I want to congratulate INCORE upon their initiative
in setting up this conference at a significant moment in the life
of our community. It is, indeed, a tremendously timely event.
I want to speak today from two perspectives. First,
as one of those who has in the past, by action and inaction, contributed
to the need to build peace and reconciliation. We will never advance
until there is widespread acceptance that no-one is entirely without
guilt in the situation which had developed here. We were, of course,
shaped - some would say deformed - by our inheritance and upbringing.
We had lived in a society where too few have been free-thinking
spirits, forming their political and religious judgements by rational
and detached analysis. I worked for some 40 years in a career where
it was necessary to try to stand back from one's own tastes and
preferences. Did I always succeed? I doubt it. It is, perhaps, rather
like that moment in a high profile trial when the jury is instructed
to put something quite ineradicable out of its collective mind.
However, I
do not suppose it was because of this perspective alone that
I was invited to speak today, but rather because for some 6 months
it was - to use a phrase from my published report - my "painful privilege" to pick my way through the wreckage
of all too many hopes and lives seeking to find acceptable ways
in which the suffering of the victims of our violence could best
be recognised and acknowledged. I underlined the word "acceptable".
It did not feature in the terms of reference given me by government,
but did feature in the working instructions I gave myself. As I
was to say repeatedly in the course of the Commission's work "We
have had victims because we have had violence. We have had violence
because we've had division. It would, therefore, be perverse to
the brink of obscenity to consider forms of recognition which could
only add to division".
Some, I know,
thought that this was mission impossible, and were not slow to
tell me so. Better forget about it all, they said: draw a line
and close the book. And you have, I know, already been discussing
in your previous session the prior question of "should
we remember?" 1, too, address that question, and my answer was
yes. Not only because we could not, would not in practice, forget,
but for a welter of other reasons:- including the need to learn
from disaster so as not to repeat it; and the need to ensure that
the record of these thousands of infinitely valuable human lives
should not simply be blotted from the record. Now, I do not propose
to repeat the substance of my report today. Many of you, I hope,
will have had the chance to read it, and its main thrust was very
comprehensibly conveyed by the media. Indeed, since the media sometimes
come under the lash on these occasions, let me say that I think
they handled the issues in my report professionally, sensitively
and comprehensively.
What I want to do this morning is to say a few
words first about what I might call disputed territory and then
about common ground, concluding with some observations on how we
might best move matters forward.
I was, of
course, very well aware that in terms of my own background and
experience, I would not necessarily be immediately accepted by
everybody as a truly independent and objective commissioner.
Some of those I met very candidly told me so. And although I
was very pleased by the overall reception given to my report
when it was published, there was also a note of criticism that
I had perhaps side-stepped or evaded what might be called wider "truth and justice" issues.
Some, for example, would clearly like me to have recommended
firmly the establishment of a South African type of Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. Others would obviously have liked
me to recommend wide-ranging further inquiries into disputed
deaths in controversial circumstances.
I want, first of all, to make it clear that throughout
my Commission's review, my door was open to anyone, anyone, regardless
of political affiliation or community origins, who wanted to see
me. I was prepared to listen, and indeed did listen, most carefully
to all representations made to me. Secondly, since I had the rather
invidious distinction of being a single Commissioner rather than
the Chairman of a body of people, I made a resolution that those
who expressed views to me should be able to speak to government
through my report; that I would convey as accurately and honestly
as I could any strongly-felt representations made to me. But I was
not, of course, an investigatory body, a court of inquiry or a detective
agency. I could honestly report that particular views were sincerely
held and forcibly expressed; I was in no position to judge whether
they were soundly based.
Some, I know, would have been very happy to see
me recommend a truth and reconciliation commission in the hope that
it could relieve many of these uncertainties and establish some
wholesome truths. I would certainly have been failing in my duty
if I had not acknowledged in my report that in a number of societies,
including South Africa, a mechanism along these lines had been felt
to be helpful. As far as I am concerned, that idea, that possibility,
remains on the table. But I believe it would now have to be addressed
in the wider context of what I hope and pray will be a developing
political reconciliation. A commission could only emerge as a useful,
a non-divisive, a healing, and - again to use that word acceptable
instrument if those who are to carry our future forward agree that
it can serve such a purpose. In South Africa, after all, the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission emerged from the balanced political
negotiations. And it seems to me if I have not misunderstood it
- to express a sophisticated trade-off between the search for truth
on the one hand and the possibility of amnesty on the other.
