Mr. Kenny Donaldson:

I thank the committee for the invitation today, which we appreciate. Innocent Victims United, IVU, is an umbrella organisation for 23 groups which have a collective membership in excess of 11,500 individual victims and survivors. The organisation was formed in 2012 as a movement to offer a cohesive voice to the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism and other Troubles-related violence. The organisation's status is voluntary and its membership spans Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and mainland Europe. The organisation has a clear position on terrorism and violence. It stands on the solid legal and moral foundation that in the context of Northern Ireland that there was not and is not a justification for the criminal taking of life in either the advancement or defence of a political objective. IVU is non-sectarian and non-political and seeks to offer a robust challenge and independent voice in holding terrorism and its proponents and apologists accountable. We also engage robustly with Governments, policy-makers and other stakeholders who engage with victim and survivor issues.

The cry coming from large sections of wider society today is that victims and survivors should and must move on. While victims and survivors are often characterised as anti-peace and anti-progress, is this really the case?

We would argue that when these matters are scrutinised it is victims and survivors who have given more than any other constituency in the quest for a lasting peace to be possible in this land we all inhabit. The expression "dealing with the past" is insulting to victims and survivors who are in fact pleading with Government and wider society to deal with their present so that they may have the means to move forward with their lives and start actually living again as opposed to simply existing again.

The burdens that victims and survivors are asked to carry include the burden of the immediate loss of a loved one through terrorism or other criminal actions committed by individual members of the security forces, or the physical and/or psychological damage caused by such acts; the burden of injustice,where limited numbers of perpetrators have been held accountable for their crimes and where states and others have failed to provide adequately for those who have suffered grievous damage, be it physical or psychological; and the burden of forgiveness,where large sections of the establishment and of the general population demand and expect victims and survivors to unconditionally forgive those who have grievously wronged them and that this should be in the absence of remorse, repentance and restitution being demonstrated by those who inflicted the wrong. In each of these instances the victims and survivors were and are being treated as collateral damage so that wider society might benefit from the supposed peace dividend brought about through a decrease in violence on our streets.

The Stormont House Agreement claimed to pave a way for difficult issues around the Troubles to be advanced. A suite of institutions were and are being proposed including the historical investigations unit, HIU; the independent commission for information retrieval, ICIR; the oral history archive; and the implementation and reconciliation group. There are other statements of intent to establish a mental health trauma service and a pension for the seriously injured.

We have consistently stated that any new process must contain the following: a commitment from all to work to ensure that the violence of the Troubles period never be repeated; more importantly, that it be recognised by all, including both the proscribed terror organisations and the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, that in the context of Northern Ireland and irrespective of real or perceived grievances, there was never any justification for the criminal taking of life in the advancement of or defence of a political objective; a victim-centred approach, whereby the needs of victims and survivors are, belatedly, put front and centre of proceedings and that we move beyond an appeasement process of perpetrators; and an open and transparent public debate on what constitutes a victim or survivor in the context of the Northern Ireland Troubles. The current definition of the term "victim" is at the centre of the abyss into which these issues have fallen. Innocent Victims United has engaged with victims groups; individual victims and survivors; church leaders; political leaders; academics; the GAA; the Orange Order; and with a plethora of other community and voluntary sector based organisations. There was universal recognition in those discussions that the current definition of ‘victim’ as laid out in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is morally defunct. The definition of ‘victim’ is at the very core of the failed policies which have been developed on victims and survivors issues. There must be a genuine pathway for victims and survivors to pursue justice, truth and accountability whether they are victims of terrorism or of actions committed by individual members of the security forces, and there must be the means for real outcomes to be delivered. Steps must be taken by both the UK and Republic of Ireland Governments to send out clearly a message that no-one is beyond the reaches of the law and no-one is protected. This means, for example, the legal rescinding of letters of comfort provided to approximately 200 Republicans.Legislation must also be introduced by both the UK and Republic of Ireland Governments which commits each state to providing full disclosure and full co-operation around matters concerning Troubles-related events and crimes. There must also be equitable access to support services for victims and survivors wherever they happen to live across the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. This requires a collaborative approach from Dublin, London and Belfast as well as the adequate resourcing of future service provision across the areas of health and well-being; advocacy; welfare; compensation; restitution-based packages and so forth.

