Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

COMMITTEE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)

Victims & Survivors Consultation

21 January 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mrs Naomi Long (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Tom Elliott
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Stephen Moutray
Mr Jim Shannon
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Witnesses:

Mr John Clarke ) Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister
Mr Colin Jack )

The Chairperson (Mr Kennedy):

Good Afternoon. I welcome Colin Jack and John Clarke who will us on the responses to the victims and survivors consultation. Please make a short presentation, after which members will ask questions. I am aware that some members have time pressures.

Mr Colin Jack (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister):

I have a few comments to make. The outline draft strategic approach to victims and survivors was published for consultation on 6 August 2008. There was a three-month consultation period, which ended on 31 October 2008. We have provided the Committee with a summary of responses and also the full set of 44 responses that we received. We have organised the summary in the same order in which the issues are addressed in the document. We are interested to know whether the Committee intends to submit a response to the document in the light of those responses. We feel that it is important to take the Committee’s views into account when making further recommendations to Ministers on the way ahead for the strategy.

There is a linked issue, which is the proposal for a victims’ and survivors’ service. In the Assembly last week, the First Minister said that Ministers would be forwarding a draft consultation document to the Committee shortly before it is published. Therefore, in logistical terms, the Committee has the option of responding to the strategy document now or taking into account the service paper alongside the consultation responses. That is all that I have to say, but I am interested in hearing the Committee’s views on the matter.

The Chairperson:

It would be helpful if you would map out the timescale or what is likely to happen. What is the next stage irrespective of whether the Committee makes a representation.

Mr Jack:

The First Minister said that the paper on the victims’ and survivors’ service will be sent to the Committee shortly. I am not in a position to say what that means, precisely, but it would be days rather than months. It is very close to being ready to go to the Committee, and then it will need to be issued for consultation.

The concept of a service will be the subject of consultation in a strategy document that will come forward. That document will set out in more detail what a service will look like. Therefore, it would be useful to have the Committee’s views on whether there might be a shorter consultation period, such as eight weeks, rather than 12 weeks. That would help us bring together all those issues earlier than might otherwise have been the case.

Getting the service into shape and considering the responses we receive will be tied closely to the decisions on the way forward for the strategy.

The Chairperson:

Will the overall strategy be dependent on the progress of the service?

Mr Jack:

Yes. One of the issues raised related to the implementation timescale, and a timetable was included in the strategy document envisaging that the service would come into operation on 1 April 2009. Clearly that will not be possible, so we are looking at a slightly longer timescale.

The Chairperson:

Several members have indicated that they want to ask questions.

Mr Elliott:

I have a range of questions, which I will try to condense. First, at what stage is the legal challenge to the Victims’ Commission? Has it had any impact on further development of the service?

Mr Jack:

Clearly, I must be careful about what I say about legal proceedings. The legal challenge in ongoing. It carries on in parallel with the service’s development and the commission’s work. The commission is just one element of the strategy’s implementation.

Mr Elliott:

The briefing paper states that the victims’ and survivors’ service is intended to be a focal point and will replace existing funding schemes. I am trying to establish what that means. Obviously, the Community Relations Council was a big player in funding streams. Does this mean that the CRC will be done away with, or will it still be a part of the service? I am trying to establish whether that will take over the entire funding.

Finally, the definition of a victim is raised continually in responses. Have you anything to add on that matter?

Mr Jack:

Ministers are considering the precise nature of the service. A paper will be submitted to the Committee shortly. It will explain the relationship with existing programmes; which, broadly, speaking, are the core funding programme, the development programme, and the Northern Ireland memorial fund. It is fair to say that there needs to be a transition from those arrangements to any new arrangements.

The Committee can also expect correspondence shortly about arrangements for the next financial year, 2009-2010, because Ministers have decided on, and will put in writing, the continuation of existing core funding and development funding schemes for the next financial year. Victims’ organisations will hear from the Community Relations Council about that after Ministers have informed the Committee formally.

As regards the definition of a victim, Ministers decided to refer that to the forum that is to be established by the Commission for Victims and Survivors. That is the channel through which the matter will be addressed.

Mr Elliott:

Clearly, that has come in for much debate and criticism.

Mr Jack:

We have received the comments, and we must reflect on those when we advise Ministers. They will have to reflect on them before they take final decisions on the strategy.

