Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

Wednesday 9th September 2026

(began 3 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:37
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:44
09:44
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I suppose, committee chair? I mean, we have used the language that there's almost two Northern Ireland's have grown up as a consequence of 1998 and the Belfast Agreement, and in 98, for many whom weren't directly touched by the violence . And when violence at that stage certainly receded, if not stopped at that particular juncture, many people were clapping people on the back and saying, thank you for stopping. And now we're committing to a new and even I think the impression across the water was that that was us at that stage that we had realised peace and reconciliation was going to naturally follow.

And that was an absolute misjudgment, because the truth is that for that cohort of people who were directly impacted by the violence, many of them have never received any account for what they have endured, and they have watched some parts of Northern Ireland, some communities, and move forward at pace, and they are left in this space of almost being portrayed as backwoods people that they cannot somehow move forward with this, this new agenda. And that's that's deeply troubling.

It's it's grossly unfair. And if you think about it as well, you know, in these lines, many of those individuals lived life by strong values. They were opposed and always were opposed to the use of violence from whatever quarter it came from. They lived their lives in that manner. They were good neighbours to others, and yet they are the people who are left now in the shadows. They're no longer part of the mainstream.

They're almost part of the fringes, and that's what needs to be addressed in all of this also.
09:46
09:46
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Well, actually picking up Mark's point, I mean, I think that one of the things in terms of putting reconciliation into with the last government in the legislation, I think, give an illness that in some ways victims and survivors were were holding us back. And that can be further from the truth. I mean, I see people every day that are the most progressive people, or the people who lead by example, who've taken the most risks, who have borne the most horrific losses, and yet every day go out to try to make this and to make Northern Ireland or wherever they are, a better place, they contribute to education to try to ensure our health services are much more attuned to victims and survivors needs.

They go out and campaign in relation to the injured pension, regardless of who or what they are, they go out to fight for the return of their loved ones, so they're not the people. In some ways there was there's a there was a suggestion or an inference that they in some ways were holding us back. And that couldn't be further from the truth. I think we have to acknowledge the cost, that there is the need for acknowledgement and the need to feel that their loved ones lives mattered, and that needs to be very, I think, very clear.

And the other inference was that if only victims and survivors would be quiet, we would all be okay. And the reality is that couldn't be further from the truth. And I go back to the point, they are the most progressive. They lead by example. They take risks. 1200 new people choose to come in to wave every year because we're a cross community organisation, and that's the choices they make. And, and they make that because they are trying to create a better society for their loved ones.

And in the same way as the other groups represented here today on screen.
09:47
09:47
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I think I think it's both. I think that government policy can help. I think in terms of ensuring that the resources are there, the requirements are there in relation to trying to to bring change. Absolutely. But I also think it is personal choice and that there should be no burden placed on on individuals. And I think that, you know, that's something which is really important. We should not place a burden on individuals to say to victims and survivors that in some ways you're holding us back.

Because again, that couldn't be further from the truth. But I think we do need to, to support people to make those choices. And how do we do that? We do that by bespoke services. We do that by having a legacy process that delivers and delivers fully. I will always say that for many people, they need to be freed from the past. And if we don't get legacy right, we're not freeing families from the past. And all we're doing is passing the trauma to the next generation.

Trans generational referrals into way of direct 15% people born after their loved ones were killed, long after their loved ones were killed, but who are trying to find out the truth, trying to to get answers. People maybe who were very young at the time. So we need to have a process delivered. And legacy is at the heart of that. Acknowledgement is at the heart of that. Education is at the heart of that , and creating those mechanisms in which we can create a better and more informed society.

But we need to get it right.
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:51
09:51
09:52
09:52
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yeah. In in response to Simon's question, I, I would kind of say that, you know, if you look at the comments by Theresa Villiers, where families were working with the Police Ombudsman and they examined the killings of their loved ones, were collusion was involved or violence was involved. She described that in Belfast, and it was on the anniversary of the murder of Pat Finucane, to which it was noted at the University of Ulster that people were engaging in pernicious counter-narratives.

