Seanad Public Consultation Committee debate -
Friday, 14 Oct 2022

Other Voices on the Constitutional Future of the Island of Ireland: Faith Leaders

Chairman

I warmly welcome the witnesses and Senators to this third day of public hearings of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee on the topic of the constitutional future of the island of Ireland. We began in July with a public invitation to everybody to make submissions. People of all backgrounds and communities were invited to engage with this process. We welcome everybody who made submissions. We were not able to invite everyone to participate in the public sessions, but we thank them. A copy of the committee's report will be given to the witnesses who are here today and to all the other witnesses. We had more than 45 speakers last Friday. For the benefit of the witnesses who are here now, I would like to let them know that that will not happen today.

We are delighted to start with our other voices segment this morning. I welcome the witnesses, Ms Karen Jardine and Reverend Daniel Kane from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Reverend Steven Foster from the Methodist Church in Ireland, and the Reverend Dr. Norman Hamilton from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. They are most welcome. We look forward to hearing what they have to say. Senators will have questions to put to them.

We have a procedural matter which I have to address first with regard to the reading out of this statement. I 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 them identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or that entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to identifying a person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

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

To commence proceedings in this session, I invite my good friend the Reverend Dr. Hamilton to begin.

Reverend Dr. Norman Hamilton

I thank the Chair. I often say the titles people accrue will not be of much help when they get to the pearly gates. They will not count for very much. I am glad to have the opportunity to meet the committee. I hope to have a conversation on the importance of reconciliation in the wider consultation the committee is having on the constitutional future of the island. I really do appreciate the opportunity to be here. I have set out some key concerns and observations in the paper I have provided. In the two or three minutes I have, I would like to develop this thinking in a couple of ways.

I find it quite mystifying and quite dispiriting that to the best of my knowledge neither the Government here in Dublin nor those in London, Belfast or Washington have a clear policy setting out what reconciliation is or the steps needed to make it happen. This in practice means every time a political leader speaks of reconciliation there is no clarity as to what he or she is actually describing or advocating. Perhaps the subject is too toxic, too complex or too costly. Perhaps they simply do not know what is entailed. I do not know. I do suggest this policy silence simply is not good enough.

I am indebted to Archbishop Justin Welby for the clarity on this in his recent book, "The Power of Reconciliation". Effective reconciliation has to be initiated by the person, group or authority that has the greater power in the relationship. This has huge consequences. I will give several examples. In the North it would mean that republicans and loyalists would need to back away from high-profile remembrance of their volunteers and military activists since doing so constantly reopens the wounds of their victims and keeps their trauma ever present. It would also mean that governments and political leaders here and elsewhere commit to transparency and honesty about their role in making the past as horrible as it was for so many. This includes attitudes and words every bit as much as actions. It seems to me that silence, ambivalence and half-truths damage any claim to be interested or committed to reconciliation. Of course I accept that Governments are often short lived and so there is little obvious cost to not being transparent and honest but the imperative still remains. On the positive side, I point to what Steve Baker, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, recently did. Having reflected on his own attitudes, words and actions he took the very unusual step of public apology. This has effectively changed the dynamic of some of the discussions between London, Belfast and Dublin.

We all need to realise that steps towards reconciliation may not be reciprocated in the short to medium term or even possibly over the longer term. This might well mean a one-sided cost to taking the initiative on reconciliation, perhaps even a very considerable one-sided cost. Rejection may loom large. Yet it is a morally proper move to make, not least because it shows serious intent to try to repair a very fractured relationship. It shows intent that we are open to the long haul that may or may not reach its intended goal. We need to recognise that reconciliation is not always possible. We all know from personal experience that not every fracture can be healed.

Reconciliation must also include a serious attempt to provide wide-ranging and long-term support to victims and those who are seriously alienated. This is far from easy. It may even be rejected. It does make the crucially important point that the well-being of the other person, the other group or the other community remains a top priority.

The Belfast Good Friday Agreement began a peace process that is still uncompleted. Twenty five years on it has singularly failed to bring reconciliation to this land and to our people. Tensions and animosities are everywhere even though there has been and still is high-quality good relations work being done. Given that reconciliation at its heart is about doing whatever is needed to rebuild broken relationships, however painful and costly that may be, this is a huge task that has barely got under way. Can we do better? Maybe.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to come before the committee. Much more could be said and needs to be said but for a Presbyterian minister that will suffice for the moment.

