Northern Ireland's present has rarely been better and the future seems secure. But what of the past? Peter Hain explains why he has set up a group to examine how to deal with the scars of conflict
In the days following the amazing scenes of May 8th in Belfast, when Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness agreed to form a powersharing government, I was often asked whether I thought this incredible breakthrough would last.
I said there was no chance of Northern Ireland's politicians handing power back to Westminster: devolution was here to stay. But one outstanding issue remains, which unless it is addressed could cloud the future: how to deal with "the past".
Any society coming out of a long and violent conflict is traumatised. Northern Ireland is no exception. Nearly 4,000 people lost their lives during the Troubles and perhaps 10 times as many were wounded.
Many more were left with psychological scars and grief. The scale of the hurt speaks for itself. People are still hurting and feel that they are not being listened to.
During 30 years many thousands of men, and some women, became involved in paramilitary activity. More than 600 were convicted of murder and many times that number for lesser terrorist offences.
The best estimates suggest that nearly 30,000 republicans and loyalists were imprisoned. Multiply that by families and friends and you see the sheer scale of the conflict.
Set against Northern Ireland's small population, 1.7 million, you see its destructive impact: as a proportion of the population, the equivalent of 129,000 killed in Britain or one million involved in paramilitary activity.
While we have devoted substantial resources to victims' issues, creating a Victims Commissioner and spending £44 million to support victims' groups since 1998, we have shied away from dealing with "the past".
The Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement avoided the subject, fearing to touch an area where no consensus has been found, in fact where the only consensus seemed to be that different groups should be allowed to have different understandings of Northern Ireland's bitter history.
Meanwhile other mechanisms have continued to investigate the past: the Historical Enquiries Team of the PSNI which is looking again at more than 3,000 murders associated with the Troubles, the Police Ombudsman and a string of high-profile public inquiries.
The diversion of resources has become critical for the police, where - at a time when public expectations of policing are rising - Chief Constable Hugh Orde estimates that he spends 40 per cent of his time, millions of pounds of the police budget and devotes dozens of his officers to the past.
The ombudsman has done very valuable work in building public confidence in the police, particularly among nationalists. But increasingly her office is drawn by "the past" away from the central task of investigating complaints against the police now.
If these are unsatisfactorily "blunt instruments" for handling the past, as the Police Oversight Commissioner recently commented, then public inquiries are perhaps the least satisfactory mechanism of all.
I have no doubt that setting up the Bloody Sunday inquiry was the right thing to do. Those events were symbolic of the Troubles' start and it was an important sign of good faith for the new Labour government to establish an inquiry.
But after nine years and a staggering amount of money, £180 million, the bulk of it in lawyers' fees, the inquiry has still not reported. No doubt it will be as detailed and definitive an account as it is possible to create, but the real lesson it teaches us is that there has to be a better way of looking at Northern Ireland's past than public inquiries.
Huge amounts of money are involved which cannot be spent on meeting the concerns of today.
Recent political progress in Northern Ireland should make us pause and ask whether reliving or even refighting the Troubles in the courtroom or the public inquiry or through police investigation is really a healthy way forward.
And whether a focus on identifying issues which happened 30 years ago at a time of terrible conflict is productive for a society which has after May 8th, 2007, resolved that conflict politically.
And whether the hundreds of millions of pounds involved could not be better spent on the future. These are questions I cannot and should not answer as an outsider: only the people of Northern Ireland can decide.
But the questions should be asked. That is why I have decided, having consulted First Minister Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, to set up a group to consult widely and suggest how Northern Ireland might approach its past in a way that heals rather than poisons. It will not be an easy task.
But I am delighted that Lord Eames, the former archbishop of Armagh, and Denis Bradley, the first vice-chairman of the policing board, have agreed to co-chair a small, independent consultative group.
I believe that they will be able to find a better way forward and I hope that while they are working and talking to people across Northern Ireland it will be possible to concentrate on the present rather than continuing to divert resources to investigating the past.
There is a great deal at stake - nothing less than the future itself.
Peter Hain is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and is a candidate for the deputy leadership of the British Labour Party