And I think comments like that, exactly what Simon says is people need to reflect on. Those are. When Karen Bradley said that all killings by the British Army were lawful killings. Of course, she later did retract that on record. But I think, yes, there are the people that sit back and have a responsibility that make very offensive comments. And then I measure that with the total generosity of families to step forward and be brave and ask difficult questions, but also ask it not only for themselves.

And as Sandra says, the transgenerational impact, they don't want their grandchildren having to pick up this and deal with it. They want it addressed. And it's about recognition and acknowledgement. And I think that when we deal with those difficult questions, unpalatable truths, and people are brave enough to step forward, and we see them every day in all our organisations and ask those questions, and then they're denied. Are they're faced with comments that seek to send them back or make them retreat? And I think those are unhelpful.

So we need to create a kind of pathway, as I talk about in, the only way in doing that is dealing with the transitional justice issue in a lawful and meaningful way that's compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, to which both governments and both jurisdictions were people were harmed, have an obligation to to adhere to.
09:54
09:54
09:55
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I think there's there's there's very deep concerns in relation to it. And you have to remember that we have have had successive processes that delivered in part, but didn't deliver fully for everybody. And in fact, not everybody even got the chance to engage. So, I mean, I go back to the historic inquiry team, which did some good work for some people. Other people. It was closed before they ever got near.

And for some, they felt the process wasn't as full as it should have been. And in fact, that was proved. I suppose that was proved most visually in relation to Operation Canova, in terms of what families got through that process, in comparison to what they got through when they went through hat. So there is a real sense of fear that that one, the time delay two, in relation to what is proposed and will it deliver or will it be as genuine as it should be? And people want that.

They want to see something that delivers. And, and three is about the sense that they don't want to it to be carried on within the family. They don't want to be handing it down. And yet we see the impact that it is being handed down. And we do need to get something in place that delivers a, a fully for for families. I still go back to, I've been around wave for over 30 years. And the best example of legacy being addressed that I have seen as Operation Canova because it put victims and survivors at the heart of the process.

And when you talk to them today, they will talk about why that made such a fundamental difference to them. Every family deserves that. Every family should receive that. And we need to get this right, and we need to ensure that they are in some way, because of the structures and how and what has been put in place that actually, you know, doesn't give them fully what they need. For many, when you talk to families, what they talk about is I need the truth.

I need to know that my loved one mattered. I need the truth, and I need to know in relation to why what happened and why it happened in relation to being able to move forward.
09:57
09:58
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Yeah, I think the difficulty is as well. You almost need to go back and review what's happened over the last quarter of a century around what pathways to justice, truth and accountability have been open to victims and survivors across the piece. And when you do that and you look at, I suppose, that level of despondency which has grown within many people because they don't have, if you like, a pathway that's going to progress things for them, then people will obviously will point to the deficiencies within the body.

Currently. Obviously, some people don't don't engage with it. And many families have taken that that view. In terms of our own organisation, though, there has been a cohort of people who have agreed, have sorry, have committed to work with it, and they're not doing so because they believe it's the holy grail that it actually, you know, is, is, is guaranteed to achieve for them. But they're doing so because it's the only option that they have on the table.

And in terms of the coronial inquest system, they have very limited opportunity and gateway to that pathway. And obviously, it's still a matter of consideration where that all goes. And then the civil courts, the civil courts are a main focus around the table here. There have been two judgments. Were individuals connected with prescribed organisations, had judgments made against them, and damages were to be paid to victims and survivors. And there is no mechanism for that judgment to then be applied.

These individuals living out of jurisdiction, and that is something that we think is gravely unjust also, because whatever we move forward with now has got to be consistent and open to all victims and survivors from whatever background they come from. And we have always championed the rights of people, irrespective of who they are, if they are progressing these issues. And I think that's what we need to have more of. If we do so in a very piecemeal manner, then we ultimately get flawed outcomes.
10:00
10:00
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Yeah. If I pick an operating your question about if we don't get this right, I think every failed process has added an additional harm to the bereaved and the injured and consequently their families. It takes a piece out of them. The T you mentioned it eventually had to be disbanded because in law had had treated the killings by British soldiers with less rigor and had been in some senses quite partial. And I think that's a a theme.

