Ms Sandra Peake:

We thank the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement for inviting representation from WAVE in respect of the debate on legacy issues affecting victims and survivors. WAVE is one of the longest standing voluntary organisations working across Northern Ireland and has been providing services to victims and survivors of the Troubles on a cross-community basis since 1991. While the Good Friday Agreement will be in place 20 years in 2018, the demand for services from WAVE has not diminished. Year on year, we see a sizable number of people presenting with issues related to the 1970s and 1980s. In the last year, we have had 650 new referrals from people between the ages of six and 90 years.

Those who hope that time and mortality will bring closure to the past do so in vain. Many victims and survivors have struggled with the consequences of the failure to implement a comprehensive and inclusive process to deal with the past. We look back at the Bloomfield report of 1998, the Eames-Bradley report of 2009, and Haass-O’Sullivan report of 2013. We are now at the Stormont House Agreement, which we believe will be the last attempt by the UK Government to address the legacy of the past. While we accept that the priority must be getting the legal aspects of it right, and we welcome the fact there has been some suggestion of consultation, we want to raise a number of fundamental concerns. They are based on the fact that there is a lack of information about what will be included in the legislation. We also want to highlight to the committee the fact there has been a glaring and shameful omission from the Stormont House Agreement of any proposal to address the plight of those injured as a result of the Troubles.

Moving on to the historic investigations unit, HIU, in our experience, the majority of people who come to WAVE will not be interested in, or concerned about, the legislative frameworks. What they want is confidence in the process; clear information about how and when they can access the process; and to trust that the process will work for them. The simple fact of passing legislation will not do that. There should be a process that will investigate all cases. Prosecution should be undertaken if the evidential test is met. Individuals and families should have the right to access to as much information as possible. We remain concerned about a number of issues in respect of this, namely, the five-year timeframe and the caseload. Given the number of cases, we think the five-year timeframe is hopelessly unrealistic and potentially fatal to the credibility of the whole project. With cases from the mid-1980s to 2001, there are likely to be more evidential opportunities, meaning that those cases may be more complex rather than less so. We were very struck that the Police Ombudsman, Dr. Michael Maguire, has told individuals and families that some inquiries may take up to two decades because of pressure on resources. He had written earlier to 130 families to say he did not know when their cases would start.

We are also concerned about the resources of £150 million. We understand that the UK Government has indicated it will make a contribution of that amount but it is not clear where the other contributions are coming from. We are mindful that, in respect of the steak knife inquiry alone, the Chief Constable has said it will take £35 million to investigate 50-odd cases. That is 25% of the budget. What will happen to all the other families that are left? We are concerned that high profile, political cases will get precedence over those that have not been in the public eye beyond the day of the murder. Those families have been left within their community.

We are concerned about the structure of the historic inquiry team. We do not want it to be just another police investigative body. In the past, they have failed to provide adequately for victims and survivors. The structure and operational delivery of the HIU needs to be genuinely victim centred. We want it to build trust and confidence. We want the structures to be set out right at the start. We welcome the fact that there will be reports and, we hope, information provided to families. We hope there will be a commitment to providing that. We are also mindful that there can be issues about retraumatisation when families get information they do not expect to hear. While we appreciate this is not an issue for this committee, there needs to be resources to ensure that individuals and families are supported. We also want to ensure that the HIU is not overly legalistic. There should not be a bar in place for families who cannot afford legal input or do not want to be legally represented. If it becomes too legalistic it may fail produce the reports that families need. Whatever shape the process takes, we want to ensure that there is proper care and support for victims throughout.

We remain concerned about the geographical remit of the HIU. We have concern about what will happen for people who were killed in the South or who were abducted from the North and their bodies found in the South. We have made representations to the Governments and those in policy areas, and have received conflicting advice. We have been told that some cases may be included depending on their proximity to the Border; that an equivalent HIU could be established in Dublin; or that the cases will go through the cold case review team from the Garda Síochána. There needs to be a process that is equal. Families should not be treated differently. There needs to be an investigative process in place.

There is little confidence among the victims and survivors we work with that the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval, ICIR, will provide meaningful information. There are issues around whether there is corporate responsibility and what that means. We have seen similar difficulties in respect of the families of the disappeared. Considering the timeframe of five years and the Independent Commission for the Disappeared, a five-year timeframe would have meant that only four of the disappeared would have been recovered. The fact is that the work takes much longer than a five-year term. We also believe there should be a mechanism for apology if families view that as appropriate.

If the Stormont House Agreement is implemented tomorrow, a big question arises: what process does it provide for those injured and their families? In 2012, WAVE commissioned a study by the University of Surrey to examine the needs of the injured. It highlighted people's financial and practical needs and their need for relief of chronic and debilitating pain.