Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Work of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, HC 932
Wednesday 20 April 2016
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 20 April 2016.
Members present: Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair); Tom Blenkinsop; Oliver Colvile; Mr Stephen Hepburn; Lady Hermon; Kate Hoey; Danny Kinahan; Jack Lopresti; Dr Alasdair McDonnell; Nigel Mills; Ian Paisley; Gavin Robinson.
Questions 1-73
Witnesses: Judith Thompson, Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, and John Beggs, Secretary to the Commission, Commission for Victims and Survivors, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Ms Thompson and Mr Beggs, thank you very much for joining us. It is good to see you. I am very interested in learning a bit more about the work you do. I understand you would like to make a brief opening statement. Perhaps you could just introduce yourselves a little more fully and then tell us what the commission is and what it does and we can go from there. Thank you.
Judith Thompson: Thank you. I will introduce myself first. I am Judith Thompson. I am the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland. I have been in post now for about seven months.
John Beggs: I am John Beggs and I am secretary to the commission. Thank you.
Judith Thompson: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come before the Committee this morning. I would like to provide you with information on the work of the commission, and within this statement I would like to also specifically update the Committee on progress towards the implementation of the “dealing with the past” measures within the Stormont House agreement. In addition I would like to touch on some of the issues around support for victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied weapons and some specific issues relating to access to services for those who live outside Northern Ireland.
It has been both a privilege and a pleasure to accept my appointment as the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. My priority over the last seven months has been to meet as many individuals and groups as possible. People have described to me the impact of our troubled past as a day-to-day event and experience. I have a deep respect for their dignity and their resilience, and for the work of those groups formed to support and champion the victims-and-survivors issues.
The first paragraph of our victims-and-survivors strategy states: “It is recognised that the issues are numerous, complex and give rise to very deeply held emotions and feelings.” I have been struck by that complexity. As I have met individuals and come to understand their needs, I have seen the range. This went from people for whom issues around truth and justice are the most important to those for whom recognition, dealing with loss, mental health and physical health, financial hardship and social isolation are the key issues. It is clear that these issues are interrelated. For example, truth and justice issues impact on many people’s mental health and wellbeing.
In its first paragraph the strategy goes on to acknowledge that for many people fear and trauma remain a present-day reality. It is also crucial that any strategy recognises the importance of victims and survivors feeling that they are safe in a changing environment. This is what makes dealing with the past in Northern Ireland so challenging. There are issues of fear, safety and dealing with trauma that are connected to deeply held emotions and differing narratives. All of these have to be taken into consideration in tackling policy issues around victims and survivors. It is also worth noting that the impact of continuing threat and violence is severe, both on those who have already suffered trauma and on new victims.
In terms of background, the commission was established in May 2008 under the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, amended by the revised order in 2008. The commission is a non-departmental public body, there to promote the interests of victims and survivors of the conflict. It is unique in its construction and remit. It was founded in the aftermath of 40 years of the Troubles and 10 years after it was first recommended in the Good Friday agreement. I was appointed as commissioner by the First and Deputy First Ministers for an additional period of four years.
The 2006 order outlines my duties as: promoting an awareness of matters relating to the interests of victims and survivors and of the need to safeguard those interests; keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice affecting the interests of victims and survivors; keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of services provided for victims and survivors; advising the Secretary of State, the Executive Committee of the Assembly and any body or person providing services; and taking reasonable steps to ensure that the views of victims and survivors are sought and heard. Finally but most importantly I have a duty to make arrangements for a forum for consultation and discussion with victims and survivors themselves, putting those people at the heart of policy advice in Northern Ireland.
The definition of a victim is also outlined in 2006 order as “someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured”. That can be as a consequence of witnessing an incident or providing medical or emergency assistance as well as being the direct victim of that incident. It can be “someone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis” for such an individual, or “someone who has been bereaved as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident”.
Research by the commission indicates that around 500,000 people, almost one in three of the population of Northern Ireland, would fall within that description. It includes up to 200,000 people with mental health problems, 40,000 people suffering injuries and 3,720 families bereaved. Within the OFMDFM strategy, the commission is identified as being the primary source of advice to Government on victims-and-survivors issues, with strategic responsibility for assessment of need and to ensure that the correct structures are in place to meet those needs. We oversee and provide guidance to Government in relation to three key areas: dealing with the past, improving services and building for the future.
The infrastructure became fully operational for the first time with the establishment of the Victims and Survivors Service, which is a service delivery arm linked to us, as policy advisers and champions for victims and survivors, and to the Department itself, which implements policy. That is the structure that is in place. Our mission and our aim is to address the needs of all victims and survivors by ensuring excellent services, acknowledging the legacy of the past and building for a better future.
Moving first to that core area about dealing with the past, I would like to talk for a moment about the proposed measures that were part of the Stormont House agreement and that failed to be part of the Fresh Start agreement. I believe that it is critically important that the Northern Ireland political parties are able to reach an agreement on a way of implementing these measures. Aspects of them have caused concern, and I believe there is a real need for better dialogue and consultation and a better understanding of what all those measures contain. It is a complex package. However, I still believe that it is the best deal that has been around or offered for people who have suffered as a consequence of the conflict.
My predecessor provided advice on dealing with the past to the First and Deputy First Ministers in March 2014, and this advice focused on four areas that we have identified as significant for victims and survivors across all parts of the community. The first of those four areas is acknowledgement, as in many cases people have not had acknowledgement that what happened to them or their families happened, that it was wrong and that someone was responsible for it. The second area is truth: not necessarily everyone wants to know in detail everything that happened to their family member or their loved one, but people do not like feeling they are being told only part of the story or a misleading part of the story. In that sense, truth is an issue for many. The third area is justice, and not necessarily that everybody expects to see people go to prison in every case. People are realistic about that, but there is still a sense that the principle of justice applies and that somewhere a process of accountability and acknowledgement needs to take place. The final area is reparation, in the sense that those who have been harmed can never have that harm or that loss restored to them, but that something should be done to acknowledge and where possible to provide some level of reparation. Whilst I am aware that not all victims and survivors are content with what they understand is contained in the proposals, I do believe that, on the basis of communications and dialogue, this package needs to move forward. Trying to achieve a better consensus and understanding is a primary piece of work for the commission at present.
It is our view that the proposed Historical Investigations Unit will make a significant contribution to the pursuit of justice and at least some level of acknowledgement and information for those families who are seeking it. In addition, the ICIR has the potential to uncover more truth for those individuals—not always whole families—who want it, with protection for those who do not want it. The Oral History Archive will also be essential as a central place for people to share experience and narratives but importantly a place where a wider community dialogue can happen and young people can learn not only about their own or their community’s narrative but about others as well. The combination of these institutions, with delivery of better mental health trauma services, a pension for those most seriously physically and psychologically injured, provision of advocate-counsellor services and continued funding for the victims-and-survivors service, we believe will make a significant contribution to a reparation package.
