A response to Hilary Benn

Like most people I know in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland, I have a high regard personally for Hilary Benn, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I believe him to be an honourable man. Thus pre-disposed, I came to his Irish News article with optimism and goodwill.

I realise that such an opening to any written piece about a serving politician will invoke in most readers the reaction akin to waiting for “the other boot to fall”. In short, there will be an inevitable predisposition to assume that there is a “but” about to be dropped in. And, yes, I do have a reservation.

However, let me lead with the positives:

The strapline above the Secretary of State’s article reads: “I’m determined to deal with past says Hilary Benn” and I fully and without reservation or hesitation, accept the sincerity of that statement.

I also have no quibble with the opening lines of Mr. Benn’s piece where he says:

“Acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors of the Troubles was one of the aims of the Good Friday Agreement, but it is all too clear that for many of them and their families this task remains incomplete”.

“So, what is your problem?” a reasonable reader may ask. My reply is that wishing for something to change is rarely sufficient to ensure that the desired change actually becomes a reality.

Call it pessimism or call it defeatism, but my strong sense is that, honourable though they surely are, Mr Benn’s hopes for the success of his initiative are overly optimistic. This is because the intended route for his proposals to achieve an outcome which will be, even mostly, as desired, is a route strewn with obstacles which are imbedded and intractable.

According to Hilary Benn; “a growing number of requests for investigations and information are now being made to the commission – over 120 at the last count”. There is every reason to believe that these numbers will go further upwards.

He also writes that “the Northern Ireland Courts have been clear that [they have] the powers [needed] to carry out independent, human rights-compliant investigations”. While this is, indeed, encouraging to hear, one is left wondering if “the powers” referred to include the “power” to recruit and deploy the huge numbers of additional staff and physical facilities which the 120+ investigations will give rise to, not to mention other delays caused by appeals, procedural wrangles etc.

Mr Benn also says that “the legislation I will propose will ensure that the commission is, in specific circumstances, able to hold public hearings, take sworn evidence from individuals, and ensure families have effective representation”. This is also very welcome and is positive.

There is nothing wrong with any of the above ambitions and I sincerely hope that they will come to fruition. But it is a denial of reality to believe that there will be a miraculous absence of the sluggishness and delays which have been the intractable and inevitable characteristics of legal processes going back at least as far as the days when Charles Dickens wrote “Bleak House”

So, what is my point and what do I call for?

Well, the first point I need to make very clearly is that the above reservations and predictions are not being advanced so as to prevent or delay Hilary Benn’s plans from being implemented. They are being advanced to support the view that this body of solutions to the tragic and heart-rending legacy of the “troubles” must not be stand-alone options but rather can only succeed in their stated (and noble) aims if they are also accompanied by, and run in parallel with, a Truth Recovery Process.

Such a process would involve giving the option to victims, and relatives of victims, of engaging with the perpetrators of atrocities for the purposes of being given an open and truthful account by them of their actions. While such a process would involve an amnesty, it is one which would be conditional on the persons involved in any death or serious injury of victims engaging with those victims, and/or their families, in good faith.

Those of us who are involved in campaigning for a Truth Recovery Process believe that while such a process will be difficult and traumatic for all those involved so too are trials that end in an acquittal, nolle prosequi or the death of the accused from natural causes.

Finally, allow me to reiterate that I am not opposed to Mr. Benn’s plans nor do I question his integrity and good intentions in proceeding with them. I do, however, for the reasons set out above, believe that, on their own, they cannot bring forth the justice and consolation so deeply wished for by victims and/or their relatives.

A Truth Recovery Process can only do good. It can not do bad. And it can not add to the deep sense of injustice and abandonment felt by the huge numbers of our fellow citizens who, day in and day out, feel the deep, searing pain of an injustice unrecognised and unowned. While it may be too ambitious to say that in all such cases “the truth will set you free”, nevertheless there is ample evidence internationally that the truth does provide much of the closure which is a prerequisite for, even in some small but meaningful way, the freedom of “letting go”.

Mike Jennings, Chairperson of TASC: the thinktank for action on social change, Member of Údarás na hOllscoile, University of Galway, Chairperson of the University's Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Human Resources Committee and a member of the Truth Recovery Process Committee