Maybe, like Ulster in 1912, I have no choice.
I appreciate the sentiments behind these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the fact that victims groups are not a homogenous group of people. People are looking for different things. She referred to her time as victims Minister. As I have said before, I have probably met more groups over many decades than any person, certainly any politician, who does not live in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday was the 51st anniversary of the events of Bloody Sunday. I vividly recall that, a few weeks after David Cameron responded to the Saville inquiry in June 2010, I went with the then Secretary of State to the City Hotel in Derry, where we met members of the Bloody Sunday families. It will not be any surprise that they did not all speak with one voice. Some of them thought that what had happened with Saville and David Cameron’s response was fantastic: “We can now move on and get on with the rest of our lives”. Others said to us, “It was fantastic, we really appreciate it, but now we want to see the next phase of this, which is prosecutions”. I have referred to the later time when it came to taking a decision on that. Another group—by far the smallest—said to us, “Well, the Saville inquiry did not finger Edward Heath, Brian Faulkner or the military top brass and so on, therefore it’s a whitewash and, 12 years and £200 million later, we need another inquiry”. So I was struck that, even on an issue such as that, where most people suggest that the Government got it right in June 2010, not everybody was satisfied and people wanted different outcomes.
9.30 pm
Speaking of outcomes, one of the objectives of the Bill is to deliver better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles. I point out in passing that the Government passed legislation to introduce the Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme. I totally acknowledge the role of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in ensuring that that legislation was passed. It is not true to say that we as a Government have totally ignored victims. We legislated in this Parliament to introduce a scheme over which there had been disagreement for many years, and no agreement. We got it through with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Hain; I think we can take some credit for that.
Moreover, the proactive amendments I have tabled reflect the significant engagement we have had and, on my part, a genuine attempt to address some of the concerns raised by victims and survivors. I acknowledge the sentiment behind Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the desire to make the legislation more victim centred. I am prepared to consider this further, and I will sit down with the noble Lord and discuss his amendments. I am naturally sympathetic to his objectives, as I am to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
The current drafting of the Bill does not prevent a victim or survivor submitting an impact statement, nor does it prevent the commission publishing one. However, I recognise the purpose of this amendment and as with Amendment 166, I am very sympathetic to it and happy to talk to the noble Baroness, and to continue talking to the victims’ commissioner to see if there is a way to take these matters forward at a later stage. On that note, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment for now, and I am confident we will return to these issues in due course.