If we look at the Police Ombudsman, it was constantly dogged with a lack of resources to do its work effectively lack of cooperation, lack of the provision of documents. We had an unprecedented situation with the previous police Ombudsman. Michael Maguire had issued judicial review proceedings against the Chief Constable, one statutory organisation, judicially reviewing another in a constitutional type of crisis, if you will, for the failure to provide the information to enable them to effectively do the work.

The intelligence files we've seen, all of these things happen and each of these processes either it's public interest, immunity or national security, or the destruction of documents when it comes to the examination of the state. So all of these processes have led us to a place where the rule of law and human rights have been the only tools for lots of the families we work with to use in a judicial way to find out what happened to their loved ones.

And ultimately, then we've had the Legacy Act that shut that down. So from that perspective of a large cohort of families, it's it's been the failed processes. And when they assert their rights, they're faced with with national security. And that's been a problem. And it's going to be a problem. I think around this, the Legacy Act and, and the troubles bill, in terms of the lack of candour, we look at the Hillsborough law.

What impact is it going to have when it comes to MI5? John Bowker is is Saunders rightly pointed out, and I work closely with with him and his team with a number of families. It was a robustly different process. And and and the difficulties that he himself faced in terms of even the prosecution files were never even acted upon in terms of accountability. And I do think I and I would urge the committee, because all of this.

There's a book written recently written by John Muir, the journalist, neither confirm or deny it gets to the heart of all of these issues, and I'd urge everybody to read it and educate themselves around it. But the context is we do need to get it right. And we've we've constantly heard it's the last effort, it's the last chance. We've been hearing that from day one. And sometimes that's used as a mantra to intimidate families as well and to scare them.
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:04
10:04
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I think it's important to say that anyone who goes to Iqra has our full support, if that's what they decide, and we will work with them, and if they feel the process is satisfactory, then you know that we'll support that fully. However, I think the difficulty is, and there are a number, I think that Hakea was set, and as Kenny said, it was set at breakneck speed. Systems and processes were put in place and the argument would be said, look, it's a new organisation embedding in.

They had a template. It was Operation Canova. They were consistently told that it worked for families. I saw it worked for families and operation can over nine years spent the same amount of money as Iqra have spent in two years and operation can overproduce, reports Iqra. I understand that reports may be imminent, but. But at the end of the day, two years on, we don't have them. And that actually then gets into where it is with families, because families have been told, and I hate this term, that it's the only show in town.

Well, it's not the only show is inappropriate. We're talking about an investigative process in relation to their loved ones murders. And we see a number of issues. One is it doesn't have full policing powers, despite what we were led to believe at the start, that the second thing is in relation to where families are is about the public nature of the process. So we consistently have raised the issue around all questions that families ask being published, and that has not been satisfactorily concluded that reports have to be published.

And the big question is, and it applies to to the legislation coming in, who is this process for? If it's for families and it should be up to families, whether they release that report or not. Kenova families chose not to. And if you look actually only two families out of all of Canova released their reports. And even then, there would have been differences within families, whether they would have liked that report released or not.

And I think that's how it should be, because it goes back even to fair. So if I wanted to ask hypothetically, if I was wanting to ask about whether people certain people were involved in my father's murder, were my neighbours involved, were other people involved? And those are going to come into a report. What would that do for community relations? I mean, you have reconciliation here in the table. That will be that will be far from reconciliatory in relation to causing very bad blood.

If people are reading the types of questions that individuals may ask in the interests of uncovering what happened to their to their loved one, we have the intimacy of violence, where people are living cheek and jowl beside people who may well have been responsible for their loved ones. And, and, and so fundamentally, the process is flawed. And we need to get that right. And, and for many families coming through, they have taken immense risks. Some families, because of the public nature, have chosen now not to go forward or are in a wait and see position.

And then you've many families, as Mark said, and we would have them in way of who have decided not to go there until they see a process that is reformed. And that's what they want to see.
10:11
10:11
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Well, we are we're supporting families in Accra through advocacy. In relation to Canova. We were actively involved with families, but. 25 families, and we've went through Canova processes. And when when they started, it's fair to say. And we asked them, what trust of you in this in this process? And they said, we're very little. We've been failed in the past. We have a nightside team coming in.

