Seanad Public Consultation Committee debate -
Friday, 7 Oct 2022

Constitutional Future of the Island of Ireland - Public Policy, Economic Opportunities and Challenges: Discussion

Chairman

We will now discuss public policy, equal opportunities and challenges in relation to the constitutional future of the island of Ireland. I welcome all of our participants in this part of the session where we will look at those economic challenges and opportunities and at societal challenges as well. On behalf of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, I welcome all of the contributors and thank them for the great work they have put into this important topic. We will begin with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, which, as members will be aware, produces independent, high-quality research on matters of public policy. Today, it will look at many of the areas that are foremost in people's thoughts when they think about an issue of constitutional change. They are also very concerned about many issues in relation to the education and healthcare systems and the economy in general.

I welcome Dr. Alan Barrett, who will make introductory remarks on behalf of the ESRI; Dr. Seamus McGuinness, who will make a statement on the economy; Dr. Adele Bergin, who will make a statement about education; Dr. Sheelah Connolly, who will speak about the issue of health; and Dr. Martina Lawless, who will talk about the issue of trade. We will begin with Dr. Barrett.

Dr. Alan Barrett

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to address them today. I am the director of the ESRI and I am joined by my colleagues, Dr. Adele Bergin, Dr. Sheelah Connolly, Dr. Martina Lawless and Dr. Seamus McGuinness. Each of them will speak in a few moments on various stands of ESRI research which are relevant to the committee's deliberations.

I will provide a brief overview of ESRI research on North-South issues. As some members of the committee might know, the ESRI was founded by Dr. T.K. Whitaker in 1960. Given Dr. Whitaker's interest in all-island issues and the key role he played in developing North-South relationships in the 1960s, it is perhaps unsurprising that the institute's research agenda has generally included work on all-island issues. This was especially true when Sir George Quigley was president of the ESRI around the turn of the century. Like Whitaker, Sir George was a person who advanced an all-island view. To quote from his entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography:

In a 1992 speech he popularised the notion of Ireland becoming a one-island economy, principally by developing a Belfast–Dublin growth corridor capable of generating an industrial cluster effect. Over time he convinced most unionists to set aside their suspicions and accept such co-operation as an end in itself.

It is important to say at the outset of our presentation that the ESRI does not take institutional views on policy issues and that includes the possible constitutional arrangements on the island of Ireland, which the committee is discussing. All ESRI research is aimed at providing evidence as an input into policymaking processes, rather than advocating from a particular perspective. The goal is to provide the evidence so that policies can be formulated which maximise economic and social outcomes for citizens and others. Our work on all-island issues has the same motivation. This perspective has underpinned our work, including research that has been funded by agencies such as the shared island unit in the Department of the Taoiseach, InterTradeIreland, IBEC and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform through the grant-in-aid provided annually to the ESRI.

While our work on North-South issues has the same motivation as our work that focuses solely on issues south of the Border, the all-island work has its own characteristics. I will mention two distinguishing themes on this matter. First, Ireland and Northern Ireland are both small countries with small populations. In order to maximise the opportunities that typically accrue to larger populations, it is important that we minimise any barriers to collaboration and co-operation that might arise due to the existence of two jurisdictions on the island. Hence, the first goal of our research is often to explore potential areas for increased collaboration. The second objective of the research is to see what could be learned from the unique situation on the island. We have two populations which are similar in many ways, but we have two systems, for example, of taxation and public service delivery. Researchers across Europe try to distil lessons on what works best by comparing systems and outcomes in different European countries, as do researchers across different states of the US. We try to invoke that comparative research method to see if there are lessons from both sides of the Border which could benefit people North and South.

While the institute does not take a view on possible constitutional arrangements, we recognise that an important discussion is occurring and we think our work can assist in addressing some of the questions that arise in that discussion. With that, I will hand over to my colleague, Dr. McGuinness.

Chairman

Before I call Dr. McGuinness, I welcome Professor Brendan O'Leary who is joining us remotely from the University of Pennsylvania and who will talk about preparing for a referendum. Also from Pennsylvania, we are joined by Mr. Gianluca Nigro who is from Congressman Brendan Boyle's office. Congressman Boyle, as many members of the committee will know, is very engaged on the issue of the constitutional change and a united Ireland. We are thankful for their presence today.

I call Dr. McGuinness who will make an opening statement on the economy.

Dr. Seamus McGuinness

The following are among the questions we have addressed in academic papers published by the Cambridge Journal of Economics and in Irish Studies in International Affairs. First, how does the performance of the Northern Ireland economy compare to that of the Republic of Ireland and to British regions? Second, what are the potential explanations for Northern Ireland's poor productivity performance? Third, what are the potential costs of future reunification?

In terms of the relative performance of the Northern Ireland economy, we found no evidence to support the view that the Northern Ireland economy was heavily integrated with either the Great Britain regional economies or the Irish economy. These are important findings because they weaken the argument that a change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, whereby Northern Ireland's ties to the UK are weakened in some way, would have large economic consequences. The findings also suggest that the economic gains to Northern Ireland from being part of the UK are less than might previously have been thought. There is no evidence to suggest that Northern Ireland has benefited economically from any peace dividend. In terms of GDP per capita, Northern Ireland ranked tenth poorest of 12 UK regions in both 2000 and 2014, ahead of only the north-east region and Wales. Relative to the Republic of Ireland, using GNI* per capita for the Republic of Ireland, which removes the distortional impacts of the multinationals, output per head was 51% lower in Northern Ireland in 2018.

One reliable measure commonly used to assess living standards is household disposable income, which was 12% higher in the Republic of Ireland compared to Northern Ireland in 2016. The proportion of individuals at risk of poverty is substantially higher in Northern Ireland compared to the Republic of Ireland, at 14.3% in Northern Ireland compared to 8.9% in the Republic of Ireland. We have found that the Irish tax system is much more progressive and has much more pronounced redistributive properties than that which operates in Northern Ireland.

A good measure that captures overall differences in general welfare and living standards is life expectancy. In 2018, life expectancy at birth in the Republic of Ireland exceeded that of Northern Ireland by 1.4 years. We cannot say for sure what is driving these differences. A broad range of factors, including income, education and employment opportunities and access to healthcare services, will generally together determine life expectancy in a region. As such, differences in life expectancy across countries can be interpreted as a cumulative measure of differences in general welfare and living standards.

With respect to the question on the potential explanations for Northern Ireland's poor productivity performance, this is likely to be driven by a number of factors, including lower educational attainment, lower levels of export orientation and lower-intensity and poorer-quality foreign direct investment, FDI.

Education and human capital development will strongly determine regional macroeconomic outcomes such as productivity levels and, therefore, ultimately growth rates. It is probably the most important factor driving relatively low productivity in Northern Ireland. Across all ages, education and enrolment rates are lower in Northern Ireland, compared to the Republic of Ireland. For example, the rate of young people aged 15 to 19 enrolled in educational programmes is 93% in the Republic of Ireland, compared to 74% in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is much less export intensive, compared to the Republic of Ireland. Exports account for 15% of total business turnover in Northern Ireland, compared to 54% in the Republic of Ireland. Foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland is less intensive and lower value added, compared to the Republic of Ireland. Enhancing FDI flows to Northern Ireland and export activity are likely to be key policy targets in any scenario of constitutional change.

Finally, what are the potential costs of future reunification? The question of who will bear the economic cost has been a key feature of the debate on future constitutional change. Subvention, which refers to the gap between public spending and taxes in Northern Ireland was estimated at £9.2 billion sterling in 2017-2018. However, the subvention figure falls by 25% when we extract expenditures that are no longer likely to be incurred post-reunification, such as Northern Ireland's contribution to UK defence spending, debt service costs and international services. Furthermore, some of the costs of Northern Ireland's old age pensions estimated at £3.2 billion sterling in 2016-2017 could also remain a UK liability.

Nevertheless, as stated in our submission, the focus for policy should be to address the issues, some of which we have highlighted here, that contribute to lower productivity in Northern Ireland which create the need for subvention. In the event of a border poll ratifying unification, a transition period would be necessary to allow operational responsibility for Northern Ireland to be transferred to the Republic of Ireland. The length of any transition period and the success of any new policies implemented during it will also be of importance. Northern Ireland's low productivity is the main driver of subvention costs, so the success of policy reforms in areas such as education and industrial policy will influence this cost.

Dr. Adele Bergin

We have some recent research that comprehensively compares the education systems in Ireland, North and South. Some of the key research findings include marked differences in educational attainment between Ireland and Northern Ireland with a lower proportion of the population in Ireland having the lowest levels of educational attainment. Early school leaving is two to three times higher in Northern Ireland, compared to Ireland. This gap has widened over time. The proportion of 16 to 24 year olds who leave school with at most a lower secondary qualification is 14% in Northern Ireland, compared to just 6% in Ireland. This is concerning as early school leavers are more likely to be non-employed or work in low wage or potentially insecure jobs later in life. Furthermore students from more disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be early school leavers in Northern Ireland than in Ireland.

Both systems, North and South, face challenges in tackling educational disadvantage. Stakeholders across the island spoke of the benefits of the delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, programme in Ireland and those in Northern Ireland felt that such a programme could be useful for dealing with educational inequality in Northern Ireland.

Academic selection in Northern Ireland, whereby students take selection tests at age 11 with those deemed to be high performers continuing education in grammar schools and others in secondary schools has significant consequences for the social and ability profile of schools and for young people's post-school choices and aspirations. Therefore, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be clustered in certain schools in Northern Ireland, compared to Ireland. Being channelled into non-grammar schools leads to low educational expectations relative to those who attend a grammar school, especially of boys from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. This lack of aspirations, particularly among disadvantaged boys, was reiterated as an issue by stakeholders in Northern Ireland.

Students in both Northern Ireland and Ireland from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve lower grades than their peers from more affluent backgrounds with the effect larger in Ireland, especially at upper secondary level or at leaving certificate level. However, this is reflective of the differences in early school leaving. Overall in Northern Ireland, those who are more socially disadvantaged are more inclined to leave school after lower secondary level while in Ireland, more disadvantaged students continue in school following the end of compulsory education, but then receive lower exam grades on average.

The proportion of graduates is the same in both jurisdictions. However, Northern Ireland has a very small proportion who complete a post-secondary non-third level qualification, compared to Ireland where post leaving certificate, PLC, courses have become very popular. Ten percent of the population in Northern Ireland have this level of qualification, compared to 30% in Ireland.

Finally, at all levels of qualification, wages are significantly higher in Ireland than in Northern Ireland. Higher returns to education can incentivise individuals to invest in their education and may in part be driving the low levels of educational attainment in Northern Ireland. As Dr. McGuinness has already alluded to, lower returns to education in Northern Ireland may also be reflective of lower productivity levels in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Sheelah Connolly

The shared island unit of the Department of the Taoiseach recently funded research to examine the healthcare systems of Ireland and Northern Ireland, in particular to identify differences and similarities between the two systems. A key distinction between the healthcare systems of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the absence of a universal healthcare system in Ireland. In Northern Ireland, all residents are entitled to a wide range of health and social care services that are almost entirely free at the point of use. In Ireland, a majority of the population pay out-of-pocket for a range of healthcare services, including general practitioner and other primary care services. Ireland has a much greater provision of private healthcare services and a larger proportion of the population is covered by private health insurance. Despite these and other differences, both systems are currently facing similar challenges, including increases in waiting times, expenditure and demand for healthcare services and workforce shortages. As Dr. McGuinness noted, life-expectancy in Ireland in recent years has exceeded that of Northern Ireland. We also found Ireland performed better than Northern Ireland for a range of other health status indicators, including infant mortality and the proportion of the population reporting chronic conditions such as diabetes. While 20 years ago health status was generally better in Northern Ireland, and indeed the rest of the UK, relative to Ireland, the reverse now seems to be the case.

In terms of inputs into the system, our research found, for example, that the number of GPs per capita was relatively similar across Ireland and Northern Ireland. Healthcare expenditure is measured differently across the jurisdictions. The available data suggests publicly-financed healthcare expenditure is similar in Ireland and Northern Ireland but privately financed expenditure through out-of-pocket payments and private health insurance is higher in Ireland.

Our research also examined unmet healthcare needs across the two jurisdictions. We found there are higher levels of unmet healthcare needs due to affordability issues in Ireland. This is perhaps unsurprising given the relatively high user-charges for a range of services in Ireland. However a significant and growing barrier to access healthcare in both jurisdictions relates to the large and growing waiting times, especially for hospital-based services. While long waits for publicly-financed hospital care have been a feature of the healthcare system in Ireland for a number of years, the situation in Northern Ireland has deteriorated rapidly since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, between 2017 and 2021 the proportion of the population waiting for an inpatient appointment for more than a year increased from 12% to 20% in Ireland and from 20% to 60% in Northern Ireland.

Much of the discussion about the healthcare systems in Ireland and Northern Ireland relates to the high user charges for GP services in Ireland while such services are available free at the point of use in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Last week in budget 2023 it was announced that GP care provided free at the point of use would be extended to an additional 400,000 people in Ireland. Such a reform would mean a greater alignment in terms of eligibility for GP services between the two healthcare systems. However user-charges for other services and prescription items in Ireland mean that out-of-pocket payments are likely to remain higher in Ireland in the coming years.

Differences between the two healthcare systems of Ireland and Northern Ireland provide an opportunity to examine how different approaches might impact on outcomes. However a lack of comparable data on a range of healthcare indicators across the island limits the extent to which such analysis can currently be undertaken.

Dr. Martina Lawless

Following on from the comments of my colleagues on the overall structure of the economies of Ireland and Northern Ireland, my research in this area relates to cross-Border trade and the activities of firms and supply chain integration across the island.

Goods trade between Ireland and Northern Ireland has grown substantially since the exit of Great Britain from the EU Single Market and the customs union. The unique status of Northern Ireland, with its access to both the EU and UK markets, has driven this recent substantial increase in cross-Border trade and had the potential to continue to feed into broader economic linkages across the island. There remain outstanding issues around the operation of this special status under the Northern Ireland protocol and uncertainty from this source could limit the extent to which Northern Ireland can benefit from its unique status.

Business investment benefits from clarity on regulation and market access so clear guidance on the operation of the protocol would likely see increased investment in Northern Ireland. Micro and small firms play a much more significant role in cross-Border trade than is usual in exporting and importing patterns. This suggests many firms regard the island as their local market and functional economy. For example, almost all exporting firms in Northern Ireland include Ireland as one of their destination markets, and more than 80% of small firms that export from Northern Ireland have all of their export sales in Ireland.

We also find a high degree of cross-Border integration through supply chains. As exporting firms have systematically better outcomes across a range of key indicators, including employment and productivity, expanding participation in exporting can make an important contribution to the broader performance of the economy. Cross-Border trade can be a stepping stone in this regard to broader export participation by firms both in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

While the Northern Ireland protocol did much to keep trade flowing freely across the Border, an important limitation is that this agreement relates only to goods trade. Our research has shown that cross-Border services trade is considerably lower than cross-border trade in goods. Services make up one quarter of the total trade going from Northern Ireland to Ireland and just 16% of the trade going from Ireland to Northern Ireland. This low share of services in trade flows from Ireland to Northern Ireland is in strong contrast with the high overall services content of Ireland's exports to other markets.

As services are not covered by the Northern Ireland protocol there remains potential for services trade to be negatively affected by any divergence between the UK and the EU on services regulation in the longer term. I thank the committee and would be happy to take members' questions.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Lawless. Before I bring in Professor O'Leary, who is in Pennsylvania, I will read a statement on privilege as his privilege is much more limited than that enjoyed by those who are here. I would like to remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or 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. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks immediately. It is imperative that they comply with such direction. For witnesses attending remotely outside the Leinster House campus, there are some limitations on parliamentary privilege and as such they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness physically present. Members are also reminded of the long-standing practice to the effect that they should not comment, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an officer either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank Professor O'Leary for taking the time to join us from the University of Pennsylvania. He is most welcome and I invite him to begin his contribution.

