Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 25 May 2023

Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement

Engagement with Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have received apologies from Mickey Brady MP, Colum Eastwood MP, and from Senator Ó Donnghaile.

For the information of the members and the witnesses, we have a system to rotate through the speakers so that every party and group gets an opportunity to comment on what they might want us to talk about. Sinn Féin is up first. It was to be Fianna Fáil but there are tributes to the former Deputy, Noel Treacy at 2 p.m. and, therefore, Senator Blaney asked that we would take Fine Gael and then Fianna Fáil if everybody was happy with that. We will then take parties in the following order: Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, the Green Party, Sinn Féin MPs, Labour Party, Independents, Aontú, and then Senators Mullen, Black and so on. I propose that we allocate ten minutes to each group.

I welcome Ms Naoimh McNamee, chief executive officer; Mr. Pat Hynes, programme manager; Ms Terri O'Brien, programme co-ordinator; Ms Helen Irish, corporate services executive; and Ms Katherine Martin, assistant programme manager, Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation.

Before we begin, I will read a standard note that I have to read before every meeting to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses regarding references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. However, witnesses and participants who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within those precincts, and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are also asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter of the proceedings should be given. They should respect directions given by the Chair and also respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible they should neither criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Mr. Hynes to make his opening statement, and we will then move around to each group as outlined earlier.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

On behalf of the Glencree centre, I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee members for affording us the opportunity to come before the committee as part of the reflection on the 25 years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

It is perhaps not unreasonable to say that the agreement and the process that led to it during the early and mid-1990s represented one of the more important achievements in modern Irish diplomacy, involving politicians, officials, groups and their representatives who were party to the conflict. It exemplified a level of statecraft and co-ordination among Irish, US, and British political leaders not witnessed up to that point in the agreement when it was signed a quarter of a century ago. The peace process and the political environment against which the agreement was forged was akin to a complex ecosystem of interlocking interests and challenges among political leaders, paramilitary groups, and in particular, local communities who had for decades held very fragile relationships together during the worst periods of the violence. Within this ecosystem were subsystems where tensions were continually on the boil, requiring constant and careful management by political leaders who had already taken decisions to engage in the political process with all the attendant risks of it failing. Other pressures included political representatives of organisations previously engaged in violence but who now saw the need to move their strategy into the world of politics and ultimately compromise. These leaders had the task of managing the expectations of those within armed groups who had little regard and even less patience for the exigencies of politics or diplomacy. They also ran not just a political risk of being sidelined but an altogether more lethal risk that at any moment they could be dispensed with if the pace of politics proved too slow in delivering what might be termed key objectives by various paramilitary organisations on both sides.

Governments also had risks and calculations to make about the veracity of claims of commitments to peace in circumstances where such claims were regularly accompanied by acts of violence, as these organisations began to awaken to an old reality behind a new opportunity. The old reality was that this was a political problem of broken relationships and not a military or security problem. There was no military victory and no security response that was going to prove superior to a political settlement, no matter how long it took to achieve. Governments and officials had to constantly ask themselves in the years leading up to the agreement whether this was a real opportunity or whether people were being played and duped into believing that organisations wedded to violence for so long were now suddenly yet sincerely seeking a new direction. Thankfully, we had people and leaders who exercised wisdom and judgement and asked themselves at various points in the process what the wise thing to do next was; a theme shall return to later.

Throughout this period however, and regardless of whether people were central or peripheral to the process, the overall challenge was clear. This was how we achieved the age-old quest for accommodation with those on the island who differed in identity and perspective from the rest of us? Hundreds of years of history had clearly demonstrated that in a divided society or contested space like ours, violence from whatever source had only deepened the problem and made it more difficult to achieve the essential attitude of acceptance towards the other identity in pursuit of the elusive balance that an accommodation could deliver.

In our work in Glencree, much of it confidential during that period, as participants and practitioners we were engaged in an effort to find and encourage a balance of demands, concessions and achievements by all who participated in our Glencree dialogue process. We quickly learned that victories and defeats will not work in the contested space of Northern Ireland and that given the complicated and intertangled relationships between us on this island as well as with our near neighbour across the Irish Sea, we needed conversations that went to the very heart of who we were and how we saw ourselves across these two islands. I quickly learned and grew to understand that the idea of a pure and undiluted concept of Irish unity, or of an equally pure union between Northern Ireland and the UK, was in many respects a circular argument that allowed no room for departure from the respective orthodoxies of unionism or nationalism. Due to what history has handed us and where geography has placed us, and more importantly how the interplay of these two realities have shaped us, we are required to live to live with what I might call fuzzy edges at the extremity of our aspirations around "‘unity" or "union". What makes the acceptance of these mercurial edges of identity so difficult to achieve is the very basic human need to be accepted and validated in the identity we express ourselves to be. This was then, and remains today, an enormous challenge in how we discuss the future. In this contested space, every word is weighed and every phrase is loaded with meaning far beyond anything contained in the Oxford English dictionary. Through my engagement in Glencree, this understanding was of critical importance to many if not all who engaged with us between 1994 and 2007.

While some opponents of the agreement argue as to the effectiveness or otherwise of some of the component parts, including power-sharing and the pace of economic and social improvement for communities most impacted by the Troubles, nobody can deny that it has given us an entire new generation of people who live free from the threat and lived reality of violence. It has given us the peace and the space to look at each other, not with labels, but as communities and individuals emerging from a dark and traumatic period in our recent history. It has delivered policing reform, but as with any post-conflict society, this remains a challenging concept where the needs of society are constantly evolving against the backdrop of criminal gangs and other threats posed by international drug cartels, human trafficking, cybercrime and so forth.

There have been some notable achievements in North-South co-operation in areas such as healthcare, the all-island offering by Tourism Ireland to overseas visitors and the ongoing work of InterTradeIreland.

The agreement has not achieved a rapid and headlong march towards an historic reconciliation, but how could it, given the weight of history between these two islands, a weight primarily borne upon the shoulders of the two communities in Northern Ireland for the past 100 years? One community feels alienated from their neighbours and further estranged from those on the rest of the island who went a separate way after partition. The other community feels besieged and fearful about their future, never quite feeling that they had the support of their government in London, yet knowing that a significant number in the minority community with whom they shared villages and towns actively sought to alter irrevocably their place within the United Kingdom.

The community who are the British identity on the island of Ireland and who came and settled here 400 years ago brought many good things with them, for example, agricultural innovation, science, industrial development and architecture, as well as the displacement and detachment of those who dwelt there before. This is the fault line of Irish history, the echoes of which we hear to this day. Some 200 years afterwards, many from the Irish identity left the island, fleeing famine and hardship and seeking new lives on the neighbouring island as well as further afield. For centuries, we have continued to cohabit each other's spaces across these islands in ways no other communities do, thus creating the obvious question as to the obligations of our near neighbour in the process leading to the Good Friday Agreement. The weight of history is too great and the shoulders of these two communities are too narrow to bear it. It, therefore, required, and continues to require, that our neighbours come into concert with us in the co-equal sharing of this burden of British-Irish history as well as the collective quest for accommodation.