And, you know, and I think John Boucher would laugh about this now, but the whole sense of, you know, John Boucher was an English copper who would investigate his own. And therefore, they didn't have high expectations of what he would do. Initially, within 18 months, he had fairly he had nearly full trust from the families that we engaged with when he said what he would deliver and he delivered for them, and they could see that.

And why? Because they were put at the centre of a process. They had direct access to investigators. They worked alongside them. When investigators couldn't tell them something, they would have told them, we can't answer that. We may be able to answer that in the future, but not now. And the other thing was it was private. So whatever they said within the confines of that room with those investigators, we didn't see on paper, you didn't read about it, and there was no published list of families that had engaged .

And all of those things. We need to be very mindful of the sensitivity that's needed for families, and that we need to put families first in relation to protecting them in whatever way. And the other thing I do want to say, and I've said it before this committee before, remember, we have still families, not ten, not 20, not 30 years ago. They lost their loved ones who are still being smiled at, jeered at, and sneered at by those who were involved in killing their loved ones.

That's today. So and and therefore, anything that's public, anything that puts those families out there, anything that raises those issues could potentially bring danger to them.
10:13
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Know.
10:14
10:14
10:14
10:14
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Well, there's that many FOI that have went in from a collaboration of NGOs. I just think in general, there's a reticence to be open and transparent. I think that the analysis and the kind of. We. We had two cases in the jurisdiction. We had the justice. Colton's determination around the Legacy Act, which included Iqra. And then we had the Court of Appeal where the government did appeal it.

And obviously then we had we had that in Dhillon in terms of the Windsor framework and article two and three. And I think the general sense of it is that from the judicial perspective , that they're not given a judgement on it in terms of saying the process itself hasn't been seen on paper to be adjudicated on. But I think the analysis that we have had, both domestically and internationally from from legal experts is that it's not compatible and that we provide that analysis to families.

There's a few families that we would work with had went to the process. I think two of them have withdrawn from it on satisfactory engagement over the course of a year or so. But but in general terms, our view is that it will not it's incapable of delivering. And and I think the recognition is that of. That has to be seen in the fact of the legacy of the troubles Bill and the the amendments that they're proposing to make to it, I think, is it validated that viewpoint? Sandra has rightly pointed out the.

Compare it to Canova. There are two different completely two different processes. Canova was robust. And notwithstanding, we've had some families engaged with Canova and we were centrally engaged with it that are unsatisfied and. And many that are. And this will happen. But but I think if you the approach was is completely different. And I think even if you look at at John Boucher's commentary around this, around, you know, the position he took in in respect to the gist of intelligence to be provided by the coroner, where he was initially an applicant with the Secretary of State in the previous government, Mr.

Heaton-Harris, to challenge the coroner to provide a just in the case of Paul Thompson, a young man killed in west Belfast by loyalist paramilitaries in April 1994 whose only surviving sibling was dying of cancer at the time when the case was was a court was a court and and who passed before the Supreme Court ruling in that case. But John Bowker wants justice. Humphreys ruled that the coroner was right then just two should be provided to the family, the next of kin that went to the Supreme Court .

And the machinations around that and the outworking of that was completely unsatisfactory. But John Bowker went and supported that family and visited that dying man to tell him he would do that, because he knew the intelligence, and he knew it wasn't detrimental to national security. And it was about healing and recovery and reconciliation. And yet it wasn't provided. And if we look at his position in the case of Sean Brown, did, he thinks there should be an inquiry and it won't prejudice national security.

And I think when families hear the term reconciliation, they see it sometimes for cold, because trust has been so fundamentally broken as cover up. Let's get reconciliation and apologies and leave the difficult stuff over there. The answers. And that's that's generally how families view it with suspicion.
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Well, yeah, I thought that was disingenuous, Robin. I thought they frontloaded that in an attempt to try and sell it. But when you saw through the detail the actual intention of it, of course, there was widespread opposition, not only across the the community, but politically as well for what it was seeking to do. I my sense is like reconciliation can be a very personal thing. It can be religious, it can be just about neighbourly neighborliness and moving forward.

But but but I suppose you can't paper over the cracks. The fundamentals are that people need to know who did what to whom. We need some sort of truth and accountability process that enables us then to move forward in a pathway towards communal reconciliation and a better understanding, I would say, of what happened, and for that to be accepted and not be dismissed. You know, at times victims will say, my experience is demoted or dismissed even by the commentary and the debate within the UK Parliament.