Professor Brendan O'Leary

If I could summarise within three minutes all the arguments in my recently published book, Making Sense of a United Ireland, then I would not have written it. Let me instead headline two key matters. The first is adequate planning. Sovereign Ireland is not prepared for Irish unification at the end of this decade. Neither for the dual referendums that will likely occur, nor for the momentous statecraft required to put two positive votes for unity into effect. To prepare properly is the minimal courtesy owed to Irish citizens and possible future citizens among Northern unionists, others and Northern nationalists. Nothing less than a ministry of national reunification is required. The South Koreans have one, should we not? The ministry should have reach across all Departments because reunification will affect all of them. It should be complemented by a standing constitutional forum organised by both Houses of the Oireachtas that sits in plenary for one month of every year, empowered to assess opinion and propose appropriate legislative or constitutional change.

We also require a sovereign wealth transition fund for short-run transition costs and for all-island infrastructure, broadly conceived. Though the scale of the subvention of Northern Ireland by Great Britain is exaggerated, it is prudent to be prepared for adverse possibilities. Minimally, the fund should receive 25% more than we give annually in international aid.

Second, the Government of Ireland faces a future dilemma. Before the referendums, should it propose a specific constitutional model of Irish unification? Any such specific model - for example, an integrated Ireland or a united Ireland in which a devolved Northern Ireland persists - would have to be accompanied by contingent constitutional amendments or draft legislation to go into effect after the positive votes in favour of unity. The key advantage of this approach to all voters is that they would know what they were getting - either the maintenance of partition or the specific model. The UK's referendum experience of 2016 would be avoided. The change to the status quo would be clearly defined.

In the alternative, the Government of Ireland could propose a process that would occur after positive votes for unification. That process would lead to a constitutional convention, presumably elected by the single transferable vote, which would draft a new constitutional order to be put to the all-island citizenry for ratification. If the convention failed to agree a new constitution or voters refused to ratify the new constitution, then the existing Constitution of Ireland would be the default.

Proposing a process does not absolve the Government of Ireland of preparatory duties. It must specify the transitional arrangements, because a fast-paced transfer of sovereignty will be required to preserve political order. Specifying a model requires developing an operational plan to fulfil it. Specifying a process means elaborating how the convention would work, the transitional government, and being prepared for diverse outcomes form the convention. The model approach emphasises clarity at the potential cost of no unionist participation until they have lost in the Northern referendum. The process approach has the virtue of future inclusiveness but it would leave all future voters uncertain of the design of a united Ireland.

Chairman

I thank the professor for his contribution. Members should bear in mind that we have a lot of witnesses, so I ask for questions only.

Senator Joe O'Reilly

I thank the Chair. I will put questions to be as quick as I can. On Dr. Bergin's presentation on education, we always understood from a historical perspective that it was the availability of work in the shipyards and elsewhere that made the Protestant community in Northern Ireland feel less of a need for education and value education less. Does Dr. Bergin detect a change in her research? Is there a willingness or a shifting of the sands towards more educational participation? Is that trend reversing?

On the cost, it was said that North-South that has accelerated and increased greatly since Brexit. If we get a solution to the protocol in the coming weeks, is it anticipated that trend will be maintained? Is it rooted sufficiently that there would not be a reversal of the more favourable North-South training situation? Will it last? That is an important question. I will leave it at that for now.

Chairman

I thank Senator O'Reilly.

Senator Mark Wall

I thank the Chair and thank our witnesses for attending. I have a couple of questions. On education, a number of contributors on the last day spoke about the religious ethos in education in Northern Ireland. Has Dr. Bergin's research shown up issues as regards that ethos?

A number of other contributors spoke of not meeting others from different religions and from a different ethos until they were 16 years of age. Is that feeding into the social and economic issues the research has shown up? Could Dr. Bergin comment on that?

In regard to health, I am very familiar with cross-Border health initiatives, particularly in relation to the Defence Forces, and I am not sure if Dr. Connolly has come across that in her research. PDFORRA has a scheme, PMAS, where many former and currently serving military personnel go to Northern Ireland for care. How does that fit into the waiting lists Dr. Connolly has come across in her research? She might comment on that. It seems that we are moving cross-Border to reduce our waiting lists.

In regard to foreign direct investment, Dr. Lawless spoke to our Brexit committee at the time. There was talk of advantages for Northern Ireland from the protocol in relation to foreign direct investment. Have these advantages appeared in the last year? Has there been any advantage from the protocol in relation to foreign direct investment? Will he comment on that?

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Go raibh maith agaibh a chairde. I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I have two questions. I will address the first one to Dr. McGuinness who wrote a paper with Dr. Bergin entitled The political economy of a Northern Ireland border poll, which looked at the economy in the North in terms of the potential costs or benefits of reunification. Dr. McGuinness touched on the issue of the so-called subvention in his opening remarks. Could he outline for us some of his general findings with respect to our economy and the associated benefits in the context of unification? Could he perhaps dispel some of the myths around the perceived golden goose of the subvention, about which we heard in previous meetings, and what it means in real economic terms to life in Northern Ireland?

My second question is in relation to the point raised by Professor O'Leary about the State not being ready for reunification. I would like to get the witnesses' views on this. This question is open to anyone who would like to answer it. During the week the Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, conceded that the State needed to start preparing public finances for a unification scenario and that is indicative of where this debate is at. Professor O'Leary talked about the potential of a department for unification. If one was advising the Minister for Finance on how he should start, what is the first step he should take in relation to planning the public finances for that change?

Senator Vincent P. Martin

It is really refreshing and helpful to have independent experts here today in an advisory role. They are not here to fight anyone's corner but to give an expert viewpoint in the spirit of Professor Whitaker's legacy. I would like to ask Dr. Lawless whether it is fair to say that Brexit has brought us closer together because our economic ties are getting closer. Is the trend likely to continue in that direction? Is the inter-reliance likely to become greater and greater? As many who commented at the time said, an unintended consequence of Brexit for some who are pro-Brexit might be that the economies would be driven closer together. My second question is on alignment. If we had alignment North and South - for example, in the health systems - it would be easier for a unification. However, it is not stroke of the pen alignment. We have proposed extending free GP cover in the South but the GP system is broken. Do we measure how effective it is in the economic strategies and analysis? It is okay in theory but would this closer alignment work in practice?

Liz Truss said recently that change brings disruption. Is it possible that if this is done right, there will be very little disruption or is it the case that no matter how well one prepares, there will be some economic disruption in a united Ireland? I am looking forward to hearing Professor Locke who will comment on the German unification experience.

Would it be fair to say from the statistics that the Northern Ireland jurisdiction is under-performing economically? I would not go as far as saying what Charles Haughey once said, namely, that it was a failed political entity, but are the Six Counties strongly under-performing? What is the expert independent view on the performance of that economy in overall terms?

Senator Frances Black

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. I feel slightly intimidated by all the genius academic minds here today. It really is powerful to have them here and I wish we had more time. I feel a bit frustrated we do not have more time to get more information.

I thank Dr. McGuinness for his presentation and all the research he has done. What kind of industrial policies does he think would improve productivity in the North? I would like to ask both Dr. McGuinness and Dr. Lawless whether unification would provide better foreign investment opportunities in Northern Ireland.

I found Dr. Bergin's remarks really fascinating. The disparity in post-second level, non-university qualifications is significant. Is there any data on how these qualifications impact graduate income and labour market performance, relative to secondary school graduates?

Ireland loses large numbers of medical and nursing staff to emigration. In her research, has Dr. Connolly found a similar dynamic in the North or is there a greater level of retention?

One final question, does Professor O'Leary think it would be an idea for us - I think Professor John Doyle spoke about this before - to set up a cross-party committee in Leinster House on planning and preparing for possible constitutional change? If he thinks it is a good idea, how important is it?

Senator Emer Currie

I will not overwhelm the witnesses with questions. Could Dr. McGuinness elaborate on what he said about the peace dividend? How much of a peace dividend has there been? On the subvention and trying to pick into the subvention, I have read lots about how it is not €15 billion and about removing parts of it like the defence spending. When it comes to the debt, is there a risk that it could be said that as the debt was spent on behalf of the citizens, that debt comes with it? I think that is €1.6 billion. Has any work been done on the costs of amalgamating systems? The costs we are looking at are the as-you-are costs rather than the amalgamated costs. How do we address issues like minimum wage if there are two different levels of productivity? This makes Brexit look like a walk in the park when it comes to planning and preparing.

Professor O'Leary mentioned two systems, integration and the continuation of a devolved system. Has a federal confederation been considered? I promise I will buy his book.

Senator Tom Clonan

I have two questions. One is specific and one is more general. In relation to health, Dr. Connolly's presentation was really interesting. Regarding disability, the Republic differs from Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England in that we do not have any legal obligation on the State to provide therapies for people with disabilities. Neither do we have any legal obligation in the Republic to provide carers or carer hours for people with disabilities and, as a consequence, people like my son have not had any therapies for more than ten years. I know from talking to other parents - I meet people on ferries and abroad - that the situation in Northern Ireland seems to be an awful lot better. Is there any specific research in that area on the outcomes for people with disabilities from which we, in the Republic, could learn in the context of an overall island solution, if that ever happens?

I thank the witnesses for the presentations, which were really interesting. There was something in Professor O'Leary's remarks that prompted a question. There is a lot of research on trade, health, education and the economy. That is just a little sample and there must be broader areas of research.

However, in the context of what might happen next on the island, is research being carried out into the administration of justice, policing, security, intelligence, defence and neutrality in the context of an all-island entity that may be coming down the tracks very quickly? I believe it will be in less than ten or 15 years, whether we are ready or not. My colleagues from DCU, Ulster University and Queens University Belfast might address that later.

Dr. Seamus McGuinness

There is quite a lot to get through. Since Professor Doyle is the expert on the subvention, I will not talk much about it other than to say the consensus is that it is relatively trivial given the size of the overall public sector budget of the Irish State. On the more subtle matter of what subvention indicates, it is a number that can change. It is not static; it is dynamic. The subvention exists because there is low productivity. We have outlined some of the areas where productivity is lower.

That leads on to the Senator's question about the potential benefits of reunification. If reunification can address the productivity deficits in education, industrial policy, exportation and infrastructure, the benefits will be self-evident. The question is whether moving to a different constitutional framework will deliver that change. If there is to be reunification, it needs to be managed. It needs to be managed in a way that addresses the productivity problems. If these are addressed through a properly designed policy framework during a transition period, arguably subvention will become irrelevant at the end of that period, at the point of transition. That relates to Senator Black's question on the industrial policy that Northern Ireland should pursue. It is not necessarily something that is within its grasp at the moment. Ireland's industrial policy has been such a success because it has had such an educated workforce. Ideally, one would want to see foreign direct investment in services, pharmaceuticals and IT at the same level in the North as in the South proportionately. That will be difficult to achieve until the educational deficits we have identified are plugged. Education, and access to education, is a major driver of foreign direct investment.

To go back to the question on whether subvention in relation to the debt would remain an issue after reunification, Northern Ireland has its share of UK assets, both movable and immovable. Arguably, the liabilities and assets could be traded against each other in any negotiations on reunification.

On the minimum wage and productivity, we have a very successful minimum-wage policy in Ireland but we have regional differences in productivity. Having regional variations in productivity is not a barrier to the minimum wage. The minimum wage is to provide minimum earnings floor, particularly for marginalised workers. Therefore, it is not really driven by productivity considerations.

Dr. Adele Bergin

There were many questions but I will try to address each of them. There was a question on whether we have detected any change in the educational profile in Northern Ireland. When we examine the educational attainment of people between 25 and 29, we see an increase in the number of high attainers, or people with degrees, over time. The gap between the North and South has been narrowing somewhat, so we do see some convergence at the top end of the education distribution. The biggest gap is at the lower end. In the Republic in the past 20 years, we have seen levels of low educational achievement falling over time. The proportion of people with only a primary or lower secondary education has been coming down quite steadily over time whereas in Northern Ireland that percentage has remained constant. That is where we see the biggest gap.

There were a couple of questions on religion and religious ethos. In the work we did, namely the quantitative analysis, we were not able to separate out by religious background; however, as part of our work we interviewed a wide range of stakeholders. There was definitely a perception that working-class Protestant boys were more adversely impacted. Overall, our work highlights that segregation, through academic selection, into grammar and non-grammar schools is the main issue.

On the question relating to the wage premium, we find that returns to education in Ireland substantially exceed those in Northern Ireland at all levels of education. There is a gap of around 30 percentage points between the North and South. However, we find the gap is smallest in respect of the equivalent of post-leaving certificate qualifications. This could hint at an insufficient supply of post-leaving-certificate-type courses in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Sheelah Connolly

The first question was on cross-Border initiatives. It is correct that a number of them are up and running and appear to work very well. Included in these are the paediatric and cardiac services. Prior to Brexit, there was an EU directive that allowed people from the South to access healthcare in other European countries, including in the UK. Many went to Northern Ireland. At the same time, people from Northern Ireland were coming to Ireland to access services, often in private hospitals. We do not know what is going to happen in this regard. A temporary scheme was put in place after Brexit. It was to be available for a year. Whether it will proceed into the longer term, we do not know. We did not examine whether there is a specific impact on the waiting lists because we do not have the information where people are based, but it is probably marginal in terms of the big increase in waiting lists over time.

Senator Martin said eligibility criteria are becoming more similar and questioned what is happening with the systems in and of themselves. We did not consider that in the research but there is potentially a lesson for Ireland. Although we hear a lot about shortages of GPs in Ireland, most people here could access a general practitioner within a couple of days, at least before Covid. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, where people often have to wait two weeks for a GP appointment. There is a lesson in that regard. It is good to give people cheaper GP care if we can, but, if we do not have the required capacity, it can lead to very long waiting times, which is not very useful.

Senator Black asked about medical staff leaving. We did not examine that in the research; however, across the UK there is probably increasing interest in the issue of people who have been trained there leaving for other countries. Therefore, it is potentially an issue in the UK also.

Senator Clonan asked about disability. We had intended to include that in the research but unfortunately could not get comparable data across the jurisdictions to quantify what he referred to in respect of there being better service provision in the North relative to the South. The Senator is probably hitting on a wider issue, concerning a right to health, which exists in other European countries. It includes healthcare and disability services. This does not really exist in Ireland. We fund the services for those who cannot afford them, but in some other countries it is an entitlement. It is probably feeding into that.

Dr. Martina Lawless

If the Senators do not mind, I will group their questions, with one group on exports and another on foreign direct investment. On exports, we certainly have seen a major increase in cross-Border trade in goods since Brexit. I do not believe getting rid of any final checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would change that. I envisage that once firms have established links with one another, they will grow the associated market. We do not yet have any numbers on whether Brexit has impacted cross-Border services trade. Data on this tend to be a lot slower coming out.

There is certainly a case on the goods side that the restrictions with Great Britain have encouraged firms to look North and South for trade links. I see this continuing. The risk is more on the services side, which is not covered by the Northern Ireland protocol. This is where more disintegration could happen. We have not yet seen it happen because there is a lot of temporary recognition and continuation of market access on the services side but there are risks that diverging in standards or in recognition of qualifications or registrations could impact cross-border services trade.

There was a short-term and a long-term question on FDI. We have not really seen any hard data on a change in FDI into Northern Ireland. There were a lot of arguments that the special status of Northern Ireland would make it an attractive place for manufacturing FDI and that there would be access to both markets, but it has been a relatively short amount of time for investment. The degree of uncertainty about the protocol would limit this. It does not matter in a sense what the checks or documentation are for firms as long as there is certainty about what they are. This is the issue that would limit investment. Longer term, as Dr. McGuinness said, one of the key underpinnings of a lot of FDI investment is access to labour market skills. The FDI question and the education question are two sides of the same coin in terms of the potential for Northern Ireland and productivity growth and investment into Northern Ireland over time.

Professor Brendan O'Leary

In reply to the question of whether there should be a standing committee of both Houses I agree. This is what I proposed in speaking about a standing constitutional forum. A question was asked about ministerial preparation. Korea has had a Ministry of National Unification for a very long time. I will give a practical example. It has a women's unit, and one of my former PhD students is the head of that unit. It addresses all questions affecting women's rights and social policy. That is the type of ministry I believe we require. German reunification was a sudden unexpected surprise. There was some anticipatory constitutional preparation but Germany was not ministerially prepared for the momentous sudden changes imposed by unification. We have plenty of advance warning. Therefore we can get our houses in order much better.