On the wider ground of my report, I want to emphasise
that certain issues should not be rushed. This may surprise some
of you, because commonly the authors of reports to government believe
that nothing could better serve the public good than the immediate
implementation of all their recommendations. In this case I believe
that the questions of a memorial scheme such as a trust fund for
the families of victims - or a memorial project - such as a garden
and/or a suitable memorial building dedicated to appropriate purposes
- need and deserve some further reflection. Timeliness and acceptability
are the significant criteria here. Already some interesting issues
are emerging. I placed emphasis, in suggesting some sort of memorial
trust, on dealing with the problems of children and young people
in the families of victims. While I would not wish to deviate from
this as a crucial objective, the point has been very reasonably
made that in the case of some of the earliest outrages of the troubles,
all members of the family at the centre of events will now have
reached maturity. This may point to the need for some wider objectives
alongside serving children and young people. Then we are still waiting
for a reaction from various interests outside the government. I
do hope, in particular, that the churches will give some constructive
thought to the suggestion of a memorial day and a unifying symbol
to mark it. As many of you may know, my own thought was that the
flower of the gorse or wind bush might be a suitable emblem.
I have said that certain issues should not be
rushed. But others should be high up the agenda. Here there may
be a risk of delay because we now live in a transitional period
before the prospective hand over of substantial devolved powers
of government to a locally-elected executive. In some cases there
may be a tendency not to take decisions which could and arguably
should now be left for local determination. But I believe some of
the recommendations for practical measures to help the victims brook
no delay, and that local politicians would almost certainly be comfortable
with early and constructive action.
Here I want
to say how very pleased I was by the Government's very constructive
and swift initial response. Adam Ingram has been appointed as
Minister for Victims here in Northern Ireland, and now as well
John Wilson has been given a similar role in the Republic. I
had the opportunity to present my report in person to the Prime
Minister Tony Blair, and to discuss the question of victims in
the Republic with the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. So here is my agenda
for early action. Comprehensive consideration of the potential
of voluntary and community groups to take effective and helpful
action in their various localities, with a view to assessing
their future programmes and funding needs. Establishment of the
needs of victims as an accepted subset of the public expenditure
priority "targeting social need". Comprehensive action based
on my own report and the admirable work led by the Social Security
Inspectorate to improve counselling and other services through
better training and in other ways. Decisive action to deal with
an over-stretch in treating pain and trauma. A review of the
economic circumstances of victims, including in particular the
impact of the compensation system. We must acknowledge that the
last named issue is a very complex and difficult one. Huge sums
of public money have already been paid out; governments everywhere
are notoriously reluctant to revisit settled claims; and the
last thing I would wish to do is to raise hopes and expectations
only to have them dashed. It could be that no more would be possible
that to effect some improvement for the future. But I certainly
believe strongly that this is an area requiring objective and
wholly-independent review.
The early signs are encouraging. Mr Ingram has
assembled a central unit capable of carrying the issue forward.
And I am more than happy that this will include Mary Butcher, my
indefatigable assistant throughout the work of the Commission, who
will bring to the task deep knowledge and sensitivity, and an understanding
of the full background to my recommendations. I hope that they will
work with others, not only in government and its agencies, but amongst
employers and other interests, to ensure that the profile of an
issue significantly raised by recent events is not allowed to fall
back again.
In conclusion, let me say that nothing, absolutely
nothing I have done since I entered the public service over 45 years
ago has made such a deep and permanent impression upon me. I have
met so many brave people, and also so many dedicated individuals
and organisations determined to help them, that I believe some real
good can be delivered out of all this distress. Many of the solo
instruments for the better recognition of victims are already in
place; they now need to have a proper orchestration, with the endorsement
at the highest level of leadership in our governments. It is almost
unique in my experience of government to find a sum made available
before there had been detailed proposals for spending it, and it
is clear that Mr Blair's welcome announcement of some weeks ago
was no more than a payment on account.
So, to return
to the question posed in this second session "How should we remember?".
My answer is this. By urgent action to deal effectively with
the problems of victims affected, involving not only government
but the whole of society; by appropriate forms of memorial schemes
and of projects in an acceptable form and in due course; but
above all by vowing singly and collectively that we shall cease
to inflict such wounds upon our own brothers and sisters.
Relevant Reading:
We shall remember them