The agreement was an array of competing interests and challenges within and between communities. The participants in the talks ultimately took the vexed question of the future constitutional status of the island and struck a careful balance between union and unity, forcing all of us to accept an accommodation between the two strongly held perspectives. For republicans, the 1998 agreement was the culmination of an almost decade-long process of internal discussion around finding an alternative to violence. That alternative was the democratic persuasion of a majority that a new constitutional order would better serve the people of Northern Ireland and the island as a whole. For unionists, the principle of consent was both an assurance that no immediate changes would be made without the agreement of a majority in Northern Ireland, but it was also a challenge - if they want the union with the UK to continue into the longer term, they would have to persuade people from across society in Northern Ireland that the union was a more viable proposition than the alternative.

This is how the status of Northern Ireland was agreed to on Good Friday 1998 as distinct from how sovereignty was to be exercised over Northern Ireland, a point I shall return to in a moment. In essence, the status of Northern Ireland, whether within the UK or within a united Ireland, would be for the people of Northern Ireland to decide in referendums to be held across the island on the same day at some point in the future. Despite this agreed mechanism contained within the agreement and mandated by the people of the island as a whole on 22 May 1998, we still come back to the vexed question of the contested space and how we will share it in the future, not least in the context of our historical and geographical relationship with our nearest neighbour.

A question that may require some reflection is whether the journey to a new or agreed Ireland requires all concerned to pass through the junction of a reconciled Northern Ireland or whether that is a concept that people feel is dispensable on this journey. The agreement provides for the transfer of sovereignty between the jurisdictions in the event that the people of Northern Ireland, in conjunction with the people of the South, seek such a change. However, the agreement is quite prescriptive as to how the sovereign power must discharge its authority, having regard to the fact that there are two communities with competing sets of aspirations, ethos and identities, and is based upon the principle that both aspirations to unity and union are valid.

I wish to turn to the issue that has impacted the agreement and, more importantly, relationships more than any previous question since the signing of the agreement, namely, Brexit. The decision by the people of the UK to leave the EU was and remains a legitimate decision for them to take. Many historians will argue for decades to come as to how informed or otherwise the decision was, given all of the unforeseen consequences that have arisen since the process to leave the EU commenced in 2017. However, one thing is blatantly clear, and that is that the decision and the method of executing it have left chasms in the relationships between communities and governments far in excess of where they might have been if there had been no Brexit. In circumstances where we needed our neighbour to act in partnership with us in shouldering the weight of history, we have witnessed a reopening of the gulf between the two islands.

The 2016 referendum was completely legitimate as an offer and an action by the British people to leave the EU, but so, too, was the referendum of May 1998, which achieved the accommodation so desired by so many following 30 years of bloodshed. In effect, we have two referendums that are both valid yet appear to be in conflict with each other. Since the Good Friday Agreement strikes the fine balance between the aspirations for unity and union through a complex matrix of compromises, simple and unilateral solutions will not work unless we get the agreement of both sections of the community in Northern Ireland. While the Good Friday Agreement was not predicated upon Ireland and Britain being members of the EU, what has been revealed since 2016 is that the very fact of EU membership - not least the absence of physical barriers to the movement of goods or people across the island or between the islands - has been a major factor in sustaining the peace. The feeling among one section of the community that it has been removed from its shared and common identity with those who live south of the Border is a feeling shared by many unionists who feel that there are now physical arrangements making them separate from their fellow citizens on the neighbouring island of Britain. All of the balances struck in those days of Easter week 1998 are now profoundly disturbed and cannot simply be put back together in a series of political experiments or quick fixes that might work for a while before being revealed as inadequate in the context of the complexity of relationships within Northern Ireland and beyond. Expressions like strengthening the union in circumstances where there is no available option to balance this by way of equally strengthening the aspiration to unity is yet another example of how there has been an ongoing failure to appreciate the fundamental challenges set out in the February 1995 in the intergovernmental framework document. When they walked through the doors or rooms of Castle Buildings in 1998, the delegations did so with the following challenges to the forefront of their minds:

11. They [the two Governments] acknowledge that in Northern Ireland, unlike the situation which prevails elsewhere throughout both islands, there is a fundamental absence of consensus about constitutional issues. There are deep divisions between the members of the two main traditions living there over their respective senses of identity and allegiance, their views on the present status of Northern Ireland and their vision of future relationships in Ireland and between the two islands....

14. Both Governments accept that agreement on an overall settlement requires, inter alia, a balanced accommodation of the differing views of the two main traditions on the constitutional issues in relation to the special position of Northern Ireland.

The impact of language and statements over the past seven or so years has had the effect of conflating two concepts of sovereignty, first by Brexiteers and those who believed that leaving the EU was a matter of control and the need to take it back. Whatever control represented is still unclear and ill-defined. However, the conflation of UK sovereignty outside of the EU as distinct from how the UK exercises its sovereignty over Northern Ireland, which is prescribed in the agreement and is not the same as England, Scotland or Wales, leaves many asking what they think the UK signed 25 years ago and, in our case, why we amended our Constitution in return for an unbalanced constitutional accommodation.

I wish to address the issue of legacy and how it has been a casualty of the past seven years, where we have not seen a willingness by the British Government to meet its earlier commitments under the Stormont House Agreement. From our work, it is clear to us that, while the 2014 agreement did not get everybody's unequivocal support, it represents the last point of departure during which there was the largest degree of agreement among political parties and the two governments around commitments to victims and survivors and their families about how to address and acknowledge the harm they suffered during the years of violence. This is in stark contrast to the near total opposition by victims and others to the legacy legislation currently before the House of Lords in London. It is only right to say here today that the message we have heard from individuals, families and organised groups is that this legislation is a denial of their rights and interests, regardless of which community they come from.

It is often said by victims and their families about those who were lost in the Troubles that to be forgotten is to die twice over. Many see this legislation as the means to force society to forget and deny that there ever was a conflict, war, campaign or military operation and yet some 3,800 people lost their lives, with countless more dying as a result of trauma-related suicide in the years since the signing of the agreement.

Not unlike the character of Gloucester who stands over the body of the slain king in Shakespeare's King Lear, begging the widow, "Say that I slew them not", and the queen replies, "Then say they were not slain. But dead they are". Many victims and survivors who we have met believe that to pass this legislation would be tantamount to saying that there had been no conflict, there were none lost, and there are no crimes or questions to answer.

I thank the committee members for their time today. We welcome questions from them.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Hynes for his address. Before I call Sinn Féin, I want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Hynes' organisation everywhere that I, as Chairman, visit, particularly in Northern Ireland. Even as recently as yesterday, I attended a peace summit which was sponsored in part by the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation. There was very good attendance. The issues the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation raised are raised here in Mr. Hynes' speech. It is timely that Mr. Hynes has come here. I want to acknowledge the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation. If Mr. Hynes will accept praise, it would be well overdue to the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation for the work that it does.

I call Sinn Féin. We will take ten minutes per group, if that is okay.

Photo of Rose Conway-WalshRose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will share time with Deputy Tully, if that is okay.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfect.