I was asked whether I considered confederate and federal options. Yes, they are considered in the book. The argument against confederation is that it is strictly incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. To have a confederation we would have to have two sovereign independent states linked in a confederation across the island. The Good Friday Agreement allows for two options. These are the United Kingdom or a sovereign united Ireland. Strictly speaking, a confederation would be neither. I have no personal antipathy towards federations. I have worked to help create federations elsewhere in the world. What I can say is that two-unit federations have a disastrous track record. If we think about federalising Ireland we have to ask what would be the appropriate units. Would it be the four historic provinces? Would it be the 32 counties? Would it be new city regions? The moment we name the particular cities that would be the capitals of those regions, we will hear an outcry from all of those cities that are not named. In other words, there is no current consensus on the possible units that might make up a federal Ireland. As I have said, two-unit federations have very poor track record.

I want to reinforce Dr. McGuinness's reply on the debt question. In the break-up of states and secession the question of debts is always considered against the question of assets. In the break-up of the Soviet Union - I am not comparing the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union - the zero option was agreed. The Russian Federation took all of the debts and all of the assets on its territory and the new independent republics began their lives debt free but without some of important previously shared assets of the Soviet Union. These types of arrangements are definitely possible.

A range of other subjects are being investigated by my colleagues in Analysis and Research Ireland North and South, ARINS, on security, policing and future of foreign policy. I look forward to future occasions of this kind to discuss these matters. My colleagues will also address some of them in the session to come.

Chairman

I thank Professor O'Leary for joining us all the way from the United States. I will leave the last word to Professor Alan Barrett. Earlier he referred to T.K. Whitaker. The latter wrote a memo to the then Taoiseach on 11 November 1968 on this very topic of the issue of reunification. In it he said:

We were, therefore, left with only one choice, a policy of seeking unity in Ireland by agreement in Ireland between Irishmen. Of its nature this is a long-term policy, requiring patience, understanding and forbearance and resolute resistance to emotionalism and opportunism. It is none the less patriotic for that.

We all know that if they had listened to T.K. Whitaker on 11 November 1968, the half-century that followed might have been different. I call Professor Alan Barrett who is leading up the ESRI, the very institute that T.K. Whitaker founded.

Dr. Alan Barrett

My next remarks are in the spirit of Whitaker. Some of the questions have related to the idea of preparing. They are institutional questions on whether there should be committees. To give an overview on this, the Department of Finance and most treasuries throughout the world conduct ongoing exercises where they project their public finances in a forward-looking way and ask questions about how the public finances will evolve. This blew up in the United Kingdom only a week or two ago when a government chose to have a fiscal event and not have this sort of analytical underpinning. Typically, population ageing is the issue that is normally front and centre and treasuries try to work out the trajectory as people get older with regard to pensions and healthcare. Climate change is now featuring much more in these analyses, partly in the sense of the costs of actions. There is also a question about being successful in the green transition. This is what we will do when we lose all the fuel duty. The British are very conscious of this and show the difficulties it could create.

It strikes me that an obvious exercise for the Irish Department of Finance, as part of the overall forward-looking planning exercise, is to look at reunification as a possibility. I will move on and say quickly that just because people are looking at it, it does not mean they are in favour of it or insisting on it. One of the issues that consumes our Department of Finance is the corporation tax issue and the possibility of it declining in future years. Those in the Department think about this and plan for it. It does not mean they are hoping it will happen. These can be mechanical technical exercises. I am of the view that since this might happen it would be a good idea for the Department of Finance to integrate these considerations as part of its overall forward-looking exercises. As some of the questions have indicated, these are very technical issues that require detailed measurement and analysis of issues such as a minimum wage, combining the social welfare systems and the health systems. All of these matters require minute analytical firepower. This is a good place to do it. The idea of having parliamentary committees overseeing this is certainly very good but we need people getting in to the real roots of it. There is a reluctance because of the sensitivity of the issue but I urge people to put aside the sensitivities and start to treat technical issues and possible future events for what they are.

Chairman

On the note, I remember reading a comment by a professor who did research that policy neglect seldom goes unpunished. This is true of all policy no matter what the issue is. I thank the ESRI for its input.

We will now move on to the ARINS project. This is a joint project with the Royal Irish Academy. It is an all-island body and includes the Keough-Naughton Institute for Irish Studies at Notre Dame's Keough School of Global Affairs, which is a research institute of international standing. It seeks to engage experts across the spectrum on disciplines and perspectives of all points of view. Professor John Doyle of DCU and ARINS will make an introductory statement and give a brief summary of the DCU submission to the public consultation.

Professor Jane Suiter from DCU will make an opening statement on the role of citizens’ assemblies. Professor Oran Doyle from Trinity College Dublin will make an opening statement on the franchise in future referendums. We then have Professor Joanne McEvoy from Aberdeen University, who will make an opening statement on how to maximise inclusion in the constitution discussion. At this point, I will bring in Mr. Gunther Thurmann, who is the senior economist at the Germany desk of the International Monetary Fund during German reunification. We are running over time and Mr. Thurmann has to get a flight. We all know the challenges of Dublin Airport, which is another policy that we might look at, but not in this particular committee at this particular time.

I call Professor John Doyle to make the opening remarks for Analysing and Researching Ireland, North and South, ARINS.

Professor John Doyle

I am the vice president of research in Dublin City University. DCU is very thankful to receive an invitation to present our submission, but we decided to share our time with the ARINS project so a broader range of researchers from universities across the island and indeed, from the US and Scotland, were able to take part. We thought hearing more voices here would be better. I thank the Chair and his staff for their flexibility.

ARINS is a joint collaboration between the Royal Irish Academy and the University of Notre Dame. The effort involves researchers across the entire island, North and South, and every institution there. We are nonpartisan as to what the constitution outcome should be. There are people with different views and people’s whose views I do not know. However, we are united that a referendum conducted like the Brexit referendum in the UK, where nobody knew what they were voting for or what the consequence would be, would be a disaster. No matter what happened or which way it went, it would be a disaster in either case.

Our view is that now is the time to do that research and to begin that discussion. It is established that Ireland does not control the timing of a possible referendum. That legal duty is exclusively with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, we are required to have a concordant referendum in this State if the British move first. We do not control the timing and there is little incentive on the British Government to do that preparation in advance. The responsibility, therefore, falls on the Irish State to do so.

There are other reasons for doing it now. In addition to the fact that we do not control the timing, we know from opinion polling that there has been a significant change in opinion inside Northern Ireland in the aftermath of Brexit. It was fairly clear from opinion polls that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland was divided more or less down the middle on the timing of a referendum on Irish unity, with approximately half of the nationalist community wanting to go slowly, to summarise it. Post Brexit, one can see, those who identify as Irish or vote for the two nationalist parties are almost unanimous in their desire for a relatively rapid referendum and upwards of 95% would vote for one, even if it was held tomorrow without that preparation.

The other significant change is the middle ground. Approximately 17% or 18% of Northern Ireland, which was almost exclusively pragmatically pro-UK membership until Brexit and identified in other ways, is now clearly from opinion polls divided three ways: those who have made up their minds to support a united Ireland, though they might vote for the Alliance Party or Green Party or whatever; those who would vote to remain in the UK; but the largest chunk of approximately 40% genuinely do not know. Opinion polls and focus groups have found that they want to know what it would look in practice. They will not vote on the basis on identity politics, by and large. They want to know about the healthcare system, the economy and the education system. There is a requirement on this State to do that preparation. For those who wish to advocate for a united Ireland, with my view based on the opinion polling, such a referendum would not pass unless people know what they are voting for, in addition to it not being wise.

Over the past two years, ARINS has published 30 full-length peer-reviewed research papers on a range of activities, including one on the governance of policing, but also on living standards, the economy and healthcare. The committee will see a selection of those today. Much as been done compared to two years ago and we are in better place. However, as has often been said in the political world, there is lots still to be done.

The Scottish Government published 1,000 pages of, effectively, a prospectus before the 2014 referendum. Nobody said it was too long - all of the complaints were that it did not have detail on currency, pensions and those issues. We certainly have lots more to do, however, there is enough there now for that debate to begin.

Certainly, in terms of the research programme within DCU, it is our view that an Oireachtas committee would be a good idea, not least because it is highly unlikely that this process towards Irish unity would take place in any one parliamentary term and, therefore, any Government of the day is unlikely to be the one to start and finish it, unless it happens very unexpectedly. Insofar as possible, all-party consensus on some of the crucial issues, for example, healthcare or economics, might be prudent as well as useful at that time.

My work as been on the subvention, which is my particular contribution. In response to Senator Currie, the question on debt is relevant here of course – that debt would remain the liability of the UK. If we chose to pay any, it would have to be because we got a better deal in some other aspect of negotiations. However, legally, no part of that would move to a sovereign Ireland. The question of pensions is much more negotiable. It has been my argument that the UK would be likely to continue to pay pensions in the same way as many people in Ireland receive a UK pension, having worked some or all of their life there. English citizens can go to the south of Spain and receive their pension. The chances of walking away from public sector pensions, in particular, would seem very unlikely. Therefore, the subvention, rather than being the often quoted £10 billion figure, is much closer to £2.5 billion to £3 billion. However, there is a debate there and our paper clarifies those issues that are up for negotiation in the aftermath.

Over the next while, the committee will hear snapshots of a range of papers. The overall message is that the time to prepare is now. That needs to be based on solid research and evidence where we can clarify issues, such as living standards, and other ones where we can simply give best practice where there is not a definitive answer. Nonetheless, information can be put into the public domain.

Professor Jane Suiter

I am here to talk about citizens’ assemblies. Of course, we have all heard a growing chorus advancing the idea of an all-island assembly prior to any referendum. As Professor John Doyle said, the central insight is that nobody wants a rerun of Brexit, where people did not know what they were voting for. However, I have to caution that we need to be careful and cautious about this. Citizens’ assemblies and other deliberative methods are no panacea. There are significant risks, as well as opportunities, which are heightened in a divided society. They are heightened further when the political issue at stake is one of identity.

We all know the advantages, especially down here, because we have the assemblies. They are potentially multifaceted. They can help counter elite manipulation and they can facilitate perspective taking and empathy-building, both of which will be very important. They can increase reflection and deliver systematic improvements in democratic outcomes. The problem is that we have to remember that the two principles at the heart of assemblies in deliberation are inclusion and moderation, which are vital. Inclusion means that any decision-making process must include, on equal terms, all those subject to its decisions. Moderation means that if we enter into such a process, we must be prepared to moderate our claims in the face of opposing views of our fellow participants. These are difficult conditions to meet in any world, but they are particularly difficult to meeting when they are deliberating in a divided society.

On top of that, good deliberation takes planning. There are many people who think that it is just not possible and that it could backfire. If it did backfire, it could inflame sectarian conflict. The best way forward is to first hold assemblies on both parts of the island separately, possibly with different lanes. Give people the opportunity to listen to one another from either side, much as members have been doing down here in their own deliberations. In that way, there could be an overarching assembly as well as a Norther Ireland-only forum where they bring in voices from people here. They can have them with different topics. We can also hold an assembly in the South. We need to discuss all the policy implications that we have been hearing about here, but we also need to discuss other kinds of issues, such as identity, where we have seen with polling that people have unrealistic expectations about not changing constitutions, not changing anthems and so on and so forth. All of that needs to be open to deliberative scrutiny. We need to remember that we must be inclusive and we must be open to moderation. That means, in the first instance, having at least two assemblies and then building towards an all-island version.

Chairman

I call Professor Oran Doyle from Trinity College Dublin, who will make a statement on the franchise in future referendums.

Professor Oran Doyle

I thank the committee for the invitation. Irish unification requires referendums, North and South. However, who would be allowed to vote? Christopher McCrudden from Queen’s University, David Kenny from Trinity and myself looked at the franchise rules on both sides of the Border to try to work out what the franchise for referendums would likely be and how the franchises on either side would match up with each other.

We felt that in the South it is almost certain that the existing constitutional amendment franchise would be used. This includes Irish citizens over the age of 18 ordinarily resident in the State. The real focus and where there are possibilities for taking different approaches is in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Agreement refers to the people of Northern Ireland but does not say who they are for the purpose of voting in the referendum. It is left to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to determine who gets to vote.

There are two basic ways of doing this. The Secretary of State could use one of the existing franchises in Northern Ireland or could design a new one. There are two existing franchises, namely, the Stormont franchise and the Westminster franchise. The main difference is that the Stormont franchise includes EU citizens while the Westminster franchise does not. It is possible this might change post Brexit, but it is not straightforward to change it. The main choice among existing franchises is whether to include EU citizens. Alternatively, the Secretary of State could choose to design a new franchise. Doing so, however, would involve engaging in many contentious issues around citizenship, residency and age requirements. Decisions on all these issues would be viewed through the prism of the forthcoming referendums. Each side would wonder whether expanding the franchise was going to make it more likely that they would win or lose. Therefore, there is a real risk that the debate over the franchise would become a proxy fight over the substantive issue itself, perhaps distracting attention from the important planning issues that must be engaged in. It could also undermine the perceived legitimacy of any outcome if one side felt it was secured by changing the franchise rules.

Therefore, in our work, while acknowledging the strong arguments existing for a more inclusive franchise, we recommended that the better approach would be to go with one of the two existing franchises that apply, either the Stormont franchise or the Westminster franchise. This might at least give more respect for the outcome if people felt they already had a way of deciding on who gets to vote on important issues and they would just use that way. The other issue we examined were anomalies or apparent anomalies that might emerge when we match up the franchises on both sides of the Border. It is much easier for prisoners to vote in the South than it is in the North. Irish citizens would get to vote on the referendum in Northern Ireland, but British citizens would not get to vote on the referendum in the South. Some people might think that is inconsistent. There is also the possibility that people might be able to vote in both jurisdictions, for example, if they were resident in Dundalk and west Belfast simultaneously, which is quite possible and legitimate. People in that situation would then be voting in referendums on both sides of the Border. Is this an anomaly that should be addressed? We left those questions open and did not provide answers.

Chairman

I thank Professor Doyle for that brief but very insightful view of the challenges facing us regarding referendums. I call Dr. McEvoy from Aberdeen University, who will talk about how to maximise inclusion in the constitutional discussion.

Dr. Joanne McEvoy

I will highlight some findings from collaborative research undertaken by Professor Jennifer Todd and Dr. Don Walsh of University College Dublin, UCD, and me, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs reconciliation fund and the Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South, ARINS, project, as well as from a more recent project undertaken by Professor Todd and me, supported by the Irish Research Council, IRC, and the shared island unit. This research sought to investigate more radical forms of participation in constitutional discussion where people would have a role in setting the agenda. Therefore, it would not simply involve the voicing of a preference on preset constitutional choices but asking people what would be important for them to talk about if they had the opportunity to set the agenda on the constitutional discussion. This aspect is especially important in the post-Brexit context and in the context in both jurisdictions of increasingly diverse populations.

We engaged with these diverse voices across these different projects, with two parallel projects initially in the North and South, and then a subsequent project. This engagement included focus groups with grassroots community organisations and interviews with community activists and politicians. Our research shows a strong interest in bread-and-butter socioeconomic issues and a surprisingly low concern with issues of institutional forms or models, for example, the debate around an integrated or devolved united Ireland. Our respondents wanted to participate in constitutional discussion, so it is not the case they were not keen to participate. They did want, however, to change the questions in that endeavour or at least the way into the discussion. We think this is an important finding for how things might proceed.

Participants said that conventional discussions are abstract and ideological and almost predetermine the outcome of an equally important process that should take place earlier before we get to talking about models. This earlier process, upstream in the process of constitutional discussion, should be very deliberative and evidence-based. There was also an emphasis across the different groups we engaged with and across these various projects on the need to avoid polarised debate. From this research, we have five suggestions.