The commission has done significant research on all of these areas and has provided a foundation for policy development around implementation. Advice was submitted to the First and Deputy First Ministers on the pension in June 2014. I am aware there are still unresolved issues in relation to the pension and we are currently working hard to find a way through these. However, we are still very much in support of those people who have suffered serious injury who have not had the opportunity to generate income and a pension of their own and now find themselves in ill health and poorly provided for in old age. Those people should be looked after. It is also important that our approach to all of these issues should be victim-centred. We have worked with our victims’ forum to define what that should mean. We would ask you to think about that, and ask our politicians to think about that, in terms of how this work is implemented as it hopefully goes forward.
The first of those principles is that there is co-design and collaboration: that those people whom these measures are designed to help are consulted and listened to in how they are implemented. They understand they cannot always be absolute determiners of how things are done, but people expect to know they have at least been thought of, their feelings have been considered and that, where things are going to be difficult for them, they are properly informed and supported. These measures should be impartial and independent so that they are trusted, and they should be inclusive so that there is something in this for everybody. Finally, they need to be fit for purpose so that people are not promised something that is then so poorly resourced that it does not deliver. The forum and I would ask that you take cognisance and embed these principles in legislation and in its implementation. In addition we have been working, as has the forum, with the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland to embed these principles and look at how they can inform the implementation of the legacy inquest system.
Whilst I know that the proposals have not been universally welcomed, I believe they are within reach and I would urge all here today to assist in that process. I found in November, after legacy issues were not agreed as part of the Fresh Start agreement, a profound and shared sense of disappointment among victims and communities. Something significant had been taken away and those most hurt by the violence felt that their issues had been put to the side once more, and now we want to move them forward.
There is a second issue that I would like to touch on here today.
Chair: Could you be reasonably brief? Thank you.
Judith Thompson: Yes, thank you. I would like to touch on quickly at least the prospect of reparations from Libya. We have talked to those groups and individuals most impacted and they have certainly strongly expressed a feeling of having been let down by the UK Government on this. Greater transparency over the handling of the issue and a better sharing of legal advice might help with that. It is our view that, if released, funds should be available to all victims of IRA attacks and that the wider issues, which I will touch on very briefly, in terms of service provision and the shortfall between what is provided and what is needed could be addressed or helped in this manner. The commission is fully supportive of the victims and the need for some form of reparation.
Obviously there is considerable work, about which I will not go into detail here but we are very happy to answer questions on, around the management of funds that are currently allowed in Northern Ireland to give services to victims and survivors. Some very important work and research are under way to improve mental health services, to introduce the pension and to continue to provide support to those people who are impacted. I want to highlight for the Committee, and I am sure you are well aware of this issue already, that there are particularly people outside of Northern Ireland eligible for individual-needs payments but often not the mechanisms for them to know of the existence of their eligibility. There is a significantly lesser provision of support for people outside Northern Ireland who were injured here and elsewhere as a consequence of the Troubles.
Finally, to sum up, I believe we are at a critical point in Northern Ireland as we seek to implement the proposed measures to address the past. The number of people coming forward for help and support as victims and survivors is increasing year on year in Northern Ireland by about 29%. That should not come as a surprise, because we know that the vast majority of those injured, traumatised and bereaved have not yet come forward. There is something that happens as you move further away from the experience of violence: in retrospect, people realise that what they experienced was not normal, although it may have seemed so at the time. Sometimes as people get older or leave security services where they have been part of a very close community, they experience and reflect on things that they may just have lived with and put to the back of their minds at the time. There is a genuine and emerging need and there is a growing awareness of services that people have not accessed in the past because they did not know about them. We have a growing demand and resources that have helpfully been protected but are not adequate to address the need for reparations, the need for mental health trauma support or the need for ongoing services, including for those people with physical disabilities.
We know also that there is a trans-generational impact. We know that young people growing up in those communities most impacted and those families most impacted are showing the highest levels of suicide, self-harm and mental health problems of anywhere in the UK and other parts of Europe. That is something that needs to be looked after. If we are going to move on as a peaceful society, we have to deal with the painful past and we have to acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, it still affects the present. That is why the implementation of those measures in the Stormont House agreement—the securing of proper and adequate resources to address the legacy of the past—must be addressed and sustained: so that we can move forward.
Just to finish, the one thing that everybody I have spoken to has agreed on, however divided some of the perspectives on some of these issues are, is that this must never happen again, and dealing with the past is part of that. Thank you.
Q2 Chair: Thank you very much. You mentioned that you were appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers, but your reporting or liaisons are with Her Majesty’s Government as well as the Assembly and the Executive. Would that be correct?
Judith Thompson: Yes, it would.
Q3 Chair: As far as you are able to tell us, what would be the main points or suggestions that you are making to each of those at the moment? You have covered a lot of ground in your statement, but is there any one particular thing at the moment you would be pressing?
Judith Thompson: The implementation and proper resourcing of those measures for dealing with the past is the single biggest issue. In a sense, those measures are a package and are connected. If you try to pull bits out of it, other bits will unravel. For example, the IRG is designed to look at trends and offer statements of acknowledgement, and it is to be signed up to, I believe, through legislation agreed between the British and Irish Governments and other parties. That is a really important part of building for the future, but it will be informed by information that comes through the Oral History Archive, the Historical Investigations Unit and in some limited way probably by information retrieval. Those things are connected.
The bits of that agreement that deal with mental health trauma, pension and advocacy and support are, if you like, reparations and must not be forgotten either. I do not see this as a package where you should pull it apart and say, “We will do this bit but not that.” It is a package and needs to be moved forward with as such.
Chair: Thank you very much.
Q4 Dr McDonnell: Thank you for your very extensive points that you made there. You have implied, perhaps, in some of your correspondence that national security and the Government’s reluctance to release documents relating to the Troubles is a stumbling block. Would you care to outline that? Do you agree that the release of these documents, for instance, would put lives at risk or compromise security?
Judith Thompson: The feedback that the commission received from all those who were round the table at those talks was that substantial progress was made on most of the issues, and that the stumbling block close to the close of matters was a failure to agree oversight measures to determine whether the withholding of information on security grounds was indeed on security grounds and not because it was information that might be embarrassing. There is acknowledgement by all parties that national security is national security and cannot be compromised, and that individual safety should never be compromised—no person should be named and put at risk. There is no debate about that.
The debate is how you determine that something genuinely falls into that category and what sort of oversight could be there that would be acceptable to the Government and equally trustworthy to those who are looking to see full disclosure. That is important. If you set up these measures and they did not deliver what was seen as fairness and transparency, they would not achieve what they are designed to achieve. It is a critical point.
