Ms Judith Thompson:

I thank the committee for inviting me and Mr. Brecknell, as a representative of the victims’ forum, to address it. As I am sure members will be aware, the purpose of the commission is to represent the interests of victims and survivors of the Troubles. Part of my legislative duty - and it is one of the best parts - is that I convene a forum of victims and survivors who help make sure that victims themselves are at the heart of legislation and policy in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. This is the second time I have addressed this committee, and this meeting is timely both in the context of our policy advice and suggestions to the Government of Ireland regarding the consultation on dealing with the past, but also in the context of EU exit and on the ongoing implementation of the PEACE IV programme in Northern Ireland. I would like to start by providing some brief commentary on these important developments, particularly regarding legacy-related matters.

Members of the committee will be very aware that the Good Friday Agreement made a commitment to remember and care for those who were harmed during the Troubles.

It is my belief that there has been a number of very substantial attempts over the years to address the harm that was done but that so far the legislation we need on both sides of the Border has failed to be agreed and failed to be passed to address the needs of victims and survivors. The fact is, as we sit here today, that bereaved families who wish to access judicial processes, who come from every part of society, from across the United Kingdom, Ireland and beyond, are told they must wait decades, if at all, before they can get access to investigations, to justice, to information about the death of people they loved, and to acknowledgement of the harm they suffered. That has a growing cost. It has a cost to families and people in terms of their belief that the state they live in cares what happened to them, in terms of their faith in government and justice organisations, and in terms of the communities’ faith in justice organisations, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Judicial reviews and legal actions have also got a high financial cost and the irony is that £30 million a year was spent for decades on dealing with legacy in ways that did not work and fighting judicial reviews and actions. It is more expensive to do nothing and to continue as we are than it would be to introduce new mechanisms that would have a better chance of delivering for victims and survivors. It is almost universally accepted that the current system in Northern Ireland and beyond is not equipped to address the situation. It was not designed to do so, and the cost of this failure is evident at many levels. For individuals, families and communities across these islands who are impacted there is still acute pain and loss and that is now accompanied by a strong sense that those who are empowered to address their issues have chosen to ignore them for decades. That is why dealing with the legacy of the past cannot be achieved by measures which fail to fully address the many complex and difficult issues.

It is also very clear that in the context of high levels of disillusionment and low levels of trust which exist across different political constituencies in Northern Ireland and in Ireland that any approach must be balanced, it must be transparent, it must operate within the law and it must be victim centred. People who have suffered harm have waited too long for effective organisations to address their needs.

In relation to legacy and the recent consultation, in May 2018 the UK Government published its consultation paper addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland's past. It set out draft legislation for implementing the historical investigations unit, HIA, the oral history archive, OHA, the independent commission for information retrieval and the implementation and reconciliation group. There were 18,000 responses to that consultation, and as we still await its outcome victims and survivors continue to be frustrated by the failure to deliver on those legacy mechanisms. While recognising that these delays have a link to the current political impasse I would still strongly impress on all our political representatives the need to agree proposals to deal with the past. People have waited too long.

I wish to reflect on some changes which I believe could make these proposals more victim centred and inclusive but, in spite of anything one might say about the current proposals that they can be improved and should be improved, the need to find a new way forward is unarguable. There is really no good case for continuing to deal with these matters in the way they are currently dealt with. In January 2019 I offered this advice to the UK Government and it set out the commission's views on the basis of extensive consultation on the four proposals.

For the first time my policy advice paper also provides comments for consideration by the Irish Government on how to ensure that the needs of victims and survivors are met in the Republic of Ireland. When talking to people affected by the conflict across the United Kingdom and Ireland it is clear that their experience and needs are very much the same. I believe these need should be addressed in an inclusive way and that choices and options which are open to those who live in Northern Ireland should also be open to those who live elsewhere. That is why, for the first time, I have shared my advice and made proposals to the Government of Ireland.

The recommendations in my policy advice have been made after extensive engagement with the victims and survivors forum, with individual victims and survivors, strategic partners, elected representatives, policy makers and organisations funded to deliver services as well as wider civic society. That has taken place across the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The advice I am giving to both Governments also is guided by five key principles agreed by the victims and survivors forum. The first is co-design and collaboration. If one is going to do something to address the needs of people who have been harmed, one must do it in a spirit of co-design with those people. For example, I have recommended that a victims and survivors steering group be part of mechanisms to investigate. I give information to families and in every part of these proposals I have suggested greater engagement of victims and survivors in the design. They must be victim centred and victim led. That means the needs, interest, views and wishes of individual victims and survivors takes priority. For example, in relation to each of these institutions I have talked about the need for advocacy and support to enable people to make the choices that are right for them and to enable them to be supported and to be advocated for.