First, there needs to be the provision of unbiased information. Participants frequently commented that nobody knows what a united Ireland might look like. Some highlighted the dangers of proceeding towards a referendum without proper information and without thinking through the consequences. Second, accountability needs to be built into the process. The discussion must have a purpose and an impact for citizens and not just lead to reports that are then, they fear, stuck in filing cabinets. Suggested ways to enhance accountability for our participants included mentions of citizens' assemblies, civic forums and academic research. Third, there needs to be far-reaching discussion and participation. Our research participants emphasised the need to take time, not to rush and to facilitate plenty of deliberation before any vote. There could, for example, be a network of local community-based deliberative events, small in scale, that joined up in some way. This would maximise public participation from diverse backgrounds across the island and in different localities. Fourth, there is a need for open-ended conversations around constitutional issues rather than divisive debates over binary options that might provoke or risk knee-jerk responses. Fifth, reshaping the agenda and process will mean quite radical public engagement but also accountability of policy decisions and changing inherent practices of policymaking. This will require multiple arenas of discussion, from the local to the all-island, and multiple channels of accountability and feedback between citizens and policy.

Mr. Gunther Thumann

I thank the committee for the honour of allowing me to be here. I think I am a bit out of the ordinary because I do not represent academia or politics or anything. I am a senior citizen sharing some thoughts from the past. I thank the committee for bringing me forward in the queue. I hope the next contributor will not suffer from this change because we may overlap.

Just a few days ago, on 3 October 2022, the German people celebrated reunification. They were remembering the events that took place in late 1989 and early 1990. At that time, more than 30 years ago, I worked at the International Monetary Fund, IMF. I was sitting on the German Desk, so I was closely involved in the discussions the IMF had with the German authorities during 1990. Moreover, later in the 1990s, I had the opportunity to have several private discussions with then Chancellor Helmut Kohl on the political background of unification. Looking back at that context, I wish to share a few thoughts.

Clearly, German unification is not a blueprint for Irish unification. This is clear. Therefore, I want to be very careful not to overstate any comparisons. Nevertheless, I think the German experience may provide some insights for the committee. More detailed comment will follow on this specific point, so I will leave it to one side. I will instead focus on one particular insight, which is the cost aspect of unification. I will first highlight some insights that I think we can gain from the cost of German unification. I also wish to report on some numerical exercises I did regarding the costs of Irish unification.

Looking back to the cost aspect of German unification, three points stand out. First, costs played little if any role on the political level in late 1989 and early 1990. That may be surprising. Costs were not discussed in the discussions with the IMF. In late 1990, we published an occasional paper that covered all aspects of unification but one will not find costs being discussed, which may be surprising.

Second, after unification had become a reality, costs did turn into a hot topic politically, in academic circles and among the public, especially in West Germany. However, despite all the debate and effort, there was a failure to put a firm number on the cost of German unification. Even today, there is no generally agreed point estimate for those costs. A journalist summed it up nicely in an article published in Süddeutsche Zeitung in October 2012, stating that the price of reunification amounts to between €1 billion and €2.5 billion but, presumably, nobody knows that with precision. Even more recently, in 2019 the scientific service of the German Parliament wrote that the costs of German reunification are difficult to calculate. I thought that would be interesting for the committee, maybe as a bit of a warning not to over-emphasise the cost as it is very difficult to figure it out. As regards the reference to a point estimate, when we look at the ranges the situation is a bit different. Colleagues from the IMF published another paper in 1995 in which they stated the costs were probably between 4% and 5% of pan-German GDP. There is a range and I think it is a reasonable one.

I now turn to what I studied on the costs of Irish unification. It has been suggested that the fiscal deficit of Northern Ireland could serve as a proxy measure but, as Congressman Brendan Boyle pointed out in a report published a couple of years ago to which reference was made earlier this afternoon, the fiscal deficit contains certain expenditure that will not be relevant in a united Ireland context, such as public sector debt interest or defence expenditure, which were mentioned a few times. In the calculations performed by Brendan Boyle, excluding these items reduces the deficit substantially to €5 billion from $9.2 billion. That relates to the fiscal year 2013-14. A footnote here is that those were data available in 2016. If one looks at the latest publications of the Office for National Statistics, ONS, those numbers have changed because of revisions, so there is an additional problem using deficit measures because of statistical revisions. They are roughly €1 billion higher now. More recently, based on the report of Congressman Boyle, I experimented with additional statistical adjustments which resulted in the adjusted Northern Ireland fiscal balance going down even further. One can actually make that approach zero, depending on the detail of how one treats the expenditure. My take from this statistical exercise is that the Northern Ireland fiscal deficit, even with sensible adjustments on the expenditure side, may not be a very suitable measure for the costs of Irish unification. The main and deeper reason is that under unification I would assume that the economic and fiscal structure of Northern Ireland will change, probably significantly so, and this change will be the result of policy implementations in the context of unification. That does not really allow one to use fiscal deficit measures as proxies for unification costs. It is a bit unsatisfactory that I did not make more progress. I was thinking about whether there are other approaches, and there are. I am far over my allotted time, however.

Chairman

Mr. Thumann will be asked questions on that shortly, so he might address the issue in his replies.

Mr. Gunther Thumann

Okay. I will stop there. I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

I will now move to Senators. Does Senator Currie wish to ask a question?

Senator Emer Currie

I am still cooking my questions. I thank Mr. Thumann and our other guests for their remarks, the feedback on debt and subvention, pointing out that there is so much we can remove and that, from a historical perspective, the precedent is there in respect of debt. My question relates to citizens' assemblies. In the view of Professor McEvoy, what is the best approach, taking on board that we have so many people to bring with us but we have also so much work to do in respect of gathering information to put before any kind of forum? In his experience, what is the best approach? Last week, we heard from Ulster University about how research was done among women in the North and how much they appreciated a community deliberation on this issue. My question relates to the political structures and civic and deliberative democracy as a whole.

Senator Mark Wall

I thank our contributors. I will concentrate on a question I have for Professor Doyle. He mentioned franchise, but we have had many contributions from young people. Are we isolating 16- to 18-year-olds by not considering them, or have they been considered in his research? It seems that they have a valid opinion and an argument to make for both sides. I ask him to comment on whether he has done that and to offer his views on it. What has his research shown in that regard? Nobody wants to compromise any outcome, and I know we all want that, but are we leaving behind a large cohort of people who should have a say?

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Those are two good questions. My question is for any of our guests. In terms of a transitional period, there has been reference to the economics, the subvention and economic stimulus and the importance of that. How should we look towards international solidarity and some kind of stimulus package? We know that a reunified Ireland would be taken back into the EU. Is there a case to be made for a substantial solidarity package from the EU? People spoke previously about varying degrees of shock to the economy and society. How key would things such as infrastructural projects be within that period? To where should we look for that kind of international solidarity and support, financially and economically?

Senator Vincent P. Martin

Professor Suiter stated that the clear preference would be for a citizens' assembly in the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties. That would be the ideal situation. Another option would be a citizens' assembly in the Twenty-six Counties alone but I am not at all enthusiastic about that in the context of a decision being made for the island. Is there a third option? If there is, has she considered it? What happens if we try and try again but there is no prospect of the British Government co-operating with input into a citizens' assembly?

Can she make a third recommendation as a way forward so that no one stops a constitutional and peaceful march forward? Could we tweak our legislation and use imagination to have a random selection from the Six Counties to do that in a fair way whereby it is vetted with regard to the demographic and political background? Is there an option C?

My next question is for Professor John Doyle. Did his group make a recommendation? If he is going with the more inclusive Stormont franchise, would it not necessitate being generous and inclusive in Ireland, in the Twenty-six Counties, to extend the franchise to British citizens? We are then into the complexities because it would require a constitutional referendum as a prerequisite to doing that.

My final question is to Mr. Thumann. Reunification in Germany was meteorically and miraculously fast; it happened at huge pace. Brexit was a disaster. Is there a lot of study on German reunification as to how they pulled that off? Were there early days when it was on a knife edge? It all happened so blindingly fast for such a big call to be made, with the Bundestag and the chamber.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank everyone for their contributions. I am very reassured to hear Professor John Doyle say this is something we must talk about because, in my experience as a journalist and lately as a politician, there are so many people who push back in the Republic and who will say, “Now is not the time to talk about this because you are going to frighten people.” To me, that is like saying to the cabin crew on an Aer Lingus flight, “Do not do the safety demonstration because you will frighten the passengers.” It is something we need to do.

I am mindful of my experience of conflict here, in the Middle East and in the former Yugoslavia. I imagine there are at least 1 million people on this island who are very frightened and very unsure, so how do we get them or encourage them to engage in this process, and how do we help and accelerate that engagement? It is a question for everybody.

Senator Ó Donnghaile got in ahead of me with one question. When I was in Bosnia at the end of that conflict, apart from everything else, one of the things that struck me was the amount that Europe threw at the former Yugoslavia as a peace project and that it has done since. I know Mr. Thumann was careful to point out that it is not strictly analogous but there are some people in the Republic who compare Ireland, North and South, with East and West Germany. I do not think it is analogous. Based on my experience, we are more analogous with Bosnia and the rise of ethnic nationalism. Sadly and tragically, following Brexit that rhetoric has increased and that narrative has regained traction. Again, the question would be: aside from the subvention and the debt, what is the likelihood of Europe and possibly the United States investing in whatever solution we arrive at?

Senator Frances Black

I am sitting here thinking it is wonderful to have so many academics speaking about this today and so many who are working on this issue. I want to pay tribute to the late author of the ARINS paper on policing, Dr. Vicky Conway, who recently passed. I want to pay credit to her. She was a phenomenal human being and it is such a shame that she is not here with us today.

Professor John Doyle mentioned the importance of voters being informed on what they are voting for. What does he think the Government and the Oireachtas can do to support that aim?

It was inspiring and welcome that 16- and 17-year-olds were able to vote on Scottish independence in the referendum. What are Professor Oran Doyle's thoughts on that? Could that be implemented in a border poll scenario? Those are my two questions.

Chairman

I will bring in Professor John Doyle last to wrap up this session on the ARINS group. I call Professor Jane Suiter, who spoke about citizens’ assemblies.

Professor Jane Suiter

It is interesting. All the Senators are talking almost about the same thing but in different ways, which is great. When I was talking about citizens’ assemblies and other deliberative events in Northern Ireland, the idea is that we would have a range of them. There can be very local, community-based events and women-only ones. There can be ones that are citywide or in different regions, or they could be about different issues and, therefore, they do not all have to be about the constitutional issue. One good way into it in Northern Ireland is to have them about some of the issues we heard about from the ESRI, for example, what do we do about educational disadvantage, what do we do about social issues, and get people thinking about that sort of thing. That is building up a deliberative culture in Northern Ireland. We are much more used to it in the South because we have had our citizens’ assemblies and so on.

Part of that feeds through to what Senator Martin was saying in that we are not necessarily saying there needs to be a constitutional citizens’ assembly in Northern Ireland that the British Government is going to convene. It is almost impossible because they cannot do it unless the unionist parties agree to go into it, and they would almost certainly operate a veto. Nonetheless, the idea of trying to build a deliberative culture of having different spaces and different venues is that one could end up with a Northern Ireland group which is actually looking at that group, but one would have to insist on the principle of inclusion, so one would need to have unionist voices, non-unionist voices, nationalist voices and so on. That is part of the way of bringing in those people who are frightened. People who are frightened tend to withdraw and they also tend to a more Hobbesian view of the world, and almost tend towards more authoritarian solutions. One of the ways to include people who are frightened is to bring them into non-threatening situations, such as local community deliberative events, talking about issues that really matter to them, rather than abstract constitutional issues first of all.

Chairman

Senator, I mean Professor, Oran Doyle-----

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

There is time yet.

Chairman

I know. There are a few people here who are in line for a Seanad seat, no doubt. Professor Oran Doyle gave us an interesting insight into the franchise. People raise the issue of the Scottish independence referendum, where the franchise expanded from the UK Referendum Act to include 16- and 17-year-olds. Professor Doyle might wish to respond to the Senators’ questions.

Professor Oran Doyle

Let me respond to the three questions collectively. There are clearly strong arguments for including younger people in franchises generally. The Venice Commission, which looks at these sorts of things, recommends against making any changes to referendum rules within 12 months of the referendum. The concerns we had about people perceiving the referendum rules being set up to secure particular outcomes are stronger the closer the change in rules happens to the referendum and, therefore, if we did want 16- and 17-year-olds and EU citizens to have a right to vote in ultimate referendums, in the South we would need to secure constitutional amendments to that effect. If that were done now, it would be reasonably possible to say that if this comes around in five or ten years, that would be the franchise that people would be used to. The question then is whether we are trying to match them or trying to anticipate what would happen in the North. A footnote I should put in is that the Good Friday Agreement was done on the basis of the Westminster franchise, not the local government franchise in Northern Ireland, so EU citizens were not allowed to vote then.

I will say one thing about citizens’ assemblies. In thinking about them, it is worthwhile thinking not on the issue of whether there should be unification, but separating out various aspects that would need to be considered, whether around health provision or devolution, and so on. That is a way of informing thinking about what the offer from the Irish Government should be and what the model should be, in terms of Professor O'Leary's presentation. I would just add in that dimension as well.

Chairman

I call Professor McEvoy from Aberdeen University to discuss the issue of maximising inclusion in the constitutional discussion. Would she like to respond to that?

Dr. Joanne McEvoy

I thank the Senators for the questions. I am probably going to pick up on some of what has been said. Around the question of what might be a way forward, what is the best approach and where we go from here, what the participants were saying to us in our research feeds into that kind of process and options. They talked about the need for lots of information around expertise, academic research and so on. They were keen on participating and welcomed participation.

They want participation to be fully inclusive and far-reaching. That probably taps into some of the potential ways in which you could do this through the sequencing of very locally based deliberative events. What people want to talk about is more related to bread-and-butter socioeconomic issues. I refer to the policy issues that matter to their everyday lives rather than the high politics of big constitutional questions, which they regard as very abstract and ideological and that can bring about fears, sensitivities and emotions based on memories of the past. There are ways to create the comfortable space that allows people to talk about the issues they feel are important to them. It is important to ask people what they want to talk about and need to know. It is only in doing so that we can help design some kind of sequencing of events, participatory constitutionalism and inclusive ways forward.

It is worth thinking about the channels of communication between citizens, grassroots organisations and policymakers. Citizens and grassroots organisations were telling us in our research that they welcomed these conversations but asked what happens with them and where the information goes in order to be fed into policy. People asked how they could critique the policy and what an iterative process that allows citizens to give feedback on what policy looks like. There are no clear, easy answers, but widespread participation and asking people what they regard as their main priorities and what they need to know is a starting point.

Chairman

I thank Professor McEvoy. I now call Mr. Thumann. Given his insight into German reunification, he might give us his advice on and insight into the ongoing debate here.

Mr. Gunther Thumann

The pace of reunification was very fast, as the Chairman said. In a bit more than nine months, it was all done. Was there ever a problem with it breaking down? From my observations, I do not think so. One reason is that there was a lot of enthusiasm for reunification, not only in West Germany but also in East Germany. That is important. One area in which there was a risk of derailment concerned the Two plus Four talks, which involved the four allied powers – the United States, the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom – plus East Germany and West Germany. Chancellor Kohl said to me he was worried that the Two plus Four process might derail unification or at least weaken reunification because not all of the allies were very happy with Germany being reunited. It is probably not widely known that Chancellor Kohl said he needed to prevent any problems with the Two plus Four process by front-running. Therefore, he first talked to George Bush, who said he had no problem with reunification and to go ahead. The chancellor then went to Mr. Gorbachev and asked whether a deal could be worked out. They did work one out. Therefore, Mr. Kohl now had the two major powers on his side. Then he went to Paris and talked to Mr. François Mitterrand. That was a bit more difficult but he convinced him not to make any problems. Mr. Kohl said he did not talk to Ms Margaret Thatcher anymore because he thought she would not agree. I remember that if there was a risk, it was with the Two plus Four, but Mr. Helmut Kohl, through his outstanding politics, prevented it.

One needs to say that Mr. Kohl was such a driving force. He was so convinced that reunification should happen. He once said to me he did not really care about the reunification costs. He said that the benefits, about which we had not talked much, were so great that they should go ahead no matter what they were. He was very much a driving force.

