|
Submission by the Royal
The RUC GC Foundation
The Foundation was created by virtue of Section 70 of the Police (NI) Act 2000 for the purpose of "marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary". It commenced work in December 2001.
The functions of the Foundation allow it to look back on a long, proud history of policing and to look forward by supporting current serving officers. In particular, it will remember sacrifice and service and preserve the name of the RUC GC in the policing world.
Summary of Main Points in the RUC GC Submission The following important themes which run throughout the Report of the Consultative Group on the Past (CGP) have been identified by the RUC GC Foundation as causing particular concern to its members. · Definition of Victims
It is believed that the CGP took the easy way
out by adopting the definition of 'victim and survivor' contained in the 'Victims and Survivors (
· Equivalence
As an issue in its own right, the theme of 'equivalence' which permeates the Report is both insulting and insensitive towards members of the wider police family who believe that in no way are they equivalent to terrorists. · New Structures
The Report suggests many new structures to address the issues relating to the past. It is the contention of the RUC GC Foundation that at best this will lead to duplication or confusion of effort and at worst drive a further wedge between communities who are beginning to learn to live with each other in an unsteady peace. There are already many organizations and groupings working in the identified areas and it might be that the best way to progress matters is by providing additional resources to existing bodies.
· Lack of Accountability
While many new institutions and structures are proposed throughout the Report, there is a distinct lack of clear systems of accountability, of the requisite checks and balances. If there is to be a Legacy Commission, which is opposed by the RUC GC Foundation, then it at least has to be subject to a clear system of accountability.
· The 'Recognition Payment'
Along with most other organizations and individuals who have provided an early analysis of the Report, the RUC GC Foundation is opposed to this payment for several reasons including that of 'equivalence' which is a theme in its own right.
· Status of the Royal
Whilst the Report suggests that the best way forward for 'victims and survivors' may be in a collaborative manner, it ignores the special circumstances and needs of the RUC who were placed by Government in the front line of the fight against terrorism. These needs can best be addressed outside of mainstream healthcare. There is also some distrust in mainstream healthcare exhibited by the wider police family, particularly given the recent upsurge in terrorist violence. A 'duty of care' is owed to the RUC GC, many of whose members continue to suffer decades since their physical or mental injuries were initially sustained.
· The Re-Writing of History
The structures recommended in the Report, particularly around the area of 'Processes of Justice and Information Recovery', provide the potential for the re-writing of history. And while an Information Recovery process (a 'Truth Commission' by another name) is proposed, the likelihood is that only the state side will be providing information of any worth.
· Human Rights Issues
While there is a considerable emphasis placed throughout the Report on the importance of each of its recommendations being Human Rights compliant, there are grave concerns in relation to the protection of the Human Rights of police officers (and their families) who, as a result of some of the recommendations in the Report, are placed under a degree of 'compulsion' to assist the proposed Legacy Commission for many years into the future. Issues around Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the European Convention are identified as being particularly pertinent.
· The Erosion of the Rule of Law
Following on from the Good Friday Agreement, several of the recommendations contained in the Report further erode the 'Rule of Law' e.g. the 'airbrushing' of some criminal convictions, the process of information recovery and some prevarication around amnesty in the future. Such erosion is worrying in a democratic state.
· Section 75 Impact Assessment
Given the nature of the Report, the importance of achieving cross community support and the provisions of Section 75 and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it is felt that a Section 75 Impact Assessment should be carried out on each of the recommendations which Government might decide to accept.
RUC GC Submission
1. Overall, the RUC GC Foundation felt that the Report was fatally flawed for the reasons outlined in the body of this submission. For many within the wider police family and, indeed, society in general, it is a case of the present being 'too late for justice and too early for truth'.
2. While the Foundation has serious reservations concerning much of the Report, there are some areas such as 'healthcare' and 'remembering' where positive recommendations have been made and should be developed. Indeed the Foundation would welcome the opportunity to assist in taking some of the recommendations forward based on the work they have already done in these areas to date. 3. It is noted that there are some apparently contradictory messages contained in Chapter 9 of the Report, 'Conclusions and the Way Ahead'. Whilst on the one hand it refers to the importance of having the 'debate', on the other hand it urges that no time is wasted and that an Implementation Group is established 'in the intervening time' (i.e. whilst the 'debate' is being conducted). It is the view of the RUC GC Foundation that an appropriate time is allowed for the debate to take place before there is any implementation of the recommendations.