Photo of Rose Conway-WalshRose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation for its opening statement and for all of the work that it does. It is great to have them here before us today.

I want to start with the last part, I suppose, in terms of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill 2022. Mr. Hynes rightly documents the legacy Bill being repugnant to all kinds of international law, and yet it is proceeding unilaterally through the House of Lords. In Mr. Hynes' opinion, the Irish Government would have to do everything it possibly can and it may be in the situation where all it can do is take an inter-state case showing that it is repugnant to Article 2. Would Mr. Hynes agree that the Irish Government should be preparing to take that inter-state case in the event of it being proceeded with?

Mr. Pat Hynes:

It is a matter for the Government to take its own counsel. Advice from the Attorney General is the most appropriate way to pursue such a legal matter. It would not necessarily be for me to advise the Attorney General or the Government either way on that. However, we are finding that there is an increasing level of concern within both communities as to the impact on individual rights. There is a UK Supreme Court. The creation of a different legal approach in Northern Ireland as opposed to other parts of the United Kingdom is something that even individuals in Northern Ireland are considering while the Government here, through its diplomatic efforts, directly and indirectly, with the British Government, I would understand from contacts, etc., has made very strenuous representations and efforts, and public statements, of course, are clear from the Government in respect of what it feels on the issue. Even at individual level within Northern Ireland, there is a growing sense of their own individual rights being set aside.

Photo of Rose Conway-WalshRose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the key. We cannot leave it to individuals to have the expense of going to court, etc.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

Sure.

Photo of Rose Conway-WalshRose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why, as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish Government has a responsibility to do that. It would not be the financial and stressful burden for the Irish Government that it would be for individuals. It is a way of avoiding it.

Does Glencree have a policy to expand its engagement by cascading out through its current network contacts or does it depend on making the connections itself? I suppose what I am asking is that we are in a totally different era now in a different context, and how does Mr. Hynes see Glencree's work expanding into the future and dealing with the here and now where we are in terms of the institutions being back up and running, the commitments within the Good Friday Agreement in terms of a referendum and so on? Where does Mr. Hynes see Glencree fitting into all that?

Mr. Pat Hynes:

I alluded to this in my opening remarks. There has been less in the way of engagement politically, North and South, and even, indeed, across the Irish Sea, in the past seven or so years. Brexit has had that negative impact. We see it as an important function that we would bring back together people of even a new and emerging generation who are not necessarily part of the process that led to the agreement 25 years ago but also to give them an opportunity to focus and discover what possibilities might lie ahead of us. In that regard, the focus is mixed in that there is a current crop of politicians but there is also an emerging generation. We have to encourage a bringing together of those with participants across the Irish Sea, as well around some of the challenges in front of us.

Photo of Rose Conway-WalshRose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does Mr. Hynes measure, quantitatively and qualitatively, the outcomes of the different events the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation has and the different engagements?

Mr. Pat Hynes:

It is difficult to measure in absolute terms. Obviously, we are in the business of building and repairing relationships. The fact that people continue to return to the centre and to our quiet confidential discussions is proof positive that what they are hearing is of interest to them. There is obviously the hoped-for change in approach and language and the development of longer and more sustainable relationships. That really is the effort for us.

We obviously measure, by way of data, forms, etc., people's experiences. In an overall sense, what we are looking for is an overall change in attitude by people towards each other, a development of trust and a development of comfort to come into rooms and discuss all of the issues that we know are in front of us over the next ten or 20 years.

Ms Naoimh McNamee:

If I might add quickly to that, it is traditionally quite a difficult field to monitor and evaluate, but it is of fundamental importance to the quality and relevance of the work. We are currently developing a monitoring evaluation research and learning function within Glencree. It is something we have done in the past where we bring external specialists in to look at the effectiveness of programmes. We are looking at building that into the work we do, and also to capture the learning. We are mediators and facilitators. I am a trained and experienced mediator. This is a niche and nuanced type of work. It is not something you read from a textbook.

Peace education is a large part of what we do in Glencree. Mr. Hynes rightly mentioned the importance of passing that on to younger generations coming up and making the connections, not only with those in political representative roles but also those in the community and without. Capturing that learning and those skills is something that we are looking at because it is very specialist, as I mentioned, but very much needed. We have been as busy as ever since Brexit.

Photo of Rose Conway-WalshRose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I am conscious that I have eaten into my colleague's time here. I want to give Deputy Tully a chance.

Photo of Pauline TullyPauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No problem. I wish our guests a good afternoon and thank Mr. Hynes for his opening statement.

I want to refer to a particular matter. Maybe Mr. Hynes could provide clarification in respect of it. He stated, "Since the Good Friday Agreement strikes the fine balance between the aspirations for unity and union through a complex matrix of compromises, simple and unilateral solutions will not work unless we get the agreement of both sections of the community ...". From my point of view, the principle of consent was built into the Good Friday Agreement and allows for a democratic pathway to Irish unity and those advocating and voting for unity in a future referendum would hope that they get as large a vote in its favour as possible. However, the suggestion that unless we get the agreement of both communities it will not work is offering a veto to unionism. I felt the Good Friday Agreement was about removing the vetoes offered to one section of the community. Maybe Mr. Hynes would explain what he means by that.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

There is, of course, the legal position. The Deputy is quite right. That is the legal position in that sovereign would transfer with change from London to Dublin if that so be the wish of the Irish people across the island on a future date. I suppose what we have to accept in terms of the work that we are trying to do, particularly with people within the unionist community, is this sense of what the future would look like and how we would accommodate their particular concerns and their own aspirations around their identity, etc.

In a sense, the Good Friday Agreement accepted that there was a majority in Northern Ireland who wished for the continuance of the union in 1998.

That could change in the future. Of course, it will not change the contested nature of the space that is Northern Ireland. Whatever new shape might emerge, from our work with them, there is quite a degree of concern that there would be a full and wholesome conversation around how broad that sense of the island would be made in the future and address their concerns around identity that they would espouse. Republicans and nationalists accepted that Northern Ireland would for the foreseeable future remain within the UK and, equally, the British Government contracted that it would guarantee the equality of nationalists and republicans inside Northern Ireland and never again allow a return to the situation that existed in the first 50 years of the state of Northern Ireland. It is in that context that we are being asked what the shape of a new Ireland would look like and how we would get agreement around those very complex and competing allegiances that will be manifest beyond the date of a referendum or a result whatever that might be.

Photo of Pauline TullyPauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why we need to prepare and have the conversations. As we often say in this committee, many people on the ground in civic society are already having those conversations and perhaps we need to progress that at a higher level and a political level so that we prepare and look for what a new Ireland that will treat everybody equally will look like. The more we talk about it and the more prepared we are for it, the more people we will persuade that this is the best option.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

I hear what the Deputy is saying. For some time, there has been an increasing sense of fear and trepidation regarding the unknown on the part of the unionist community perspective as they would express it to us. It is about going into that conversation and being willing to have our minds changed as well about what unionists might require and request of a future island.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some very important points were made there.

Photo of Frank FeighanFrank Feighan (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses from the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation for the great work they have done over the years. I have been in Glencree and have seen the valuable work it does for people from across the island. I think the witnesses said they are involving politicians, officials and groups and that there was a significant amount of statecraft and it was very welcome.