Chairman

I thank the Reverend Dr. Hamilton for his contribution. He has lived the experience of reconciliation, which is a process that must go on every day. We all know that attempts at reconciliation do not necessarily work, either in own lives or in a situation such as we have on this island.

Reverend Daniel Kane

One week on, we grieve with you over the loss of the ten precious lives at Creeslough. Our heartfelt sympathy and prayers are with the families and the community over these days of funerals.

I thank the committee for the invitation to meet it this morning. Miss Jardine and I are here as representatives of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. As an all-island denomination our Christian witness and involvement in local communities across our more than 500 congregations is part of the weft and weave of life on the island North and South. This involvement is also part and parcel of the public life in both jurisdictions as demonstrated, for example, by our moderators participation in July's annual national day of commemoration in Dublin and at last month's state funeral of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in London.

While it may be broadly correct to assume that Presbyterians in Northern Ireland generally identify with a unionist perspective and those in the South are more sympathetic to a narrative of constitutional change it would be wrong to conclude there is a one-size-fits-all view on the constitutional future of the island of Ireland among our membership in either jurisdiction. At one end of the spectrum, some of our members are deeply suspicious, even feeling betrayed, that we are here this morning while others will be warmly supportive and welcoming of the fact we have come here. Therefore, we come in a posture of humble compassion and constructive engagement, given that Christianity was on this island long before any constitutional arrangements. We all have the same goal in mind, which is to create the conditions in which everyone has an opportunity to flourish and reach their full potential. Reconciliation, as the Reverend Dr. Hamilton reminded us, is primarily about people and not about land.

Miss Karen Jardine

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak to it. We all know there is little value in those enthusiastic about new constitutional arrangements just having conversations among themselves.

Others must be involved. It is not even enough for the invitation list to be inclusive. The nature and construct of those meetings also need to be inclusive. I think something is being modelled here in respect of these proceedings and the work being done in hearing from different folk, especially in today's meeting. Some of the questions to be asked might be different, but there is a model here for us to think about and learn from.

One thing to remember is that it is a huge, and almost impossible, ask for people to be involved in a conversation that is inviting them to think the unthinkable. This is sometimes especially the case in communities where even thinking about what is going to happen tomorrow is not even part of the conversation on the radar, never mind what is going to happen further in the future. This is why in our written submission to the committee we have encouraged it to think about how to create space for careful conversations. The PCI commends the widening of this discussion to recognise that there are evolving and changing relationships North-South and east-west. Again, something is being modelled here in respect of the conversations that will be heard this afternoon.

In time, of course, those conversations might turn to what a new Ireland might look like. In engaging in this wider conversation, though, it is possible to engage with a wider group of people and in a wider situation. It must be remembered as well that careful conversations only really work when they are based on stable foundations. This is difficult, and is reflected in some of the comments Reverend Dr. Hamilton made on reconciliation. It is time consuming and often unseen work, but essential. Hard and difficult conversations are to be had about the social and cultural differences across the island and across these islands and the more difficult work of engaging hearts and minds. To pick up on something else Reverend Dr. Hamilton said, there is also recognition that any change to constitutional arrangements, whether North-South, east or west, even within the context of the broader United Kingdom, would require some kind of sacrifice on all sides. It is not just a case of one side wins and the other side loses.

Turning to some comments made in the context of the Ipsos-MRBI poll published in December 2021, one topic concerned the prospect of a new flag or a new national anthem to reflect the identity of Unionists having been rejected by more than 70% of respondents. Equally, when it came to the suggestion that Ireland could rejoin the Commonwealth to reflect a new Ireland, the mood was the same, with more than 77% of people saying "No". This was just one poll and it does not necessarily reflect the full picture. It does not, though, paint a picture of a readiness to honour, celebrate or respect different traditions on the island of Ireland, but rather a sense of assimilation over accommodation. We have encouraged the committee and others thinking about this issue to consider that conversations in the constitutional future of the island of Ireland should not necessarily presume a predetermined direction of travel. One of our former moderators referred to an earlier, more critical and more difficult discussion being required about the setting of a tone, in respect of where people being in the same room and sitting at a table can become a conversation and that can become a relationship.

