Professor Brandon Hamber:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to contribute today. As the Chairman noted, significant strides have been taken in the past 15 years in making a lasting peace. From an international perspective, the agreement is viewed positively and favourably as a peace building model. A number of societies around the world continue to examine this model.

Given the fact that identities and nationalities are guaranteed no matter what, Northern Ireland's status is considered unique and groundbreaking in the international context. This should be commended, as should the continuing work of many politicians in making the institutions operational despite people's differences and political aspirations. Some of the community work in Northern Ireland is considered to be of the highest standard globally.

My points will focus on the next steps and the matters that we may need to push further as we move beyond the 15-year mark. My focus will be on the issue of reconciliation as one part of the agreement. I do not need to remind this audience that the signatories firmly dedicated themselves in the agreement to "the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all". While recognising the different political aspirations of the signatories, all sought to endeavour to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and rapprochement within this framework.

The agreement also recognises that societal integration is key to reconciliation. As it noted, "An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society, including initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education and mixed housing". The agreement links the issue of integration with the question of reconciliation.

The questions I wish to raise relate to the degree to which this part of the agreement has been implemented. On the positive side, violence has decreased dramatically and there has been extensive funding support for cross-community work, much of which has resulted in positive connections between communities. There has been some change on the structural side. Yesterday's launch of the peace monitoring report shows that there has been an increase in mixed living. However, the level of integration in schools has not changed significantly. Despite the advancements in mixed living, they are not dramatic. For example, mixed marriages have not changed dramatically as a factor. In numerous quarters, this is put down to a lack of policy on how sharing and integration should take place. The full spirit of the integration expressed in the agreement is not yet realised.

Policy does not determine practice, but it provides us with a yardstick for measurement and helps us to create a vision for action in terms of what might be needed. Numerous research reports have continued to highlight that a vision of the type of society envisaged for Northern Ireland has not been forthcoming. Is the plan for co-existence what some have deemed to be a model of separate but equal or is it a much deeper form of social integration? The spirit of the Agreement is closer to integration. International lessons suggest the latter model would provide a stronger form of social cohesion and a greater guarantee of peace.

As noted in the peace monitoring report, "The continuing absence of any agreed strategy for flags, parades or dealing with the past left the political establishment vulnerable to the shocks delivered by incidents and events". We saw this in December.

In the conflict field, we discuss three issues that normally need to be addressed, those being, attitudes, behaviours and structural issues. I contend that, since the Agreement, these have been dealt with separately. The attitudinal issues have been moved into the community relations field. Although there have been significant advancements, they are often restricted to that field. Often, the behavioural issues are treated as a security concern. The structural issues are often referred to as an economic matter rather than a matter of deeper social integration in terms of education and so forth. This approach leaves the underlying causes of the conflict in place and the full realisation of the agreement vulnerable. In the conflict field, we would refer to this as a negative peace. Formal violence has decreased, but many of the underlying issues that can fuel violence remain.

For this reason, we must clarify the direction of travel and what type of society is envisaged. Is it a fully integrated society as envisaged within my reading of the Agreement? We need to seek an approach that integrates at policy and practical levels the various strategies in place.

This is my general overview. I again thank the committee for giving me this opportunity.