Dr. Duncan Morrow:

Exactly. The critical issue for me is that at some level there needs to be a visible willingness to stand back from the political control of the narrative because if it is only about that, the process will enter disrepute even before it starts. There is a political imperative to acknowledge that that is an issue, to say that this is what we are doing and then, at some level or other, to stand back from that. The best thing we have are international judicial standards of evidence gathering from academia and professional standards monitored by professionals who are able to then uphold whether they are being followed. If we do not go down that road, all the mechanisms we have will fall back into the political control.

Mr. Hazzard asked me specifically about the commemoration issue. I have been thinking that commemoration is also about the control of the narrative. At some level or other it is part of this process, but it is never addressed. The right to remember is given in the agreement but it is also about how we remember in a society in which harm is a complex process to be understood in multiple ways. Are there ways that would allow us move forward and say, "This and no further"? Could this be an agreed way that would not be used simply as a mechanism for further politicisation by any side but that we would have some kind of protocols? That would also ride into how we do our cultural celebration and address the "How to" question.

We would have to be compliant with human rights in the context of freedom of expression but in a divided society a very good case could be made that there should be at least a charter of norms that people can be held against that would allow everybody, with some degree of freedom, move forward on that issue without more victimisation and retraumatisation. I fear that this process threatens to become one of retraumatisation. That is the reason everything goes back to "Let us not talk about it at all", which means it festers and comes out in other ways.

The critical issue for me is that the pathways are established and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group is given a proper remit to report on the process more than every five years in terms of whether it is being upheld, whether the question of independence is being upheld and so on to ensure some assurance is being given to people through the entire process. If we are talking about real risks rather than theoretical or legal risks, the entire process will become nugatory if it becomes another cause célèbrefor how a state or any particular group tried to nobble it for its own purposes.

My emphasis in all of this would be the oral history archive, in terms of the historical investigations unit, HIU, and ensuring that the IRG is given sufficient oversight potential to ensure it upholds the standards set out in law and in the Stormont House Agreement.