewed the case, passed it to the PSNI to investigate and a conviction was obtained. The Proctor family have felt a great relief having obtained that degree of justice.

We acknowledge that good work has been carried out by individual officers investigating cases. However, some families who approached WAVE have raised legitimate concerns due to their experiences of the processes, many questioned how informative the reports produced are and there was a perception that some cases were treated differently from others. The recent report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, HMIC, on the HET stated that the HET's overall approach was unacceptable.

The current piecemeal unco-ordinated processes impede collective understanding of what occurred during the period of conflict. The inherent insufficiencies and lack of coherence has failed to provide families and individuals with the information that they desperately need in order to begin the healing process. WAVE strongly advocates the development of a structured and comprehensive approach to end the relentless need for families and individuals to endlessly engage with process after process. We advocate that those who were injured in the Troubles have access to information. Some of the injuries were of a life-threatening nature. In other cases the injuries were obtained at the same time as a fatality occurred and reports have been prepared via some of the mechanisms that I outlined. The processes that currently attempt to examine the past do not address the issues. Even those that have a remit to examine the cases, such as the Office of the Police Ombudsman, have adopted a system of prioritisation that gives precedence to cases that resulted in a fatality over cases of injury.

Many injured people are treated as mere witnesses to the event, denying them the recognition and acknowledge they deserve both legally and morally.

We would emphasise that all current mechanisms and any newly established measures must respond to the rights of those injured in the Troubles as well as those bereaved. We would argue that the consultative group on the past, commonly referred to as the Eames Bradley report, has been the best attempt to date to develop a consensus on these issues and try to find a holistic and inclusive way of addressing the past. While acknowledging that it had its shortcomings, the consultation and effort put into the report by the authors, civil society and victims to discuss painful issues should not be overlooked. The flaws within it, for example, the lack of provision or reference to injured victims could be overcome with further deliberation and thought.

We believe that a proper and respectful debate about the merits and potential problems of a proposed legacy commission and how it could be developed is the best starting point for these issues. An ethically sound, victim-focused information recovery mechanism could be cultivated from the proposals in this report. It is our opinion that this would add value to the existing mechanisms and supplement current processes dependent on the wishes of families and individuals.