The Chairperson:

On the matter of ongoing money and its administration: realistically, is it likely to continue in its current form for the entirety of the next financial year?

Mr Jack:

Yes.

Mrs D Kelly:

Chairman, despite your best efforts, I am still confused about how the way ahead is being mapped out. The response that we will now consider a victims’ service does not tackle or deal with the Chairman’s question about the way forward. What cognisance has been taken of responses? Do the officials foresee that fundamental changes will be made to the strategy which has existed since the end of October, or will there simply be cosmetic changes?

The victims’ commissioners are also unhappy. They have said that the comprehensive needs assessment is long overdue and that without it there can be no certainty that support and services will match needs; no certainty of the numbers to attach to any specific service, and no certainty that the delivery of support and services represents value for money. To be told that funding will probably continue for existing groups during the next financial year does not address those serious concerns. Certain groups may, perhaps, not do a good job and may fail to address individual needs. That speaks for itself: the comprehensive needs assessment is long overdue. How do you answer those charges?

Mr Jack:

The Commission has a statutory responsibility for the development of the comprehensive needs assessment. As a first step towards that, the Commission published a research paper earlier this week that provided an initial literature review, with the aim of setting out a process for that assessment. That document provides a route map for undertaking a comprehensive needs assessment.

The extension of the existing funding scheme for a further year, and the work towards the establishment of replacement mechanisms, will take that length of time to work out. That is because the comprehensive needs assessment, in itself, is a big exercise.

Mrs D Kelly:

With respect, some respondents have also stated that whilst the comprehensive needs assessment must be done, desk research would suffice, because they feel that they have talked for many years, they have provided their views, and nothing has been delivered. There appears to have been a lot of stalling.

In fact, one of the health trusts has said that the strategy, of itself, was vague; it addresses victims’ issues on an incremental basis, and does not get to the core of the issue. The First Minister responded recently in the House to a question about signing off on the victims’ commissioners’ work plan. Has that work been signed off?

Mr Jack:

I understand that the Commission for Victims and Survivors’ work programme is very nearly agreed by Ministers.

Mrs D Kelly:

However, it is not agreed.

The Chairperson:

Order.

Mr Jack:

The Minister said that on Monday of last week. There is a minor issue about the proposed staffing structures that is linked with the approval of the work programme. Otherwise, we are close to getting the plan signed off.

The Chairperson:

In reply to that particular question, the First Minister indicated that there was a staffing issue.

Mrs D Kelly:

A lot of my other questions have not really been answered.

Mr Jack:

In regard to the other question: there were other responses in which the adoption of a longer-term strategic approach to the needs of victims and survivors — building on, and responding to, the requirements of individual victims — was welcomed. That was preferred to the pattern of rolling forward funding that has been adopted for the past several years.

The Commission is aware that there has been a lot of confrontation on the issue over the years. The proposals are an attempt to respond to comments received over a period of years.

Mr Shannon:

My questions relate to the summary of responses in the report to the Committee. The victims’ groups are the umbrella bodies, but Committee members believe that many victims do not fit into any category. That is underlined in the document summary.

What can be done to ensure that those individuals fit into this process? Individuals may have their own reasons for not becoming involved with groups. For some, it may be because they are vulnerable and afraid and their memories may be very real. I am keen to hear your opinion on that.

On the issue of overall aims and objectives, the report says that many people’s responses stated that the aims and objectives were aspirational. How can we convince everyone that what we are trying to achieve is not a raised expectation that will not be delivered?

Mr Jack:

In relation to individual victims and survivors, the groups must have some certainty about their funding for next year. There must also be some discussion about the memorial fund. Ministers have agreed, in principle, that there will be a continuation of funding for the memorial funding, which is largely for individuals, but there must be some discussion about the detail.

In addition to those strands of funding, there will be a significant increase in funding next year compared with the current year. The Commission for Victims and Survivors is due to advise Ministers on how that extra funding will be used. I expect that the needs of individual victims and survivors to feature in that. The increase in funding next year is somewhere in the order £3·5 million to £4 million over and above the level of this financial year. That provides significant scope to address those issues.

Mr Shannon:

As the process goes on we will see whether individuals are being involved. Will there be an opportunity to review the process and consider how to improve it, or will that happen continuously?