Q5 Dr McDonnell: How can we get the balance better?
Judith Thompson: It strikes me that this is not an issue that should be insurmountable. From talking to groups within the community and the victims’ groups on all parts of this debate, there is a sense that greater transparency and better information about what happened in many instances is needed for people to feel that they are being told the truth—or at least as much of it as they can be told. Therefore, it is about oversight.
It should be possible to find a mechanism that is seen as sufficiently impartial to genuinely determine that something is a matter of national security or personal safety, and do so without compromising the Government’s right to be in control of that. That conversation needs to be happening now. I believe politicians need to be able to move forward on this with some confidence that they can take their communities, and the victims and survivors in their communities, with them. It is a civic dialogue, not just a political one.
Q6 Dr McDonnell: Are you implying that perhaps a senior judge or somebody of that nature could arbitrate? Who are you suggesting could arbitrate?
Judith Thompson: It is not for the commission to suggest a particular mechanism. I believe that discussions around the judicial oversight process have been part of the conversations, and it sounds like a helpful part of that conversation.
Q7 Dr McDonnell: I am not trying to compromise you, but your advice or suggestions would be very helpful. I agree with you on all that you say. I was part of those talks and I know the struggle it was, and I know the worries and the anxieties that people had. I accept that people are entitled to have genuine concern about genuine national security. The issue was that there was a sense that perhaps some things were being bundled into national security that were maybe less than national security. If that blockade could be dealt with in a way that meets national security interests and meets victims’ interests, we are on the road to success of some sort.
Judith Thompson: I agree that would be the case. That dialogue is quietly happening and needs to happen, and it is about trust. One of the big issues for all parts of the community in Northern Ireland is that over many years there has been a loss of trust in each other and in the different institutions of Government. That is not just in one part of the community. Re-establishing trust is essential, and therefore we must have an oversight mechanism that people will accept as being genuinely impartial, so that national security and people’s safety can be preserved but people know that it is not something that anyone can use to hide uncomfortable facts. There are those in every part of our community who believe that can happen.
Q8 Danny Kinahan: Thank you very much for your work and for coming here today. I do feel it is almost a brief that we need regularly. For everyone in the room, how many people work within your organisation and what is the budget that you are working with?
Judith Thompson: I will ask my colleague John, who is our chief executive, to run through some of that for you.
John Beggs: We currently have 12 staff and our annual budget is about £880,000. That is primarily for the staff themselves and for research purposes.
Q9 Danny Kinahan: Thank you. When you mentioned those numbers of 500,000 and others, is that just in Northern Ireland or are you taking in the figures of the victims this side of the water?
John Beggs: That is the global figure. 500,000 is our headline both inside and outside of Northern Ireland.
Q10 Danny Kinahan: Are we working through a database to make sure that we know who everyone is? We have discussed that here as a group: whether it was necessary to go through MPs and try to work out who everyone is. Is that happening?
John Beggs: Certainly in that headline figure we do not have anywhere near that number. A lot of people obviously do not come forward for services. It is only when they come forward that we can log them on a database. Our partner organisation, the Victims and Survivors Service, has around 5,000 people on their register who avail of services annually. There are also a number of funded groups in Northern Ireland—66 or 67 groups. They would have approximately 13,000 people registered with them. There is probably about 18,000 people known to the victims’ commission and the Victims and Survivors Service. That means that there are a lot of people who are not known and who have not come forward. Certainly outside the jurisdiction the numbers are even smaller—of the order of 200 people registered with the Victims and Survivors Service.
Q11 Danny Kinahan: I was leading on with that because we had such harrowing evidence given to us by those here who have never had any help. It really looked as if that was something that we should be doing now and trying to help them. Are we looking at doing that so that it happens—so that there is money and help available?
John Beggs: Absolutely. We are fully behind those people who live outside of Northern Ireland. Our definition does not draw a jurisdictional boundary. We have visited many groups outside of Northern Ireland who are trying to do work. There is some very good work going on, for example in the Peace Centre in Warrington. We have also met many individuals. The commissioner has visited many individuals who live outside of Northern Ireland in England. The bottom line is that they are isolated and unaware of the services that are available, particularly inside of Northern Ireland. We need to find ways to reach out and bring them in. We have a good opportunity today to articulate that very clearly, and if there is anything that MPs or anybody else can signpost to refer any individuals they have to us, we will certainly do all we can to help them. It is a big issue but we are trying to address it as best we can at the moment.
Q12 Danny Kinahan: Is there anything blocking it or making it more difficult that we should be trying to raise to remove?
John Beggs: In terms of funding, we have issued policy advice on this already to the First and Deputy First Ministers’ offices, and there is a restriction but that is not on individuals outside of Northern Ireland accessing funding. It is necessary to promote that and make them aware of that, but there is an issue over access to group funding. A group like the Peace Centre in Warrington could not apply to the Victims and Survivors Service for annual core funding. That is an issue and there is also inconsistency there in our eyes, in that individuals can receive assistance but groups cannot. That is something we are trying to work through to see if we can find a way through and find the resources for that.
Danny Kinahan: Thank you. There is still some way to go before we can help people.
John Beggs: There is, and if any of your colleagues or anybody else has dealt with people outside of Northern Ireland who need support, signpost them our way.
One of the big ways we give victims and survivors a voice is through our forum. Our forum meets annually with the commissioner. That provides a lived experience coming directly to the commission’s offices. We are recruiting and replenishing that forum at the moment. We are keen to have a voice from outside Northern Ireland on that forum. There could be at least one or two seats potentially for that, so that voice is heard and the experience those individuals have is brought to the fore. We are trying to do that at the moment as well.
Q13 Danny Kinahan: Chair, that looks like something we should really be looking at in detail. I have one last question. This is to do with the great message I get either from ex-services or from the different sides of the coin, which is the importance of getting to a level playing field. How do you see us finding a way to get to a level playing field when it looks so lopsided with how things are dealt with at the moment with the Stormont House agreement and legacy issues?
Judith Thompson: What do you mean by lopsided?
Danny Kinahan: Regarding the various agreements that have gone on in the past, it looks to many as if one side of the coin has been let off. They are never going to go to court or are never going to be chased up, yet the other side is continually being brought to court. It is difficult to put it into sides, but the level playing field is probably the greatest issue I get brought to me when I am knocking on doors. People want to see it being fair and the same for everyone.
Judith Thompson: The very short answer to your question is the Historical Investigations Unit. Obviously within legal processes and the legacy inquest system, which are the responsibility of the state and which are rightly held up there, that provides a mechanism for people where the state is seen as having been responsible. The Historical Investigations Unit will not work like that. It is about investigations and pursuing investigations that have been incomplete or unsatisfactory. That applies right across. The balance would come by implementing that unit.