We now need far more statecraft regarding the legacy Bill before the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I attended the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Jersey and we made it quite clear to Steve Baker, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, that this is simply unacceptable. We listened to members of Wave and many victims' groups that are horrified by it. We have very good support in the House of Lords and among many MPs. Steve Baker said there would be a few amendments to that Bill. I have not yet seen those amendments but I look forward to seeing whether they are really credible. In fairness to Steve Baker, he did listen and spent two and a half days on the matter. People from all sides were very thankful for the time he took at that meeting. I was in Westminster on Tuesday and the legacy Bill is an issue that has certainly divided people and we need to impress even further that it is not acceptable.

The Good Friday Agreement was an incredible event. Northern Ireland was a divided society. Much of the work that Glencree did was very important. Mr. Hynes spoke about the fears of unionists and how they need to be addressed if we want to talk about a united Ireland and border polls. Brexit has set us back many years. From the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly to this committee to the work being done, it is no secret that our entry into the EEC 50 years ago paved the way for the Good Friday Agreement. There were on average 28 meetings per day between officials in Brussels and trust and friendships were built. I recall how like most people in the west of Ireland during the 1950s, my father went to work in the UK. Somebody said that if somebody from the Irish Government wanted to go to the UK, after five or six weeks, they might meet the fourth in command in Whitehall. That has all changed because we joined the EEC together. People talk about the US, which was brilliant, and the Irish and British Governments but the EU effectively brought peace to this country. I am not saying that it is not recognised but we need to shout it from the rooftops. That is a significant void. I always remember Albert Reynolds and John Major and the friendships that were built up. Friendships were built up as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement. That is something we need to address because we have the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly and the event in Westminster but we need to much more of that.

We talk about a united Ireland and we all think it is a one-way street. If we are going to have an agreed Ireland, we have to give up something. We have to dig deep and the sooner people in the 32 counties understand that, the better. One issue I always talk about is the relationship between Ireland and the Commonwealth. We left the Commonwealth in 1949 with the Republic of Ireland Act. The Ireland Act effectively recognised Northern Ireland. Tim Pat Coogan said that it was great that we declared a republic but that it deepened partition on the island. We did not have the kind of clubs such as language, cultural and sporting clubs to address it until we entered the EEC 50 years ago. I do not think anybody knows or pays heed to this but five years ago, Ireland applied to be an observer at L'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, which is the French Commonwealth composed of 76 countries committed to the French language, Francophone culture, peace, human rights and sustainable development, and nobody has ever said anything about it. The poster in the French Embassy on Merrion Square states, "France, your nearest EU neighbour". It is great. Along with Germany and many other EU countries, France has been supportive but our nearest neighbour is the UK. We have had so many friendships and so many people working there and going back and forward but at the mere mention of a commonwealth of nations - not joining it but just having an association with it through sport, culture, education, legal matters and friendships - people say, "You can't have that". However, if we are going to have an agreed Ireland, we must dig deep and get rid of our - I will not say anti-Britishness - but our fears because if I was a unionist, I would have fears about a united Ireland. That is why I am saying we need to address those fears. The witnesses are the experts here and they have done great work. Politicians have views. I would like to hear the witnesses' views as well.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

The first thing to say is that we do not consider ourselves experts.

We are the facilitators of the discussions. I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks. He has been a good friend to our organisation over many years and a good participant in our work.

I with the Deputy about the degree of rupture created by Brexit, not least around the level of co-operation that emanated from officials and politicians who participated at an EU level. I do not think the level of British-Irish interaction at a European level, around issues that were common to both of the islands, has been realised.

As the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, has said - he may even have expressed his view at this committee - strand 3 of the agreement provides for co-operation across the Irish Sea. I think the Government should give consideration to enhancing the role of strand 3 and creating opportunities, whether it is on a quarterly basis or more frequently, to take certain sectors that are common in terms of interests between us and create a structure where officials and politicians can meet more frequently at strand 3 level. In that way, maybe once a year, the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister could participate in one of three or whatever number of sessions, thereby allowing us to get back to the previous level of co-operation. Many of the difficulties in the last number of years, and regarding the prospective legacy, have been due to an absence of connection. As the Deputy quite rightly mentioned, the humanising impact and the improvement in those relationships that we have seen over the decades was definitely cemented as a consequence of us both being members of the European Council. We must be imaginative, take what is in place at strand 3 to see if we can enhance and build that in terms of some of the key areas that are of common interest to us both, and see what we might be able to do.

Ms Naoimh McNamee:

As the Deputy has pointed out, Ireland and Britain will always be intertwined. We have always been and will always be. We often say in Glencree that while the politics may change, the geography never will so we need to have very strong relationships. We need enough co-operation to shoulder each other's concerns, and build relationships and trust because all that is key for joint investment in Northern Ireland and the joint responsibilities of both Governments within Northern Ireland. The situation is complex but the importance of those relationships is vital, and that is a key area of focus for us in the Glencree Centre.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Fianna Fáil Party is next.

Photo of Niall BlaneyNiall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the deputation from Glencree for their attendance. They are most welcome.

I apologise for being late but I had to attend the Dáil to attend tributes paid to the late Noel Treacy, who was the first Chair of this committee. It is fitting that we keep him in our minds today because he was the ultimate republican who was very much behind the work that went on, as it does today, regarding Northern Ireland and creating healing, and ensuring that all sides are looked after. The work continues, we are doing something and there is memory.

I read the speech before arriving here. I could spend a lot of time talking about the work that has been done by the Glencree Centre but we have talked about that before so I shall not spend too much on that. I have spent two terms as a Deputy so I am very much aware of the fantastic work that the Glencree Centre has done over the years, and continues to do. We must focus on where we are now but also on where we can collectively move this situation along and overcome the current impasse.

As we know, difficulties have arisen with relationships since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement has never become what it could and should have been. Brexit has also led to the creation of a whole new set of relations on the island and damaged relations on an east-west basis. We need to set about repairing those relationships in whatever way we can. The delegation has a very good handle, and better than most, on the feeling or temperature of the situation in Northern Ireland. It is really important that groups like the Glencree Centre are facilitated at meetings here. I would like to know what we can do now to engage with the centre. I know from attending before that the centre has done a lot of work in the past. How can we engage more in the future? Has the delegation any ideas around that? Have they any new ideas on same? I would like to hear their views.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

The challenge as the dust begins to settle after what has been a tumultuous couple of years is to chart where we can go from here. As I have already outlined, there is quite a lot of concern and distrust about where everybody now stands at the end of what has been a pretty difficult period.

I still think that the economic and social development of parts of Northern Ireland is an issue that has not really been touched on at all. The areas that have been most impacted by the conflict are the areas that invariably have been ignored the most in terms of any real economic or social benefit following the success that we have seen on this part of the island. IBEC would be very strong, and we have done some work with it on some of the dialogue and opportunities that exist for Northern Ireland to explore the opportunities that exist in terms of an economy of maybe €450 billion or €500 billion on the southern border, and the opportunities for closer work and benefit around plugging into that. We have begun to focus on where we can create economic opportunities and jobs, etc.

