Ms Claire Hanna:

It is really good to see Ms Hinds. I am sorry I am not there in person. I really enjoyed this session and really appreciate everyone's comments, the depth of them and how practical and future-focused they have been. While it will be interesting, there is a danger over the next few months of historicising the agreement, not making it contemporary and treating it as an ornament to gaze upon, rather than a toolkit for getting through all our challenges, including Brexit, so I really appreciated a lot of those very nuanced comments around the practicalities of policing right now. We always get sucked in when we talk about policing. We only ever really talk about legacy issues and it is really useful to talk about how some of those cuts affect us now. The points around paramilitary transition and things like designation were also really nuanced and go beyond what is in vogue sometimes.

Mark Carruthers's "Red Lines" podcast this week was mentioned. I thought it was very positive about where we are in terms of women in politics in two ways. Ms Hinds explained very well the coalition's focus regarding not being pigeon-holed on what would have been known as women's issues but being political women with political perspectives talking about the kind of heavy issues of the day, including constitutional issues. I thought it was positive about how far we have come on that. It was the women's coalition that created a dynamic that forced all of the parties, my own included, to up their game on that front and in that way. You get to be one of those successful parties that achieves the thing it set out to do, whatever that means for it electorally, so I thank the coalition for all that. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole afternoon and found it very stimulating.

I do not want to get too far into the weeds of some of the institutional stuff. I was really taken by the argument that while they are not perfect and the points around managing the different community identities, it is welcome and very clear that this is evolving.

If I am interpreting what Ms Hinds was saying rightly, and it is something I agree with, wanting to move away from designation is not the same as saying it is not acceptable or somehow regressive to have a view on the constitutional issue. Has she done any work or thinking on some of the strand one institutions in different ways that we might dial down the significance of designation, or how we might look at different forms of coalition other than mandatory coalition and other ways to kind of downgrade the veto that has been a big problem for the last few years? Similarly, she mentioned and referred to some of the proposals Mark Durkan had made around strands two and three, and how we can better use some of them. Is there anything Ms Hinds thinks is particularly pressing in respect of North-South enhancement or more east-west stuff that could give people reassurance in the years ahead? I suppose I am asking her to nerd out further on some of the structural stuff. I thank her for the whole statement and for all of her answers so far.