Q14 Kate Hoey: Thank you both for coming. The Deputy First Minister spoke at the conference you held in March. You understand there were a number of victims who felt quite traumatised by that. How did you feel when he told the conference that the state had to open up its files on the past and not hide behind bogus national security concerns? Did you understand how some of the victims felt that this was rather strange, coming from someone who had given no view on his past and was not prepared to do so?
Judith Thompson: Yes, it is difficult for victims and survivors in all parts of the community to feel that their own experiences are unacknowledged and the focus is going elsewhere. I hear that strongly and coherently both from the people who were unhappy with the presence of the Deputy First Minister and his comments at the conference, and from others in other parts of the community who equally feel unheard. One of the things that are really difficult but really challenging and important is about managing those dialogues and being really clear that transparency, accountability and honesty is for everybody. This process should be for everybody.
Q15 Kate Hoey: Would you say that to the Deputy First Minister if you were meeting him?
Judith Thompson: Yes.
Q16 Kate Hoey: Good. Ms Travers was obviously very upset about this. Have you met her since that conference and since she was subject to a huge amount of abuse when she made her comments about how she felt being at the conference and listening to him?
Judith Thompson: I do obviously meet Ms Travers.
Q17 Kate Hoey: Have you met her recently?
Judith Thompson: I have not met her since the conference, but I would be very pleased to continue on a one-to-one basis the conversation we have started.
Q18 Kate Hoey: I am really just questioning this to see what you think your role is in this. She and many other people have said that one of the top issues at the victims’ forums is the complete nonsense of the legal definition, which I know you did not put there. It equates terrorists to their victims, and there is of course this whole problem on the pensions, which is causing the issue that someone who went with a bomb, dropped it and got injured—a perpetrator—is now going to be subject to the legal definition, as you said, “suffered serious injury” and should be looked after. Do you not think your role as victims’ commissioner should also be to say to Government and political parties that this has to change?
Judith Thompson: It would be a really regular occurrence for me to meet with groups of victims from all communities and have someone say to me, “Are you telling me that the person who killed my father/my wife is the same as they were?” I say to those people, “Of course the person who killed your father/your wife/your relative, is not the same as they were.” However, whilst it is an uncomfortable definition and those two people are not the same, they are still all human beings. There is not an easy or comfortable definition to hand. As commissioner I do not wish to prioritise an argument about who should not get services over a pursuit of truth, justice, reparation and services for everyone who needs them. It is uncomfortable. I am not quite sure what a comfortable one will look like, and I would not like to stop progress towards things that matter to victims and survivors in preference of an argument about who should not get services.
Q19 Kate Hoey: The pensions issue is a problem. Do you have a breakdown, which I do not need you to give us today, of how many of these people are from the loyalist and the IRA side who are wanting to be victims yet were perpetrators?
Judith Thompson: Numbers get mentioned of fewer than 10 people. I am not sure we have a definitive number. I would be absolutely confident that it is a very small number compared with those people who are not getting a pension as a consequence of the difficulty of agreeing around that issue.
Q20 Kate Hoey: In a sense, would you say that the numbers do not matter but that it is the principle? One person who is a perpetrator would be different, and it would not make any difference if it was one or 100.
Judith Thompson: After meetings with victims’ groups, I get two things that happen. Sometimes someone will come up to me and say, “One person who is guilty of an offence getting that pension is one too many.” Those are not usually people who are themselves living on low income with severe injuries. I nearly always have somebody else saying, “Look I am not particularly comfortable either that this is for everybody, but please can we not just do something? We are not getting any younger, and it may be that other people have long-term strategic priorities that they have to put in front of this, but I do not have a long term and I would like something now.”
Q21 Kate Hoey: I have just one last thing. Again, I am sorry to keep pushing on what individuals have said, but it is important. Do you agree that what Mr McGuinness said—that the disclosure of state files was the top of the official agenda—is not the top priority?
Judith Thompson: Honesty, openness and a better understanding and acknowledgement of everybody’s responsibilities in relation to the past is the top priority.
Q22 Kate Hoey: Are there some people who are being more open and honest than others?
Judith Thompson: I am not sure I would even say that. There is more openness and honesty that could be had on all sides.
Q23 Ian Paisley: Thank you for your evidence. I will build on what Kate has said. The problem with treating some perpetrators and victims in the same way is that it can lead to a rewriting of history and it can lead to an interpretation where wrong actions are somewhat legitimised. It is almost like saying Adolf Hitler was a victim of the war because he died during the war, when he was a perpetrator of that war. We need to be very careful when we go down this road. We need to be distinct and say, “Things are wrong and these people are innocent victims.” That is really not an issue for you, and I understand that, but unfortunately you are left to interpret that and left to pick up that piece.
There was one point that you made that I found very interesting: the statistics that you read out about the thousands of people who were injured or maimed during the Troubles and the thousands of people who are bereaved. If we were to pro rata those figures across to the British mainland here, we would be talking about millions of people and millions of families. It is sometimes important to have that perspective, because if that had been dealt with it would have been very different and we would not be here today if that perspective was held in mind.
Can I bring you to two very specific questions? We have taken evidence about the Semtex from Libya. I wrote down what you said: in terms of reparations, if money happens to come out of all of this, those funds should go to all victims of IRA attacks. Are you suggesting from the deliberations that you have had that only IRA victims of Semtex or of arms that came from Libya to the Provisional IRA should be supported if those funds come at some point?
Judith Thompson: Thank you. Before I answer the second question, could I just touch back on the point you made about different narratives and interpretations of history? It comes up and I understand it is an issue. I would generally say that there are a great many different narratives around the events in Northern Ireland and that the proposed Oral History Archive is there for the purpose of establishing fact and giving voice to different narratives around that fact. I would encourage most particularly those people who feel that their history is being re-written to absolutely engage with that process, articulate their narrative and be sure that they can have it seen. Once that has been done and they are confident about it, they can look at some others too, because that is what dialogue is about and that is what the Oral History Archive is for. For those people I would say, “Be empowered by this process, get involved and be heard.” That is important.
Coming on to the issue of the Libyan funds, obviously there are individuals who have got their names on a writ and that is in the hands of lawyers, not of the commission. However, there are equally individuals who were hurt and whose names are not on the writ. You would want to see everybody looked after.
In the most general way the commission would be really clear that all parts of the community need to be looked after in Northern Ireland. However, if there are additional funds that could be made available to do that, we know that, even with the money that has been set aside for implementation of the Stormont House agreement, we are way short of what we really need to fully implement all of those measures. In some respects in Northern Ireland unfortunately, and as a consequence of a very difficult situation, our health service became very good at dealing with certain types of injury. However, it amazes me sometimes that we did not become very good at recognising trauma, at providing services for PTSD and for making sure that people who have real, harmful psychological injuries that impact on them and their families every day are properly looked after. There is a great deal of good that could be done if that money was available to do it.