Mr Jack:

Yes — service will be focused on the needs of individuals.

Mr John Clarke (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister):

How we engage individual victims and survivors is an issue. We hope that will be done through a new victims and survivors service which will assess individuals’ needs. It is a difficult area. One of the difficulties associated with forums is that they tend to be dominated by groups or strong individuals. We recognise that how we make contact more effectively with individuals is an issue. The main mechanism by which we hope to do so is through the service, which will be advertised and made available, so that we can start to pick up on their needs, outside the context of victims’ groups.

Mr Shannon:

The fact that there are still individuals, besides the many groups, tells a story. Many consider the aims and directives to be aspirational. It will be a challenge to ensure that expectations, if raised, are delivered.

Mr Jack:

A factor that makes it likely that expectations will be realised is the level of funding that goes into the sector. It is not only the additional £3∙5 million to £4 million of Exchequer funding: rather, it is part of a £36 million package of Exchequer funding over the three-year CSR period. There is also a significant contribution from the Peace III programme, which contains a specific theme, “1.2, dealing with past”, which is about attending to victims and survivors. That stream of funding contains €50 million, so there is a substantial investment in addressing the needs of victims and survivors from both mainstream Exchequer funding and EU sources. We all need to ensure that the best use is made of it.

The Chairperson:

There were only five responses from individuals. I presume that they have not been copied for reasons of confidentiality. However, Committee members are interested to get a flavour of the issues that the individuals were raising, quite apart from those raised by victims’ groups and the other organisations. Is it possible for us to get an extract of those submissions?

Mr Jack:

I see no difficulty in treating an individual’s submission as anonymous. We are happy to do that.

The Chairperson:

Have they already been provided?

Mrs Long:

Some of them have been made anonymously.

Mr Elliott:

Here is one from John —

Mr J Clarke:

There are some from professional individuals.

The Chairperson:

I had noticed that individuals had signed them, and I wondered whether responses from individuals had been included.

Mrs Long:

I will pick up where Jim left off about the aspirational aspect. I am slightly concerned when you link that to the level of funding — making it non-aspirational. It is a significant misconception that, just by spending money, one can achieve a particular objective. One can spend a lot of money and achieve very little: we have seen that in a lot of programmes that are being delivered.

The consultation closed about three months ago, on 31 October 2008. When do you expect the final document to be published and formally adopted?

In response to some of the criticisms about being aspirational, will there be some kind of annual or biannual implementation plan process written into the document, where specific targets and objectives will be set against which progress can be measured? Given the amount of money that you are talking about spending, one would want to have some targets that one could examine at the end of the year in order to see if they were met? Will some kind of review mechanism be built in, given that it is a 10-year strategy? One would normally be thinking of blocks of one to two years within that.

Mr Jack:

The fundamental difference between the new way forward and how we have done things up until now is the move toward assessment of individual need, so that individuals would be referred to the required support. In making the best use of the money, there is an attempt to tie it closely to the needs of individuals.

As regards the strategy and the updating part that links into the consultation on the service paper, we have not finally resolved the sequencing there —

Mrs Long:

If I can just clarify, that was not my question: that was going to be my next question. What I am asking is when there is going to be a final published strategic document, and whether that will include, for example, something like a review and implementation plan within it which would answer some of those questions.

Mr Jack:

We are happy to consider that. I think that it would be a matter of good practice to build in a monitoring mechanism. It is a 10-year strategy, and the intention behind that is that we are taking a long-term and holistic view of the needs of victims and survivors. There is an issue in how long we consult on the service paper that is linked into how we respond to the consultation in the strategy. If we can make it a relatively short period of consultation on the service paper, then there would be logic in trying to address all of the issues together in a single document.

We need to consider that with Ministers.

Mrs Long:

My second question is specifically about the victims and survivors’ service, the draft consultation document that is due shortly. Am I right in assuming that that paper has been developed in light of the responses that you have received to the victims and survivors’ outline strategic approach? That would circumvent a lot of criticism and a lot of repeat submissions on the same issues if you have taken on board issues that have been raised with regards to the services in the paper. In order to address those, if the service paper comes out in response to those comments, is this something that has been developed in parallel, but not influenced by, those consultation responses?

