Committee for The Executive Office

OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)

The EU and Irish Unity: Mr Mark Bassett and Professor Colin Harvey

28 April 2021 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Committee for The Executive Office

The EU and Irish Unity: Mr Mark Bassett and Professor Colin Harvey

28 April 2021

Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Colin McGrath (Chairperson) Mr Doug Beattie (Deputy Chairperson) Ms Martina Anderson Mr Trevor Lunn Ms Emma Sheerin

Witnesses: Mr Mark Bassett Bar of Northern Ireland Professor Colin Harvey Queen's University Belfast

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I welcome Mr Mark Bassett, Bar of Northern Ireland barrister, and Professor Colin Harvey from the School of Law at Queen's University. They have prepared a written [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.] Thank you for coming along to give us an update on your report. If you are happy to do so, begin with a short presentation, and we will follow that with a question and answer session. Are you happy with that?

Professor Colin Harvey (Queen's University Belfast): Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. I will start, and my colleague, Mark Bassett, will follow. I thank the Chair, Deputy Chair and Committee members for the invitation to provide a briefing to the Executive Office Committee. We appreciate the opportunity that you have given us to address you. Our aim in this briefing is to assist all participants in these debates by offering an evidence-based assessment of key themes that fall within our areas of expertise. We have provided a written opening statement, which we hope is helpful.

Our independent research report, 'The EU and Irish Unity: Planning and Preparing for Constitutional Change in Ireland', was launched in the European Parliament in October 2019. We have given evidence on our findings to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The report needs to be read in light of other work that Mark and I have undertaken and the legal and policy developments since we submitted it. We have included in annex B to our written statement selected examples of additional material that we hope will be of interest to the Committee. Members will note that we have written that material in as an accessible way as we could in responding to questions around the process. Although the report was written some time ago, our core recommendations, many of which were addressed to EU institutions, remain relevant. The document's emphasis on planning and preparing for constitutional change has, we believe, clearly informed the framing of the conversation and discussion since then. This afternoon, we reiterate that our contribution to the debate is intended to assist all political parties and communities across these islands that are contemplating the possible implications of constitutional change here, in line with the Good Friday Agreement.

1 We have included in annex A to the written document extracts from relevant texts that highlight the existing and established constitutional position. It is clear that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and that that position will change only in the way outlined in the Good Friday Agreement and as reflected in domestic law, policy and practice in both states. In our view, nothing contained in the withdrawal agreement, the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol or the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) alters the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Our aim this afternoon is to focus on the main themes in our report, with particular emphasis on what you will all be aware is an intensifying debate about the constitutional future of the island. As Committee members will know, that discussion is becoming much more detailed and much more focused, with a proliferating number of civic and political projects and initiatives. In recent weeks, for example, we have seen Jim O'Callaghan TD, Fianna Fáil, and Neale Richmond TD, Fine Gael, providing detailed thoughts, for public discussion, on what future arrangements might look like. That collective effort includes valuable ongoing work by colleagues in universities across these islands and beyond. I acknowledge and commend that work, which will be useful for the Committee to draw on in its work going forward. We very much welcome those developments, many of which started after we submitted our report. We encourage others, including the Committee, to contribute to what is, essentially, our basic premise and starting point. Our view is that satisfactory planning and preparation need to take place before these referendums happen on the island. Whatever your view on the constitutional future — we are well aware that there are different views — there is merit in encouraging and supporting exploratory work on all of the relevant possible outcomes. If there is to be mutual respect, equal treatment and parity of esteem for divergent constitutional objectives in this society, relevant and appropriate contingency planning needs to be undertaken by the Executive Office, Ministers and their Departments on all potential constitutional eventualities facing the region.

We are pleased to see what we believe is a widespread and growing acceptance of the need for sensible and responsible preparation and what appears to be a measure of convergence among some on a possible time frame for giving people a choice. As you will be aware, the agreement contemplates Irish reunification following concurrent referendums in both jurisdictions on the island. The process is underpinned by international law, and the promise of self-determination is a central feature of the constitutional arrangements of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Following Brexit, reunification is further recognised as a matter of international law in the "without prejudice" provision in article 1 of the protocol.

The constitutional status of Northern Ireland will alter only in the way prescribed in the Good Friday Agreement, and the language of status change there refers explicitly to the option of a united Ireland. We want to underline this point again for the Committee, and this follows on from what we heard in the earlier session: the constitutional status of Northern Ireland has not changed as a consequence of anything that has happened in the Brexit negotiations.