THE LEGACY OF THE PAST AND RECONCILIATION
4. It is the belief of the RUC GC Foundation that much of the Report and its associated recommendations simply add an additional layer and associated expense to work that is already being done, or could be done, by organisations which are already in existence e.g. the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council (NICRC) and the Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland (CVSNI).
5. It is also the belief of the Foundation that, rather than having the 'overarching objective of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland', much of the Report could lead to further division by opening up still raw wounds which have not had the time to heal with the potential to destabilise the embryonic political institutions.
6. Under the proposed arrangements for the Legacy Commission it is not clear what checks and balances will be in place - the Assembly doesn't appear to have any responsibility in this area. If there is to be a Legacy Commission, which is opposed by the RUC GC Foundation, then it has to have a clear system of accountability.
7. It is the view of the RUC GC Foundation that the proposed £100 million bursary could be made available to existing organisations without the need for a Legacy Commission.
VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS
8. The issue of victims is one of the most important aspects of dealing with the past and it is important that the Report addresses this issue thoughtfully.
9. The RUC GC Foundation is very much against the proposal for a 'recognition payment' as it is centred on the concept of 'equivalence' which is totally opposed by the RUC GC Foundation.
10. A great sense of hurt was
generated by the definition of 'victim and survivor' found in the 'Victims and Survivors (
11. The definition of 'victim' must be re-visited.
12. It is further noted that, unlike other groups including other members of the security forces, the report is silent in respect of serving or former police officers, their widows, dependants and wider family circle - all of whom are key stakeholders in the RUC GC Foundation. Any suggestion that members of the wider police family have already been 'well looked after' must be resisted.
13. It must be remembered that it was successive governments who relied on the police to 'hold the line' and, in particular, the Thatcher government placed the prime role for countering terrorism on the police. Indeed military colleagues have indicated that this precedent has never been replicated in any other conflict, before or since. There are clear links to the military covenant which received much publicity recently when government's commitment to it (and the associated duty of care') was impugned.
14. Government gave the police a unique role in
15. The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland 1999 ( the 'Patten' Report), at paragraph 10.20, recommended a substantial fund be set up to help injured police officers, injured retired officers and their families as well as police widows. Consequently the current arrangements in place for the policing family are based on the implementations of the Patten Report. These arrangements were to address the needs identified by Patten and for practical and security reasons it was necessary to address separately the needs of RUC GC victims as opposed to other members of society.
16. The current arrangements for the policing family have taken time to develop and it is imperative that this initial funding commitment by Government continues. Patten was conscious that the conflict had covered an extended period of time and that many people injured and widowed in the early days of the troubles, as a consequence of low pensions and inflation, suffered extreme financial hardship. The needs change as people age and in particular the financial requirements of injured officers and their carers become greater as age interacts with the psychological and physical injuries.
17. Within the police family, the needs of the membership of the Disabled Police Officers'Association (DPOA) and of other injured officers must be further addressed. This includes carers, many of whom are life-long. Early-day compensation to injured officers was derisory and pensions in many cases are low due to short service at time of injury. There is clearly a need to create a system of supplementary pension/income to ensure a reasonable standard of living, in a manner not dissimilar to pre-1982 police widows.
18. Many of the RUC GC organisations grew out of necessity and were set up as 'self help' groups with minimal help from the centre. They are only sustainable because of this and a very committed membership.
19. As a result of the above, the police community have been 'ahead of the game' in respect of some healthcare structures for the last 8-10 years in sharp contrast with those services which can be accessed by non-police victims under the National Health Service through GP referral. Whilst there cannot be any 'one size fits all', the police family have a model which others may wish to emulate.
20. The tenor of the Report favours 'collaborative working' for victims. But it is important that the members of the wider police family continue to receive the care necessary for their particular and specific needs which have been recognised by successive governments over several decades. Police 'victims and survivors' are owed a duty of care for the sacrifices they made during the 'troubles', sacrifices which continue to be made with an increase in referrals for treatment by retired members of the RUC.
21. Additionally, the recent fatal attacks in the province on members of the security forces, allied with the apparently organised attempts to bring parts of the province to a halt through bomb scares and hi-jackings, have reinforced the view held by many that the conflict is not yet over and that there is not yet sufficient 'trust' in mainstream healthcare provision to allow for the proposed 'collaborative working'. It is important that the wider police family are reassured as to the continuation of their funding into the future and that the provisions are sustainable.
22. If the recommendations in the Report are to be implemented, particularly in relation to 'Processes of Justice and Information Recovery', there is the potential for additional stress to be placed on retired police officers over the next seven years (minimum) with (re)traumatisation likely to occur.