Where the island and its relationships can go is a broad question. As I have said to previous speakers, that requires us to delve into some deep and searching questions on what we want this island to look like and the nature of the relationship with the neighbouring island. I believe that they have got to shoulder this weight of history we share with them. The discussions I see over the course of the next couple of years include exploring ways to analyse the economic position across the island, and how we can look at conveying to our British neighbours across the water the importance of working in consort with us all here in managing whatever shape emerges in the future. That can only be done in the context of more engagement, a greater level of trust and a deeper sense of the challenges, including the fears that are being felt by many around what the future may or may not hold. So we need deeper dialogue, a willingness to go into conversations with an open mind, and being available to have minds changed as to what might ultimately work as an outcome. There must be a big focus - we have started this quietly - on how to get economic and social benefit into the areas that were most impacted by the Troubles and have benefited very little from the peace dividend.

The experience we have had down here of building an economy over the past 35 years is something we could share with some people up above.

Photo of Niall BlaneyNiall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree but those are things that need to happen at a macro level. There needs to be engagement between Government, including with Stormont and Stormont needs to be in place. In the meantime, how can we actively engage? I am thinking about the need to engage more with unionism. We have been in places like Ballymurphy and Springhill. We do not have massive engagement from unionists. Unionist MPs are as welcome here as anybody else but we do not get engagement. Having a balance here is a big problem. Is there an opportunity for this committee to engage with the witnesses, maybe to visit areas of a unionist nature? As other speakers said, this is about complementing the work of the shared island initiative. The work of the shared island initiative is really important and those 62 pieces of research are the necessary planning that is being undertaken by this Government. The Government is the only body that is planning and engaging with unionists but how can we complement that? How can we recreate the trust that was there in the Good Friday Agreement and among the politicians of that day? As that trust has broken down, how can we help to try to rebuild that trust on the ground? Maybe this is not a matter for today; maybe it is something we need to go away and think about.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

I agree with the Senator. However, given the fractured nature of the space, they probably have to start in quiet conversations in confidence. There are obvious reasons we could all elaborate on for why unionists would not come into a discussion, although there is no requirement for us to do so today. There are concerns about whether something is front-loaded and if this is already decided and so on. It is about creating a space and an opportunity for an open conversation where people come and put their concerns around where they think things are and where they feel things might end up being against their interests in the future. We have done this before with the committee and I know Deputy Brendan Smith was present with us on previous occasions where quiet conversations are probably the best way to start. We must then take that opportunity to quietly explore with them the options and opportunities for how we discuss what the future might look like. That must be done without any sense of a front-loaded ending point.

Photo of Erin McGreehanErin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests from the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation for being here; it is always great to have them with us. We are all incredibly ambitious for Ireland. I am especially so and I have such belief in it. We can only operate in what we have at the minute. Organisations like the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation are facilitators and mediators and this is their trained profession.

As Senator Blaney was saying, the role we all have is to plan. It is the responsibility and duty of policymakers to plan and make policies for the future. It is for us to hopefully facilitate and support the likes of the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation in creating that ground-up community communication and building trust. We all know that our engagement is on a knife-edge and that there is fear and distrust, which is getting worse. With the expertise the witnesses have, with the relationships they have gathered and with the understanding they have all gained, what is the angle they can take to support legislators in a hands-off way? It is for us to do the policy but it is for the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation to support us and help ensure those good relations are on good foundations that remain there and are kept strong. No matter what, as Ms McNamee said, politics might change but geography does not. No matter what happens on the island of Ireland we are one island and we are all here together. What are the objectives, in this tricky time and as we reach out to all communities, that there are no gombeen men on either side and that we are all on the one side?

I was speaking to somebody the other night and we said that nobody won the war but that in reality our children have won. When I speak to my four kids, they do not have a clue what it was like to live near the Border when you had soldiers jumping out from the ditch, when you had people taking you out of the car because you had a southern registration and all of these things. That was the battle we won so how do we move on to the next stage? Whatever that stage is, it is now and we are have relationships so how do we continue that and give the likes of Glencree the best support we can? I hope those are not jumbled questions.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

We see our role and function as being to win the trust and confidence of what we might see as marginalised and hard-to-reach communities who are fearful and unwilling to come into spaces like this. We see our job as to quietly provide opportunities where the legislators can hear them first-hand. It takes a bit of time and they are not going to simply present everything in the first couple of conversations. These are communities emerging from decades of violence. I agree with the Senator that the greatest obligation we have as human beings is to be good ancestors and to think about what we might leave beyond ourselves. In that respect, it is in those quiet conversations that we are much more informed about what the real fears and concerns are. We will read the public statements and the policy positions but it is about creating opportunities for conversations that get behind the public rhetoric and trying to discover what is underneath the rhetoric, including the fears and concerns and so on. That will take a while, however. We see our role and function as providing those opportunities where we can go into those areas, and these senses of uncertainty are in both sections of the community. The peace walls do not look like they are coming down any time soon and there are fears on both sides.

From our perspective it is a two-way street. We appreciate the support we get from members of the committee and from the wider Oireachtas but it is also an opportunity and obligation for us to provide opportunities to support legislators in any understanding or opportunities to go a little bit deeper with communities. Although it is 25 years ago, in the context of the conflict we have had it is the blink of an eye. I have appeared at this committee before and in the sense of harm, loss and everything else, those years can be reduced to minutes in the minds of those who were impacted negatively or who might have lost loved ones or anything else. There is quite a lot to work through in terms of how they have emerged from the conflict, never mind about how they might then begin to focus or see what the future might look like. From our sense of where we are, the challenges are almost in two parts as well. How do communities emerge from this sense of trauma and from the reality of trauma? How can they then be able to focus on what a future might look like?

Ms Naoimh McNamee:

I am sure the committee is aware that, as Mr. Hynes stated, we are an independent not-for-profit organisation. Although we gratefully receive the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs, it is important for us to protect that independence. We do not represent people but it is important to hold that safe space and protect that relationship. I know members of the committee appreciate that. I echo what Mr. Hynes has stated. There is a need for as many of those opportunities as possible for contact and engagement but they have to be in a safe environment and carefully crafted. It is a process and there are things that happen, such as legislation or tweaks that have been taken out of context, that can set that back but it is a commitment to continuing to build those relationships and that trust. There is a significant amount of creativity and innovation in this area of work. There are various mechanisms and methods of doing that, be it through creative arts, sport or other ways of bringing people together and building trust. For example, there is bringing young people together in respect of general issues of concern to them relating to the environment, opportunity or things like that to build trust in order that they can then start to engage with one another on some of the more sensitive and difficult issues. Senator McGreehan has raised important points, as did Senator Blaney. There is much focus on the wonderful achievements of the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement, and rightly so, but we need to stay focused on now and the future, as well as drawing lessons from the past. There was a certain amount of complacency with regard to the importance of those relationships and trust. Things that are seen as being on the softer side are really the glue that holds it all together.