Mr Jack:

At the beginning, the proposals for the service were developed in quite close proximity to the original strategy document, but we are where we are now and we have had the responses since October, so we have been able to take account of the responses to some extent in drawing up the service proposal.

Mr J Clarke:

The short answer is: yes. One of the criticisms, or comments, is that there is insufficient information as to how the service sits with the other parts. Naturally, when producing the services paper, we have tried to address that lack of clarity, and a fundamental thing about the timescale will be, as Colin mentioned, whether the Committee would be responding to the strategy paper. That is a factor — whether the Committee would be formally responding to the strategy, and whether the Committee would like to consider the services papers in connection with that. That would greatly assist us in our job in trying to get some sense of the way ahead in this. We have to involve the Committee in the process.

Mr Spratt:

Thank you for your briefing. The individuals have been covered.

Across the board, and I include my side of the house, some groups and individuals are very vocal. Those groups have often obtained millions of pounds of peace funding, and it grieves me that they have achieved little and have contributed only very small amounts to individual victims. Victims may be treated to a trip now and again, or receive a basket of fruit at Christmas, but the people in charge, who are most vocal — I will not mince words — live like fat cats.

I want money to be tied down in order to ensure that it gets where it should. There should be an audit process. Differently-funded organisations provide services such as pain clinics and befriending services. There are a multitude of other things that can be done. I understand that the Commission for Victims and Survivors will tackle that issue and ensure that funding gets to the “coalface”. Millions of pounds have been squandered in the past few years by not reaching the proper destination.

Will the strategy contain a robust audit process to ensure that money goes to organisations that should receive it?

Mr Jack:

The new service will be based much more closely than the current system on the assessment of individual needs and the identification of ways to meet those needs. In relation to the audit process, a large number of groups in the voluntary sector have been funded to address the needs of victims and survivors. Many of those groups do a lot of work with individual victims. However, there are issues about the capacity of some of those groups to manage the money that they have received, and the Department is taking steps to audit that. With a growing amount of resources being invested in the sector, it is important to ensure that those organisations are fit for purpose and that they implement accountability mechanisms —

Mr Spratt:

Will the groups that are being funded at present continue to be funded for the rest of the year? Is there an assurance that those organisations will be on a level playing field as groups that may receive funding for victims and survivors in the future? In other words, do we start again, with a clean sheet of paper and very strict controls, in order to ensure that funds go where they should? I must have an assurance on that.

Mr Jack:

The move to a new service is tied in with the end of the existing core-funding programme, which has been extended from year-to-year over the past few years.

The Chairperson:

Therefore, will new rules apply?

Mr Jack:

Yes.

Mr J Clarke:

One of the key functions of the Commission for Victims and Survivors is the assessment of how well existing service are addressing need. That is not qualified in relation to the statutory, community or voluntary sector; it is the responsibility of the Commission for Victims and Survivors to oversee how well services meet —

Mr Spratt:

John, some organisations have already stated that they will not co-operate. Are you saying that groups must co-operate if they want funding?

Mr J Clarke:

The statutory duty rests on the Commission for Victims and Survivors. The degree to which people want to co-operate or not co-operate with that body is a matter for them. There are issues and implications in that about which comments are expected.

Mr Molloy:

John, thank you very much for the presentation again. On the issue of the service that will be provided, the Commission’s report yesterday seemed to indicate that the rate of funding was being muddled through, and it talked about various types of funding, such as short-term and long-term.

Across the spread of groups, nothing has moved on; little appears to have changed. The consultation responses are the same today as they were 20 years ago. Some means must be developed that provides people with a way of remembering the past, while deciding how to move forward, and provide services for those most in need. Those services should not just be about jobs for groups. At this stage, medical and other services should be mainstreamed and funding ring-fenced to ensure that those people do not drop out of the loop.

Any future audit process must measure the benefit to victims and families and the benefit to victims in dealing with the past. We should keep the 12-week consultation period, because, to reduce it will cause a variation. We have been criticised for not allowing people sufficient time to respond. The Committee itself should start to deal with some of the issues, give guidance, drive and lead the situation.

There is a large conglomerate, when it comes to the commissioners and the different Departments that seem to be dealing with this matter. They are making statements and are responding individually. There needs to be direction from the top to address that situation. From now on, funding should provide services for those in need, not for spokespersons and representatives, who are, in some cases, building power bases. Nothing has changed: the same people are in the same positions, and the responses are the same.