We have outlined elsewhere our preferred approach going forward. We draw the Committee's attention to the important and significant work of civic initiatives that we are involved in, such as Ireland's Future and the Constitutional Conversations Group. We have offered publicly a view on what we believe a good faith interpretation of the agreement requires of the process, and we have provided further details in annex B of our document.

We remain concerned by the attempts to erode and undermine key elements of the agreed process. We recognise that there are areas where more work is required to promote clarity and certainty. Again, the spirit in which we undertake this work is our continuing insistence on the need for necessary preparations that must take place in advance of the referendums envisaged in the agreement happening on the island.

In addition to the work that I have just noted, I have written, as many of you may be aware, in a personal capacity to the Secretary of State on a number of occasions to seek answers to detailed questions on his role in relation to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act. Thus far, I have received three responses from the Northern Ireland Office, and I note that a further response was received last week, which was after the submission of our written opening statement. I have forwarded these to Committee members. Essentially, like the other work that I noted this afternoon, the letters are an attempt to seek clarification on significant aspects of the referendum process and the role of the Secretary of State.

In our view, these matters of preparation, planning and sensible management are of interest to all political parties and communities here. We hope that you will find them of assistance and value. My

2 colleague, Mark Bassett, will now take you through the rest of our opening statement, and I thank you again for the invitation to brief you this afternoon.

Mr Mark Bassett (Bar of Northern Ireland): Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the Committee. Chair, I also thank you and your colleagues for the opportunity to present the report and take questions on it.

The focus of the report is [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.] It tries to look at Irish reunification from the EU perspective. The whole point is that, after reading the report, those who are familiar with British and Irish constitutional law and the Good Friday Agreement will have learned something about how this issue is viewed in EU law.

On the other hand, it is also, hopefully, of assistance to EU lawyers and politicians in the European institutions [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] will learn something about the Good Friday Agreement and how it is implemented and given effect in Irish and British constitutional law. The —.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Mark, we have a very bad connection. It was beginning to rectify itself, but I think that most members will have struggled to have picked up much of what you have said so far. I suggest that you go back to the start. If the connection does not improve, we may need to assess things.

Mr Bassett: Yes. Is that any better?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I am certainly struggling. I do not think that the connection is working, Mark.

Mr Bassett: Apologies.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Will you take a second to log out and in again? We will pass to Colin for a minute to give us an update on another issue. If you dip out and back in, that might get us a better connection.

Mr Bassett: OK, I will do that now. Apologies.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Colin, there is no pressure on you at all, but do you want to pick up some of the initial remarks that Mark was going to make?

Professor Harvey: I am happy to do that.

Ultimately, in our report, we identify and explain the likely consequences in legal processes that arise. Essentially, we argue that the responsibility is on both Governments and EU institutions to prepare. The challenges are identified in our report, but, in our view, none are insurmountable, and the managed transition to these new arrangements is feasible and achievable, if that is what people here decide.

Among other things, our report examines the Good Friday Agreement framework, the state of the current debate, the mechanics of reunification in an EU context, how British citizens will be accommodated and issues such as the consequences of the current rules on economic and monetary union for continued Irish membership of the eurozone. The report includes a number of suggestions and recommendations that are addressed to EU institutions in particular. As we hope is clear, and as we have emphasised this afternoon, we believe that proper preparation is essential. The European Union will have an interest and a role in the process of constitutional change in one of its member states, and that is the principal focus of our report. I will highlight some of the recommendations that we listed in the opening statement.

We invite the Committee to write to the Executive Office to request further information about any contingency work that it is undertaking to plan and prepare for the potential of constitutional change, including whether any of these questions has arisen within the mechanisms that were created by the withdrawal agreement.

As our statement makes clear, we are convinced that legislatures have a role to play in the preparations. We therefore recommend the establishment of an Assembly Ad Hoc Committee to

3 examine the implications for Northern Ireland of the prospects for constitutional change across these islands, including Scottish independence, maintenance of the status quo and a united Ireland. Alternatively, or in addition, a subcommittee of this Committee could be established, with a similar remit. We underline that such a Committee would examine the consequences of all relevant constitutional outcomes, so it would not be confined to exploring one option only. We recommend that it liaise with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at Westminster and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, among others.

Our statement also recommends that the Assembly Research and Information Service be asked to produce a comprehensive briefing paper detailing completed work that relates to those discussions and identifying any gaps in existing research that relate specifically to the Assembly and Executive. We also invite the Committee to consider writing, in the public interest, to the Secretary of State to ask for answers to the questions that I have posed in recent correspondence. You may well have more luck than me in getting answers.