Before political unification happened, in October 1990, there was something called German economic, monetary and social union. It is not widely known about but it was an important intermediate step. In May and June of 1990, the West German and East German politicians sat down and did something that someone called forward-looking planning earlier. Maybe the members would like to look at the discussions on economic, monetary and social union. They were quite detailed. A vote was taken and there was a treaty, which became effective on 1 July 1990. Before the political part, considerable time and effort were devoted to working out detailed measures concerning what needed to be done, but in a political context. In addition, there was all the research, by the civil servants at any rate.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Thumann for his insight into the only benchmark we have for reunification. No two unification processes can be compared. The circumstances of Cyprus, Korea, Germany and Ireland are vastly different but the theme coming across is the requirement for planning. I am reminded of the fact that West Germany had a Ministry for reunification from 1949 and that, despite 50 years of preparation, it was just not prepared. It goes back to the point that policy neglect seldom goes unpunished.

I thank everybody for their contributions. I now call Professor Heenan from Ulster University, who will talk about cross-border health co-operation.

Professor Deirdre Heenan

I thank the committee for the invitation. It is very rare to hear people so delighted to see so many academics in the one room. That is generally not my experience.

I want to talk about cross-Border health. It has been identified as a key area of increased co-operation in the North and South for two decades. The research I want to talk about provides an overview of this policy area. It aimed to identify the key themes in this significant but poorly understood policy area. It is not advocating any particular constitutional position but assessing whether further co-operation has the potential to improve health outcomes on this island. Covid-19 pushed this issue up the policy agenda and reminded us frequently that disease knows no borders. The research was based on in-depth interviews with 49 individuals working in the area in the North and South. They included policymakers, hospital consultants, academics and professional bodies.

In the research, there were a number of recurring themes. First, there was overwhelming support for increased collaboration. Co-operation, collaboration and multidisciplinary working were viewed as natural in healthcare. In fact, they were referred to as the DNA of healthcare. People were not asking "Why would you?" but "Why would you not?". Of course, there was a belief that co-operation could introduce economies of scale, ensure value for money and allow specialisation on this small island. History tells us it can attract universal political support. The North West Cancer Centre is one example and the All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network is another.

Second, there was concern that an overarching strategy framework to support this policy area is lacking. Who is driving this? This is a significant obstacle to progress. It is not deemed a policy priority in the North or South. Medics, in particular, say that, without a proper strategy, this area of policy is actually driven by well-meaning, committed individuals with their informal networks, and they describe it as pushing water up a hill.

We have all heard about how exhausted our healthcare professionals are and that they are burnt out. How can we expect them to find the time in their working day to do this as well? They mentioned co-operation and working together, CAWT, which attracted great praise, but they also felt that was a kind of get-out-of-jail clause for both Governments to say, "Look over here at CAWT. Look at what we are doing". In fact, it is not mainstreamed but is project and time specific. There were pros and cons to CAWT, which is important.

The third issue was the sharing of knowledge and an absence of a vehicle on this island for the dissemination of knowledge and good practice. How do we know what is happening? How do we know what someone else is doing? How can we form partnerships when there is no way of having up-to-date information on research projects and what people are interested in?

Fourth, data sharing is a recurring theme in working across borders. The data infrastructure on this island is described as weak, which makes meaningful comparisons very difficult. There is no common language and progress, although much talked about, was described as glacial.

One area for future co-operation that was probably mentioned most repeatedly was mental health. People asked whether we really believed that mental health issues are different in Derry compared with Donegal. Have we learned nothing from Covid-19 in terms of online platforms, chatbots, how we can use our information, and that we do not necessarily have to physically be in the same space to share that information and share our expertise? People also talked about public health, rare diseases, transplant surgeries, training and education as areas for future collaboration.

There was a desire to tackle issues and a mutual concern around ageing societies, suicide levels and mental illness. There was a belief that working together can bring benefits, that we are facing similar issues, and that working together can enhance knowledge and drive progress. Even though there was frustration at the lack of impetus, there was also a belief that there is scope with cross-Border or all-island collaboration to make a real difference to the health outcomes of people living on this island.

Chairman

Dr. Fitzpatrick from Ulster University will talk about the welfare systems North and South. She is most welcome.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

The respective states of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have more in common than what divides them when it comes to the social security system. This creates opportunities and challenges, which must be given adequate academic and political attention in preparation for reunification.

Our paper did not seek to undertake a like for like comparison due to the extent of the divergences in the legislative structures of both systems and disparities in household entitlement owing to the complexity of unemployed people's lives. In addition, this endeavour is further complicated by the interaction of a completely different healthcare system, which may absorb or generate additional costs for claimants and render such a comparison meaningless. Rather, we concentrated on the ideological drivers of both systems, which have incrementally moved towards an activation approach that seeks to maximise participation in the labour market and change individual patterns of behaviour. Yet, the policy measures introduced in the past two decades in the Republic of Ireland have not been as severe as those implemented in Great Britain. We have seen a clear example of that in the past couple of weeks when we had speculation around whether the UK Government will raise benefits in line with inflation compared with the Irish Government's decision to provide citizens with an extra €48 per week for support.

We assert that a constitutional reunification process provides an opportunity to build a new welfare state system from the ground up, prioritising the social, economic and cultural rights of a contemporary society that can be enshrined in a legislative framework that embodies dignity, respect and a minimum standard of income for all, which can improve societal participation for the marginalised. We considered the current co-ordination efforts on matters of social welfare contained in the common travel area and while we recognised what works well and what does not, we also acknowledge the considerable gap between co-ordination of two distinct systems and the formation of whole-island approach in the case of reunification. This will necessitate difficult conversations on the shape of a new system. For example, would it involve the assimilation of the Northern Ireland social security system into that of the Republic and be reordered accordingly? Would there be a gradual phasing out of the northern system involving an asymmetric arrangement where the North retains devolved autonomy in the social welfare sphere? Would there be a new system that signals a break with the previous two utilised on either side of the Border, with an adjoining mission statement? Answering all these questions will require going back to the very basics and revisiting normative questions, such as, what is social security? If we do not get that right, the utopian vision could be greatly compromised.

Chairman

Professor Dickson from Queen's University Belfast will talk about human rights.

Professor Brice Dickson

My analysis of the ways in which human rights are currently protected in the two parts of Ireland shows that people living in Northern Ireland should have little to fear from a united or shared Ireland, provided that two key principles are adhered to during the unification process. First, there should be no regression in the way people living in the North have their human rights protected at present. Second, everyone living in a united Ireland should have their human rights protected to the same extent. In short, there should be a levelling-up approach. This would be in line with the promise made by the Irish Government in the Good Friday Agreement, whereby it will bring forward measures to ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as pertains in Northern Ireland.

At present, human rights in Northern Ireland are principally protected under the common law and the UK's Human Rights Act 1998, while in Ireland they are principally protected under the 1937 Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, which is similar but not identical to the UK's Act. In Northern Ireland, higher courts can declare secondary legislation to be invalid, if it is incompatible with the European convention. In Ireland, higher courts can declare any legislation or common law rule to be invalid if it is repugnant to the Constitution, but they cannot declare any legislation to be invalid merely because it is incompatible with the European convention.

In practice, the extent of human rights protection in Ireland is largely comparable to that in Northern Ireland, although Ireland's membership of the EU ensures that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights plays a greater part there than in the North. Moreover, Northern Ireland has weaker anti-discrimination laws then Ireland or the rest of the UK. Both jurisdictions have statutory human rights commissions to advise their respective governments and in both jurisdictions social and economic rights are less well protected than civil and political rights.

In a united Ireland, the Government would be obliged under customary international law to extend to people in the North the rights already conferred on people in the South under treaties and protocols ratified by Ireland. That would mean extending the Istanbul Convention on domestic violence and violence against women, four of the UN's complaints systems and one of the Council of Europe's complaints systems. Likewise, unless expressly provided for in the unification treaty, people in the North would lose out on the protection they currently enjoy under two UN protocols, one on torture and the other on some children's rights, under the UN complaints system on disability issues, and under the European charter on languages.

Chairman

Professor Lock will make a statement on the lessons of German unification.

Professor Tobias Lock

I thank the committee for the invitation. I will restrict myself to four points that emerged from my research on lessons for Ireland from German unification.

Apologies to everybody but obviously this is a lawyer's assessment. The first lesson is that reunification is not a purely domestic process but a process that happens in an international setting. Reunification would require international negotiations to be carried out, most notably bilateral ones between Ireland and the UK, but also multilateral ones at EU level. The German experience suggests that the bilateral negotiations with the UK may well go beyond the technicalities of a sovereignty transfer. For instance, the Soviet Union - which I do not want to compare to the UK either - secured a guarantee that its land reforms, which were carried out after the Second World War and which were basically expropriations of big landowners, could not be challenged legally into perpetuity. Likewise, the UK might ask Ireland to commit to certain protections for its citizens or for those with a British heritage, which even subsequent constitutional amendments cannot remove.

The second point is that ambitions of constitutional reform can derail easily. There is a lot of talk about a new Ireland, and many people seem to assume that Irish unity would result in fundamental constitutional change. German reunification left the German constitution largely unamended. Time pressures and a lack of political appetite meant that the ambitions of a new constitution, harboured in particular by many in East Germany, did not materialise. The compromise found was to commit to a constitutional review on the treaty on unity between East and West Germany, but that review ended up producing not much change at all. The consequence has been that Germany continues to be governed by the old West German constitution to this day.

Third, the unification of two legal orders is a gigantic task and techniques employed in the German context could be usefully employed in Ireland. It would be impractical for a united Ireland to operate two entirely different legal orders into the future. Hence, a merger would most probably need to happen as it did in Germany. In Germany the direction of travel was very clear and evident. East German law was ditched and replaced with West German law, but the choices in the Irish context would not be so obvious. For instance, who is to say that Irish family law as it is is evidently better than its Northern Irish equivalent? Difficult choices would need to be made. It is unlikely these would be complete on the day of unification. The techniques employed in Germany such as general clauses, front-loading, transitional periods, phasing in and out, temporary and permanent exceptions, instructions to the legislature, and so on should be carefully studied and employed here. German reunification was quite expensive. We do not know by how much but it was expensive. A solidarity tax was introduced, initially only for one year but it is still in place today and only slowly being phased out. It is perhaps a warning.

My final point is that Ireland's State capacity would come under enormous stress. The German state managed to reunify at lightning speed. It was 11 months from the fall of the Berlin Wall to unification. It placed the civil service, the legislature and all other state bodies under enormous pressure. The same would be true for Ireland but just with a much smaller State apparatus. It would have to answer as many legal and political questions as Germany did 32 years ago. Consider also that West Germany's population was 12 times the size of Ireland's and with a commensurate state apparatus. Therefore, preparation is really the key.

Chairman

I thank Professor Lock from Maynooth University.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I thank the speakers. It has been really enlightening stuff. I found the speeches, the papers and the presentations very interesting with regard to the areas of co-operation North and South and the comparisons made between human rights North and South. In the speakers' respective opinions,, has there been sufficient attention to environmental rights North and South and the ongoing cost of not having a unified regulatory approach to those? There are two utterly random examples which I think make the case. In this very Chamber I am advancing a Bill to protect the native Irish honeybee against importation of non-native honeybees. Ireland is the last stronghold in Europe and the black native bee apis mellifera mellifera will be hybridised. What good is it if I do that in the Twenty-six Counties if there is not a similar law in the Six Counties? Just in the past week I have been looking at the whole area of the regulation of the carcinogenic substance, formaldehyde, which is used in embalming and how the excess substance is disposed of. We need joined-up thinking and rules around that. Is this getting the attention it deserves when we speak about co-operation and comparisons with regard to rights?

Senator Frances Black

It is great to hear from Professor Heenan that there is so much appetite for cross-Border co-operation, but it is unfortunate there is not enough being done by governments North and South to support its expansion. What does Dr. Fitzpatrick believe we in the Oireachtas can do to bolster co-operation? Are there jurisdictions that have been rejected? Would the punitive labour market activation approach used North and South serve as a model for what a united Ireland welfare system could look like? Would Professor Dickson favour the introduction of stronger European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, adoption legislation in the South that would allow superior courts to strike down legislation for ECHR non-compliance?

Senator Mark Wall

I thank all the contributors for the very enlightening contributions. Earlier I spoke about young people and the vote. With regard to ageing societies, do Professor Heenan and Dr. Fitzpatrick believe there are challenges around healthcare and welfare systems in that context? Has this come across in their research? It is obviously a big debate in the South at the moment with regard to an ageing population and pensions and so on. I am aware there would be debates around that also. What challenges does an ageing society present for both systems? Perhaps the witnesses would comment on those points.

Senator Emer Currie

I have two practical questions. What are the differences in the age demographics? We are we 25 years into the Good Friday Agreement. The progress we have seen has been very positive and I do not want to appear to be criticising it. Professor Heenan referred to the people who are doing that incredible work such as the all-island cancer strategy and initiatives like that, the work in paediatrics, and the sharing of ambulances during Covid, but is that it? Given we are 25 years into the Good Friday Agreement, why is this as far as we have got?

Professor Deirdre Heenan

I will try to cover all of those issues and perhaps the Chairman will tell me if I have not. Yes, we have some very good examples but is this as good as it gets? That is a fair question. When I hear politicians North and South talking about all-island co-operation, they are going back to those two examples. There are very few new examples. Consider, for example, the transplant situation on this island. We are told healthy organs are being disposed of because we do not have an appropriate transplant system. This is shocking. When we look at it and talk to consultants, their answer is there is no-one driving this. Health ministers North and South are looking at their own systems, their trolley waits, and their accident and emergency departments, and their heads are down and their heads are in. Who has the time and the space to look up and out and say we could be doing this in a better way? The Senators are asking what this committee could do. It would be fantastic to hear them say someone must drive this agenda. I hate to say the word "czar", because we seem to have czars for everything, but if we had an all-island health czar, I would be delighted because that person would then be the person saying this is what we are doing, this is the timescale, these are the outcomes and, importantly, here is the evidence to suggest this is better in terms of outcomes.

I will go on to some other examples. We know from the work we have done post Covid that we have an issue with toxic masculinity and high suicide rates among young men. What we knew through Covid, which we did not know before, was that those men are happier to have counselling online. They prefer it than face-to-face counselling. Does it matter if that counselling is delivered from Dublin, Donegal or Dungiven? I do not think it does if it is available on an all-island basis. We have, however, become so consumed with healthcare systems that have deep-seated problems that no-one appears to have the time and space to say we could be doing this in a different way, which would be better and which would actually save money. The answer is we really need someone driving this.

There is a belief that in both North and South there is a lot of lip service, a lot of memorandums of understanding being signed and people saying that they had a phone call in the last six months. All that does not really cut it in terms of what we could be doing.

To give a nod to Professor Doyle, more evidence is really important because in every conversation we hear about constitutional issues. Invariably, top of the list people say that they would not want to leave the UK because the NHS is the jewel in the crown and "down there, they are paying to see the doctor". However, actually there is no discussion about health outcomes or access to health in the North, and the fact that it is free at the point of delivery if one cannot actually access it and how far that is true across the piece.

Professor Brice Dickson

In answer to Senator Martin’s question, yes, environmental rights are not properly protected either in the North or in the South. To the extent that they are in the North, it is largely because of the UK's membership of the EU. With that going and with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022, which is going through Westminster at the moment, it is very likely that a lot of the EU derived environmental protection laws in the North will be repealed or at least severely amended, which will leave a gap in the North as well as in the rest of the UK. That gap might be filled by adequate UK legislation but I would not put a lot of money on that frankly. It is also part of the debate around a Bill of rights in Northern Ireland, which we still do not have despite the Good Friday Agreement coming up to its 25th anniversary. The Assembly in the North could do a lot more to protect rights even though it has limited competence in some areas but it could do something in the area of environmental rights that it has not yet done.

Senator Black asked about a stronger European Convention on Human Rights Act here. Yes, in some ways this jurisdiction's Act is slightly stronger than the UK's Act but in other respects it is weaker. For example, the remedial order approach in the UK by which if a law is declared incompatible by a court then that is immediately referred to Parliament. In all cases to date a remedial order has gone through to amend the law accordingly. That system does not exist in the South. Declarations of incompatibly are notified to the Oireachtas but there is no obligation for any action then to be taken.

One cannot at the moment, as has been said, strike down legislation here under the European Convention of Human Rights Act but that could be changed to bring it into line with the UK system as regards secondary legislation invalidity. The definition of the authorities, in respect of which the 2003 Act applies, is more limited than the definition of a public authority in the UK's Act. It there was levelling up then the South could benefit from that in the way that the North would benefit in other respects.

