Mr. Bertie Ahern:

On the first question, if I was there today I believe I would get the institutions up and running before I would have the review. If we start the debate on the review we could be here for God knows how many Christmases. It is better to get the institutions up and then try to deal with that issue. As I pointed out, it is 16 years since there was a review. Times change, views change, and circumstances change. I do not believe there is any problem with having review if the institutions are up and running. The review could look across the three strands.

On the third strand, which is the east-west one, there is a change because the United Kingdom is no longer in the European Union and because there is not the attention or the close contact since 1973 there was between the Irish Government and the British Government, and that certainly is something that now must be looked at. It is different now. One thing we never discussed in 1997 and 1998 was the United Kingdom not being in the European Union. We discussed everything else, up every chestnut tree and everywhere about every issue, but we never spoke about that. The context of that dramatically affects strand three. Given there is not the interaction and the contact between the Irish Government and the British Government, clearly that is an area that should be looked at. I spoke earlier about strand two that we never said 25 years ago we were just going to have North-South bodies for these areas and then no change. There are so many other areas that should be looked at.

On legacy, I made the point that I was a big supporter of the Charlie Flanagan initiative with the Stormont House Agreement, and I still am. That is in the document. I supported it then and the parties worked very closely at that time. The parties all agreed with it then, and I believe they agree with it now. That blueprint is there. Somewhere along the way the British Government decided that was not something it was prepared to implement. The parties did work very hard to agree it and to achieve it at the time. I still believe the legacy and justice issue is somewhere close to the Stormont House Agreement, and certainly not bringing in legislation that nobody agrees with, because does not get anywhere.

I should mention, just as an historical fact, that we did look at the South African models in 1998. We looked at the idea of having the truth and reconciliation commission. We looked at that but there were no takers for it in 1998. It is not that we did not think of them. I floated the idea but nobody wanted it at the time. Maybe it was just too early.

My view on constitutional change is that we should not put the cart before the horse. The ongoing work with various groups - the shared island initiative, the NESC and the universities - and the academic work is at least under way now. Perhaps more people will be pulled into those discussions from all sides and from civil society. At the moment it is very much people from the academic world who are getting involved in the discussions, and that is good. Experts from abroad are involved. That is good. I spend a fair bit of my time on UN stuff nowadays. Several hundred constitutional changes have happened around the world. There is a great database as to how those changes happened and how they were brought about and brought in. I spent three or four years working in Papua New Guinea, where a constitutional referendum occurred. I looked at the UN stuff. There is a really good database of information, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel now that the academic institutes are bringing this forward. It is far better they do it because we cannot blame any political party then. It is brought forward and can be debated from there.

Ms Hanna probably missed the point I made earlier about the broader debate and consultation involving everybody and the views of these Houses and the views of Westminster. Let people set out their views, but I am not convinced about citizens' assemblies. I am not saying anything against them but I am not convinced.