The third principle I look for is inclusivity. Many people have been excluded from the scope of these proposals and that includes people who lost people they loved outside of Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, across the UK and elsewhere. There is a sense of isolation and inequality felt by those victims who often experience a low level of access to support, and a lower access to justice in some cases than those elsewhere.

It is absolutely critical that whatever we do is done in a way which is independent and impartial. Trust is paramount and it is at a very low level for victims and survivors for very understandable reasons. That is true across the UK and for those people to whom I have spoken in the Republic of Ireland. For example, on the part of both Governments, there are concerns that some matters may be redacted on the basis of national security. In addition, for both Governments there is a real need to make sure that any institutions therefore are as transparent as they can be, robust in terms of having appeal mechanisms against redaction and that families are given the absolute maximum explanation and access to information and can see that that is happening. That matters wherever people live and wherever the bereavement took place. All mechanisms must be fit for purpose so, for example, timeframes and funding have to be realistic. There is no point doing things and then not funding them properly. We have had decades of experience of that. It creates disillusionment and distrust.

In relation to more general issues in addressing legacy, in the Northern Ireland Office, NIO, consultation the Secretary of State has clearly detailed that, first and foremost, they must meet the needs of victims and survivors. They must seek to promote reconciliation and they must reflect broad political consensus. I welcome those broad principles. However, while I am of the view that these proposals currently are the best opportunity we have, there are significant changes that need to be made to address the principles I have outlined. The purpose of historical investigations should not be defined narrowly in terms of the numbers of prosecutions. That is not primarily what the investigations need to deliver. What matters to people is evident from previous and ongoing investigations, that is, that new information and evidence can be uncovered and that families who want answers can be better served than they have been, even if the evidence is likely in many cases to be insufficient to secure a conviction. The critical issues for many families and communities as well are access to information about the circumstances leading to the death of people they loved and acknowledgement of the harm that has been done to them. I have sought in my advice to draw out what the implications of that should be and what the focus on family should look like for the objectives, the structure, the staffing and the processes of historical investigations.

This is not a normal investigation. It is not just about getting convictions and it is worth doing even if convictions are going to be very few and far between.

It is often pointed out that different people have different wishes and needs and therefore it is right that the proposed package of measures offers choices and options to individuals and families but, however, these choices and options must be accompanied by support and information so people can make the decisions that are right for them. That would mean the people who want information can be given the best opportunity they have, but at the same time those who do not want information, of whom there are many, and there are some in every family, are not routinely delivered with packages of information they do not want. It is important that there is an intelligent and informed way of communicating with families. Advocacy services are critical for people when they engage with legacy institutions. My recommendations seek to ensure that all of the institutions build in links to what currently exists in the way of advocacy and enhancement of that to meet new demands.

There are 47 recommendations and I do not propose to go right through them, but there are some broad areas with specific reference to the Government of Ireland. In the case of historical investigations, I have requested that the Irish Government establish a mechanism whereby Troubles-related deaths which happened in the Republic are investigated. I know the scope of the current proposal relates only to deaths that occur in Northern Ireland, but I have talked to people who lost loved ones within this country and they feel just the same. There should never be a two-tier approach. One cannot have a hierarchy based on location in terms of how people access truth and justice. It is my strong submission that there needs to be a new mechanism here as well to investigate outstanding Troubles-related deaths.

I have also heard from bereaved families in Ireland and across the UK whose access to both civil and criminal justice processes is dependent on the close collaboration between justice organisations in different jurisdictions. I welcome the development of legislation by the Irish Government to facilitate exchange of information for legacy inquests. I believe that new organisations will need to work very effectively and share information across jurisdictions if they are going to build trust and to deliver what can be delivered to victims and survivors.

For both Governments there are issues regarding information considered as sensitive regarding national security. There is also a need for both Governments to establish fully transparent and accountable processes for determining what information can be withheld or should be withheld on those grounds. Victims and survivors across the UK and Ireland, for very understandable reasons, feel that both Governments could use redaction on the grounds of national security as a cloak behind which to hide unpalatable facts. Whether that perception is accurate or not, it is entirely understandable if there is not as transparent a process as is achievable.

On the independent commission for information retrieval, which is based on the treaty between the UK and Irish Governments and is accessible to people across both jurisdictions, I have recommended that they should have a victims and survivors steering group in the same way as I have recommended the historical investigations process. It is just as important that there is an intelligent, informed approach based on consultation with victims and survivors about how this institution engages with families, how it seeks to inform its deliverables on the basis of what families want. It is very important that in deciding what questions should be asked, information retrieval is led by the wishes of victims and survivors. Anything given through an information retrieval process can be structured in individual cases around the questions families have to ask, so engaging with families in an inclusive way and basing the work of the institution on families’ wishes is the best way for it to deliver what it can deliver.

