---

Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) (Order) 2006

Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I generally welcome this order. Before dealing with it, I should declare a possible interest, as my wife is a member of the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, which is deeply involved in the work of supporting victims. When the Minister replies, I would like him to go into a couple of points in a little more detail. He mentioned that the legislation provides that the commissioner is to work in accordance with the detailed work programme and that the work programme is to be drawn up and agreed with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Failing the existence of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the detailed work programme is to be drawn up in consultation with the Secretary of State, which is the position at the moment. Therefore, I imagine that the Secretary of State and those who advise him have some ideas about what might be in a work programme. I notice that there are references to a detailed work programme, which implies that through it there will be fairly close control of the programme of the commissioner. I would be surprised if there are not already some ideas on that matter in the system. I am sure that the Committee would be interested to hear from the Minister on those matters. It would be helpful if we had more detail on the proposal for a victims and survivors forum. It has been difficult for some victims and victims groups to find themselves in close proximity to others. A forum could be problematic and might be divisive, so we need to think and consult about it more carefully. I will be grateful if the Minister can give us some insight into the thinking on that matter. The general question of funding has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. It is a sensitive matter, and I know from my former role that victims groups in my own patch had genuine reasons for feeling that they were not getting a fair deal under the present arrangements. Instead of finding officialdom helpful, they found that it was unhelpful and that it put obstacles in their path. Those may have been isolated examples, but we must be aware that some groups have reasonable grounds for feeling that they did not get a fair deal. We would not want to see that situation continue. There is also the question of policy in general. This is not the first time that there has been a victims commissioner. Many years ago, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was appointed to consider the question of provision for victims. He produced a report that, until now, has provided the bedrock for policy on these matters. This should have been explored further in the exposition of policy. Do the Government intend to reopen the issues that Bloomfield considered and advised on and to recast policy in these matters, or does Bloomfield continue to be the basis on which we approach these matters? Is the new provision for a commissioner to be supplemental to the existing arrangements, or does it presage a process by which they are overturned and something totally different is put in their place? It is important that the underlying issue is dealt with. As I said at the outset, however, we generally welcome the order. We hope that it will help. This is an important issue. From my experience, victims want, first, to know that their story, experience, suffering and sacrifice are not forgotten, and, secondly, to be reassured that it was not in vain. Those are the important things. Of course there are questions of support. At the end of the day, however, remembrance and the feeling that a purpose was served are more important than support. That is not to say that support is not important—it is. But we must get it into perspective.