Opinion

Allison Morris: 20 years after the Agreement, we still need brave and outspoken leadership

The Good Friday Agreement
The Good Friday Agreement The Good Friday Agreement

IT is a heavy burden of responsibility to make decisions that impact on the future of people's lives, that's why so few, even those in elected positions of authority, ever really stick their necks out.

I was reminded of that this week when I took part in an event organised by the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs to mark the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement referendum.

It took place in the palatial Iveagh House. Once the home of the Guinness family, the building was donated to the Irish state by Benjamin Guinness's grandson, Rupert, Lord Iveagh, in 1939.

The Guinness family perfectly demonstrate the varied Anglo/Irish heritage and two traditions that have shaped Irish political life over the decades.

The building also played an important part in the peace talks and the accord that was voted through by the majority of Irish people 20-years ago this week, and in helping improve and build on the cross-border relations since.

The Belfast Agreement was a momentous time in the lives of all of us who live here, a day that promised so much, that helped bring peace, but 20 years on the flaws in that agreement and how it was implemented are visible for all to see.

It took a collection of brave people to get the agreement over the line, people from both governments, loyalists and republicans, nationalists and unionists.

The agreement required making tough choices and asking people to accept to some what was previously unthinkable.

The release of prisoners, some of whom had only served a fraction of their sentence, was a big ask of victims of the conflict on all sides.

It was also an essential part of the process without which peace would never have been possible.

What was clearly not given proper consideration at that time or in the years that followed, was the generational and lasting hurt and trauma of those who never had their day in court.

In the 10 years that followed the GFA referendum little consideration was given to legacy.

There was at that time - whether people admit to it now or not - an invisible line in the sand with no investigations or prosecutions.

And that's how many would have liked it to stay.

The families of victims, campaign groups and a handful of diligent solicitors and journalists helped uncover and highlight the many injustices and cases of collusion and cover up that occurred during a bloody and dirty war.

I could count the number of convictions there have been since on one hand, despite allegations of a witch hunt, there have been no former members of the British army convicted of alleged offences committed while on duty in Northern Ireland.

Earlier this month the Secretary of State Karen Bradley launched the long-awaited public consultation into dealing with the past.

It did not include controversial plans for a statute of limitations for state forces, there are people who will try and take credit for that but the truth of the matter is such a unilateral amnesty would be legally unworkable.

Well-paid Downing Street legal advisors have no doubt made the prime minister aware of that.

The consultation also includes plans for an investigative body, the Historical Investigations Unit, that will run parallel to a truth recovery mechanism that families can voluntarily sign up to.

In principle this sounds like the best possible solution to a complex problem.

In reality, no paramilitary group will hand over information to a truth recovery body if they are still being criminally investigated.

No 'one size fits all' when it comes to victims, even within one family there are differences in expectations with some who remain optimistic of criminal prosecution, others seeking truth and recognition and some wanting space to grieve privately.

Information gathered in a truth process could lead to calls for reopened criminal investigations or even lengthy civil cases with a much lower burden of proof but a mini trial held in a public arena.

When former Director of Public Prosecutions Barra McGrory raised concerns about how the past was being dealt with, and the impact it was having on public confidence in current justice mechanisms, he was speaking from a position of authority.

When he said an end to criminal prosecutions was - in his opinion - the best way forward, he must have known it would lead to criticism, but it was a perspective that needed to be heard.

Brave leadership brought about the Good Friday document but public faith in the agreement was what it got it over the line, there also needs to be public faith in the next phase of peace building and that means a realistic conversation about what can be achieved.

That will require brave and outspoken leadership.