Lord Alderdice:

I thank Mr. Brady. There are parts of the Good Friday Agreement that have not been implemented and parts that were implemented and then abandoned, like the civic forum.. A civic form existed for a while and was effectively abandoned. There is no reason it should not be brought back at any stage. There is no law against it; on the contrary.

Changes were made, such as in St. Andrews. I do not think we are very good at change, but changes were made to accommodate short-term political advantages or problems for people. That is rarely a good way of sorting out constitutional arrangements. Mr. Brady is correct. There have been changes that were not very good, a failure to implement parts and parts that were implemented and then abandoned. Too many people forget that. It is a complicated history. The key thing is to use the 25th anniversary to take us forward to something that is better.

Mr. Brady made a comment that sparked something in my mind. I spoke to a colleague from what was, in the old days, East Germany, many years ago when both of us were involved in church youth activities. He was of a very different political persuasion to me and was quite supportive of the regime in East Germany at that time. The point he made to me was that when German unification took place, it was the absorption of the east into the west German constitution. They had no say in the constitution, flag, national anthem or any of those aspects. East Germany was simply absorbed and told we will do this, this and this. He said he felt for himself and others there was an abiding resentment caused by that.

There is an interesting question that might come out of Mr. Brady's comments, namely if it became possible to say that we are not talking about absorption of the North into the South but rather the creation of a new Ireland that all of us live with. As Mr. Brady said, the living with it is not just a question of identity, although I do not think we can understate that and his party would certainly be pretty strong about a sense of identity, as others might be of theirs. He mentioned many important aspects, such as health, education, transport and agriculture. Talking about those kind of things could be a very helpful way of moving forward and one which people might well find more agreement on that they might imagine.

I found in the talks process that when we started talking about matters of high principle, we inevitably ended up with division. When we started talking about matters of practical concern, we often found that there was a greater identity of interest. There is mileage in what Mr. Brady said. Exactly how we do it is the issue. I suppose we have to do it carefully, and not be put off if not everybody signs up for it in the first instance. There are interesting thoughts in what he said and it merits further conversation. I know his party and others are currently trying to explore some of these questions, and I would encourage that.