Mr Jack:

Ministers must reflect on the consultation and consider the various points that have been made. This is an attempt to establish a more structured set of stakeholders who have a say in how services are provided for victims and survivors. The forum will be established to advise on the development of the comprehensive needs assessment. It is intended that the service is more responsive to individual need and represents an attempt to progress from a structure that has, to date, developed in an ad hoc fashion. I take your comments on board.

The Chairperson:

I want to add a personal comment to Mr Molloy’s contribution. We must bear in mind that many people — both individuals and members of groups — will never recover from their loss. Some of them are still unlocking, or have not even begun to unlock, their grief and loss. Those people feel that victim groups represent their views. We must remember that that balance exists.

Mr Jack:

The responses from individuals and groups demonstrate that victims’ needs are individual and varied.

The Chairperson:

My point is that it would be unwise public policy to say that only victims who have moved on will receive money. That would be a mistake, because it is difficult to measure.

Mr Jack:

We have tried to be quite explicit about that.

Mr Spratt:

That is not the point that I was making.

The Chairperson:

I know.

Mr Spratt:

I agree with everything that has been said, but the point is individuals have become fat cats, and funds have not reached the victims, including some of the groups. I am asking for a very clear audit of future money loaned, which will ensure it is being used to address specific needs — whether to establish a pain clinic, or anything else that is needed in the future — and that money is not being made available for organisations to use in other ways. They should be required to have an audit trail to show that the money has gone to the source. In other words, organisations should present business cases every time they require funding. It is sad, but that is needed, because, whether we like it or not, money has been squandered, and we must face up to that.

Mr Molloy:

To clarify, I was not saying that individuals should be ignored, but that the money should not get lost within organisational structures or bureaucracy, which sometimes happens. The other issue is that Government can deal with some of the issues mentioned. Issues such as inquests, and people looking for information about the past, can be dealt with largely by Government. To some extent those issues are the platforms on which others can raise the issues of victims. Families do want to know information, and they want inquests to be carried out. The Government and the judiciary, etc, could relieve a lot of that pressure if they got that work done. People are moving in different situations.

Mrs Kelly:

What are the key dates for the plan?

Mr Jack:

It is difficult to be precise about the key dates, but I expect that the Committee will receive a copy of the services paper within days rather than months. Then, it is a question of how long the Committee needs to spend considering the paper. There will be a consultation process, and it will be open to the Committee to consider the responses to the services paper during the public consultation process, taking account of any comments that are made. It then depends on whether there will be a normal 12-week consultation period or a shorter period, after which the Department will want to hear the Committee’s response to the services paper. After that recommendations will be made to the Ministers.

That process will probably last until May at the earliest, after which a firm view can be taken on the way ahead on the service. The strategy could be tied in with the service; they are clearly closely linked, although it is possible that the revised strategy paper might be produced earlier — but there is logic in dealing with the two together.

The Chairperson:

The Committee has yet to decide how it will approach the issue; whether it will take a watching brief or will provide a detailed response. As a Committee we do not want to delay the process in any sense, or be blamed for any delay.

Mrs D Kelly:

That is more to the point.

The Chairperson:

On behalf of the Committee I can state that we do not seek to prevaricate or prevent progress.

Mrs D Kelly:

I would like clarification on one further point. Publication of the final strategy stands alone. Given that the service will continue for 12 months, as things stand —

The Chairperson:

I think we are being told that the new services arrangement would be an essential ingredient of that and will have to form part of the final document.

Mrs D Kelly:

Why were those elements not introduced at the same time?

The Chairperson:

We are due to receive the services document shortly.

Ms Anderson:

I interpret Mr Spratt’s remarks to be very much in line with what the Chairperson said about the need for the entire process to be victim-centred. Groups and organisations, or a strategy, should not be telling victims how they feel or what they need. We need to listen to the needs of victims. I particularly agree with Mr Spratt’s comment about the need for a reassessment of previous strategies in order to ascertain what impact they had last time round. That will, or at least should, inform the development of the current strategy.

The Chairperson:

I thank everyone for their attendance and their contributions. We will be in contact this afternoon.