Q24 Ian Paisley: I want to be absolutely clear here. Now you are saying that the money should be used more generally. If additional money comes into the picture, it should then be spent generally across the victims piste.
Judith Thompson: That might become problematic, mightn’t it? However, it would certainly be logical and fair for it to be looked at more widely than just those names on the writ. If you are funding things that naturally sit within a health provision, that delivery model would dictate a slightly wider availability, wouldn’t it?
Q25 Ian Paisley: Would there be anything perverse in Libyan compensation money going in a general spend and a perpetrator being able to receive that money, or if someone who could be accused of bringing the Semtex in were then to benefit from the compensation? It would be perverse if that happened, wouldn’t it?
Judith Thompson: It would be true to say at the same time, if you start spending money into the general area of health provision, that health services are not geared up to ask someone the source of their injury before they provide health care or mental health care. There would be an area there that could become blurred.
Q26 Ian Paisley: It has been put to us and the Minister has said that it might come to a point where the Libyan authority, the Government of National Accord, hands over a cheque to Her Majesty’s Government and says, “There it is. You distribute it your way.” Have you given any thought at all to how, if that moment were to arrive—not that it ever will—that money would be distributed or managed? Would you have a special forum set up in terms of how that money should be distributed? In American terms, it was millions of pounds per victim. It is not going to be an easy ask. It might be a nice problem to have at some point, but at the same time it is going to be a very difficult call. Have you given any thought to how that would be managed?
Judith Thompson: It will be a wonderful problem to have and I believe that it should probably be set up into a fund and then used in accordance with what we have researched and know about people’s needs. However, we do not have a detailed proposal on that. I would love to be in a position where we are working on that.
Q27 Ian Paisley: I just want to come back to your first point. I think I wrote it down accurately: the funds are for “all victims of IRA attacks” was one of the principles and priorities in reparations. That principle seems to have slipped quite considerably in the last five minutes in that it should just be general money for everyone. Who came up with that principle?
Judith Thompson: There will be legal arguments behind this as well and a specific pot of money given for a specific purpose would have to be used for that purpose. I suppose I am saying that does not mean that the commission’s focus is solely on one group of victims, because it is not.
Ian Paisley: I do not expect you to be focused just on one specific sector. Thank you very much.
Q28 Lady Hermon: It is very good of you to come this morning. Thank you. It has been very interesting so far. Are there lessons that you have learned from the experience of your predecessors as the victims’ commissioner in Northern Ireland? If you have learned lessons, would you like to reveal them to us this morning?
Judith Thompson: I learned a great deal from my predecessor, who issued some extremely helpful policy advice and also was commissioner at the most difficult time. Things were changing from a model of having four commissioners, who could attend to particular constituencies, to one commissioner, who had to find a way through it all. I am very fortunate that she went before me and went through that very difficult period.
Q29 Lady Hermon: Is this a better model that you have now than four commissioners?
Judith Thompson: I believe that there is more commonality than difference between what victims need. Ultimately I do not need to tell you anything about whoever or whatever was the source of harm when people suffer trauma, loss and bereavement, but that is not a uniquely different experience for people in one place or another. It is unhelpful for victims and survivors generally that this debate becomes so polarised. When you put people together and distil the essence of what they are asking for, those things are truth, justice, acknowledgement and reparation.
It is helpful to have a more unified understanding. There has been a great deal of learning for me in the last seven months, even though I have lived, worked and had my family in Northern Ireland since 1985. One thing that has been an eye-opener for me has been understanding how different things were in rural settings from the urban settings that I worked around and understood well in my work there. In addition, the extent to which people are resilient and determined and the extent to which these issues are a day-to-day reality that will not go away is something I have learned.
Q30 Lady Hermon: What about the Eames-Bradley report? There was a lot of publicity about it at the time and various controversial recommendations within it. Is it really a historical document now? Was it a waste of time?
Judith Thompson: Somebody said to me recently that progress is curvilinear and I thought that was a really helpful way of looking at it. There is a level of continuity and reiteration from the Eames-Bradley report into the Haass-O’Sullivan report into the Stormont House agreement and into the measures that are proposed now. Although we tend to go two steps forward and one step back, there is still a direction of travel and it is one we have to travel.
Q31 Lady Hermon: The Eames-Bradley report now will be gathering dust on the shelf; it has been overtaken by the Stormont House agreement. You have mentioned the Stormont House agreement time out of number this morning. That is where we are: the Stormont House agreement, and Mr Beggs is nodding his head. Regarding your discussions around the Stormont House agreement, can I just be assured that you met with retired police officers in Northern Ireland?
Judith Thompson: Absolutely.
Q32 Lady Hermon: How comfortable are they with the proposals to deal with the legacy issues as contained in the Stormont House agreement?
Judith Thompson: I have met with retired police officers, disabled police officers, wounded police officers and the RUC widows. All of those groups want to see the things there implemented. People have different concerns and different focuses, but it is not just people on one side of the community who say, “I would like to know more about what happened in this instance or that.”
Q33 Lady Hermon: The reason I have focused on retired police officers is I am very conscious that they have co-operated down through the years with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and they co-operated with the Historical Enquires Team, HET, which we no longer have. They have co-operated time out of number again, so how often would you have met with retired police officers who are going to have to co-operate all over again with the measures that have been set up by the Stormont House agreement?
Judith Thompson: There is a lot of exhaustion and disillusionment in all parts of the community on this. However, it is also a job that is unfinished for many people.
Q34 Lady Hermon: Yes. My question was: how often have you met with the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers’ Association to discuss the proposals in the Stormont House agreement? How often have their voices been heard?
Judith Thompson: Within the seven months that I have been here, I would have met with the Wounded Police and Families Association twice, with the two separate groups for disabled police officers, with the RUC widows and a group of UDR widows, and we have representations of all those groups on the forum. I talk to them regularly.
There is one further issue that was raised by the widows that I did not get to in my presentation, and that was about the UDR widows’ pension. There are known to victims and survivors’ groups in Northern Ireland around 30 UDR widows who lost their pensions upon remarriage. There may be a bigger number who are not known but the groups do not believe it is more than twice that number in total. Those who remarry are still widows. That has not changed and their feelings about their loss has not changed. The removal of that pension on remarriage is inconsistent with how other pensions are managed. Police pensions have now been changed and that is no longer the case. It is a matter of equality and basic humanity. It is one that I believe should be redressed.