Chairman

I thank Miss Jardine for her insight.

Reverend Daniel Kane

We confess to not always having got this right ourselves. Recent practical examples of how the PCI has tried to live this out include our book, a copy of which we have just given to the Chair, Considering Grace: Presbyterians and the Troubles. It tells the stories of 120 Presbyterian people during the Troubles. It is an interesting collection and read. This publication has acted as an invitation for others to share their own stories of hurt and grief. The "On these Steps" event last September sought to mark the creation of Northern Ireland and the partition on the island of Ireland by inviting representatives from different political traditions to share what the centenary meant to them and their hopes and aspirations for the future. This was the only event which brought together the different parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, along with the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. Both these projects were supported by the Reconciliation Fund of the Department of Foreign Affairs. We pay tribute to this.

Whatever the nature of future relationships across these islands, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland's call and purpose remains the same - to continue to bring what we believe is good news to everyone in society and to be salt and light in the communities in which we are placed. We also recognise the significant contribution of new communities in Ireland, North and South. We feel it is important that their voices and views are heard too. Let me leave the committee with a quote from the "On these Steps" event Ms Jardine mentioned earlier. It is from our previous moderator, the Very Reverend Dr. David Bruce, who himself ministered for a time here in Clontarf. This is what he said on that occasion:

North, South, east and west on these islands presents us with a web of opportunities to grow – economically, culturally and spiritually if we have the vision for it. [In a] post-Brexit protocol environment some of this has been made more complicated, but if anything it has been made more urgent. We must work tirelessly to sort out the new configurations of our cultural, commercial and spiritual connections. [...] Whatever a new Ireland resembles, it will not be because someone was victorious, while another was defeated. If it looks like that, it won’t be a new Ireland.

Chairman

I thank Reverend Kane and Miss Jardine for their contributions. They were very thoughtful but also with deep insight concerning the lived experience of the members of the Presbyterian community across the island of Ireland. This is an important perspective to hear. People all over the island need to hear this viewpoint. Before I call Reverend Steven Foster, I extend my sympathies to him and to Reverend Dr. David Clements, whose mother is being buried today. He was to be with us but unfortunately his mother passed away during the week and we extend our condolences on behalf of this committee and the Members of Seanad Éireann to him and to all his family.

I thank Reverend Foster for coming. He was going to accompany the Reverend Dr. Clements today anyway. I acknowledge his sad loss now. I call Reverend Foster.

Reverend Steven Foster

Go raibh mile maith agat. I was going to acknowledge the absence of Reverend Dr. Clements. I thank the Chair for doing so. We will pass on his expression of sympathy. I know he would want to express his appreciation for that.

When we were both going to be here, Reverend Dr. Clements would have been taking the lead. He was primarily going to be speaking. He has written some words for me to share with the committee. These are his words:

I was looking forward to presenting oral evidence to [the committee] this morning on behalf of the Methodist Church in Ireland and I am very sorry not be able to do that and join in conversation...[The committee] will understand I cannot do so because on Tuesday evening my amazing mother went to be with the Lord and as [the committee] meet[s], I will be taking part in her funeral service. I am sure my colleague, the Reverend Steven Foster, will be well able to articulate some of our Methodist thinking on the matter. Also, the views [the committee] will hear from the Presbyterian Church and the Reverend Dr. Norman Hamilton, a long-time good friend of mine, will echo much of what I might have said to [the committee]. I am sending this short reflection to [the] Chair, Senator Mark Daly, and if he feels it would be helpful, he or my colleague could read it to [the committee] and add it to the record.

The issues [the committee] will wrestle with in this consultation are complex and multifaceted. They include matters that are constitutional, political, economic, social, judicial and all in the context of a long, contested and messy historical background. I am an expert in none of these areas, but if I may, I offer this short reflection for [the committee's] consideration that best fits under a heading like "spiritual" and-or "relational". In my view, it is as important as all the other areas put together. It builds on what we have said in our submission under the headings, "Dealing with the Pain of the Past" and "Building on Firm Foundations".