Partnership is also key. We partner extensively with a range of organisations in the North at all levels of community. These organisations are holding society in the North together in the absence of a functioning government there at the moment. It is about support and opportunities to engage, as well as a recognition that it is no longer just green and orange. There is not just an emerging middle ground of political views but also of ethnicities and background. Those coming from other conflict zones across the world have a lot to add to the conversation and can add perspective. There is a need to recognise that.

As regards our organisation, while the political dialogue programme run by Mr. Hynes and his colleagues is a fundamental part of who we are, we also have a very strong programme relating to women's leadership which is in line with UN Resolution 1325. Members will note that Mr. Hynes is flanked by women. There is an argument that women often have a bit of an edge when it comes to peace building but we will not comment on that today. There is also our interculture and refugee programme. I mentioned peace education and the learning. When we were in Belfast for the 25th anniversary events, which were also attended by some of those present, I was reminded of the incredibly difficult lessons people had to learn to get to the point that was reached. I refer to trying to help the younger generation to understand the importance of the softer or human side, trust building and the patience that is required for that. There is also a need to recognise the innovation and creativity of some of the younger generation. There are many layers and pieces there. It is kind of like a spider's web. One can tap into different elements that are needed at different times. It is about looking at it in that big picture view but with a commitment to the important quiet spaces and the series of dialogues. That has to be dynamic and reactive in terms of what is going on or the needs of those with whom we work. We are very much rooted in the principle of co-design. We hold firm to the idea of us being mediators and facilitators and walking alongside people. There is significant opportunity for the committee to engage and tap into those networks and relationships but it is a process. I am grateful for the support our organisation has enjoyed through the almost 50 years it has been in being and, I have no doubt, will enjoy in the future.

Ms Claire Hanna:

I thank the witnesses for the engagement. I appreciate it. The danger of coming in last in a general discussion is that many of the topics have already been addressed. I wish to pick up on the issues of legacy and engaging on broadly shifting constitutional issues. How much opportunity have the witnesses had to work with what might be called middle unionism? Obviously, we are trying to get beyond the positioning and narrative that is going on at the moment. Within political unionism in particular, there are some big voices at the moment. I am trying not to use pejorative words such as "grandstanding" but some of what is being said and done around the protocol is being used as signalling for what might be down the line in the next couple of decades. What the SDLP is finding through our new Ireland commission is that it is not that unionism is not engaging. The issue of whether we will set a date and change alienates people a little; they engage far more with the issue of how this place is changing and what the different phases and stages might be in the coming decades. This comes back to a point we have been making in recent years. In the same way that within nationalism there has been a moderate centre that does not love the constitutional arrangement we currently have but which works within the principle of consent and does what it can within that window, are there organisations or individuals within unionism with whom the witnesses have the opportunity to engage? Is there any pattern emerging in the context of people who may not be curious about or interested in unity but who are open to the discussion?

On the legacy Bill, all that has been said about it is true, unfortunately. We had a meeting with the Northern Ireland Office this morning and there is no comfort coming in terms of the signalled changes to the Bill, which do not fundamentally change the flaws within it and will not trouble the elites in terms of those organisations that created victims. They will not have anything to worry about in the context of the Bill. I know the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation engages with former combatants, for want of a better term. Given that, in essence, the Bill will let those in paramilitary and state organisations who created victims off the hook, is there any hope of leadership coming from within those groups to offer truth and clarity to families that they will not get through a formal process?

Mr. Pat Hynes:

I thank Ms Hanna. To deal with her first question, in some of the private discussions we are having we are finding within unionism the emergence of a sense relating to the opportunities and challenges in the coming couple of years, particularly in respect of the economic and social challenges and opportunities that exist. We were encouraged that people engaged with us. I do not think anybody will be coming out and doing so in public but, given the maelstrom in recent years, we can appreciate that. There is a realisation, however, that Northern Ireland will have to find ways of using now the advantages and opportunities it has as a consequence of the arrangements following on from the Windsor Framework agreement.

How did they work to ensure better public services for people in Northern Ireland? How does the framework work for businesses and entrepreneurs? Those are the conversations. With regard to whether anyone will come out in public sense, we are at the early stages in all of this because we have just gone through the tumult of the past seven years or so.

With regard to the legacy, regrettably I have to say there is a sense of despair on the part of people who have lost loved ones. The impact of the transgenerational trauma that has been created as a result of the period in question leaves many at a greater sense of loss as to why the British Government would pursue this approach, given the obvious needs that are expressed loudly and clearly by political parties, representative groups of victims and so on. It is not like anybody can claim not to know or understand. The impact all of this is having is patently clear. From the perspective of whether this will encourage former combatants or others to engage in a different way than heretofore, that is an open question. I do not know the answer to that question. I know that the idea that processes will simply be shut off to people is something that creates, at least in the minds of those who have lost loved ones, a sense of being forgotten and written out of it. The challenge in the period ahead will be in how we create spaces for acknowledgement around what they would have gone through, that is, acknowledgement without obvious answers. Any answers that might be forthcoming might take on a particular hue or approach, with regard to justifying what might have been done in a particular set of circumstances. All of that is of considerable concern to victims, their families and survivors. It is an open question as to how we proceed from here, but we are in a far more difficult space than we were before.

Ms Claire Hanna:

I would not disagree.

Dr. Stephen Farry:

I appreciate the witnesses' presentation and comments to date and all the work the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation has been doing over many decades to build and support peace. I will touch on a couple of areas which have not been touched upon too much so far. If we were to see change towards a new, united Ireland at some stage in the coming years, as well as work on the divisions in Northern Ireland and the need for reconciliation, to what extent are conversations happening in the South around how to engage with what may be 1 million people with a British identity? To what extent is there conversation on the gives and takes that may be involved in creating what would be a genuine new and inclusive beginning, rather than people simply plugging into existing structures, culture and ways of doing things? I will give an extreme example. There are concerns at times about the use of chants like "ooh, ah up the 'Ra". I know many people have sought to challenge it, but such chanting creates a certain degree of concern whenever people hear and see it happening. There are also issues around symbols and those types of aspects.

On an entirely different tangent, it may be useful to hear a bit more about Glencree's ongoing work in support of other actors with regard to the peace and prosperity agenda. How can prosperity and co-operation between North and South on the island, and the development of an all-island economy and potential synergies in that respect, be supportive of building wider peace and cohesion across the island?

Mr. Pat Hynes:

There are a number of conversations going on down here about what a new Ireland would look like. Conversations are probably taking place to look at the potential in the wake of Brexit and what has happened in the past number of years. I do not know to what extent all of those conversations are connected to conversations in unionism or loyalism. There are examples such as Ireland's Future. That organisation is beginning to think into the future about what ideas and opportunities might emerge. The point we stress and reiterate is that while those conversations take place, Dr. Farry's point is well taken, in that we will have a million people on the island who espouse and hold a British identity. I will go back to where I started with this; the challenge is in how we reach a balanced accommodation, whatever that might look like, in the context of a future shape on the island which gives expression, understanding and sensitivity to that identity. We do not need to arrive at that answer today. The first order of business is to have the conversation on what that million-strong community would want.