I have also recommended that there would be a proactive outreach strategy because to be inclusive, people have to know one exists. If information retrieval is something that many people do not know exists, then they cannot use it, so inclusivity means outreach and communication. I have recommended that an appeals process similar to that of the historical investigations unit should be put in place if there is any decision to redact information on national security grounds.

I recognise that the danger of information leaking between information retrieval and investigations is a real danger which must be removed. At the same time, the obvious answer of sequencing one then the other is not necessarily a very victim-friendly answer. There will be people and families who may already feel they have got as much as they can get from an investigative process and they may want to move forward into information retrieval. Telling them they have another decade to wait may be time that they do not have. It is important that in seeking to solve those design problems, there is extensive consultation with victims and survivors and perhaps even consideration of giving some ability to families to choose the route they go down when time is short.

Another key issue to be addressed, in particular in relation to information retrieval, is the impact of incomplete or incorrect information. I have met and talked to people who have been given information which has then turned out not to be correct, which is worse than being given nothing.

The oral history archive is an incredibly important proposal for something which can capture narratives and grow understanding in a way that can help build reconciliation as well as giving people the right to have their experiences acknowledged, heard and recorded. It is important that it is done in an inclusive way. I reiterate a point I have made previously, namely, that it cannot be something that sits in a building somewhere. It must be based on outreach. It cannot be inclusive unless it is communicated properly and contributed to in a bottom-up way by different communities. It is also important that nobody thinks they are excluded from it by having signed the Official Secrets Act, for example. Those things need to be dealt with to do that in an inclusive way. This is about growing reconciliation so something that captures narratives in a way that grows understanding is incredibly important to that.

The legislative proposals on the implementation and reconciliation group are incredibly thin and yet the basic idea of it, what is at the heart of the mechanism, is probably the most important of all. If it is to be about acknowledgement and capturing what comes out of the other processes in a way that helps people move on, then it must be independent of political interference. The way it is proposed at the moment, which is almost a kind of d'Hondt process where people can get elected onto it at the proposal of a political party and withdrawn by a political party without any reason given will not grow its ability to deliver a composite independent narrative based on the information coming into it. For it to achieve its purpose, it is important that there are clear criteria for the nomination of an individual to that group, and that there would be an equally clear basis on which someone can be removed from it, and that its purpose in terms of giving acknowledgement to those who suffered needs to be more strongly built into the way it is put together. That can be on an individual or much more societal level.

There are other issues to consider, which in the interests of time I will not go into in detail. In relation to accessing services here in Ireland and in other parts of the UK and Great Britain, outside Northern Ireland, it is welcome that we have funding under PEACE IV, which is now starting to deliver health and well-being services to people who have not had it before, but if we are going to properly deal with people's needs and if we are going to do that in the context of properly dealing with difficult issues in the past then there is going to be a growing need, for a while, for advocacy, support, health and well-being and mental health services.

In relation to mental health in particular, the growth of the regional trauma network is incredibly important. It is something that has been very slow because of the difficulty of getting policy progressed and funding in the current absence of the assembly in Northern Ireland. However, it is beginning to be developed and it will be operational within the next year and it is needed as much in Ireland as it is in Northern Ireland, in particular in relation to the current proposals.

I strongly suggest that the committee look at how health in the North and in Ireland can work together on this critically important area of mental health and trauma that is related to the Troubles. Given the scale and complexity of the mental health legacy of the Troubles, it is very important that people have access to high-quality services and mental health services which are nuanced to an understanding of Troubles related trauma.

Above all, it is important to remember that the aim of addressing legacy must be to build a better future. At a civic and a political level there continues to be a war of words about the harm inflicted on different individuals and different communities during the Troubles. This in itself is often to the detriment of those who suffered. My recommendations, therefore, seek to ensure that the combined impact of this package is to offer what is achievable in terms of truth, justice, acknowledgement and reparation to people who were harmed and to do this in a way that is victim centred, respectful and inclusive of all those who suffered. The proposed mechanisms are designed to address the outstanding impact of the conflict on the people, communities and institutions of Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK and in Ireland. It is a difficult process which is uncomfortable for all, but it needs to be uncomfortable for all to deliver the outcomes which have been sought. Without these difficult conversations, the Civil Service in Northern Ireland will continue to be anchored to a trauma and division which the Troubles wrought. Twenty-one years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the broad shape of these measures seems to me to be what we have come back to time and, again and it is the best chance we have of dealing with the outstanding, unfinished business. Although these proposals can be improved and require some changes, they are still a basis on which we can improve the well-being of victims and survivors and build a better and more reconciled society for all.

I thank members for their time. I am very happy to take questions.