Dr. Thomas Leahy:

I thank Mr. Brady and Mr. Maskey for making for making those points. I refer to the Kay's Tavern and Seamus Ludlow cases. Ms Urwin spoke about how to implement some of the recommendations on how to move these cases forward. It is really about drawing out the public interest here. There are various suggestions about how certain state authorities operate. That matters to the public because it matters today about how the police operates and they can carry ideas or lessons forward from the past. These things should be considered and implemented. It is not something that would not be in the public interest; it is in the public interest for that reason.

Mr. Brady spoke about republicans being blamed for the Seamus Ludlow incident. My recommendation 8 under theme 1 relates to the implementation and reconciliation group. It is interesting that this has come up from various victims' and survivors' groups, politicians and others who have engaged with this research. I will not prejudge the implementation and reconciliation group because that will come out of the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission for Information Retrieval etc. The academic panel would then be asked to look into themes about the conflict.

From the response I have had to this and looking at some of the responses to the Stormont House Agreement that have been put in by various organisations, it would be important to look at the role of the Irish Government in the conflict and peace process. Various academics I have interviewed for my research have said that. There would be various themes under that, such as the Irish Government's dealings with cross-Border loyalist attacks, cross-Border republican attacks and also the dealings with the British Government, British intelligence etc.

It should also include how this State responded at the time with things like the broadcasting ban, the Offences against the State Act and the Special Criminal Court. I do not necessarily mean to criticise these, but it could be useful to analyse if similar mechanisms could be implemented if such a situation arose in the future. I am aware, for example, the Special Criminal Court still exists but we should examine how it operated. Was it effective in keeping public opinion onside about how the Irish Government was dealing with the situation?

This is an important conversation for the Irish Government to have in order to move forward. That analysis should include things that worked well, including the Irish Government's role in the peace process, which is seen positively from most groups. That should be used to learn lessons and find ideas for the future. It would be particularly useful for the IRG to look at some of the themes arising about how the Irish Government interacted with particular groups during the conflict.

Mr. Maskey spoke about the amnesty proposal and a lack of knowledge about particular cases. I think engagement from this committee and politicians from this State with the UK public is really important because there is an appetite for it. This is slightly anecdotal, but in my university the course related to the conflict is oversubscribed, which now, 21 years on, one might not expect. There is a real interest in what happened and a yearning for a nuance about that debate and not just things one might hear in certain sections of the media. That is really important because they can raise public awareness across these isles about these cases. That will start to introduce people to different thinking and different sides of the debate. That can end up putting pressure on governments to react and to look into particular cases. In one respect there is a ray of light on the ignorance point in that there are ways forward with that engagement with the public.