As [the committee] come[s] to the end of [its] meeting this morning, I will be shouldering my mother's coffin out of the little Methodist Church at Ballynanny, a mile from Ballygawley, to lay her to rest beside my father who was buried in that church graveyard in December 1985. My father was born and bred on the Shankill Road in Belfast. He was a Unionist, though in any self-description he would have put that label well down the list. He was happy to be both Irish and British and an Ulsterman as well, but above all he would have labelled himself as "Christian".

He was shot dead by the IRA on a dark Saturday night in December 1985. I have asked both publicly and privately why he was shot. Usually, I get no answer. Presumably he was not shot because he was a Unionist, a Methodist, a Protestant or a Christian. The obvious answer is that he was shot because he wore a bottle green uniform. It has been suggested that the IRA did not want to shoot "Bill Clements", they shot at the RUC uniform. I like to think that I am not easily offended or angered, but that answer makes my blood boil.

My father loved sport. In a competition for a finals place between Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, he would, like me, have cheered loudest for the Irish. To see a successful Irish football team celebrate by chanting "oh ah, up the 'RA", turns my stomach.

If I were able to be with [the committee] this morning, [its members] would be asking me questions. Can I pose a question for [the committee] to think about in [its] deliberations? In building any new future for this island, how can we drain the putrid pus of this revisionist indoctrination that allows a new generation to "celebrate" the violence of the IRA?

Let me conclude with one more thought drawn from my personal and pastoral experience. I do so hesitatingly, lest it be thought insensitive.

We have all been deeply grieved by the explosion in Creeslough and [the] loss of ten beautiful people. Over the years there have been other tragic stories of loss of multiple lives in explosions in Monaghan, Dublin and many part[s] of the North. Two touched me particularly. I worked for the Methodist Church in Enniskillen for 18 months in 1986-87. I left in the summer before the Remembrance Day bomb. I knew most of the people killed and the 3 Methodists, I knew quite well. In 1993, I was the minister in Woodvale Methodist Church and on...23 October I was on the scene of [the] Shankill bomb shortly after it exploded.

These two incidents have been much in my mind this week in the wake of the tragedy at Creeslough. There are some striking similarities – the number of people killed, all civilians, both men and women, some related to each other, a mix of ages and a father and daughter crushed together under the rubble. There is one glaring difference though. In Creeslough, the cause may not yet be officially announced but we all presume it was a tragic accident – no one intended to cause an explosion that day. At Enniskillen and on the Shankill it was different. Careful and callous planning preceded the murder of innocent men, women and children.

Every loss of life is tragic and the grief of a family is deeply personal. With years of pastoral experience, and burying my mother today, I know that to be true. But, again with personal and pastoral experience, and nearly 30 years of experience with the WAVE Trauma Centre, believe me when I tell [the committee] that when that grief is deliberately caused by the evil intent of another human being, the burden to be carried is greatly increased.

If we are to build a better island for future generations, whatever agreed constitutional arrangements are developed, we must build on firm foundations having found a better way to deal with the bitter legacy of the past.

May I make some comments of my own?

Chairman

Absolutely.

Reverend Steven Foster

I will hold those words powerfully for what they are. I will also share a couple of thoughts of my own.

At the centre of my faith and of what Methodists live for, both in terms of personal faith and our social commitment to all who are marginalised or sidelined, is reconciliation. We hold that commitment to reconciliation thoroughly while taking seriously the challenges and issues that we face and the need to listen to the experiences of others. This commitment to reconciliation and having the difficult conversations is something that we in the Methodist church are keen to be a part of. We continue to wish to exercise this commitment thoroughly in listening to all and engaging well. It is important that we all step back and listen well.

A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to attend the Ireland's Future event. I was thankful for all of the contributions and work that went on behind it. I listened to all of the different voices. At an event like that, there will be cheers or boos, but this level of engagement by small groups of people listening together needs to happen and be taken seriously. There can be settings where one view or another is expressed. During the Ireland's Future event, there was constant reference to how crucial it was that the unionist voice be heard.

Within that, we need to recognise the diversity of voices. As we outlined in our paper, the Methodist Church in Ireland is not coming from a unionist perspective. Members have our identities within the church, but it is a mixture. There is diversity, not just in political backgrounds and opinions, but in who we are in terms of our races, sexualities and other aspects of identity. It is all those in-between voices. I listened to the radio the other day following the discussion about the chant after the football match. I do not wish to link this point to the football match in particular, but there was a radio debate between one side and the other. I was more in the middle thinking to myself that there were nuances involved.

