Professor Colin Harvey:

I shall mention a few points and then pass over to Mr. Bassett. We would both like to take some of those questions and make sure we both have a chance to respond, if that is okay.

The starting point is that this is the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Where we started in the report and in our opening statement is that this is central to that agreement. I have been quite concerned both about the attempt to try to differentiate this out from the agreement but also the language that often follows it. This is absolutely at the core of the constitutional provisions of the agreement.

In framing that as well, we have to mention the Brexit context. Many committee members will know that this part of the island is now outside the European Union. The provisions of the Good Friday Agreement offer people here across all communities an opportunity to return to the European Union. It seems to me that it would be frankly bizarre if we were not having this conversation in the context of Brexit.

Brexit has also noticeably, tangibly and dramatically changed the nature of that conversation here. Many of the arguments one would have traditionally heard around this are falling away and being replaced by new arguments and new people engaging in the conversation. We must mention the Brexit context.

In terms of consequences and thinking about what happens before and after, what we have tried to do in our work is answer some - not all - of the questions, but to guide everything we do by urging this committee and others to do the preparatory and planning work in a responsible way so the referendums are managed in a way that addresses the concerns quite rightly raised by the committee and so that we also think in advance about the consequences and what happens next. We do not want to be in the position that emerged around Brexit and we have tried to make that as clear as we possibly can.

We need to know, for example, what people will actually be voting for. There is a lack of clarity around that and that must be addressed. I do not see any contradiction between the concept of reconciliation and responsible planning for the referendums that are anticipated in the agreement. In fact, the responsible approach to reconciliation on the island would be one that proactively has concrete and practical things to say about the referendums that are anticipated. The irresponsible thing to do, and what would impede the process of reconciliation, is to pretend that these provisions of the agreement are not there.

One of the remarkable things about the provisions is the role of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in triggering the process. Mr. Bassett and I have done quite a lot of work around that. It motivated me to write a letter to the Secretary of State about his role and I am waiting for a slightly more detailed response to that. It is something that we need to hear more about. It is remarkable that fundamental constitutional change on the island of Ireland could potentially be triggered by a Secretary of State in London on a basis on which we do not have sufficient information. That motivated my letter and I know others have also been trying to get a response. It would be helpful if this committee could follow up on this matter after the meeting to see if it is able to get more help in answering those questions. The committee might have more luck on this than I have had.

On voting rights, on which Mr. Bassett will wish to speak, we have in our work suggested inclusive franchise. We looked at what happened and is happening beyond the 2014 referendum in Scotland, such as the emergence of voting rights for those 16 years and over. That is clearly an emerging trend and something we have suggested and recommended. There is also a principled reason for that, particularly for the younger generation which will have to live with the consequences of all this. It is important that they have a say in the future.