Thank you again for the invitation to discuss these matters with the Committee. We urge members to consider how this Committee can assist, and we ask that you reflect on further work that might be undertaken by the Executive and Assembly. Often, there is an intense focus on the role of both Governments in these processes. However, we believe that legislatures, including Committees such as yours, must also consider how they can contribute constructively to proper planning and preparation, and they should ensure that that takes place in advance of the concurrent referendums, which, as I hope we have made clear, we believe are likely to be held in the decade ahead.

Thank you for your time this afternoon. I very much look forward to your questions, and I very much hope that the meeting is the start of an ongoing conversation in the context of the growing amount of work that is being done in this area.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK, Colin. Thank you very much indeed. Welcome back, Mark. I see that you have rejoined us. I hope that we will be able to get some input from you in the question and answer session, Mark. May I just check that you can hear us?

Mr Bassett: Yes, Chair. I can hear you fine. Can you hear me?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Yes. It is a much better connection. We will definitely be able to get you dovetailed into answering some of the questions. Thank you for that, Mark.

I will begin by highlighting a few of the issues that you have referred to in order to get a bit more perspective on them. As you referenced — I accept that you have been very explicit — there has been no change to the existing constitutional arrangements. What is your sense of the impact that the likes of Brexit has had on the question of unity? Do you feel that it has had an accelerant impact on that debate and discussion? Has it been one of the key changes to the landscape?

Mr Bassett: Yes, Chair. I will address that. It seems to us that, yes, UK withdrawal from the European Union has been an accelerant in the debate on Irish unification. Before 2016, EU membership was a neutral factor. The UK was a member state, as was Ireland. A majority in this jurisdiction supported continued UK membership of the European Union, but that was not enough to win the Brexit referendum. We think that, in the years ahead, when there are concurrent referendums, the choice in Northern Ireland will be between two outcomes. One is for Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom with Britain outside the European Union but a protocol. Probably not this protocol but in a protocol. The other choice is for a united Ireland as a member of the European Union with the Irish state assuming the obligations on sovereign power that are set out in the Good Friday Agreement.

There is also a question of European Union citizens who have exercised free movement rights and have taken up residence in this jurisdiction. We hope that they would be included on the franchise for the referendum in the North and, indeed, given an opportunity to influence the decision on Northern Ireland and whether it should [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] Ireland or the union with Britain should continue.

Professor Harvey: The spirit of our contribution this afternoon and the starting point, to address your question, is that it would be odd to us if people were not discussing this matter as a result of Brexit.

Obviously, one part of the island is in the European Union and one part is out of the European Union. There is a mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement whereby Northern Ireland has the potential to

4 rejoin the European Union. It would seem very strange if people did not feel that they could have this conversation out loud, if you like, so we have been very heartened by the amount of really rather tedious, boring and technical work that has now started on some of the hard questions.

It is pleasing to see that the homework bit is starting to be done. I hope that Committee members will understand, as we made clear this afternoon, that we want to see advance planning and preparation. The Committee, the Assembly and the Executive can have a role in that preparatory work.

One point that we tried to highlight in the opening statement is that constitutional debates are happening around these islands, so there is a sense that we need to be ready for all the potential outcomes. There is a debate about this island, but look at what is happening in Scotland. How will the Assembly and Executive respond if there is constitutional change there? It seems that Brexit has rather dramatically changed the discussion. It would be strange not to be talking about this, but we need to do the hard work in advance first.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Yes, that is a fair point. This goes into my next question, but you mentioned on a number of occasions, and I totally agree, that a lot of groundwork and preparation need to be done, in some instances just to have the debate. I am conscious that three members of the Committee are from the DUP and are not here. Therefore, a certain amount of work needs to be undertaken to allow an arena for the discussions about preparations.

Will you give us a flavour of the preparations? What sort of preparations need to be done? I can think straightaway that fiscal matters will be of great importance to people and often contribute to people's thinking in matters like this. A key criticism of the Scottish referendum may be that not enough work was done on people feeling that they were going to be out of pocket. What other sorts of preparations need to be undertaken before we move into discussions?

Professor Harvey: I will start on that, and Mark can follow up. There are two things that we need to think about. The first is the procedural questions on the process itself. As you know, work is ongoing on the concurrent referendums and how the processes in those will advance. While the Good Friday Agreement provides a framework for that referendum process and there is a measure of clarity in it already, there are still gaps that need to be addressed. For example, Mark talked about who will get to vote in Northern Ireland when the referendum happens. There are those sorts of procedural questions to consider, and it is really heartening to see that a lot of work has started on that already that we need just to flesh out.

