A controversial report into how to deal with the legacy of NI's violent Troubles has sparked rejection from interested groups and individuals.

Out of 174 people who responded to the 2009 report, most rejected it in its entirety without comment.

Today, the Northern Ireland Office published a summary of responses to a consultation on proposals put forward by the Consultative Group on the Past - including a suggestion for paying £12,000 to all the families of victims of violence, including paramilitaries, which was later ruled out by former Secretary of State Shaun Woodward.

The consultation also received 72 responses from organisations, political parties, academics and medical experts.

A total of 20 out of 28 organisations opposed the payment with only eight supporting it, and all but five of the 174 individuals responding also rejected the proposal.

However, while the report is widely anticipated to be 'binned', Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson (pictured), called the report "an important contribution to the debate on the past" and said: "I am committed to listening to the views of people from across the community in Northern Ireland on the role I can play on this important issue.

"I hope that publishing this summary of responses to the consultation demonstrates the transparent and measured approach I intend to take," he said today, commenting on the responses to the Consultative Group on the Past's inquiry, that was co-chaired by the former Archbishop of Armagh Lord Eames and ex priest, Denis Bradley, who was the first Vice-Chairman of the NI Policing Board.

The Group on the Past was established in June 2007 for cross-community consultation on how we can build a "shared future" in Northern Ireland.

Their finished report, containing 31 recommendations on issues such as victims, justice and information recovery, was delivered in January 2009 and was widely criticised.

Commenting on today's news, the Sinn Fein spokesperson on victims' issues, Francie Molloy said: "It is hardly a surprise that there has been a variety of responses to the Eames/Bradley proposals.

"However there is a concern that today's exercise is about using the lack of consensus as an excuse to 'park' this issue.

"The reality is that you will not get a consensus on dealing with the past amongst political parties, primarily because the future is still contested.

"To seek such a consensus and elevate it to the status of a precondition to dealing with the past is at best naïve," he said.

"What is required is an international truth recovery mechanism which examines the causes and consequences of the conflict and which is independent of the state, combatant groups, political parties, civic society and economic interests.

"That is the only way to ensure maximum confidence and maximum participation."(BMcC/KMcA)