The last word on this is contained in the agreement, that is, the acceptance of the principle that it is okay to be British, Irish or both. For my generation down here, coming through the period of the agreement, we had to and will have to continue to live with fuzzy edges at the extremity of our aspiration around identity. To seek something more pure than the other is not an option. One must try to find the balance of these two perspectives, on the basis that we have two sets of competing allegiances and identities in this space. The conversations will be long, but it is better to take the time, have those conversations and build the relationships, rather than arrive at an outcome that is ill-conceived or not fully thought-out by way of engagement.

With regard to the peace and prosperity agenda, all I can do is pay tribute to IBEC, with which we have been engaging. IBEC has done extraordinary work in demonstrating the reality of what the Irish economy is today with regard to the opportunities that would and could exist for Northern Ireland businesses and services, far beyond where we are at present, in terms of the agrifood sector. The development of that industry is a considerable cross-Border operation.

There are many other opportunities which IBEC and others are identifying and which, in our view, would provide economic prosperity and opportunities for communities, as I said earlier, that have not seen very many of the benefits of the peace process. IBEC made a point some months ago on the corporation tax take here in Ireland where such a large proportion of that tax take is denominated in companies with intellectual property, financial services, patents and licensing, and the fact that no boxes or containers cross borders in the earning of those revenues. That is what a 21st-century economy looks like with. Those in Northern Ireland should therefore be encouraged to look at developing an economy and to develop skills in the education sector there to create a level of human capital which will attract that type of investment, and so on, and provide real opportunities for younger people who are growing up in Northern Ireland.

Those kinds of conversations need to continue and, where we can, we should encourage those conversations. We will continue to do so.

Dr. Stephen Farry:

That is great. I thank Mr. Hynes very much.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Farry. I call Senator Black and thank her for being so patient.

Photo of Frances BlackFrances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been fantastic to listen to our guest speakers and I thank them so much for coming in and for sharing their expertise and insight. As a committee, we are concerned with issues around conflict and we want conflict resolution. It is just wonderful that people like our guests attend our committee, particularly in respect of the work of peace building and all of the work they do.

I have a few points I would like to raise. There are so many questions I wish to ask. I want to know so much about our visitors. I refer to what they were saying about conversations they were having behind the scenes with unionists, with people who feel they cannot trust, do not feel safe and want to know what the future looks like.

In my role as chair of Ireland’s Future, we have had public events with unionist voices present. I remember approximately five years ago I was in Belfast at an event to celebrate the Good Friday Agreement and being amazed by the presence of a man from a unionist background whose name I cannot remember. He said that he wanted to have the conversation and that he may not agree with the other person’s position but that he wanted to know what the thinking was around the issue. He said he wanted to know what the other side was thinking and what kind of a new Ireland we were presenting to them. I thought that was very positive, in that there are unionist people who want to have the conversation.

Senator Ó Donnghaile and I were involved in the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, together with Senator Currie, and we had unionist voices appear before us. Again, it was important to listen to their fears and anxieties around identity, which is a very significant issue. It was something of an eye-opener for us but we want to know more. That is why the centre’s presence here is very important.

Like the witnesses, in the Ireland’s Future initiative, we have had people who are behind the scenes and who do not want to be seen out front talking about issues but who nonetheless are asking what we are talking and thinking about. That, however, is not what I want to talk about.

I want to ask about the centre’s programmes. Some time back, before I had ever even contemplated being a politician, or whatever one would wish to call me, I was the founder of an organisation called The Rise Foundation. This is an organisation which supports family members who have somebody they love with an addiction problem. We received some funding to run a programme and we brought some family members up to Rathlin Island. We also received some cross-community funding. We did a programme with them around their stress, anxiety and trauma with regard to having somebody they love with an addiction problem. Watching somebody one loves going down that self-destruct route is a very significant trauma. We had a cross-community programme and I have to tell the committee that it was just mind-blowing.

I am sure this is something the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation has experienced in all of its programmes. We discovered people who were struggling with the stress, anxiety and trauma, even though they were from two different communities. There was tension, as one can imagine, because some people from both communities had come through horrific situations where they had lost loved ones in the conflict. We had to manage that and I would say to Ms McNamee that that it is a very skilled job. All of our therapists are skilled and work in the field of addiction. We found a way of managing the conflicts which happened and the old traumas which arose around the conflict. It was brilliant and at the end of it they were all great friends. There was a camaraderie because they had gone through the same thing, the anxiety and trauma.

Ms McNamee, in particular, spoke about the skill and the issues which might come up in the centre’s programmes. Could she say little bit about how she manages that because it is a very precise skill? That is very much the essence of it. We talk about policy and how we can bring people with us but at the end of the day it is about that.

I will give the committee another example. I hope that is okay, a Chathaoirligh. When Brexit happened in the last term, the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement went up North. We meet a strong loyalist community in Belfast. I remember the committee going into this community centre to meet with unionists. We talked about Brexit and how it was going to happen but our hosts did not care about the impact from an economic point of view. When I started to talk about mental health, however, they started to come alive. I then started to talk about intergenerational trauma. One man spoke about walking down the road. When he hears a motorbike backfire, he suffers a complete spasm from the noise it makes. Our hosts came alive when talking about those types of topics.

I refer to issues in deprived communities where people are dealing with housing and health issues. Mental health issues are very significant because of the intergenerational trauma of the conflict. I ask Ms McNamee about this because that is the essence of how we can work to bring people together. People can see that those on both sides are impacted by the same issues, such as housing, loss of jobs. Mental health issues are significant, but equally significant are addiction problems because of the intergenerational trauma.

How is all of that managed? How can we expand on that? Would that be something which would arise from a policy point of view where we could bring people together? I hope this makes sense.

Ms Naoimh McNamee:

It does, absolutely. I thank the Senator for her kind words. The question she asked is a very important one. Similar to what the Senator said, we often find through the different types of work we do that when one is bringing people together, it is a humanising experience. They do not see themselves as "the other" any more and they connect on the issues and the similar challenges they face.

That differs from the type of work we are doing from group to group or the different types of dialogue we do. I am mindful of one example from last year around legacy. We had two women from very different communities but they connected over the fact they both had lost their mother. They were the elder daughters in the family and it was about how that changed their lives. This was powerful in respect of the barriers it brought down between those two women and the connection it forged between them. These were two women from communities which would never, or would refuse to, go into a room together because of the various backgrounds or perceptions. That is just one example.

We are very mindful as to where our skills lie. It is in mediation and facilitation. Similar to the example that was given, one of the facilitators we work with is a qualified psychotherapist, and we prepare by making sure that all the different support services are available. There is the training of our staff and the reflective practice for them. With certain skills and certain preparation, you need to go in having tried to prepare and plan for this and having tried to have a lot of engagements with the individuals you meet, testing them with questions such as "What if this comes up for you?" or managing expectations around having preconceived notions come into the room. For us, the key to success is preparation, preparation, preparation, no matter how long it takes and no matter how many cups of tea you have to drink. I am sure Mr. Hynes would echo that as regards the level of investment in those relationships and bringing them on.