At times, some of the vitriol and some of the the speeches and the heated environment of it is has been completely disturbing. The the the the families in defence of veterans, they you know, and even when you look at the centre for Military Justice, that which which I think has a very a very right approach to this in terms of law and rule of law and upholding it and applying it. And then you see some of the vitriol in terms you kind of say to yourselves, maybe there's a bit of reconciliation needed within the chambers in terms of and a bit of humility.

And I think it's nigh impossible to get past that when you you have people defending some of the atrocities. So I, I think we need to get past that.
10:23
10:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Yeah. Thanks, John. I suppose look, again, it's it's how you frame this piecemeal or procedural type of reconciliation versus something that is substantive. And look, in this area, I think all of us, each and every day have opportunities to promote a better way. And the difficulty in Northern Ireland is that it's whether you look at it through the prism that we are at peace, or are we at a position of stand off. And certainly our position as an organisation is that we are at stand off.

We are not yet in a place of peace because each and every day the troubles is being played out within Northern Ireland in many different contexts. And it's the those issues of the goading of victims and survivors from all backgrounds , which actually keeps this so raw for people. So it's not that we have come to a place of 1998, where everybody then committed to the same rule book thereafter around how victims and survivors would be treated and to be treated with dignity, with respect, and no efforts to in any way retraumatize them.

It's been quite the reverse. So we need to look at Northern Ireland in the cold light of day and what it is today. What is happening day in daily. How systemic violence glorification is at the heart of and what our life is. And if we want to genuinely move to a place where not only the majority of Northern Ireland, which hasn't been touched by these issues, can have a form of ease of life.

But also those who have been directly impacted can benefit from what was supposedly a peace dividend. Then we really need to get to grips with all of that.
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:28
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I mean, I think that that if I can go back, yes, people may not have an understanding or people may not agree in the truth, but they will know if the process is genuine, they will know how they've been made to feel, and they will know whether or not it's trauma informed. And that's what people will reflect on. How was I made to feel? Does my loved one matter? Is, is the death being accounted for in the way that it should? And I think that that they will know that that's within our if you like your gut reaction in terms of your within your inner being, what do they need for acknowledgement? I think they need a number of things.

I think we have campaigned for 13 years, obviously with the injured pension and the Troubles Permanent Disablement Pension Payment Scheme has ended as of the 30th for new applications. One of the big fallouts of that was the bereaved, and I do want to put on record there needs to be acknowledgement of the bereaved and we do want to see a process for the bereaved because that for many people, because of the how that was structured and it was structured in the way that it was for those who who were injured and for many bereaved, they fell out of that because they didn't meet the criteria for it.

And that became another sense of injustice. It became another sense that I'm not being recognised, and I have heard a lot of pain, a lot of distress from the bereaved. And we need to get we need to look and and I think that needs to happen in relation to how we move forward. The other thing that for many people is around having bespoke services and ensuring that they can get services when they need it in the way that they need it, whether it's support to go through processes, whether it's support to have a voice around processes to, to, to share that.

I do believe that trauma education is vital and equipping our the next generation of our frontline health and social care. We're victims and survivors are leading the way. The General Medical Council has reviewed their work as an area of notable practice social work. The Northern Ireland Social Care Council has said that all social work training must include impact input from victims and survivors. So they're in trying to use something that was so destructive, so negative, but in to use it for positive ends.

And and I think the other thing that we need to feel is that there's been, you know, a damaging rhetoric around legacy, you know, that has built up in relation to that sense of value and worth and place. And we look at the events last week in relation to, you know, desecration of a monument and acknowledging people. We look at that before in relation to poppies been screwing over the place. You look at it in relation relation to families who've left flowers.

And, you know, there are so many examples of where that comes really, it causes so much distress to families, but also moves so much away from an acknowledgement process.
10:31
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:36
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Crawford. So .
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:42
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Again, are key to.
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:46
10:46
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:50
10:50
10:51
10:51
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

to back that . Up by
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

a way to . Approach
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:01
11:01
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Prospect of societal.
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:04
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

important.
11:04
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page