Ms Claire Hanna:

I thank Reverend Karen and Mr. Lunn. It is refreshing to hear from them. I was really struck by Reverend Karen's point that what people want is not just politics. We have had a lot of that but it is a matter of getting into the substance. Reverend Karen will probably be aware the New Ireland Commission was launched last week by the SDLP. Quite a few months of planning were involved and there are to be quite a few more years of the same. Dozens of sectoral experts and thinkers have been assembled to try to get into — to echo quote Donald Rumsfeld — the known knowns, unknown unknowns and all the other matters we need to discuss, because the reality is that while we talk about the constitutional conversation, it is about so much more than the Constitution. My regret has been that even in the 20-plus years since the Good Friday Agreement, there has been so little talk and action concerning meaningful change in people's lives. I hope that, through the New Ireland Commission, we will consider the why of the new Ireland and not just the how. It is exciting work but it is quite clear already, even from our initial meetings and the various strands of work, that it is probably a marathon and not a sprint, or some distance in between.

Senator Currie's summary on a citizens' assembly is correct. It is right to start thinking about the structure, agenda, some of the topics, the parameters and how we might take it forward. There are really good ideas circulating but I am not sure whether the initiative is ready to burst out just yet.

Many of us are thinking about the future but today is also very much a day on which our very grim past is in view. Like others, I express solidarity with the Ballymurphy families, who have been relentless in their campaign and dignified. They have done so much of the detailed work that credible investigations should have been doing. I look forward to hearing that work vindicated today. I regret the families have had to wait so long.

Today, with horrible timing and, I believe, ill intent, the UK will be announcing an amnesty on prosecutions and, we understand, a departure from the Stormont House Agreement and the attempt to try to get to grips with the past. How do the witnesses believe the past can somehow be decoupled from the future in this debate? We are aware that no matter how many years go by, whether in decades or centuries, the past and all that went on here plumbs into many people's political viewpoints. How do we go about detoxifying in this regard? Understandably, both witnesses have talked about the threats of violence over the protocol and other such matters. With their experience of different communities, how do they believe we can make a break and move forward with some sort of joint, shared commitment to non-violence and to putting the ugly part of our past behind us together?