Dr. Ciara Fitzpatrick

To answer Senator Black’s question about a jurisdiction that can serve as a model for what a welfare state would look like, we do not have to look very far away. After the referendum results in Scotland in 2014, Scotland was awarded more devolved social security powers. Scotland has decided to ground its social security system on the basis of human rights, dignity and respect. Scotland is imbedding those principles into each area of social security assessment. For example, it has decided that instead of contracting out disability assessments, which we have in Northern Ireland, it is bringing them inhouse and will do them in a much more dignified way to protect people's respect and how they live.

I find it quite exciting to think that Scotland is doing what it is doing and that what is being done is very much based on the lived experience of poverty. That country got together big lived experience panels to directly feed into what policy and legislation would look like. It is quite exciting that Scotland is doing this within the auspices of the British social security system and within the limitations of their devolved competencies in respect of social security. So it is really exciting to think what a new Ireland could do in terms of developing a brand new system that would put those important principles at the very heart and how it would treat each group or community in society.

On the question about ageing societies and pensions, that is a massive challenge in terms of the social security protection that we give to older people but also in respect of social care and how we support older people to live their best lives. There is a lot of work to be done across the piece on what a minimum income standard would look like for different people in society, including what it would look like for older people, which requires more research and work.

Obviously it is important to recognise that there are in people in Northern Ireland who were particularly impacted by the conflict. They will require additional support in respect of their pension because of the physical and psychological injuries that they have suffered.

Chairman

I call Professor Lock from Maynooth University who will discuss the lessons learned from German re-unification.

Professor Tobias Lock

I was not asked any specific questions so I will pass and thus save two minutes.

Chairman

The recommendations made by Professor Lock will be included in our report as German re-unification is the only example in our lifetime that might have some lessons for us.

I ask Professor John Doyle, DCU, to conclude this session on the ARINS project.

Professor John Doyle

I thank Senators for giving of their time and for their attendance. They have got a flavour of what has already been done but also how much remains to be done and the supports.

I will structure my conclusions around the question posed by Senator Black in terms of what could be done by a new Oireachtas committee. I believe that a new Oireachtas committee could do five things.

First, senior representatives could speak for their group or party. I do not mean just a group of random individuals in the Oireachtas but rather people who speak for the broader consensus and take a long-term view beyond any single parliamentary term, which is probably what we are talking about. It is not that every party will agree on every aspect of healthcare but we could get some broad brush things that largely represent the view of the Irish State and, therefore, a prospectus that we could put before the people in a referendum.

An Oireachtas committee would facilitate formal debate. Professor Brendan O'Leary, among others, has organised some deliberative events around the question of whether we keep Stormont so, in some ways, one very specific issue. We know from a couple of different events that people change their minds when they are exposed to evidence and debate, and in that case it was just over the course of one day. So people's starting point was instinctively one of, sure keep Stormont, that is what is there at the moment and this was in the Good Friday Agreement. When people were given evidence about, in particular, two-unit federal states not being good examples internationally because it tends to be "A" versus "B" and there is not the diversity one would get in Germany, Australia or America, the narratives were one of we will have free healthcare in the North and we are paying for it, or what happens if Stormont collapses so then it goes to the Irish State. By definition, if the North votes for a united Ireland then Stormont no longer represents a majority of pro-union votes by definition so, in some ways, how does it work? So deliberation at the formal level of the Oireachtas would be very helpful.

An Oireachtas committee would identify the issues of concern. Senator Clonan spoke about the view of 1 million people. I take issue with that aspect as 350,000 people vote for unionist parties and that includes very moderate unionists who said that they would campaign with every breath of their body against a united Ireland but will live with it if it happens. So I would not exaggerate the number of people who are going to be very frightened, potentially, but they are there in significant number.

Senator Tom Clonan

A lot of people do not vote.

Professor John Doyle

Yes. If one does not bother to look to vote for a unionist party then one is probably not that concerned about it.

I shall outline of the exercises that we ran. A very senior civil servant in a very relaxed closed-doors event was asked, if a person's worst fears happened and a united Ireland is voted for and the vote is lost, what would the Irish State promise you and he said, "to keep my British passport", which is a right that is already guaranteed in the Good Friday Agreement. So a debate on what would be done by the Irish State is very far back in the pipeline in terms of what we need to list. An Oireachtas committee could play a valuable role in that.

Fourth, one could draft a Scottish-style prospectus of what the Irish State would put on the table. Realistically, a debate with political unionism will not take place until after a referendum. A debate with civic unionism can take place right now so it will not be absolutely bereft of information on what people's concerns are. So that would include healthcare, minority rights, which Professor Dickson talked about on the economy, and what we will propose to bring to the table for those post referendum. I think that Scottish-style prospectus would be a really valuable role. It would take some time but it would reflect the political view, not just the evidence to go into it but also the consensus, as much as possible, throughout the Oireachtas.

Fifth, the Oireachtas committee could identify the levelling up issues comparing North and South and also better places that may be better than either North or South. The late Dr. Vicky Conway was mentioned here and she was a colleague of mine in DCU. Her very last academic paper was for ARINS, which pointed out that the police oversight in the North was actually stronger than the oversight of An Garda Síochána.

While we have many examples where things are worse in the North in terms of education, it is not all in one direction. There are many examples where that would vary. There is a job of work that would take some years that only an Oireachtas committee can do, with the authority that it would bring which a group of citizens otherwise convened simply would not.

Finally, in response to a couple of questions on a stimulus package, it would be likely to take place as the EU would want to be perceived to be involved. Ultimately, however big the cheque would be, the transformative effects, about which our colleagues, in particular those from the ESRI, talked, are likely to be more important than the billions of euro the EU might provide over a number of years. For example, foreign direct investment, FDI, in the North is at best 20% of the level in the South. Why is it that Belfast is so much weaker than Cork, Limerick or Galway? One is not only comparing it with Dublin. Why is the North so much weaker, even than places that would not be perceived to be hotbeds of FDI? Why do so few people who come to the island of Ireland on a holiday go North for any longer than a day trip? The bed nights for tourism are one seventh of what they are in the South on a pro rata basis. This is the broader economic picture. If FDI in the North was approximate to even the southern region in Ireland, that would be transformative. This is where we get to the chicken and egg in terms of the question asked of colleagues here. We know skills and education are related to FDI but we are probably not as certain about which is the chicken and which is the egg in the sense that a culture of FDI would certainly encourage investment in higher education and bring more skills there.

We are in the early stages of a project with Ulster University but what we are hearing back from FDI decision-makers is that they are not that certain whether they know very much about the Northern Ireland skills deficit because their thinking never even gets that far. It is the political image, Brexit, the protocol and the legacy of the conflict. For decision-makers, the political certainty issue around Northern Ireland is probably as big a barrier as the skills and education deficits that are there. That is something that would change, obviously, relatively quickly, in a united Ireland.

On the 25 years, some reports talk about transforming education, but it might not be quite that long. Stimulus is more than a cheque. It is the broader package that would bring the Northern economy from where it is now to where it would need to be to not only pay its own way but to improve people's lifestyles and standards of living.

Chairman

I thank Professor Doyle. I thank all the professors for their input. In terms of what we have asked them to do, and conscious of their work, being asked to present in five minutes is like trying to reduce an entire research paper to a tweet. I appreciate that we have gone over time but it is important, given the importance of the topic and of the research they done. People need to be aware of the amount of research. As Professor Doyle said, in the space of a couple of years, we have got 30 research papers whereas before there was not even three. It is important that we give as much time as we can.

We have four contributor in the next session and four in the session after that. I ask people to bear with us. I accept it is a Friday but we hope to be finished by 5 o'clock. I call Dr. Liston who will be followed by Professor Maguire.

Dr. Katie Liston

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis an gcoiste as ucht na spéise inár n-aighneacht, entitled, Sport, Culture and Identity: A change of focus. We have engaged in public and civic fora over the past three years, including ARINS, which Professor Doyle mentioned, as well as in Ireland's Future, which the committee will hear about shortly. This committee is a significant development and we thank its members for their work and patience in listening to academic arguments.

In our submission, we set out the ways in which sport is intertwined with how people view themselves and others, for better and for worse, with the potential to act as both social glue and social toxin. This submission builds on interviews with key stakeholders, North and South, and on our work on sporting heritage, and that heritage is reflected in and reinforces social and community relations today.

Sport is inextricably bound up in cultural life. It is one of the most powerful forces for the expression of hybrid identities and how we understand this is crucial to ensuring that sport can play a positive role in future relations.

We believe that any discussion of future relationships on these islands that does not involve sport is, in fact, incomplete because to do so would be both to overlook a key component of people's emotions, their sense of self and shared identity and to neglect a crucial social space for realising conflict reduction, reconciliation and shared bonds with all of the challenges these bring. Reunification would, however, be but one possible staging post in this ongoing process of building fraternal bonds across our islands. Our submission explores the utility of sport, the role of imagined communities and the complexities of North-South relations and governance. We also signpost some interim steps that are needed towards inter-cultural commonalities forged and learned through sports encouraged, we hope, by calm and principled leadership.

I will hand over to my colleague, Professor Maguire, who will outline three main areas that we think would require careful consideration.

Chairman

I call Professor Maguire of Loughborough University.

Professor Joseph Maguire

I thank the members for the opportunity to address them today. Despite the accent, I was born in Cobh, County Cork, while my father served in the Irish Defence Forces on Spike Ireland in the 1940s and 1950s.

The three areas, which Dr. Liston mentioned, are as follows. First, structurally, the administration, governance and resourcing of sporting federations will raise complex questions in North-South and east-west relations but will also have an international dimension, as, indeed, colleagues have indicated with regard to German reunification. Second, symbolically, difficult issues may arise with expressions of identity, such as flag, emblem and anthem, as well as place and space, along with representation, jurisdiction and eligibility for those from the North as well as those from the South. Third, societally, how and what we play, when and where we play and with whom we do so, as a participant or spectator, as a child or a parent, in communities and across our nation, will need cross-departmental policy formulation and implementation.

Sport is no panacea. It cannot do the heavy lifting alone with regard to culture, community and identity. We recommend the development of civic assemblies within and between sport federations. After all, some are already 32-county based, but others are 26-county based or Six Counties orientated.

In addition, we urge the committee to set out the case for an all-island citizens' assembly. One sub-panel would examine sport and its role in our shared future involving athletes, perhaps as cultural intermediaries, administrators, coaches, teachers, spectators, research experts - I thought I would mention that - and the wider public at large. This panel should be guided by an evidence-based understanding of our complex histories and of the changing meanings attached to sports. Hopefully, this identity work would lead to an inclusive and constructive dialogue and a carefully designed set of social policies.

We have no alternative but to prepare and to tread carefully. Sport has the capacity to unite but, as we know, in different parts of our country, also to divide. We look forward to further engagement on this outside this hearing and we would be delighted to take members' questions if they have any.

Chairman

I thank Professor Maguire from Loughborough University. I now call Mr. Paul Gosling, who is a writer and public speaker specialising in the economy, accountancy, co-operatives and government and the public sector.

Mr. Paul Gosling

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak here today. Perhaps I could start with an apology, in that I am not an academic. I have, however, written a book, which, with help, I ask to be passed to members on the other side of the Chamber.

Chairman

Can I point out for the benefit of our current members and soon-to-be members that passing documents during a deliberation is normally frowned upon?

Mr. Paul Gosling

My apologies. I was unaware of the protocol.

Chairman

The members might have to look at the standards in public office and at whether getting a free book might breach that. Actually, I am not presuming it is free. The members might have to pay for it later.

Mr. Paul Gosling

I thank the committee for its forbearance.

I start as someone who is committed to Irish unity because of the dysfunctionality at this moment in time of the Northern state. The committee will be aware that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are not functioning.

There is no First Minister or deputy First Minister. This is a not a one-off; this is a consistent problem the North has. As we already heard, the North underperforms in a number of other ways even when we have a functioning system. We underperform on health compared with England. We underperform on skills and jobs. We also underperform on reconciliation in terms of where we need to be. We have a functioning problem with dysfunctionality. The problem we have is so ingrained in Stormont that I would suggest the idea of retaining Stormont after unity is a bad one because it is cementing in partition and the existing dysfunctionality of the problems we have within the northern state. I would suggest that we cannot continue with Stormont after unity.

Equally, the North cannot be bolted on to the South, and I think we have already heard that much more eloquently than I can say. The South is, though, much more competent than the North, although it has, dare I say, clear problems. We all know the problems about housing and health. Those of us who live in the north west know that many people in County Donegal feel disconnected from Dublin.

We can perhaps ask whether these are issues that will be made worse or that can be addressed more easily through Irish unity. I would hope that with a new focus on regional policy, for example, the creation of a united Ireland will actually increase the focus on regional policy.

Clearly, the advantage for the North is in terms of having a skills and labour market policy that is much closer to that of the South. That will assist with problems the South has with the overheating, for example, of Dublin. Therefore, if we combine the fact that we could have more effective regional policy along with the reforms to the labour market and the focus on skills, I would hope we would then have a spill-off of economic benefit from Irish unity to the South. Clearly, it will assist with the overheating of places like Dublin, which actually goes beyond that.

I have a couple of words before I finish. We have already heard much about the subvention, and I fully endorse the comments made. We do not know the size of the real subvention but it is much less than the figure of €11 billion that is often mentioned. It comes down to the need to negotiate. The question then is how to negotiate and whether there is negotiation between two parties with generosity and friendship at their hearts. That in a sense is one of the big challenges given the current environment we have. That is why, despite Professor O'Leary's comments earlier, I am not entirely convinced that a one-off referendum is the right solution. There have been suggestions that perhaps the solution or the better approach is a two-stage referendum by which we have a referendum, in principle, then the negotiations and then a sign-off of the negotiated solution. My concern would be that a one-off referendum would actually undermine the ability of both states to negotiate on a fairer basis.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Gosling very much. I now call Mr. Raftery, to give us an insight into unionist perspectives.

Mr. Kevin Raftery

To introduce myself quickly, my name is Kevin. This environment is alien to me. I am really out of place. I live at ground level. I use public transport and claim benefits. I live in social housing, and I can tell the committee a few tales about that. In my submission, I submitted a framework, like a skeleton frame where the meat needs to be packed on the bones. I hope that is what I did.

My father was third generation County Roscommon and my mother was an English Protestant, so I understand the unionist perspective. As far as the EU is concerned, I do not think the Irish people should be railroaded into the European Union. There needs to be some kind of vote on that. I think it is unfair. There is a lot of feeling out there at ground level that people are being railroaded, whether it be the EU or anything else. This process has to be people-led. That is my point, really. I hope the questions are not too difficult. I cannot do the three-tiered questions, by the way. I will only be able to do one.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Raftery. In a public consultation, we appreciate all the submissions that are sent into us. I call Mr. Carlisle, chief executive of Ireland's Future.

Mr. Gerry Carlile

I thank the committee for inviting me here today. We in Ireland's Future were very happy to make our written submission to the committee. We hope it is a worthwhile contribution to the broad conversation. We thank all those who have contributed to our work, many of whom are in this room today.

Last Saturday, 5,000 people attended the Ireland's Future event, Together We Can, in the 3Arena. Thousands of people paid €10 each to attend, which is significant in its own right. Ten political parties, five party leaders and leading voices from business, trade unions, agriculture, the LGBT community, the women's sector and many others participated in what was a seminal event that it is hoped will assist in advancing the seismic issue of a referendum and constitutional change in Ireland.

Mr. Andrew Clarke and Mr. Peter Adair featured, as did Reverend Karen Sethuraman and Mr. Ben Collins. These four people grew up in the unionist community, with unionist and British culture and tradition as part of their everyday lives. They are now strongly of the view that a new and united Ireland would be better for all of our people and would provide a better and brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Andrew, Peter, Karen and Mr. Trevor Lunn were also part of the working group that organised the event in the 3Arena. Trevor is a former MLA and former Chair of the Alliance Party, a former Mayor of Lisburn and former president of Lisburn Chamber of Commerce. Trevor's family background would be very much of an Orange persuasion. The actor, Jimmy Nesbitt, was the keynote speaker at the event. He remarked during his 20-minute speech that when he was younger, he played in his local flute band, and that he was proud of his Protestant culture. He, too, believes the time is right to have the conversation about what he called a "new union of Ireland".

