Dr. Thomas Leahy:

I thank members for the points and questions raised. Ms Urwin raised a good point on the consultation process. I would be aware, and the evidence I have submitted shows, that there are a number of groups and organisations that have sent across papers in response to the consultation by the British Government and Northern Ireland Office, and these papers have made various points about the Irish Government's role in this process. I can definitely see Ms Urwin's point that there would be no point repeating the process again if it just gets fed back. Those discussions could start between the Irish Government and victims and survivors groups and others who are interested in raising this point. It is definitely a good point. If this is just delayed constantly and there is no result from it, then I do not see why the Irish Government would not be able to initiate its own process, and have discussions with victims and survivors groups and others who are interested. Rather than having to repeat work, organisations could submit what they submitted to the UK consultation and then draw up points about the Irish Government's role. I believe that would be beneficial.

That touches on a key point from this research, which is that the Irish Government can take a lead on this process. I recognise that this might lead to some uncomfortable things coming out but I believe it would be respected by people across Northern Ireland, the UK, Europe and the world that it has taken a lead on this process. This would show that the Government is attempting to build public confidence in the State and that it is willing to recognise errors it has made in the past and things that have happened, and willing to try to introduce reforms, putting victims and survivors at the centre, and, at least in its own way, trying to move forward with co-operation between these islands. That would be a key point and is something the Government could initiate itself. I do not see any reason it could not do that. This does not have to be written at a particular time and it could be done online, and there are various ways of doing the process. It is definitely a good point.

With regard to the point on amnesties, what is interesting is that I did not speak to one victims or survivors group which thinks amnesty is a good idea. This is vital from a victims and survivors point of view. As we said, despite some of the faults that could be pointed out with regard to the Stormont House Agreement, it finally gives victims and survivors, who have often been completely disempowered during the conflict and into the peace process years, a sense that they have an opportunity to decide which route they want to take. They have a choice to go down the justice route in order to get some truth and acknowledgement of what has happened, or perhaps they just want to leave this and move on. That is the important thing the Stormont House Agreement does. If one side passes an amnesty, that immediately means victims and survivors are no longer in a position where they are, in a sense, able to direct what is happening in that process. It would disempower them, even to the extent that it could re-traumatise people.

There is also a point about public confidence in the state in regard to amnesties, whether this State or the UK. It would not just affect Troubles-related cases and it could be things that have happened with regard to the police force or the Army in other cases and other scenarios. It is not good that organisations that are supposed to abide by the rule of law can have amnesties in place.

That would set a precedent. As I drew attention to in my evidence, former British soldiers recognise this. Sometimes in the UK media it appears that the British army in its entirety backs an amnesty, but that is not the case. A number of people in the British army have said that it is not good. The British army is supposed to uphold law and order, which it said it was doing in Northern Ireland, and therefore if people have gone over or against regulations, they have to be held to account.

If amnesties are passed out for some groups and not others, we will end up with a group of second-class victims and survivors and a hierarchy of perpetrators. That is not what this process is supposed to be about. That is key. It is important for public confidence and for relationships between different jurisdictions on these isles that there is a process for victims and survivors to hold people to account if they wish to do so, or to at least find out the truth.

Mental and physical health facilities were mentioned. In 1999, the original Victims' Commissioner in this State, John Wilson, brought up this point in his report, APlaceand a Name, which looked at ways of moving forward in dealing with conflict legacy. He said that the mental and physical health facilities available to victims and survivors had to be improved and, if possible, integrated across the isles for accessibility. Judith Thompson, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in the North, gave evidence here a couple of months ago, and it was interesting that she made the point that people still do not have access to those facilities or find them difficult to access. It is alarming that, 20 years down the line, that is the case. That is fundamental.

The whole process is about enabling people to get closure, truth and justice but, alongside that, the day-to-day well-being of people is at stake. Governments in the UK and in this jurisdiction have a responsibility to ensure that citizens have access to those facilities and that joined-up processes are in place. I very much support that the provision of mental and physical health services should be a priority for both Governments.