Professor Colin Harvey:

I thank the Senator for her questions. This year, I have been researching the question of the constitutional future of the island. As a result, I have received feedback and constructive criticism but have also attracted quite a bit of tension in the public domain. I am sure members are all very aware of that as they get it themselves. I made a decision last week at an event I attended to simply mention out loud that I felt under siege in my institution as a result of doing that work. I do not want to in any way overplay or exaggerate that because I simply want to get on with doing the work. I recently worked on a rather tedious 80 page report, a rather boring one as is common with academics, with footnotes on which I would welcome feedback and comment. My view, and I may be wrong, is that in the current context, the responsible thing for academics and others to do is talk, plan and prepare for wherever we might be going on this island and these islands so I plan to continue to make a contribution to that. I would issue an invitation to everyone and anyone to speak with me. I am happy to engage with anyone on or beyond the island about the issues on which I have been working.

The absence of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland is a tragedy because we desperately need a comprehensive framework of human rights protection. Yes, we have the Human Rights Act but we do not have that comprehensive framework - that constitutionalised framework - that the agreement anticipated. There are proposals there. Why do I use the word "tragedy"? I use it because I think it would have helped. I am not saying it would have solved all our problems but it would have helped with regard to some of the challenges we face. Let me be clear about that. The advice was submitted to the Secretary of State in December 2008. The response from the British Government was rather dismissive. I speak as a member of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission at that time who was involved in the process. I simply think it is worth revisiting that work. I have given the committee an example from the advice. Can anybody tell me that this clause in that document from 2008 would not be helpful right now with regard to some of the things with which we are grappling? We could do with revisiting that.

It connects to the other question about the Emma DeSouza case. I do not want to simply list all sorts of things that have not been done but there is an issue relating to legislating for parity of esteem, mutual respect and equality of treatment in respect of the North. It has not been satisfactorily done. The case of Emma DeSouza highlights one part of that. The debate around an Irish language Act is increasingly part of that bigger conversation regarding not adequately reflecting the letter and spirit of the agreement in domestic law, policy and practice. It is a bit like the document mentioned earlier. The society in which I live is often caricatured in all sorts of ways. To be fair to us all, there are a lot of solutions on the table in terms of how some of the problems we identify can be addressed. The committee will note that I have also indicated the potential solution to many of the things I spoke about today, where the solution might be found and how it might be addressed. We face a real implementation problem that is addressed in respect of a number of issues but needs to be addressed in respect of other issues as well.

Does anyone disagree about presidential voting rights? What I sense about it is that one often hears an anxiety about a number of things. Members will have heard this as well. People are worried about the impact of people who are not resident voting on the outcome of elections, the administration of it logistically and how it will work. I took part in a radio programme this morning where the interviewer twice mentioned the issue of taxation and contribution so there are those anxieties, worries and fears about it that members will have heard, as I have. In respect of where we are at the moment and dealing with these things in the way we have through the Constitutional Convention in 2013 and talking them through with elected representatives and members of the public - working up options and proposals and steadily, calmly and reasonably working through some of those fears and anxieties - citizens' rights are fundamental; we are an outlier globally on this but it can be done because other states manage this successfully. There are people voting in presidential elections in other countries on this island and being facilitated to do so. There is a sense in which, to borrow Michel Barnier's language, we need to make this rather boring and de-dramatise it. It is a modest and sensible proposal that we have the capacity to implement.

I will end with a slightly less academic contribution to this. When we talk about the conversation on presidential voting rights, it is not an academic conversation for people like me. I am an Irish citizen. I was born in Derry, sold out and now live in Belfast, which is the worst thing someone can do. This affects me personally. I would like to vote for my president so it is not just an academic issue. I would ask everybody in this room to think about our families - our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and cousins - and the people to whom we have had to say goodbye at ferry terminals and airports. When I travel home on the train this evening, am I also waving goodbye to my basic civil and political rights? There are statistics about the number of states that do this and the way they do it but at the heart of this is a very human story about people - our own families - and about including them.