Q35 Lady Hermon: I will just follow on from that by mentioning to you that there is a very small, ageing group of RUC widows who were widowed in the early part of the Troubles though not necessarily through terrorism. The police fund in Northern Ireland is specifically to compensate widows whose husbands died through terrorism. Therefore, there is a small group of RUC widows who do not benefit from and have no access to the police funds. If we are looking at the UDR widows, you could just add that as well. I should say, I am the patron of the RUC GC Widows Association.
Judith Thompson: That would be helpful to follow up on, thank you.
Q36 Lady Hermon: They are older women and they need help. Time is not on their side, so it is a matter of urgency. Secretaries of State have consistently refused to reopen that particular issue, but I would ask you to take that away with you. I was intrigued; there was a sentence about working with the Lord Chief Justice to inform the inquest system.
Judith Thompson: No, that meant to apply the principles of victims in practice to those families and individuals affected by legacy inquests.
Q37 Lady Hermon: Would you like to expand on that? I am intrigued by the suggestion that you have been working with the Lord Chief Justice to inform this process. Those were your exact words: “working … with the Lord Chief Justice … to … inform”. I would like to know what that means.
Judith Thompson: I will pass on to John for this point. We have met with the Lord Chief Justice on a number of occasions. When I was appointed I had my first meeting with him and I shared those principles. At that point he was about to pick up responsibility for legacy inquests and said that he would take those principles, would look at how they were relevant and applicable to his area, and has taken the view that they are. Since then he has worked with our office and with Mr Beggs to meet and communicate with families. John, would you like to expand on that?
Q38 Lady Hermon: Can I just say that the Lord Chief Justice is a constituent and he is a very fine Lord Chief Justice? This is not a criticism; I am just wishing to understand better what has gone on with the victims’ commission and the Lord Chief Justice since you have taken up this role. I am intrigued by it.
John Beggs: It is quite unprecedented. When Judith took up the role as commissioner last September, the Lord Chief Justice made contact with our office.
Q39 Lady Hermon: He took the initiative?
John Beggs: Yes, he made contact and wished to have an introductory meeting with Judith as commissioner. He had some quite bad news to present to victims and survivors around the legacy inquest system about how long legacy inquests may take. He wanted to take some advice from the commission and the commissioner on that. He wanted to meet before our victims’ forum to explain that. He engaged early on giving out bad news around legacy inquests and subsequently developed a system whereby he could fast-track legacy inquests. He proposed establishing a legacy inquests unit and spoke at our conference in March in some detail about how that might look. He was putting out the sign that he could fast-track a number of the legacy inquests, maybe 55 cases, within a five-year timeframe. He did request the resources to do that, and he had also done some quite considerable work on reviewing all of the cases to develop new systems for handling information and accessing information much more quickly. That would enable these legacy inquests to progress. It was unusual and unprecedented, and we have a good working relationship now with the Lord Chief Justice himself.
Judith Thompson: He met our Victims and Survivors Forum at a very early stage and gave them a very honest and frank account of where he thought things stood. He was encouraged and they were encouraged by the message that honesty is much more useful to us than false hope. Even if we do not particularly like what we hear, we would rather hear it. It is good to hear it from someone so senior.
Q40 Lady Hermon: That is very interesting and very helpful indeed, thank you. Finally, could I just come to the vexed question of compensation from Libya? The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs went out to Tripoli earlier this week. He came back and has made a statement about what the British Government are intending to do. I listen all the time and very carefully to find out what progress has been made on compensation for the victims of IRA Libyan-sponsored violence. I was very interested in the point that you made that, as part of the victims’ commission, your role is not jurisdictionally bound by Northern Ireland, so it is right across the UK. Have you met with the victims of the Harrods bombing, for example? Are you actively engaged with the unit that was set up within the Foreign Office to help the victims of Libyan-sponsored violence?
Judith Thompson: Everyone here has probably had a scoping paper that the commission prepared, looking at where there were incidents of violence outside Northern Ireland and what we think the numbers associated with that are. I have certainly met with some of the victims of the Harrods bomb. This is a process we are in. I have been to Warrington and met with the Peace Centre there. I have met with a number of widows and widowers from different incidents as they visit Northern Ireland. We do plan a more extensive engagement so that we can get a better scope and a better proposed intervention there.
Q41 Lady Hermon: What about meetings with Ministers in the Foreign Office?
Judith Thompson: We have met with Tobias Ellwood and that was just a couple of weeks ago. We met with the armed services Minister.
Q42 Lady Hermon: Sorry to interrupt, but what was on the agenda for that meeting? Do you mind disclosing to us what issues were discussed with Tobias Ellwood?
Judith Thompson: The key issue with Tobias Ellwood was around Libyan-sponsored violence and compensation for victims.
Q43 Lady Hermon: Am I allowed to ask whether in your role you take exception to the fact that the line from the Foreign Office is that individual victims have to go out and fight their own case and get their own legal advice instead of the British Government espousing their claim as a general claim? Have you objected to that line of argument the British Government—to their shame, I have to say—are maintaining?
Judith Thompson: We would have been really clear. I was clear today that those individuals feel badly let down. We would certainly have talked in terms of the Government taking the initiative and providing resources and finding those resources from Libya. To be fair, in our conversations with the Minister, he was talking in terms of ongoing negotiations with the Libyan Government by the British Government to try to access resources.
Q44 Lady Hermon: Your understanding of your meeting with Tobias Ellwood is that the British Government are actively raising this issue and giving it a priority in their negotiations with the Libyan Government at present.
Judith Thompson: We were told it was part of that.
Q45 Lady Hermon: Mr Beggs, you are nodding your head. Would you like to add anything?
John Beggs: We had a one-to-one meeting with Minister Ellwood and it was primarily around Libya. He outlined his strategy on how to pursue the funds. In the afternoon session in Belfast he also then met with many individuals and groups and people on the writ, to update them on the position. Our staff were in attendance and the feedback we got was quite disappointing. They were bitterly disappointed at the message the Minister had given that day in terms of the release of funds, the potential timeline and the ongoing issue over the legal advice on the legality of releasing those funds.
Q46 Lady Hermon: Sorry—the feedback was of disappointment in what the Minister had said, but when you met with him yourself I understand that you were more optimistic.
Judith Thompson: We met with him before he met with victims. Individuals were hoping that they would be able to access the sequestered money and that the Minister’s approach was that there would be an agreement with the Libyan Government around reparations. Obviously that is not what some of the individuals were looking for and there were all sorts of questions about how long that would take and what it would look like. It was not what people were maybe hoping to hear.
Q47 Lady Hermon: In your one-to-one meeting with the Minister, what message did you take away? What is the current approach of the British Government to obtaining compensation for IRA Libyan-sponsored violence for those many survivors of that dreadful violence sponsored by Gaddafi?
Judith Thompson: That is for the Minister to answer. My understanding leaving that meeting was that the line being pursued was a negotiated agreement with the Libyan Government.