Regarding the voices of those who have been affected by the violence, I was glad of Mr. Jimmy Nesbitt highlighting the voices of victims at the end of the Ireland's Future event. The voice of one victim is not more important than another, and in this discussion on constitutional change that may lead to a unified Ireland, those who have suffered deeply in the name of a united Ireland must know that their voices are being held well.

We appreciate this opportunity for genuine engagement. We want all to know their voices are heard and to seek to continue to engage in the process.

Chairman

I thank the Rev. Foster for his perspective and insight into the voices of victims and their families and on the need for genuine reconciliation. I have quoted the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mike Nesbitt, before on reconciliation. He often said true reconciliation is giving up all hope of a better past and that all we can hope for is building reconciliation to create a better future. That is important. As we remember David Clements and his sad loss today, we also remember his father, who was killed in tragic circumstances. He has witnessed more in his lifetime than we could ever imagine. He is a true voice on the issue of reconciliation on this island. All our witnesses today should be listened to because they have vast experience, having listened to many people who have suffered tragic loss.

I remind Senators that they have ten minutes between them for questions. Senators are here to pose questions and to listen to our witnesses.

Senator Frances Black

It is wonderful to be here to hear what the witnesses have to say. Their statements have been inspiring. I am very happy and warmly welcome them. I send my condolences to the Rev. Clements on the passing of his mother this week and on the death of his father.

The intergenerational trauma of the conflict has been horrific on victims. I have heard down through the years on both sides what it has been like. The grief, pain and trauma gets carried on to the next generations. That is why this is such an important session to discuss these issues. I thank the witnesses for coming in to share their experience and expertise. There have been many references to reconciliation. It is an essential process and principle, no matter what the constitutional future of the island is. That is important to recognise.

The Rev. Dr. Hamilton mentioned in his submission that there is no agreed-upon definition or descriptor of what reconciliation is and what it would look like in the specific context of Ireland. Will he lay out what he thinks it should be? I share his desire to see a better British-Irish relationship and deeper North-South co-operation. These things require partnership and working together always. That can be sometimes difficult. What does he think the Irish Government can do to foster reconciliation and bring people together?

I found the part of Ms Jardine and the Rev. Dr. Kane's submission about the decade of centenaries and the commemoration done by their church fascinating. How can we encourage a culture of commemoration and remembrance that is open-minded, informative and questioning, not prescriptive and reductive?

I thank the witnesses again for their fantastic opening statements.

Senator Gerry Horkan

The witnesses sat down for their contributions and I might do the same. We are in committee so it is a little bit less formal.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for being here. It is important. Probably 30 or 40 years ago, the idea of people like them being in the Seanad Chamber would be unheard of; maybe even ten years ago it would have been unheard of. It is great to see them here. I grew up in south Dublin. My next-door neighbour was a member of the Presbyterian Church. My neighbour across the road was a Methodist in charge of minding the Methodist building in Ballinteer for many years. I think Taney is the largest Church of Ireland parish by numbers in the country. I am friendly with many people of the witnesses' persuasion and communities.

The witnesses are all people of faith, with belief and Christian background, values and so on. How do they reach out in their communities to people not as committed to or interested in peace or reconciliation? How do we convince those people there is value in it? While the Rev. Dr. Hamilton made the point that the Good Friday Agreement has failed in certain ways, we are not where we were 25 years ago in terms of the level of active violence, Border checkpoints, guns all over the place, bombs on a frequent basis and attacks. We have come a long way but have a long way to go. I think that was his point. How do we get people who are more entrenched, less forgiving and less interested in reconciliation into the system?

What do the witnesses think of the Taoiseach's view of not so much a united Ireland but a shared island and his shared island initiative? Where do they think it can go and what else can it do? I think the phraseology is important and I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on that, but equally so is the intent. It is not that we are trying to get to 50% plus 1 or whatever. We are all on a journey together, wherever it ends up. I take the point about not having a predetermined outcome but we should all work together towards a better island.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I thank everyone for their contributions. It is important, as the Cathaoirleach has said, that we listen and there is a lot to absorb today.

