Personally speaking by Marie Smyth

From: Fortnight May 1999

In 1972, with local government reform, responsibility for delivery of health and social services (amongst other things) in Northern Ireland was placed with a series of bodies such as the Housing Executive and Health and Social Services Boards which were especially established to deliver social services in a neutral that is a non-sectarian way. These bodies operated outside of the political structures and aimed to apply a set of professional standards and practices in the business of assessing and meeting needs in Northern Ireland. The people within these bodies have not, like their English, Scottish or Welsh counterparts, had to deal with politicians and political issues in any direct way. The maelstrom of strong emotions associated with the issue of victims and the political minefields surrounding these issues cannot be the most enticing territory for those in such bodies to enter in order to make new provision for those affected by the Troubles. Yet enticed they must be if there is to be any concerted and comprehensive provision for those individuals and families who have been affected by the Troubles.

Such government departments must also fight the good fight on behalf of victims if recent developments are anything to go by. The Departmental circular from the Department of Health and Social Services urging government agencies to implement parts of the Bloomfield report sets a cut-off date of two years after a Troubles related loss beyond which agencies are not expected to provide services for people affected. There is no evidence that peoples needs magically disappear after two years. Certainly, lost limbs do not grow back, and in our experience it is impossible to timetable grief and loss. To attempt to set such limits without regard for the evidence of need makes me wonder about the motivation of such limit setting. Is it to do with the desire to meet need or is it to do with the desire to limit public expenditure? Will the Health Boards take up the cudgels and challenge this?

The divided nature of the population of people who claim victim-hood, the recent focus on the political dimension of their situation, and their lack of political cohesion and leverage means that they are unlikely to be able to challenge such rulings themselves. This is particularly for those bereaved and injured civilians who, perhaps understandably, do not wish to be associated with political parties. Will this mean that we will go on as we have been doing for the last year on the issue of provision for those bereaved and injured? In the last year since the publication of Bloomfield, there has been a lot of talk, but precious little action. As The Cost of the Troubles Study completes its work of documenting the experiences and effects of the Troubles, the evidence of need is now available and on the desks of those with responsibility in this field. We hope we haven't been involved in an exercise that turns out to be simply academic.