Lady Hermon: Thank you very much indeed. That is very helpful
Q48 Oliver Colvile: First of all, thank you very much indeed for coming to see us and thank you for your report to us. When you meet with victims or people who have been involved in some of these atrocities, what are you seeking to try to find out? What is the aim of that?
Judith Thompson: We are driven to protect both the best interests and the voices of those people who were harmed. In meetings with victims and survivors from all different parts of the community, I would do two things. I would listen to their concerns and I would then share with them our programme of work and what is proposed currently to address their issues, and I would seek their views.
Q49 Oliver Colvile: Have you also been meeting with the perpetrators of these crimes as well?
Judith Thompson: I meet with victims groups.
Q50 Oliver Colvile: You do not meet with the people who committed these atrocities.
Judith Thompson: I have not been asked to meet as such with people who call themselves perpetrators’ groups, but I do not go into rooms and say, “I need to know if any person in this room has ever been a perpetrator,” in any part of the community. If somebody sits in a room with me as part of a victims’ group, whether that is in Belfast, Cookstown or Markethill, I talk to those people who are there as victims.
Q51 Oliver Colvile: Have you also had an opportunity to talk with some of those people in the IRA who committed these atrocities?
Judith Thompson: I have had one meeting with a group of ex-prisoners, so I will assume that some people in that room will have been convicted of crimes. Yes.
Q52 Oliver Colvile: Did you ever have the opportunity to speak with a woman called Rita O’Hare, who is somebody who unfortunately decided to skip bail from this country and has never yet faced justice?
Judith Thompson: I do not believe so, no.
Q53 Oliver Colvile: Can I encourage you to see whether you can try to do so? I am sure she has some little secrets she would like to share with you—that is if you can get to see her, and you may have to go to Southern Ireland in order to do that, because she will not come back into the United Kingdom. That might be someone who, as I say, you might want to talk to. Would you be willing to travel to Southern Ireland to try to meet some of these people?
Judith Thompson: If an individual has information that they want to give up in order to benefit those people who may have suffered as a consequence of their actions, the ICIR is the place for them to go. That is something that we are promoting as a measure to do that. There needs to be a process around that.
First of all, the giving of information should be prompted by someone wanting to know it. It should be a victim-led process, not a perpetrator-led process, and it should be a process where what verification is possible is done and where the giving of that information is properly handled. It would not be particularly appropriate for me as an individual, or even as commissioner, to go down and say, “Tell me everything and I will go and see if anyone wants to know it.” The aim would be to have a properly set up process for that to happen and that it should be led by a request by victims.
Q54 Oliver Colvile: Are you also therefore looking to help those victims here within the mainland in England and other places as well? Are you seeking to try to help them as well, or is it just those people who are in Northern Ireland?
Judith Thompson: No, we are really clear that our remit extends to those who live beyond Northern Ireland. I think I have been fairly clear that is a process we have probably got into relatively recently. I have met with people but we are actively pursuing that now.
Oliver Colvile: Thank you very much.
Q55 Gavin Robinson: Good morning to you both. On the back of that, there are seven individuals in the public gallery, and if you do not know all of them, I suggest that you take the opportunity, because all of them have committedly attended these sessions and have personal interest and experience. With the GB connection, it would be a good opportunity, if you have the time after this session.
Judith Thompson: I would be really happy to do that.
Q56 Gavin Robinson: I was interested in the remarks you made about Tobias Ellwood’s meeting in Belfast, and I recognise that part of your role is to reflect what you hear. I was present at the meeting, as was Mr Kinahan and Mr Paisley. Our experience of that meeting is not as you have described. In fact it was described by one victim during that session as the most positive ministerial engagement they had ever had. I just want to say that so that there is a balance, but then ask you: how hard do you find your job in reflecting the competing variances of views of victims?
Judith Thompson: It is extremely difficult when you get into the detail of it sitting with people in rooms, because people’s narratives around their experiences are so different. When you look at what measures are needed to address people’s needs, it is a lot easier. As I said earlier on: what should policy look like? What needs to happen in terms of honesty and openness? What needs to happen in terms of reparations? What do we need to do so that people start trusting the state again? Those things are not that divided. I came into the job expecting it to be incredibly difficult, and I have been heartened by the realism and the resilience of people I meet—people who say to me things like, “Look, we know we are not going to see everyone go to prison for what happened, but we would like some truth here.”
Q57 Gavin Robinson: Does that mean that you avoid the division of the initial statement and focus on service delivery, or do you get to a position where you will make a judgment and a decision based on all that you have heard?
Judith Thompson: Do you mean around service delivery?
Gavin Robinson: No. I understand the point you are making about how service delivery is easier, as that is focused on need and there is an agreement on what the needs may be. However, on the more divisive issues at the start when people are indicating their narrative, do you find yourself in a position where you make a decision or judgment on the competing narratives that you have been given?
Judith Thompson: The judgment and the policy position we have articulated is that there is a package of measures there in relation to dealing with the past that has something for everybody in it. Those measures should be implemented, and they include the Oral History Archive, which is about establishing fact but it is also about articulating narratives and the importance of making sure that all those narratives are properly heard. It is not for the commission to say, “We value this narrative or that narrative.” We value the establishing of fact, and then we value the articulation and sharing of narratives around that. That is the way we move forward.
Q58 Gavin Robinson: A quote from you in March is, “National security cannot be a convenient rock under which the Government can hide uncomfortable issues.” You reiterated the thrust of that again this morning. Is that your view? Do you believe that the Government are using national security issues to hide, as a rock of convenience, uncomfortable truths?
Judith Thompson: I believe that whether the Government do that is almost not the big question. The big question here is whether we have something in place that all parties will trust in order to ensure that those things where information is withheld are genuinely about national security, which you all acknowledge, and individual safety, which we all prioritise.
Q59 Gavin Robinson: As the champion for victims, do you believe the Government are using national security issues as a rock of convenience to hide uncomfortable truths?
Judith Thompson: I believe that there has not yet been full openness and disclosure on anyone’s part about the past and, yes, the Government, as other players, would be part of that.
Q60 Gavin Robinson: Have you met with Government and teased out this issue of national security to reinforce that view—that you believe they are using it as a rock of convenience?
Judith Thompson: I meet with the Secretary of State from time to time. I meet with all of our own political parties from time to time and, yes, I have discussed those issues with them as well as discussing issues around how that situation might be bridged and moved forward.
Q61 Gavin Robinson: Having had those discussions, do you feel that language like that is helpful, given the competing narratives that there are and the fears and suspicions on both sides of the argument about who is doing something for a virtuous reason and who is doing it for a nefarious reason? Do you think it is helpful or divisive language?
Judith Thompson: Acknowledging the elephant in the room is helpful, yes. It is helpful sometimes to simply acknowledge the elephant in the room, yes.