Ireland's Future has worked hard to create the space for those who are not from the traditional pro-united Ireland community. We do this because it is the right thing to do. Where I live, the main 12 July parade passes just metres from my front door. Every year, I go out and watch the parade. I watch it because there are people in that parade who are my friends, work colleagues and neighbours. In my personal view, an early gesture from the Government in Dublin might be very well-received. It could be viewed as an investment in the future. Could 12 July become a public holiday across the entire island in advance of a referendum? What a positive signal that might send to many of our Orange and British neighbours and friends. This cuts both ways.

I coach my local underage Gaelic football team. One of the other coaches is from a unionist background. His son plays for our club. Last year's under-13 championship-winning football captain's father is from a unionist background. The man does not miss a game. I am sure there are others I do not even know about, which is probably the way it should be.

I have been in business for almost 20 years. I sat on the council of the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry for three years. The business community in the North is pragmatic and knows the trajectory of travel. It needs long-term stability, however, and full re-entry to the European Union.

While the North has many positives such as excellent schools and universities, producing highly qualified graduates and young workers, a successful tourism and hospitality economy, a thriving technology sector, highly qualified healthcare staff and a growing cohort of successful entrepreneurs, what it really needs is long-term economic and societal stability.

I will finish on this point. When it is said, particularly by southern politicians, that the time is not right to talk about a referendum until relationships in the North improve, there is a potential risk of ensuring fraught relationships exist in perpetuity. It could be said that we incentivise and reward instability and disharmony by stifling the conversation on the national question.

Senator Tom Clonan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gerry Carlile

The only way to ensure long-term, economic and societal stability for the entire island is to plan, prepare and, ultimately, ask people the question in a referendum. Democracy must be seen to be done. A period of Government planning and preparing should begin immediately. Given the wave of recent changes across Northern society, the principle of consent should be tested in the next number of years.

Chairman

I will ask members to be brief. Senator Ó Donnghaile will be followed by Senator Wall.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I thank all our contributors. I have two points to make, the first of which is to Professor Maguire and Dr. Liston.

It probably does not fall so much within the context of what we are debating today but it is a pet peeve of mine that I raise in the Seanad all the time. It is to do with sport. Like the witnesses, I believe in the healing power and empowerment of sport within this and every other context. As we know, when it comes to sport, if you cannot see it, you cannot be it and nor can you follow it, support it and enjoy all the societal and communal benefits. I am always advocating that the Government should do things in advance. It does not need a conversation or a border poll to do certain things. In the witnesses' view, how important is it that sporting bodies, particularly those that are all-Ireland in nature, such as the GAA, athletics, boxing and the Olympic Federation of Ireland, make their matches, games and events viewable and accessible for audiences across the Thirty-two Counties? I find very few things stimulate discourse on social media more than the dreaded announcement on the television, "This event is not available in your region." It annoys people far more even than the question of where they stand on a border poll.

My next question is to Mr. Carlile. We often hear that even the suggestion of a citizens' assembly would be divisive. We are told people will not take part and there is no point in doing it. Does he think last Saturday's event can act as a model for such engagement and as proof people who do not traditionally come from what is perceived as a pro-unity position will come into a dialogue? It is that idea of if you build it, they will come. Does he think the engagement that took place last weekend is a good example and one the Government should follow for the future?

Senator Mark Wall

I have a number of questions but I will confine myself to addressing a couple to Dr. Liston and Professor Maguire. I, too, believe in the power of sport. In the past two days, I travelled through counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, where I noticed lots of flags displayed. It is the time of the year for it, with the county finals, etc. The witnesses mentioned flags, anthems and all-Ireland sporting bodies. With tongue firmly in cheek, I refer to "Ireland's Call" and ask whether we should be adopting something like that for other sports. Will they comment on how we should treat communities and their flags and anthems? Should we be adopting something that would cover everything in sport? Sport has an important role to play throughout Ireland. Another issue is the question of having an all-Ireland soccer league. I would like to see that happening, given developments on this island.

To summarise, sport is very important in Ireland. The issue always arises, however, as to flags and anthems. Where should we start in addressing that? I would appreciate a comment on this point.

Senator Frances Black

My first question is for Dr. Liston and Professor Maguire and relates to the equality, respect and human rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, particularly the right to identify and be accepted as Irish, British or both. I am concerned the political boundary rule of World Athletics is in conflict with those provisions. In their submission, the witnesses mentioned Ciara Mageean, an outstanding athlete who can represent Ireland and her home place of Portaferry at the Olympic Games but cannot do so at the European and World Athletics Championships. This is because of World Athletics and its boundary rule. That rule seems cruel to Irish athletes. It is totally unnecessary and should be removed. Would it be helpful if the Minister of State with responsibility for sport, Deputy Chambers, and the Northern Ireland Minister for Communities, Ms Deirdre Hargey MLA, were to work together, perhaps with Athletics Ireland, Athletics Northern Ireland, Sport Ireland and Sport Northern Ireland, to seek a derogation from World Athletics in respect of the political boundary rule?

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Hear, hear.

Senator Frances Black

My second question is to my colleague, Mr. Carlile, and concerns the role civic society plays in this conversation. He mentioned Jimmy Nesbitt's contribution at the recent Ireland's Future event. Mr. Nesbitt suggested in his speech that the time could be right to view the debate in a post-unionism and post-nationalism context. He said:

I know many Northern Protestants are open to this. Among my friends, who are all lads who are Protestants - well, men, we are all in our mid-50s looking down the barrel of 60 - they would really consider now what the notion of a new union of Ireland might look like, and I think there's a lot of people that think that.

He went on to say:

I believe, I firmly believe that we need to bring this discussion out of the Dáil, out of Stormont, out of Whitehall, out of academic fora and into the village halls and town halls, the church halls, the Orange halls.

My point is, I think, that any change must be people led and solutions cannot be forced on those people. If we should have learnt anything from history, we should have learnt that.

Will Mr. Carlile comment on what Mr. Nesbitt said? It was a powerful speech that covered everything and I encourage everybody to listen to it.

Senator Joe O'Reilly

I will comment briefly on the sport issue, as referred to by Senators Ó Donnghaile and Wall. I have argued in this Chamber and within my party forums, and will do so again and more often, for a change to the sports capital grants, which are very generous and effective grants given by the Government for capital development projects by sporting clubs. They have had a huge effect and been transformative. I am not sure whether there is an equivalent grant in Northern Ireland. My proposition regarding the scheme in the Republic is there should be a conditionality in the receipt of the grant whereby the sporting organisation would have to show evidence of having participated in sporting activities with comparable clubs north of the Border. If there were similar grant aid for sport in the North, there might be a reciprocal condition that clubs there engage with clubs in the South.

It all comes down to interpersonal connections, and sport is a wonderful way of making those connections. The historians in the room will know it was Gaelic sports that healed the divisions of the Civil War in Ireland. When people on opposing sides played on the same football team, they became friends. Sport has enormous potential and I would like to hear the witnesses' response to my proposal, particularly the two who spoke about sport.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I commend Mr. Carlile, Senator Black and all concerned on organising the event that took place last weekend. I am intrigued by the papers that have been presented to the committee. Due to time pressure, I will comment only on the submission from Dr. Liston and Professor Maguire. As we all know, under Article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the official name of the State is Éire or, in the English language, Ireland. A long time ago, in 1948, when division stalked the land, the designated descriptive name of the State was given as the Republic of Ireland. I attended a prestigious boxing match in Belfast two weeks ago at which Eric Donovan, a gentleman from Kildare, was introduced to the audience as being from the Republic of Ireland. In my view, if he had been introduced as being from Ireland, in accordance with constitutional fact, the audience in attendance and the live broadcast television audience would have had more of an affinity with the occasion and with each other.

Have the witnesses assessed from a sociological perspective the power of that name change, which would require a statutory amendment to address? I believe the descriptive name change, which took place in a different Ireland, reinforces the sense of there being two Irelands, with a them and an us. We are living in a different time now. Would the witnesses take that suggestion on board and assess it from a sociological perspective? I would like to talk to them about it at some later stage.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank everybody who contributed to the discussion. I mentioned earlier that at least 1 million people on this island are frightened, by which I did not mean the unionist community. I count myself among those who are frightened because I do not necessarily see people doing their utmost in terms of what is going to happen next on the island. I have witnessed conflict here, in the Middle East and in the former Yugoslavia. The situation now is not like it was when people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair and Seamus Mallon were involved. What happens next will be lived by people like my 18-year-old daughter, my 21-year-old and my 20-year-old.

I have a fear about what would happen if we do not talk about it. This policy is capable of producing negative consequences, though I will not use the word to say what it might make of it. I do not want my children to witness what I witnessed and what the witnesses have all seen and remember. I have a question about addressing that fear. Mr. Carlile mentioned that there were four unionist voices at the event. How do we encourage more people from all the different communities to be involved? I represent 70,000 constituents on the island, who are Trinity graduates. They are all over the UK, Scotland, Wales, Canada and Australia. How do we engage with that community and with all the people here who possibly do not understand the urgency of what will happen next? I commend and congratulate Senator Black on the event and initiative, which I think is important.

I suggest that we could focus on involving the disability community at the next event. At present, Ireland is the worst country in the European Union to have a disability. I know that for a fact. If we had a conversation about making the island of Ireland the best place in the world to have a disability or additional needs, then I guarantee that everything else would follow, including security, social protection, education and health. It would all follow. It is just a question of how we involve those additional voices.

Senator Emer Currie

I have a question for Mr. Carlile. I congratulate him. I was there on Saturday. Does he distinguish between the language of calling for a border poll and planning and preparing for a constitutional change in the future? Does he understand why the former is something that people can have fears or be hesitant about but that having a conversation about constitutional change is different to calling for a border poll?

Dr. Katie Liston

I thank the Senators. There is a breadth of interest. I will make a few comments and we will be happy to follow up in more detail. Without having consulted with Professor Maguire, I think we share the concerns about the uneven effects of commercialisation in sport. We share the concerns about broadcasting rights and whether they are available to entire populations, but that might be a matter for RTÉ and other organisations that we cannot really comment on today.

I will address a theme in the Senators' questions before I deal with some specifics. They referred to "the power of sport". In our submission, we make the case that we need to be careful about that because it is not simply powerful in one direction. It can be both a social glue and a social toxin. It is an activity that is conducted by people, for people. It is not a matter of sport itself, but what we as people do with it. In response to the specific question about the political boundary rule in athletics, it is an anomaly compared with other international supports. That is the case because, as we point out in our submission, even in politics, there are few complexities that rival the world of Irish sport.

There are perhaps not enough discussions about various constitutions and jurisdictions for sport on a 32-county, 26-county or six-county basis. Athletics is not constituted on a 32-county basis, hence there are some concerns and there have been representations about the political boundary rule in that particular sport. In boxing, the use of the title reflects the fact that boxing is constituted on a 32-county basis, but those are contested issues. In the future, for relationships between groups, we need to ensure that we include those concerns in any direction that we take. In a possible unification scenario, that might push some post-partition issues further away. It might enhance the appeal of some sports to all communities. It could also reinforce more exclusive claims to identity and governance in others.

Professor Joseph Maguire

I will pick up on and try to draw together a number of points. The formation of the Irish Free State was bound in the statecraft that was demonstrated here in Dublin. While it was not the term used at the time, it was projected as a form of soft power. In what way would the new nation be forged on an international stage? That was always contested both north of the Border, where people were doing likewise, and also in how the British Government would react to the aspirations for recognition and jurisdiction on an international stage. That remains contested and is, in microcosm, expressed in the boundary rule which is maintained in athletics. The history is one of contestation and struggle. We need to understand how and in what ways that has emerged over time and how it still informs the present.

The second issue raised is the power of sport. My fear and worry, having examined violence within subcultures in sport, is that if we do not address the concerns, fears or worries, and the intense sense of identification with different forms of Irish-Britishness, or Britishness itself, within particular sports, then even with reunification, we will be left with a legacy of a subculture of violence which will be difficult to address. It is particularly an issue among young men, but not just them.

The third matter relates to one thing the Government could do, which was picked up on. It would be to ensure that bodies, whether Sport Ireland or the Olympic Federation of Ireland, which receive money from the Government should plan for these matters and address the concerns we have raised as a prerequisite for the funding, as we have said the Government should.

Mr. Paul Gosling

I am English. I am from a Protestant background. I am European. Identity is enormously important for many people in the North of Ireland but it is not the main focus for many other people, so there needs to be a pragmatic case for why unity works for them as well as a focus on identity.

Mr. Gerry Carlile

Stephen McCann is here, in the Public Gallery. He is a board member of Ireland's Future and, along with Senator Black and I, and others, was central to the event last week. The precedent for a citizens' assembly has already been set by the all-island civic conversation on Brexit that took place in late 2016 and 2017 in various locations over a period. There was wide northern civic society participation in that because, in my view, it carried the imprimatur of the Government. Without minimising it, I think the work of Ireland's Future could be dwarfed if the Government truly engaged in this broad process.

Jimmy Nesbitt's speech was sensational. I think Jimmy, along with others who I mentioned, represents a growing number of people who are interested in having a conversation about the future who were not traditionally from the community that was in favour of a united Ireland. It is important to recognise that the pro-United Kingdom vote in the North has decreased by about 12% in the last 20 years. My constituency of south Belfast had 40,000 unionist votes in the Westminster election in 1972 and 4,000 pro-united Ireland votes. In the most recent Westminster election, there were 14,000 pro-United Kingdom votes and 27,000 pro-united Ireland votes in south Belfast. The changing nature of society in the North is important. Many people like Jimmy Nesbitt are interested in the new constitutional arrangement. They do not like Brexit.

They do not like the negativity associated with it or what is happening in England. They look south and they like it. They are attracted to the nature of a forward-thinking, progressive society and they want to be part of it.

Senator Clonan's points were well made. A delegation from Ireland's Future should meet him because we need to inform and educate ourselves on some of the issues that we are not as informed and educated on as we should be. I will probably drop the Senator an email later.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank Mr. Carlile.

Mr. Gerry Carlile

Turning to Senator Currie, the language we use in this process is important and needs to be sensitive. The key is democracy. If a state is to be built on the principle of consent, then one must be prepared to ask the people if they are happy with the status quo. If one continually kicks that question far into the future, then the existence of the state has no credibility because the people who live there have not been asked whether they want it. Planning and preparation are key, but this is all grounded in the Good Friday Agreement and democracy.

Chairman

I thank the contributors. We will now move on to our next group. Ms Anita Murphy is a parent, business owner and homeowner. Mr. Declan Owens is a lawyer and the CEO of Ecojustice Ireland. Dr. Peter Doran is a senior lecturer at Queens University Belfast's school of law and the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice. I also welcome Dr. Doran's son, Amhairghin, who is on the advisory panel of the children and young people's assembly on biodiversity loss, which will be engaging with the citizens' assembly. We also have with us Mr. Conchúr Ó Muadaigh on behalf of Conradh na Gaeilge and Mr. Christy McQuillan on behalf of the Trade Unionists for a New and United Ireland.

Ms Anita Murphy

I thank Senators for reading my submission and inviting me to this meeting. I am a private Irish citizen who was born in Leixlip, County Kildare, but who has been living in Belfast for 22 years, which is almost half my life. I have three teenaged daughters of 18, 16 and 14 years of age. I made my submission to the committee not as a professional expert, of whom there are plenty in attendance, but as a user of both education systems. I was a student in the Republic of Ireland and am a parent of children educated in Northern Ireland. Senators have heard about academic outcomes and systems, but I wish to discuss my lived experience.

My submission referred to primary school and the transition to secondary or grammar school, my involvement with an Irish language bunscoil and integrated schools, and the need to secularise the whole system. As I only have time to discuss one point, though, it will be a matter that has been close to my family this year, given that my oldest daughter just went to third level. Where I live, there is a lack of understanding among people on the ground of the two education systems on the island. It surprised me this year that, despite the significant difference in the fees between Great British and Irish universities, all of my daughter's peers were applying through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, UCAS, to study in Scotland, England and Wales and most were not applying to Irish universities through the CAO system even though they were fully entitled to do so. The CAO system differs very much from UCAS and, in many of my conversations, many people struggle to understand it. In my social network, I became the expert because I went through the system, but I filled out a CAO form in 1991.