I ask the Rev. Dr. Hamilton how important the more recent reconciliation gestures are. I refer to things like Martin McGuinness and Queen Elizabeth's engagement and that being followed up more recently after the death of Queen Elizabeth with Michelle O'Neill and King Charles. How can we build on that? How significant is that going forward?

I ask everyone how damaging to the process of reconciliation is the British Government's proposed legacy Bill? We have spoken about victims of the conflict and we have never seen those victims united in such a way as they are in opposition to that Bill.

Respectfully - and this is why dialogue is important - I do not recognise the Rev. Dr. Hamilton's assertion that there are tensions everywhere. I accept that there are tensions in the North at the moment. I do not diminish them but I do not think they prevail throughout our society. How do we ensure tensions, fears and concerns, perceived or otherwise, do not hinder an organic dialogue and conversation around something that is agreed in the Good Friday Agreement, namely, the potential for constitutional change?

A sentence Ms Jardine uttered that struck me was to the effect that there is a model here in what we are doing today. She said the conversation might turn to what a new Ireland could look like. For many people, the conversation has turned to what a new Ireland is going to look like. How can the committee engage in missionary work of our own to ensure we can build on this morning? I want an honest assessment of that and know the witnesses will give me one.

The witnesses' churches are organised across the entirety of the country and that gives them a unique perspective. I seek their view on the issue of reconciliation in its broadest possible context. How damaging has it been for society, North and South, that post partition, neither State has engaged in a process of reconciliation after a horrific conflict where horrible things were done? The transgenerational trauma, as Senator Black outlined, does not just pertain to the recent conflict in the North, but goes back much further, whether to the Civil War or partition, and a feeling of abandonment among nationalists, Catholics and republicans in the North and among Protestants, unionists and people of British identity in the South.

How do we ensure that going forward, reconciliation is not just seen through the prism of green and orange in the North after 30 years but is considered in its broadest possible context throughout society?

Senator Emer Currie

What is reconciliation? I put that question to four MLAs at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly because we do not have an agreed version or vision of reconciliation. As time goes on, reconciliation is becoming different things to different people. I agree that it would be hugely valuable to have a wider discussion about what reconciliation is and where we want to get to. I also agree that would set the tone for wider conversations. We cannot say that until we have a reconciled society we cannot discuss what a united Ireland, a new Ireland or a shared Ireland looks like. The two things are weaved together. For me, a new Ireland is based on what Reverend Foster has said and if it looks like somebody is defeated, it will not be a new Ireland. Reconciliation is the essence of a shared society. Our guests have talked about empathy and by framing this discussion in empathy, we are able to move it away from a rose-tinted version of what a united Ireland looks like. We are able to move the discussion away from a romantic view and into the reality.

I agree that the glorification of violence does not aid reconciliation but opens wounds. How realistic is it to expect that the parties doing that will stop and will see the bigger picture? We have the legacy Bill, which is an opportunity because all of the parties are united in their rejection of the proposals therein. However, they are not united on the need to leave behind revisionism and the glorification of terrorism. How do our guests feel about that?

Chairman

Senator Currie has touched on the question of chanting and how we drain the putrid pus of revisionist indoctrination. I saw an interview with one of the people who participated and who apologised for it and said that education was the way forward. People need to understand that chants like that at events like that are not simply just chants. There are people who are hurt by such things. People need to understand that there are consequences when they celebrate in that manner and that it causes hurt. Once people understand it causes hurt, that will put a stop to it but they need to understand that in the first place. That was the key message from that.

Senator Emer Currie

Reverend Hamilton argued that the governments must agree an adequate, if not perfect, working descriptor of reconciliation but surely that should involve the stakeholders - all parties - and not just the governments.

Reverend Dr. Norman Hamilton

I think I counted 23 questions there. I will try to be a good boy and answer the broad thrust of them as briefly as I can. I thank Senator Ó Donnghaile for his comment about animosities. It is really clear that there are animosities between Belfast and London, Belfast and Dublin and between Westminster and the Dáil. There are also animosities within unionism and within republicanism and nationalism. I am not agreeing with the statement but the very fact that unionists blame the Tánaiste for many things is evidence of the real tensions that have to be addressed. I am not making any comment on the rightness or wrongness of it but that is the way it is perceived.