The expectation management is very important and, from a mediation or facilitation principle, it is a matter of people's self-awareness in the room and the ground rules as to how they will treat one another and come together. We often look for co-facilitation or co-mediation where there is more than one in the room, so there might be two or three mediators. There may be a lead, a number two and someone who is part of the circle dialogue and who is just watching for the different reactions. If someone is having difficulty, you can have a quiet word one to one, maybe on a break. They might feel more comfortable in a quiet environment, away from the circle dialogue.

Then there is the aftercare and the follow-up. With some people there can be a lot of emotion. It can be very difficult and raw, and they can really get into it. When they go home afterwards, they might regret sharing so much. It might have landed differently. Sometimes they go back to communities that ask who they were meeting or why they were down there. All of that care is so important. It is all the detail. The great success of it is in that preparation.

The Senator made a really important point about the humanising aspect of this. Our differences tend to slip away when we connect over aspects of trauma, aspects of experience or things where we are worried about the future of our children or worried about the environments in which they are growing up, with criminal gang control or other aspects. That is hugely powerful and was probably fundamental to the beginning of Glencree 50 years ago, with people coming down from the North for respite. Dialogue was born out of that.

Mr. Hynes, as a practitioner, might have something to add to that.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

I thank Senator Black for her remarks.

I echo what Ms McNamee said. The Senator, in her statement, told us it is pretty much what we do. We really are trying to get behind some of the public pronouncements and to understand what is driving what is being said in public. Dialogue very often reveals. It can reveal heretofore unseen qualities, whether they are vulnerabilities or whatever else. In those quiet dialogues, as Ms McNamee said, there is an opportunity to see much more fundamentally behind what is really being expressed, and in that process, as the Senator will know, relationships are formed. I think that when people make themselves vulnerable in such a situation or express themselves in a particular way and give a sense of why they feel a particular way about an issue, others will very often respond positively to that, relationships will be built and trust might creep in. I am sure the Senator will know from her work with the Rise Foundation that that can take some time. We do not do this in one meeting. The fact that people keep coming back is almost like an affirmation of the fact that they have heard something, received something or understood something and maybe want to come back and explore something a little more, probe a little deeper or share something. Very often it is about the ongoing connections and ongoing work that is, for us, the affirmation that some positive impact is being made here, but it is slow.

Photo of Frances BlackFrances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do the witnesses see a difference in the groups that have come down to have those discussions over the years? Do they see a big difference between, say, 25 years ago or 50 years ago and now? Is there any way of measuring that, or is it a matter of just plodding along and it being still the same?

Mr. Pat Hynes:

Twenty-five years ago I was a little younger.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So were we all.

Mr. Pat Hynes:

I went there in the mid-1990s, and the imperative then was to form relationships with people who had never met, even though they might have lived half a mile from one another. They did not even meet us. We had this opportunity, and the imperative, of course, was to find an end to the violence. We do not have the violence now, which is a good thing, but what I will say, 25 years on, with a few more grey hairs, is that this really needs to continue and we still need to have these conversations. Yet there is in a sense almost a greater level of difficulty at one level in bringing people into spaces in ways we did not have 25 years ago because the imperative of ending the conflict was so strong among us all. That does not mean we want to go back to any imperative that previously existed, but there are different pressures now on people and different examples of people in one sense still working through what they might have emerged from. Some of them are just not able to speak and others are clearly well versed in being able to express themselves. Our challenge today is trying to reach into these communities and the younger and newer generation of people who have grown up in an era of peace, which is great, but still with some challenges in front of us. As I said earlier, the peace walls have not come down and so on.

Ms Naoimh McNamee:

To add to that, as regards different groups or different types of dialogue we work with, there are different people in different frames of mind or different places on their journeys. One thing that was worrying or a bit depressing for us all in reminding us of the type of dialogue that Glencree used to run 25 years ago was the position post Brexit. I made a point earlier about the importance of this wide dialogue work and trust-building. We took our foot off the pedal a little after the signing of the agreement and in the years that followed, and those relationships and that strength were not there. There was therefore a need almost to bring some of that back and to try to develop it. We had some conversations to the effect that "God, that is a bit of a harrowing thought", but it is required and necessary.

As Mr. Hynes rightly said, some of the younger generation have very different mindsets and very different views. There is that intergenerational trauma and identity issues still coming down through generations, but it is quite a different dynamic. Where we see some interesting progress and some push is when we are able to blend some of those different views and generations together. It is fascinating. It is such a privilege to do this work and to engage in that, but it is quite tricky and delicate at times. Certainly, Brexit highlighted the reality of where relationships were or the absence of certain relationships or aspects of trust, north, south, east, west and within societies in the North. We have been working extensively. Mr. Hynes's team has doubled in recent years around that, so there is a huge demand for it.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to say a few words. I thank the witnesses for coming. It is always enlightening to meet and listen to them, and I again acknowledge the fantastic work they do. If I may refer a little to some of the issues I picked up yesterday, Senator Black, you spoke about the one which struck me most, the question of mental health. Mental health is a huge issue, far bigger than I had realised. We had some speakers yesterday at the conference in Belfast and I was extremely impressed by what they said.

With regard to the political agenda, I do not believe anybody on any side or those on no side would disagree on the need to address the generational mental health issues being passed on. The event impressed me. There were two speakers, one of whom was Ms Bethany Moore. I do not know who has heard her. She is really fantastic. She is a young person and is dynamic. She is not talking about orange or green but about young people. Hers is the generation that will have ownership of the Good Friday Agreement. She was setting out her stall from her perspective. She did not have an opportunity to speak to members but it is very important that we have her here at some stage. She represents the future of the island. People like her, in their communities, are taking over leadership now and telling us what they want and what they are going to get. They are going to insist that we change. The other person who spoke – I am not sure of her surname but she was connected to integrated education – was born in the unionist community.

Ms Naoimh McNamee:

Was it Anne Carr?

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She married across the divide and reared her children. If anyone spoke with passion and conviction about the problems associated with communities not being educated together, it was she. That is somewhere the communities have to start. Putting aside the constitutional question, which will be decided at some stage by referendum or otherwise, we will have to address the needs of young people, the future as they want it to be and the question of integrated education. That will bring about some of the change we all want. These are the important points I learned.

I have to comment on my Fine Gael colleague Deputy Feighan. I totally acknowledge his conviction regarding the future relationship with the British Government but I want to comment on the excellent relationship we have with France and state its importance. The difference between the French and the British is that the French are our nearest EU neighbours. They are very good friends of ours. I know that Deputy Feighan does not disagree with that. It is important to have the connectivity. The relationship between the Irish and British Governments is getting better. I think Lord Caine spoke yesterday – Ms Claire Hanna would not have heard this – about significant discussions with the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs about possible amendments.

Members of this committee will be going to the British Parliament on 11 June or 12 June. All parties will be represented on the delegation. We hope to reiterate in the strongest possible way the points made by our guests and everybody in the North and South.

I thank Ms McNamee, Mr. Hynes, Ms O'Brien, Ms Irish and Ms Martin for attending. I know we are going to meet them again.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.24 p.m. and adjourned at 3.32 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 1 June 2023.