In my conversations with Northern Ireland families, the lack of student housing was the number one reason they were not even going to apply. Of those students who go to Great Britain, one third will never return. From an economic point of view, this is a loss to the island of Ireland in the long term. With this year's delays in the leaving certificate results, students like my daughter who applied through both systems had to accept their UK systems before the CAO's offers were out. This lack of co-ordination was another barrier this year. The island of Ireland is a small place and it makes sense for third level education to be shared. There is co-operation between universities, as we have heard today, but the application process could be improved.

Parents choose primary and secondary education for their children, but it is when young people choose the next step for themselves that we are missing an opportunity. We do not have to wait for constitutional change. Incentivising and nurturing cross-Border study in all further education - we have heard about the disparity in post-leaving certificates, so could we not do something on a North-South basis in that regard? - including apprenticeships and even work experience, would pay dividends in the years to come. This is not just about creating payers of income tax. Consider the friendships that are made at that age, the career networks that are built and the understanding it would foster for whenever the constitutional question is asked.

I just wished to make a submission as a private citizen.

Chairman

I thank Ms Murphy for that. Part of the public consultation process is speaking not just to experts but also to people with the lived experience of the issues of education, health, the economy and human rights. We heard great submissions today from young people from both sides of the Border on the issue of mental health, which is not divided by any border.

Mr. Declan Owens

Senators face the task of needing to plan for the real prospect of a referendum on the future of the island of Ireland and what this means for the Irish Constitution. The climate and biodiversity crisis and ecological concerns are not just items on a menu for them to consider as criteria for a new constitutional future. We are concerned that fundamental ecological considerations will merely be absorbed into the discourse or treated as a box-ticking exercise. The two transitions that are already progressing on the island of Ireland have profound implications for Senators' deliberations. In the next five to ten years, we predict that the island will witness the ongoing convergence of these two transitions and related conversations. This will have a transformative effect on how Senators consider and understand the nature of the task before them and a new language will emerge to consider the constitutional question. The first transition relates to creating a home for all on the island of Ireland where we move towards a new and radically inclusive constitutional disposition. The second just transition relates to creating a society of climate and ecological justice rooted in the profound lessons of our history of colonialism, ongoing liberation and planetary solidarity.

Senators will be aware of the symbolism of ancient Irish myths such as the Children of Lir. These point to how we can rethink our relationship to the land and sea. This enhanced relationship can be achieved as a result of the appreciation of the core tenets of our constitutional future through the rights of nature and a pluriversal republic that fosters the fundamental importance of our Irish language, culture and identity. We have contributed to a submission to the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss relating to the rights of nature, which we referred to in the executive summary of our submission. I would encourage Senators to read that document.

The people and other species that live on the island of Ireland have an inevitably special association with the land, the sea and animals. The second republic that we envisage requires an opening up of ecological and Border thinking to allow for reconciliation, transgenerational justice and solidarity for people and nature following the onslaught of capitalism and colonialism. The design of the new constitution will be shaped by the language we deploy, which in itself will be radically reframed by the two just transitions converging towards a constitutional change shaped by, and with, the movement for climate and ecological justice.

Mr. Conchúr Ó Muadaigh

An bhfuil ateangaireacht ar fáil? An mbeidh daoine in ann mé a thuiscint? Will people understand me? Tá mé chun óráid a thabhairt i nGaeilge.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

An bhfuil an córas ar siúl?

Chairman

Tá.

Mr. Conchúr Ó Muadaigh

Ar dtús, is mian liom, mar ionadaí ar Chonradh na Gaeilge, mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl as ucht an cuireadh a bheith libh inniu ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. Tá dualgas orainn athbheochan na Gaeilge a chur i gcroílár na díospóireachta agus an teanga a chosaint uathu siúd a bhainfeadh úsáid as aon athrú bunreachtúil amach anseo chun í a fhágáil ar lár nó a imeallú.

Ní mór do chainteoirí Gaeilge a bheith páirteach agus a chinntiú go gcuirfear éilimh agus riachtanais na Gaeilge agus phobal na Gaeltachta i lár na díospóireachta. Níor éirigh riamh leis an dá Rialtas, Thuaidh nó Theas, an Ghaeilge a chosaint, a fhorbairt agus a chur chun cinn mar ba chóir. Is gá dúinn ceachtanna a fhoghlaim ó na meancóga a rinneadh lena chinntiú nach dtarlaíonn siad arís. Chomh maith leis sin, ba chóir dúinn foghlaim ó na buanna agus samplaí den dea-chleachtas ar fud fad an domhain, go háirithe ónár gcairde sa Bhreatain Bheag. Is gá smaoineamh, machnamh agus pleanáil shuntasach a dhéanamh ar aon socruithe bunreachtúla atá le teacht. Is gá don phlé riachtanach seo a bheith leathan, mionsonraithe agus cuimsitheach mar a bhaineann le ceisteanna teanga agus Gaeltachta trí chéile.

Níl réiteach ag Conradh na Gaeilge ar gach ceist agus níl muid ach ag tús an aistir seo. Sin ráite, cuidíonn an plé seo ar fad linn polasaithe cuimsitheacha a fhorbairt agus na ceisteanna a bhaineann le cúrsaí dlí, oideachais, stádais agus cúinsí sochtheangeolaíocha a fhreagairt. Cuirfidh sé ar ár gcumas a bheith réidh agus chun tosaigh ar ionsaithe ar an teanga agus deiseanna a thapú di in aon socrú nua. Ná bíodh aon dallamullóg orainn: beidh dúshláin agus deiseanna i gceist. Tá dualgas orainn bheith réidh chun tabhairt faoin obair sin le muinín agus le fís atá uaillmhianach agus atá tógtha go hiomlán ar an bprionsabal gur chóir cearta teanga a aithint mar chearta daonna.

Tá stádas iomlán ag an nGaeilge san Aontas Eorpach ó Eanáir 2022. Tá Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla leasaithe ó Dheas agus tá reachtaíocht don Ghaeilge ó Thuaidh geallta, ach fós féin níl siad láidir go leor. Sa chomhthéacs seo, caithfear a chinntiú go slánófar stádas na Gaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil faoi aon shocrú bunreachtúil nua. Níor cheart amharc ar an nGaeilge mar rud gur féidir a íobairt in aon phlé ar Éirinn aontaithe, mar atá molta cheana féin ag cúpla polaiteoir. Is deis í seo chun pobal a athghiniúint, athmhuintearas a chothú agus feidhm a bhaint as acmhainn uathúil na Gaeilge chun an tír a fhorbairt agus a fhás. Creidimid go mbeidh ceist na gcearta - cearta teanga ina measc - agus ceist na bhféiniúlachta lárnach amach anseo agus tá sé ríthábhachtach go gcuirfear tús leis na comhráite anois chun a chinntiú go mbeimid mar cheannairí sa phlé sin atá á éascú agus á eagrú go leanúnach.

Tá tús curtha leis seo ag Conradh na Gaeilge agus go leor dár ngrúpaí ar fud na tíre. Anois an t-am don Rialtas tacaíocht agus acmhainní a chur ar fáil chun na spásanna seo a chruthú agus tús a chur le hullmhúcháin. Ní leor do ghrúpaí pobal a bheith i gceannas air seo. Caithfidh Rialtas na hÉireann ról lárnach a imirt agus tacú leo siúd atá i mbun eagrúchán.

Mr. Christy McQuillan

A Chathaoirligh, a Sheanadóirí agus a dhaoine uaisle anseo, on behalf of Trade Unionists For a New and United Ireland, I express my appreciation for the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate on the constitutional future of this island. Trade Unionists For a New and United Ireland was established in 2019 with the central aim of promoting the interests of working people and their communities and placing them front and centre in the growing debate on constitutional change. The initiative was launched with a statement endorsed by over 150 trade union leaders, officials and activists from different unions and political and cultural backgrounds in both jurisdictions. It calls for economic and social equality to be put into the heart of this discussion. It is our view that both states in this island have failed working people and that a new and united Ireland would advance the cause of all workers on this island and deliver an Ireland of equality. Accordingly, if there is to be to an united Ireland, it must be a new Ireland which places workers' rights, economic rights, gender rights, as well as universal human rights, front and centre in a new all-Ireland constitution. This was part of our declaration in 2019.

We seek to address the opportunity offered by the Good Friday Agreement for a peaceful, democratic pathway to a new and united Ireland through the provisions for referendums on Irish unity as contained in that agreement. Most importantly, we seek to address key issues, challenges and opportunities for working people on this island around the question of constitutional change and a new and united Ireland. In so doing, we place particular focus on an all-Ireland health service, free to all at the point of entry; workers' rights, particularly the constitutional right to collective bargaining and the right to decent pay; a bill of rights and gender rights; all-Ireland climate action; a constitutional right to housing; and a fairer progressive taxation system across the island.

I would like to comment on Jimmy Nesbitt's reference last Saturday at the event in the 3Arena to a new union of Ireland. I have no difficulty with that term to really identify what the future is about. It does not matter whether it is referred to as a united Ireland, or indeed a new union of Ireland. The Belfast Good Friday Agreement refers quite a number of times to a united Ireland, but it is important that the language can be flexible and interchangeable. What is most important is that we have the debate and that we listen. Many, if not most, of these key issues need to be hardwired, not only into any negotiations or constitutional change, but also into any resulted agreeing constitutional arrangements. There would be little comfort for ordinary working people if there was an eventual sigh of relief that the colour of the postboxes in a united Ireland had been agreed but fundamental rights with regard to health, work and housing were left to the side of the road. I hope I can assist the committee members with any questions they may have. We have a five-page submission that I can advance to them as well.

Chairman

I thank Mr. McQuillan for his submission. Do any Senators want to come in with questions briefly as we are slightly over time?

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I am probably pushing an open door but a new Ireland would be a wonderful opportunity for a new environmental, legally enforceable charter protecting rivers and animals, as in other countries. Maybe Dr. Peter Doran who has published on this question might briefly comment on that exciting possibility and how it is so lacking at the moment.

Chairman

Are there any other Senators with questions?

Senator Emer Currie

I thank the guests very much. In response to the last two contributors, I agree that language has to be protected, obviously along with gender rights, equal rights, climate justice and access to education. They all made really good points. We have an opportunity to make sure, from a trade union and employment perspective, that we deliver in a better way. I do not want to ask any more questions, but to thank our guests and emphasise that we have heard their submissions.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

Like every session, there is much to absorb today. We could talk for even longer, but we will not - do not worry. I have one question, agus tá me chun é a chur chuig Conchúr Ó Muadaigh. Aontaím leis an méid atá ráite aige ó thaobh achan rud beagnach. Aontaím go háirithe faoi choinne stádas na Gaeilge in Éirinn nua, nó cibé athrú bunreachtúil a bheadh ann. Ceist ar leith taobh amuigh de sin ná cé chomh tábhachtach is atá sé go mbeadh glór phobal na Gaeltachta le cluinstin sa chóras agus sa phróiseas seo agus cén dóigh gur féidir linn an glór sin a tharraingt isteach sa phlé.

Senator Mark Wall

I have a few quick comments. First, I thank everybody for their contributions.

An all-Ireland third level application process is essential and I agree with everything Ms Murphy said. I could not agree more with everything Mr. McQuillan said. I look forward to working with the witnesses through this committee as well as other committees to put workers' rights at the centre of everything in a united Ireland.

Chairman

Ms Murphy would you like to come back in?

Ms Anita Murphy

No. I thank the committee for inviting me.

Chairman

Thank you for your contribution. It was a very practical suggestion in relation to an all-Ireland application system for third level. I will bring in Dr. Peter Doran.

Dr. Peter Doran

Thank you very much. I really do not want to keep the committee. I would like to bear witness very briefly to an indigenous leader who stood in the jungles of Ecuador last week and recorded a message to us and to the citizens' assembly considering biodiversity. He called on those of us considering constitutional futures to protect the cosmos and to fight for the rights of nature. He was speaking in a way that commanded our attention to the fact that we are responsible to the world when we produce a new constitution. There is an ethical command, if you like, to be responsible to the planet and to the new subjects of history, the species and the ecosystems that have been colonised and translated into dead matter and mere subjective transactions in the economy.

Part of the opportunity here is to look to new constitutional revolutions in Latin America - for example, to Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile where new constitutional imaginations are there to be modelled - and for us to learn from them, given that we face two waves. We are an in-between people, as James Joyce said. We face Europe, the European project, but we also face and are in constant need to respond to the commands and the ethical requests of indigenous peoples who have also suffered at the hands of colonisation along with their natural systems.

Mr. Conchúr Ó Muadaigh

Is thar a bheith tábhachtach é seo nuair a amharcann tú ar an Stát le 100 bliain anuas agus ar na Gaeltachtaí faoi láthair. Tá an teanga agus na Gaeltachtaí faoi bhrú ar chúpla leibhéal. Nílim ag caint faoin teanga amháin ach faoi fhostaíocht, infheistíocht agus 20 rud eile. Dá mbeadh aon duine sa Ghaeltacht ag amharc ar dheis chun rud a dhéanamh chun a phobal a athghiniúint, bheadh sé nó sí breá sásta. Is é an pointe atáimid ag iarraidh a dhéanamh ná go bhfuil sé maith go leor dúinn a bheith ag eagrú imeachtaí sa Ghaeltacht agus ag déanamh iarrachta muintir na Gaeltachta a mhealladh ach caithfidh an Rialtas infheistíocht a dhéanamh sa chóras seo. Is gá dúinn éisteacht a fháil uaidh. Labhair mé faoi mheancóga an Stáit. Caithfimid a bheith ionraic agus machnamh ionraic a dhéanamh air seo. Is teip iomlán atá i gceist leis an gcur chuige i leith na nGaeltachtaí. Tá sé sin thar a bheith tábhachtach nuair a amharcaimid ní hamháin ar Chonamara nó Ciarraí ach ar an iarthar go ginearálta. Le poblacht nó stát úr, tá deis cheart ann dul i ngleic leis na fadhbanna sin.

Mr. Christy McQuillan

I would like to thank everybody for their staying power today. It has been quite a marathon so well done to everybody. The debate has begun. I do not believe anything will stop that debate from carrying on across the island. If we try hard enough we can reach a consensus on many issues that future generations need to have undertaken and we are the ones to undertake them. I am in for the long haul and the union movement will not be found wanting. We have started a process of consultation across the island.

Chairman

On behalf of the members of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee on the Constitutional Future of the Island of Ireland, I thank all those who made contributions today. We had 45 people contribute to this debate today. That is probably a record in terms of people contributing to this particular topic. The people who framed the Constitution in 1937 and put in Articles 2 and 3 could never have imagined the range of topics that would be discussed today. We talked about mental health, online learning and education. They were thinking of something far more simple. As we have learned from the discussions, with the witnesses and with the young people this morning, it is far more complex. We talked about biodiversity and how that needs to be part the discussion we are having in relation to the constitutional future of the island of Ireland. What we are talking about is the future of the island of Ireland and how we can make the best future for everybody who lives on this island. That is an important part of what the witnesses have done as academics in terms of putting out the information because information is key to any decision. That idea of policy neglect seldom goes unpunished. Policy is based on facts and when you have the facts and the information, it allows policymakers to make informed decisions.

We have heard about the issue of Brexit many times. We are, in a sense, lucky to have an example like that on something so fundamental to a country. A referendum held without the facts and the information can lead to people making a decision with haste which they can regret with leisure. We know the consequences of and problems of Brexit will become greater as you move further from the referendum.

I thank all the members of the committee who were here for the morning and afternoon sessions. I thank everyone for staying to listen to one another because we learn from each other. I thank those watching on Oireachtas TV. The sessions will be available for people to download and to listen to witnesses' contributions. Their contributions and submissions will be online. As I said earlier, it is really a big ask to try to condense an entire research report into a tweet.

I thank everyone for their patience. We ran over time but we must bear in mind that in the discussion we are having, it is important to give people the latitude to bring forward the benefits of their research and their views. Their views are divergent in many areas but what we can all agree on is that we all want to create a better future. We just have to decide how we can work together to ensure that.

The select committee adjourned at 5.28 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Friday, 14 October 2022.