On the question of a definition or a descriptor, I would point to the note I offered the committee earlier and summarise it by saying that a definition of "reconciliation" is to do whatever needs to be done to rebuild broken relationships. Doing whatever needs to be done takes one in 100 different directions. If we do not address the fact of broken relationships and if we do not address how they are to be repaired by attitude, actions and words, then all the other discussions are tangential. For me, it is about doing whatever is necessary and that brings me back to the point about cost that I tried to highlight in my earlier comments.

Senator Ó Donnghaile talked about symbolism and building on that and I absolutely agree with him. Broadly speaking, although this is a generalisation I would not want to push too far, the symbolism of leaders has not been followed through in the attitudes, words and actions of political leaders or even among members of civic society. I do not particularly want to give evidence of that but will do so if I am pushed on it. The symbolism has been seen to be a high point, with no legacy trail of good relations-building coming from it.

Senator Currie spoke about reconciliation and political development going together. I accept that, provided there is some agreement about what we mean by reconciliation. If we are not agreed on that, I really do not see how we can have an intelligent civic and political discussion about the future. I agree with Senator Currie up to a point. She asked how the Government here can help. I offer this suggestion gently, but I hope clearly. It would be an enormous help if political leaders here actually started the process of reframing the language around reconciliation and spelled out to us all what they think it looks like and the processes involved. Again, Steve Baker is as an example of a leading politician who has reflected on attitudes, words and actions and has said that he got it wrong. If senior leaders were to accept that like the rest of us, they are fallen creatures in a fallen world and if they said that they did not just get an individual event wrong but, over a period of time, were wrong in their attitudes and in particular actions, that would be enormously helpful. I could give examples but do not particularly want to do so publicly. I would be happy to give examples to committee members privately. Some degree of humility would start us on our long journey and that includes the churches as well, I must say.

Miss Karen Jardine

I thank Senators for their questions and thoughtful reflections on what they have heard this morning.

Senator Ó Donnghaile picked up on my comment that conversation might turn to a united Ireland when, for many, the conversation has already turned. Within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, PCI, we have been engaging in listening and conversations on the back of the event we did at Union Theological College on the centenary of Northern Ireland last year, which was a public event. We have been engaging with, and listening to, demographics and people within the denomination who may feel they are not normally heard. That includes working people who live on urban estates; areas that may be termed loyalist working-class communities. A number of our ministers serve in those communities and work alongside them. One of the messages that come back-----

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I have worked with many of them over the years.

Miss Karen Jardine

The Senator knows the same as I do. One of the themes that has come through strongly is something I mentioned, that is, thinking about tomorrow and the next 24 hours is as much capacity as some people have. There is no capacity in some communities to think about these broad and significant changes because of the other pressures they are facing. I acknowledge that some people are fully engaged with these considerations but there are also huge swathes of the community for whom these matters are not on their radar, never mind anything else.

Senator Black asked about commemoration and remembrance. It was put into stark relief last year around the centenary of the partition of the island and the creation of Northern Ireland. Looking back over the decade of centenaries, we can see that in the early years before partition, around 1914 and 1916, it was beneficial, helpful and healing to remember together. That was the case in respect of reflections on the First World War and the Battle of the Somme, and understanding the breadth of communities who were engaged in that regard. Learning how to remember together has been a healing process. That is what we have tried to do in Considering Grace, in which there is a chapter from critical friends. Those are people who would not necessarily identify as Presbyterian. A colleague of Senator Ó Donnghaile is included in that chapter, as is Mr. Séamus Mallon. It also includes other political voices. We have asked how to build a framework of commemoration and remembrance where we are able to hear how other people perceive us and that has been a humbling journey for us within the PCI.

I will pick up on the comments that have been made about the legacy Bill. Anyone who listened in to our general assembly in October 2021, which I do not imagine anyone did, would have heard the breadth of opinion within the PCI on legacy. There is no one-size-fits-all position in that respect. There was a very moving and public contribution from one of ministers whose father had been killed. He had come to a position of realisation and an understanding that getting justice in this life may not be possible but perhaps there will be justice in the life to come, which we believe in, as people of faith. Many others of our denomination have an idea of closing the books and hope for justice, even if the possibility it is very slim, and even if they know, deep down inside, that it is unrealistic and may be taken away. In our response to legacy considerations, we have always fallen back on a verse in psalm 85, which speaks about truth and mercy, righteousness and piece, kissing each other and touching each other. Somebody described it to me once as a dance, in that those concepts are in perfect harmony with each other. Another way we could consider those concepts is as a four-legged stool. If one is removed, the stool will fall over. There is a sense that in respect of the proposals as they stand at the moment, the stool has become a little unbalanced. Removing any sliver of hope that justice may be found, either through the civil or criminal courts, is damaging to people.