Q62 Gavin Robinson: As victims’ commissioner, you are saying that it is a matter of fact. You have teased it out with Government, and it is a matter of fact that national security issues are being used as a rock of convenience. You do not believe the Government’s position. You do not believe that what they are saying amounts to a genuine bona fide view that there are national security considerations.
Judith Thompson: No, I am not saying that. Those conversations were very specifically in the context of the establishment of a Historical Investigations Unit, which does not currently exist. They are conversations about what will be disclosed, what will be trusted and what will be workable. They are not conversations about whether something did or did not happen. They are conversations about what can be put in place that will have the trust of different communities.
In that context it is important to recognise that there is a need for transparency and that there is a need for visible oversight. Equally, I have absolutely acknowledged that there is a need to safeguard national security and to protect people’s safety, and there is an inevitable right of any Government to have the final say over their own security. This is a process and a conversation about what may happen, not a blame game about what has happened.
Q63 Gavin Robinson: It is good that you had the opportunity to clarify that is not what you are doing: you are not engaging in the blame game. That is a fair reflection.
Judith Thompson: If there were a blame game, there are going to be no clean hands. This is about transparency and something that is fit for purpose.
Q64 Gavin Robinson: I am glad that when you were asked about compensation for perpetrators you accepted that is not only an uncomfortable issue but that a perpetrator and a victim of a perpetrator are not one and the same thing. Is that a fair reflection of what you said earlier?
Judith Thompson: Yes. If somebody, as happens, says to me, “Are you telling me that my father is just the same as the person who killed him?” nothing equates to human beings. Nothing equates the action of one person with the action of another. That does not mean they are not both human. That does not mean that the parents of one dead person should have no support while the parents of another dead person should be supported. There are a lot of very difficult issues in here.
Q65 Gavin Robinson: You will know my position; I do not support a blanket reparation payment for everyone. My view is that it should go to innocent victims, and I understand your position has to be a little more nuanced than that.
Judith Thompson: It does.
Q66 Gavin Robinson: In considering reparations, have you considered a contribution penalty for somebody who was a perpetrator of a crime?
Judith Thompson: That has not been part of any discussions I have been part of and it has not been part of any previous policy documents that I am aware of.
Q67 Gavin Robinson: Can I raise it with you now in this context? In criminal injury compensation, if you are a criminal—if you have a criminal record—and you have contributed, you will lose a substantial proportion of an award. In a road traffic accident, if you are driving but you are not wearing your seatbelt, you will lose a significant proportion of your award. Is that something that you will consider as a victims’ commission? Should there be an inevitable reparation for everyone, have you considered a contribution penalty for somebody who was actively involved in terrorism and was creating victims?
Judith Thompson: We have not even got to a point where there is going to be any such reparations so, no, we have not considered that question.
Q68 Gavin Robinson: Will you consider it?
Judith Thompson: I do not know. I do not have a position on that at this point in time.
Gavin Robinson: I am putting it out there as something that I suggest would be worthy of consideration, albeit I have stated my personal position. I accept your nuanced position, but I am putting it there and I hope it is something you can focus attention on in the future. Thank you.
Q69 Tom Blenkinsop: I have a very quick question in relation to the remit of your commission, which covers the entire UK. However, the VSP programme, for example, is not eligible for victims outside of Northern Ireland. What do you think about that? What is your view about that situation?
Judith Thompson: Just to clarify, you are right that there is a difference. Individual victims living outside Northern Ireland are eligible to come forward for individual-need payments, but there is not a mechanism in place to make sure they know that they are eligible. Some do know but most do not. That does not feel like a good system to us. Therefore, yes, our view is that it is inequitable. People living outside Northern Ireland are probably in a much worse position than those within, because not only are there services and groups available and on their doorsteps but they live in a community that has some understanding of what happened. Those who live outside Northern Ireland do not have that either. They are very poorly understood by health professionals and others.
Q70 Tom Blenkinsop: What types of services would those people be missing out on?
Judith Thompson: We believe that the sorts of proposals and services that are around in Northern Ireland are probably the direction of travel. You would want to see good mental health trauma services, social support for people who are isolated and proper provision for people who are injured. Often they are not getting that. There are people who, through the support programme in Northern Ireland, do not get physiotherapy through the National Health Service, because they are not going to get better, but they benefit from it in terms of alleviating their condition. They get it by using money that is given by the Victims and Survivors Service, but that should not be only people in Northern Ireland. There is a model there for service delivery, and at the moment it is not being applied outside of Northern Ireland. I do not think anybody debates that it should be; the issue is who pays for it. That is where the conversation tends to get stuck.
Q71 Chair: Thank you. You have answered some very difficult questions and very genuine questions. Mine is also a bit difficult to answer; it is a philosophical one in a way. Over the last few days and the last week we have seen certain terrorist activity come to the fore again in the most tragic of ways. It must be very challenging to you in your position to think, “Well, we have got all these victims so far, but we are still creating new victims.” This is so wrong, isn’t it?
Judith Thompson: It is absolutely wrong and is absolutely the most challenging thing. For people who have already experienced trauma to turn on the radio in the morning and hear about another death at the hands of a paramilitary organisation is not acceptable. It is very difficult and it re-traumatises people, and we are increasingly focused and working with the young people’s commissioner on the impact in some communities of ongoing threats, intimidation and violence, particularly on young people but also the whole community. Yes, it is dreadful and wrong that damage is still being done even though we have moved a long way forward from where we were.
Q72 Chair: I have a very difficult follow-up question. You obviously talked about dealing with the past, but this is the present and indeed the future. We hope not, but it could be. What would you like Government to do beyond what you have already said? Is there anything that you really feel frustrated by that the Government, either here in Westminster or in the Assembly or Executive, should be doing to stop this kind of activity? Obviously it is not your responsibility, but as you are dealing with the results of it, you must have views on what should be done.
Judith Thompson: As you know, there is a three-person panel at the moment looking into the drawing to a close of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland, and we have had one initial meeting with them and they will be meeting with the victims’ forum in the near future. It is critically important that that issue is progressed. We have moved forward a long way and it is really important not to lose sight of that, but you cannot feel that the job is done when people are continuing to be victimised, and that is very much a concern. It is also important that the way in which that matter is resolved is acceptable to victims and survivors, and that is the dialogue that that panel will be having with our victims’ forum and us.
Q73 Chair: It has been a most useful session and we would like to thank you very much for joining us, and we hope to continue the discussions over the next few months as well. I wish you both well in your very difficult and important work. Thank you very much for joining us.
Judith Thompson: Thank you, and if there are any individual issues that people want to raise with the commission at any time, please do. I have taken note of the issue about pensions.
Chair: Thank you.
Oral evidence: Work of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, HC 932 24