Dr. Stephen Farry:

Yes. That is a major consideration, but at the same time they do not yet feel entirely at home in a future Ireland. There are issues in terms of what happens here as well that need to perhaps change to address that. Obviously, there was an incident this week that probably feeds into that. There have been similar incidents in Northern Ireland with different types of sectarian chants happening too, and none of that really helps that context.

We are very much for reform of the institutions. We feel the Good Friday Agreement needs to evolve to address the changing circumstances. We are also mindful there is currently a veto on progress happening with one party outside the structures, and that is causing a massive crisis with our public services and our economy. There are massive problems at present and they are building up further, so we want to see designation being addressed and also the way we form the Executive to stop the vetoes blocking that from happening.

We have spoken to the Taoiseach about this on several occasions, as well as with the UK Government. We are keen to see that taken forward. Of course, next year will be a major focal point with the 25th anniversary.

In terms of the points raised by Senator Horkan, we are supportive of the shared island initiative, and we see the work in that regard as being incredibly useful in further building the economic, social and environmental links on the island of Ireland. That is a value in itself on a standalone basis, irrespective of whether or not there is political or constitutional change. Leaving that aside, if there were to be wider political change, that would be a useful foundation in any event. However, I do not want to spook people who are only supportive of that by saying that it necessarily has to lead to something else. It is very useful work.

In common with my previous life as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I feel that strand 2 of the agreement over the past 20 years was fairly underdeveloped. The North South Ministerial Council, for example, met every six months. The work areas were prescribed back in 1998. In a different way, the biggest single area of integration on the island of Ireland at present is around our energy markets. That is probably a good thing, in terms of the current situation in particular. That energy co-operation was not actually mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement, but was something that emerged after the fact. Therefore, what we prescribed back in 1998 were not actually the areas where things developed organically and at the fastest rate. We perhaps need to look at that.

In terms of bringing unionists along, we need to be realistic that someone who is a unionist will remain a unionist and by definition they will not be advocating for a united Ireland. The issue we need to aspire to in the event that this constitutional change was to happen, is for unionists to be able to say that they did not vote for this, but that they respect the outcome, they recognise the work that has been done in terms of preparation for it and that they can see how this will be something where they are welcome. Therefore, while they personally did not seek the constitutional change, they recognise that it has happened, they signed up for the Good Friday Agreement, the rules were set out around any mechanism for change and, if it happens therefore, they will go along with it. That is where one wants to be in terms of people who are overtly unionist. We are not there just yet. It is fair to say that some unionists will react very negatively to constitutional change. How that is to be addressed will be a key question and will require a lot of sensitivity. At the same time, I will say to my unionist colleagues in Northern Ireland - and hopefully this does not breach the protocols of the committee - that at times the way the DUP members are currently conducting themselves by alienating everyone else in Northern Ireland is not helping the cause of the union. It is destroying Northern Ireland’s institutions and it is alienating many people who perhaps would otherwise be pragmatic around the union. There is therefore a fundamental lesson for them.

In terms of Senator Ó Donnghaile’s questions, he is fair in saying that we are in the space where we are content to see these things being fleshed out and to take part in fleshing it out. However, I will just make the qualifier again that our participation in that process should not be read as us endorsing an outcome, particularly at this stage. It is on a without prejudice basis or a contingency basis. Given that on a risk register, one would say that this is an event with a medium to high event of a probability of happening in the next decade or 15 years, it would be irresponsible for us to sit back and not take part in that debate. I would use this platform to encourage and say that for those who may be beyond us in the spectrum and who are overtly unionist, engaging this process as a contingency should not be seen as being threatening. I ask them to come to the table and express their perspective and indeed their concerns. We will make the qualifier that it will be explicit for them that that does not mean that they are no less of a unionist by doing that. It is important that they recognise that there is a reasonable chance of change happening in the next decade or two. There is a paradox here which goes to the question of criteria. If we end up having a vote that is based upon an ill-defined question and then try to flesh it out afterwards once the vote happens, that would be a messy process. At the same time, if we have the question fleshed out in advance of a vote, but we only have partial voices at the table, do we then have to change or unpick the nature of the question as we work through our transition after the vote, before a united Ireland or some shared Ireland becomes live? There are many chicken-and-egg issues that perhaps need to be fleshed out a bit further.

In terms of the criteria for a border poll to happen, we have said that we do believe that the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government should flesh this out a little more. We are probably fairly reluctant to go into a situation where we are very explicit around one particular criterium. I think that it will be a bundle of different measurements. One could, for example, say that a majority of nationalist MLAs in the Assembly would be fairly clear cut. However, given that the Alliance Party is growing, and we would be attractive to people from a range of different backgrounds, one could argue that there is already support for change prior to getting a position where there is a clear majority of overt nationalists in the Assembly.

Equally, opinion polls are a much better snapshot of where public opinion is across the spectrum. However, of course, there is always a margin of error there and they will bounce around depending on the nature of how the poll is put together. If there was a consistency of opinion polls over a prolonged period of time that would also be a strong indicator as to a basis for change between both of those.

In terms of dialogue, we are open to that dialogue happening. The Senator is probably suggesting along the lines of a citizens’ assembly as how this could be brought together. We are not saying “No” to that, but we are not yet at the space where we think that is appropriate. There would be concerns that once that is put in place, it may be suggesting that there is almost an inevitability to this happening, particularly for voices that are perhaps not convinced of the change, or certainly those who are not convinced of the change at this particular point in time. What we would suggest at this stage, and this may be a prelude to this happening in a year or two years, is that I would certainly encourage what is happening in Leinster House in terms of what the Seanad is doing, what the Good Friday Agreement committee is doing. They are useful. We would encourage academics and academic institutions and maybe civil society institutions to also do work to either take some of the issues individually and try to have a debate around those or provide a space for that. I congratulate the committee on the breadth of witnesses that came down to discuss the issue today. However, the more there is the perception of more academic or civil society basis to those discussions, sometimes the easier it is for those types of voices to come to the table.

On Senator Currie’s comments on the nature of the future of this, none of what I am saying today is meant to be prescriptive, because we are open minded on this, but we would lean very heavily towards a presumption that the northern institutions would continue in some shape or form. Many societies and countries around the world have some degree of reasonable devolution. In the same way, the UK has its own devolution and Italy and Germany have some degree of a reasonable dimension. It would be useful in Northern Ireland, particularly given that that is the place where there will be a predominance of people who will continue to have a British identity. It is important that that is reflected in our governance. I appreciate that there might be different viewpoints on that, but it is something that we are at this stage keen to see happening. I would also say, and this probably follows on how one reads the Good Friday Agreement into the future, that something like the birth right provisions of the agreement should continue to apply. Whereas at the moment people can have British, Irish or both identities, and many people in Northern Ireland have an Irish passport, the converse should happen if we were to have a new state on the island. The reciprocal rights for people to continue to have a British identity and to solely hold a British passport should continue. Beyond that, there needs to be considerations as to how the British identity, history and culture can be taken into account in terms of the future arrangements.

Finally, on the point around reconciliation, it will continue to be important. I regard reconciliation as being about how individuals and communities can relate to one another, how they build up trust and respect for each other, how they acknowledge each other’s traditions and how they even take part in those traditions as well.

That goes alongside the wider structural changes we want to see in society around building shared institutions, integrated education, shared housing and such reforms. For us, how we change and transform Northern Ireland is about the individual and community as well as how the government provides services, and the two go very much hand in hand. That work would have to continue in a future shared island, because those divisions will remain in Northern Ireland and, in the short to medium term, may become even more extenuated following a border poll, particularly if a sizeable majority of people feel aggrieved by its outcome.