23. Whilst it is important that areas such as trauma, suicide and addiction are addressed, it does not take the creation of another body to ensure the delivery of services. For example, the police service has developed programmes which address these areas and more, and they would be very happy to share their experience and structures with other organisations.
THE LEGACY COMMISSION
24. The RUC GC Foundation, for the reasons given earlier, does not see the need for a Legacy Commission.
SOCIETY ISSUES
25. The RUC GC Foundation agrees that it is important to tackle society issues arising from the conflict, although the help that could be provided to exiles living abroad might be rather limited. But the question has to be asked, again, does it take a Legacy Commission to progress these matters?
26.
27. The difficult area of sectarianism is already being tackled by existing groups - perhaps these groups need to receive more resources rather than giving birth to yet another institution with all the associated bureaucracy.
28.
Whilst it is appreciated that there have been issues with the
29. In relation to the recommendation concerning those with conflict-related convictions, the RUC GC Foundation are opposed to any suggestion that people who committed crimes in the past should be dealt with outside of the already existing legal provisions such as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Order.
PROCESSES OF JUSTICE AND INFORMATION RECOVERY
30. It is the belief of the RUC GC Foundation that the PSNI should be properly resourced to undertake the investigation of historical cases rather than creating an 'independent unit' to take such investigations forward. Ultimately neither the Historical Enquiry Team (HET) nor the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (PONI) have any information of their own. They rely totally on the PSNI, security services and retired police officers for information. In reality other institutions are not needed - what is needed are people who know their way around the system which existed or currently exists.
31. The pernicious issue of 'Equivalence' is raised under this heading. Equivalence is a theme which has permeated the thinking of the CGP and can be identified as running through the nomenclature of 'information recovery'- however dressed-up. Whilst the state 'side' (including those employed by the state) will have kept records from the past, what equivalent records will have been kept by others, including paramilitary organisations?
32. No one has ever said they were wrong and particularly terrorists, who received closure as a result of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), have never conceded that their acts were morally wrong and repugnant. In some ways the ongoing investigations serve in a perverse way to almost legitimize the acts of the terrorists and equate them with the actions of the state.
33. The brutal fact is that if evidence or contributions to information recovery in this context are not tested to evidential standards in a court of law then any resultant conclusions are destined to be both tainted and unreliable.
34. The Report appears to suggest in a number of ways that the CGP are pre-disposed to believe those who have long alleged collusive activities between members of the security forces (police or UDR) and loyalist paramilitaries. To examine specific areas of paramilitary activity or alleged collusion with the same blunt instrument is wrong. Additionally, the CGP has disregarded various findings from the Director of Public Prosecutions where evidence of alleged collusion was not substantiated (notably, Stevens III) and also several cases where the Criminal Justice System was applied to RUC officers and acquittals ensued e.g. murder charges alleged to be 'shoot to kill' in the Stalker Report era.
35. A question has to be raised in relation to whether this set of recommendations meets the CGP's own 'gold standard' of dealing with the past 'in a manner which enables society to become more defined by its desire for true and lasting reconciliation, rather than by division and mistrust, seeking to promote a shared and reconciled future for all'. 36. The RUC GC Foundation agrees that there should be no new public inquiries and has no issue with the recommendation in relation to Inquests.
37. The Foundation would say that there is a de-facto amnesty for terrorist offences committed pre-1998.
REMEMBERING
38. As organizations such as the CVSNI, 'Healing Through Remembering' and, indeed, the RUC GC Foundation are already either carrying out or planning valuable work in the area of remembering, why is there a need for the establishment of yet another body? As already mentioned, there is great potential for the CVSNI to progress matters in this area and they should be supported accordingly.
39. It is the view of the RUC GC Foundation that people need to be allowed to make their own mind up on how, when, where and whether they wish to carry out their own act of remembrance. Given that the 'Day of Reflection' was developed by 'Healing Through Remembering' (HTR), it is important that they are consulted and are comfortable with the outworkings of this recommendation.
40. The RUC GC Foundation would support the recommendation for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to deliver an annual keynote address to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
41. Quite how the people of
42. As already stated, the RUC GC Foundation has much valuable expertise in relation to memorials etc which could be shared with other organisations.
Conclusion
43. In conclusion, it is hoped that the suggested debate will be held before any of the recommendations are implemented. Dealing with the past is an important issue for Northern Irish society but it has to be done with agreement and sensitivity. Otherwise it has the potential to create a situation where there is 'one step forward and two steps back'.
22nd April 2009
|