Reverend Dr. Norman Hamilton:

I think I counted 23 questions there. I will try to be a good boy and answer the broad thrust of them as briefly as I can. I thank Senator Ó Donnghaile for his comment about animosities. It is really clear that there are animosities between Belfast and London, Belfast and Dublin and between Westminster and the Dáil. There are also animosities within unionism and within republicanism and nationalism. I am not agreeing with the statement but the very fact that unionists blame the Tánaiste for many things is evidence of the real tensions that have to be addressed. I am not making any comment on the rightness or wrongness of it but that is the way it is perceived.

On the question of a definition or a descriptor, I would point to the note I offered the committee earlier and summarise it by saying that a definition of "reconciliation" is to do whatever needs to be done to rebuild broken relationships. Doing whatever needs to be done takes one in 100 different directions. If we do not address the fact of broken relationships and if we do not address how they are to be repaired by attitude, actions and words, then all the other discussions are tangential. For me, it is about doing whatever is necessary and that brings me back to the point about cost that I tried to highlight in my earlier comments.

Senator Ó Donnghaile talked about symbolism and building on that and I absolutely agree with him. Broadly speaking, although this is a generalisation I would not want to push too far, the symbolism of leaders has not been followed through in the attitudes, words and actions of political leaders or even among members of civic society. I do not particularly want to give evidence of that but will do so if I am pushed on it. The symbolism has been seen to be a high point, with no legacy trail of good relations-building coming from it.

Senator Currie spoke about reconciliation and political development going together. I accept that, provided there is some agreement about what we mean by reconciliation. If we are not agreed on that, I really do not see how we can have an intelligent civic and political discussion about the future. I agree with Senator Currie up to a point. She asked how the Government here can help. I offer this suggestion gently, but I hope clearly. It would be an enormous help if political leaders here actually started the process of reframing the language around reconciliation and spelled out to us all what they think it looks like and the processes involved. Again, Steve Baker is as an example of a leading politician who has reflected on attitudes, words and actions and has said that he got it wrong. If senior leaders were to accept that like the rest of us, they are fallen creatures in a fallen world and if they said that they did not just get an individual event wrong but, over a period of time, were wrong in their attitudes and in particular actions, that would be enormously helpful. I could give examples but do not particularly want to do so publicly. I would be happy to give examples to committee members privately. Some degree of humility would start us on our long journey and that includes the churches as well, I must say.