I will now move on to outline our specific concerns with the new historical investigations unit, HIU, proposed in the Stormont House Agreement. We have concerns, for example, on the issue of equality. As we understand it, it is currently proposed that only those cases where no Historical Enquiries Team, HET, review was conducted will automatically have an entitlement to a HIU investigation and that those cases which have had a review may only have access to an HIU investigation on the basis of new evidence emerging. This is not equality-compliant and is causing substantive frustration and hurt amongst the victim and survivor constituency. We submit that thismust be resolved. There is also inequality around access to information files. Presuming that there is full disclosure and full co-operation from both the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland Governments, factoring in national security considerations, we have concerns as to how terrorist organisations will be compelled to provide information, given that they do not hold files or documents to make available for interrogation.

There are also governance issues here. How will this new unit interfaces with the Policing Board given the significant conflict of interest that one particular political party has with legacy-related issues? I speak of course of Sinn Féin and the IRA. We have further concerns over other matters of appointment and oversight, the details of which remain unclear to us.

Turning again to the issue of what is termed "on the runs", or OTRs, and the Royal prerogatives of mercy, unless and until these issues are resolved through the legal rescinding of previous assurances given, we see little value in supporting an agreement which leaves victims and survivors entirely in the dark as to the remaining opportunities for justice. Why would we encourage families to engage with HIU or ICIR processes unless it is made legally clear and transparent by both Governments that no-one is immune from prosecution?

With regard to the ICIR, there is significant apprehension within the IVU constituency concerning the proposed ICIR process and we have deep concerns on how information provided can be tested and/or verified. We also have concerns around information leaks which could potentially prejudice a future criminal prosecution. Critically however, we do not see evidence of the goodwill which would be necessary to convince innocent victims and survivors of terrorism that the proscribed terrorist organisations actually wish to deal honourably with these matters.

In respect of the oral history archive, we acknowledge the need for personal testimony and accounts to be facilitated but we have also lobbied for and continue to insist upon the need for a commission of historical clarification. There is a need for the development of a process which examines Troubles-related events critically and which distinguishes between events proven on an evidential basis and those relying upon intelligence, rumour and supposition reasoning.

With regard to reparations and pensions for the injured, terrorist organisations took the decision to go out and murder and maim and also to destroy commerce. In doing so they inflicted serious disablement to members of our community. Through their political voices these organisations are now seeking to prevent the innocent from receiving lifeline financial support and stability because these organisations continue to subscribe to a selfish ideology rooted in the philosophy of "ourselves alone".The contentious political issue of terrorists receiving the pension needs to be taken off the table, either through politicians having the courage to rule it out outright or through the development of an appeals mechanism similar to what was devised in the Stormont special advisors, SPAD, Bill. Those who hold a conviction for serious crimes would thus be required to go through such a mechanism.

We argue that reparations also need to be resolved for the following groups: the immediately bereaved or next of kin; those who have been displaced or, in the case of parts of Fermanagh and Castlederg, ethnically cleansed; and the victims of Gaddafi and Provisional IRA terrorism. Additional work is also needed to examine a reparation case for those who have been psychologically injured.

I will conclude by discussing the forerunner to the work of the implementation and reconciliation group. We in the IVU demand that the Governments responsible for stewardship of the peace and political processes recommit themselves to the principles of justice, truth and accountability, and that they will without fear or fervour support the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism and other Troubles-related violence in their quest to obtain answers. Society must be embedded with a mind-set that when one neighbour wrongs another they are required to engage in a process of what may be terms "3 Rs", that is, that they demonstrate remorse; that they show repentance; and that they engage in restitutive acts. After these processes have been worked through, individual and societal reconciliation will then be possible.Without this, we will continue with our current state of phoney peace.