Reverend Dr. Norman Hamilton:

I thank the Chair. I often say the titles people accrue will not be of much help when they get to the pearly gates. They will not count for very much. I am glad to have the opportunity to meet the committee. I hope to have a conversation on the importance of reconciliation in the wider consultation the committee is having on the constitutional future of the island. I really do appreciate the opportunity to be here. I have set out some key concerns and observations in the paper I have provided. In the two or three minutes I have, I would like to develop this thinking in a couple of ways.

I find it quite mystifying and quite dispiriting that to the best of my knowledge neither the Government here in Dublin nor those in London, Belfast or Washington have a clear policy setting out what reconciliation is or the steps needed to make it happen. This in practice means every time a political leader speaks of reconciliation there is no clarity as to what he or she is actually describing or advocating. Perhaps the subject is too toxic, too complex or too costly. Perhaps they simply do not know what is entailed. I do not know. I do suggest this policy silence simply is not good enough.

I am indebted to Archbishop Justin Welby for the clarity on this in his recent book, "The Power of Reconciliation". Effective reconciliation has to be initiated by the person, group or authority that has the greater power in the relationship. This has huge consequences. I will give several examples. In the North it would mean that republicans and loyalists would need to back away from high-profile remembrance of their volunteers and military activists since doing so constantly reopens the wounds of their victims and keeps their trauma ever present. It would also mean that governments and political leaders here and elsewhere commit to transparency and honesty about their role in making the past as horrible as it was for so many. This includes attitudes and words every bit as much as actions. It seems to me that silence, ambivalence and half-truths damage any claim to be interested or committed to reconciliation. Of course I accept that Governments are often short lived and so there is little obvious cost to not being transparent and honest but the imperative still remains. On the positive side, I point to what Steve Baker, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, recently did. Having reflected on his own attitudes, words and actions he took the very unusual step of public apology. This has effectively changed the dynamic of some of the discussions between London, Belfast and Dublin.

We all need to realise that steps towards reconciliation may not be reciprocated in the short to medium term or even possibly over the longer term. This might well mean a one-sided cost to taking the initiative on reconciliation, perhaps even a very considerable one-sided cost. Rejection may loom large. Yet it is a morally proper move to make, not least because it shows serious intent to try to repair a very fractured relationship. It shows intent that we are open to the long haul that may or may not reach its intended goal. We need to recognise that reconciliation is not always possible. We all know from personal experience that not every fracture can be healed.

Reconciliation must also include a serious attempt to provide wide-ranging and long-term support to victims and those who are seriously alienated. This is far from easy. It may even be rejected. It does make the crucially important point that the well-being of the other person, the other group or the other community remains a top priority.

The Belfast Good Friday Agreement began a peace process that is still uncompleted. Twenty five years on it has singularly failed to bring reconciliation to this land and to our people. Tensions and animosities are everywhere even though there has been and still is high-quality good relations work being done. Given that reconciliation at its heart is about doing whatever is needed to rebuild broken relationships, however painful and costly that may be, this is a huge task that has barely got under way. Can we do better? Maybe.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to come before the committee. Much more could be said and needs to be said but for a Presbyterian minister that will suffice for the moment.