Reverend Daniel Kane

I will allow Reverend Foster some time to come in but I will first return to the question about us, in the churches, putting our house in order and peace-building. Jesus Christ himself commands us to be peacemakers and peace-builders. For us, that is a considerable issue of discipleship. As Ms Jardine referred to, our former moderator made some insightful comments that were difficult to listen to about how poorly we have done in respect of some of these matters. He talked about how we must make unsacred some of the things that have become sacred to us. He said we have set up some things that are idolatrous. We acknowledge that we must have an important in-house conversation. We confess we have not always got it right. The cross is a vertical and horizontal shape so relationships matter. It is all about getting those relationships right. That is where it comes to a focus. We are going to do a little bit more work on that. Historically, the churches have worked together. I was involved, many years ago, in the formation of Youth Link Northern Ireland, which was the first formally constituted organisation that included the four main denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church. That happened at a youth level, which in interesting, It continues to work together to this day. We know there is work to be done. Quiet work goes on all the time in congregations, church youth fellowships and youth clubs up and down the land, which we need to acknowledge. There is, however, a lot more to be done. It is a discipleship issue for us.

Reverend Steven Foster

I am sure if Reverend David Bruce were here, he would say many more things, and Reverend Hamilton has covered some of the things that Reverend Bruce would have highlighted. I am chair of the southern executive for council and social responsibility but I know our northern executive is very active, and has been active for decades, in engagement on reconciliation and in the peace process.

The Methodist Church operates on a shared-island basis in our business. We do not see a distinction between the North and South. Even though most of our members are in the North, it is together we are used to thinking of ourselves. We need to work at every level from a perspective of a shared island and initiate things now, if we can, that are good and healthy for society at different levels.

Many things could be said about reconciliation. We must be honest and open that churches have not always been good at reconciliation. I am thankful for the thorough, active and courageous work that has happened, and does happen, but we have not always been good at listening to others and taking them seriously. That is not just purely on a Protestant-Catholic basis. It applies to the whole mixture of identities in humanity and parts of society. If we are not used to engaging with others who are from a different ethnic background, who have different abilities to us, those with a variety of sexualities or cultural understandings, or potential class differences, and if we are not allowing ourselves to be challenged on different fronts, it leaves us lacking in our commitment to reconciliation more widely. That then challenges the level at which we seek reconciliation. We must not leave it to people in cosy rooms, or whatever, and must force ourselves to get out to all areas of society. That has been considered at this meeting.

Education is an area that strikes me as crucially important. I have led sessions within transition year classes in different schools that have opened up to different presentations on issues such as reconciliation, conflict, how we understand each other, differences and diversity.

I have been struck that the world that I lived in as a teenager in south Fermanagh and grew up in during the Troubles was like a different planet from that of the teenagers who I have been sharing with in transition year, TY, classes. Linking that, the girls in the football team were caught up in the emotion of such a joyous occasion. We want to mark and celebrate the positivity of that but, I suppose, step back and look at what lies behind this. There is a real lack of education and understanding of the issues. Young generations in Ireland, particularly in the Republic, need to be well educated about the history of the last hundred years or, certainly, of others' experience. It has to happen at an educational level for people to appreciate why a song or chant like that might be offensive or whatever.

Chairman

I thank Reverend Foster. I thank all the Members for their questions, but also particularly our participants for coming here today. It has been enlightening. One of things the Seanad public consultation is about, particularly on this issue, is listening to all the perspectives and all the points of view regarding the future of island. We want to make sure that we do not have a repeat of the last 100 years. Whatever the next 100 years holds, what we would all hope for is a better future for all generations to come. However that better future can be created, it can only be created together.

We will now suspend until 12.25 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 12.12 p.m. and resumed at 12.27 p.m.