The second issue is the more substantive one in both ways. If you are proposing in a referendum that the outcome be a united Ireland, what is your proposition? What will be in your prospectus? In a referendum campaign, when you turn up at somebody's door, if we are ever allowed to turn up at anybody's door again, what will you actually say to them? The substance of that needs to be fleshed out, and a number of options from those who are advocating change need to be clarified. I mentioned recent work, and a number of politicians and others have engaged in that debate. That is all very useful in sketching out what a united Ireland will look like, what the options and choices are and what the implications of those choices will be for the Good Friday Agreement. In some sense, it is not an entirely blank-page conversation, because this will be framed by the agreement.

To finish, before I hand over to Mark, I will say that there is a lot of focus on those advocating change through a united Ireland, but those arguing for the maintenance of the status quo also need to think about what their campaign literature, prospectus or proposition will contain when they develop it. Will it simply say, "Here we are. No change", or will there be proposals about what the maintenance of the union might look like? Procedurally, work is going on on the referendum question, and, substantively, work is going on on what it will actually look like when the process starts. To end where we started, we feel that we are on a pathway towards these referendums whether you like it or not. Before they happen, we need to ensure that we do not have a repetition of what happened with Brexit, that people are prepared and that they know what they are voting for. It is then ultimately up to people to decide the constitutional future of this region. Thank you. I will pass you over to Mark.

Mr Bassett: Thank you. When these referendums come, and we believe that they are on the horizon, [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] presented with realistic outcomes. As Colin said, a lot of the procedural questions can be answered by reference to current Irish and British constitutional law and to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

5 The more substantive points, such as health, education and infrastructure, the existence of two separate legal systems and, in particular, the continuation of the institutions established by the Good Friday Agreement will require further work, principally from the Irish Government [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.] The report that we have written has also identified some work that should be undertaken by the EU institutions [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.] Ireland is a member of the eurozone. A reunited Ireland will have consequences for the [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] European Union. There will be a large number of British citizens resident in a united Ireland state, and we think that there has to at least be some provision in EU law to protect not only unionist citizens but British citizens who are resident in Ireland.

Some of the other points that the EU institutions can look at include Irish representation at the European Parliament and on the Council. [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.]

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Mark, I will come back in. There were about 30 seconds there when we were unable to pick you up. I will move on to the next question. I recommend that you switch off your camera so that we have you on audio only to see whether that improves the signal a little bit because, unfortunately, we are struggling to get what you are saying. I will ask Martina Anderson to ask a question. Hopefully, with your system being on audio only, it might help to get some of the quality back so that we can hear from you again. I will pass to Martina.

Ms Anderson: Thank you, Colin and Mark. It is a pity, Mark, that we are not hearing from you. I had the pleasure of being with you when we launched in the European Parliament the document that you are here to talk about today, which is 'The EU and Irish Unity'. I and many others have observed the thread that runs through a lot of what you have produced to date. That work is about encouraging a conversation and prudent planning for constitutional change. Brexit has had an impact on the constitutional turbulence that we are in. It is about the EU's statement on 29 April 2017 from the 28 member states. People sometimes forget that the British Government still represented a member state at that time. They were one of the signatories of that statement, which sent a signal to the people of Ireland, including those here in the North of Ireland, that, in the event of a democratic process and Ireland being reunified, the whole of Ireland would remain in the EU.

Colin, you talked about writing to the Executive Office in the here and now about planning and preparing. What do you envisage the Executive Office taking forward? You talked about, for instance, the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee. Whether we get that remains to be seen; I have my doubts, but it is something that we should argue for. I would like to know and have you explore with us further what you see as the role of the Executive Office, notwithstanding the various views from, for instance, the two joint Ministers on this, in the context of sensible, reasonable planning so that we never have a situation here on this island where we have a referendum debate and discussion where people are told that something is another Project Fear and all that. It is about having a sensible, reasonable conversation on potential constitutional change. Will you explore with me further why you would like us to engage with the Executive Office?

Professor Harvey: Thank you, Martina. The reasons for the recommendation on writing to the Executive Office are twofold. One is to clarify what work or thinking has already been done on the matter on the basis of the earlier point about it being odd, in the context of Northern Ireland having an option of returning to the European Union, that nobody is planning or discussing it. The second is to encourage the Executive Office and Ministers and their Departments to mainstream the idea in their planning processes, in the sense that, if we respect some of the core values of the Good Friday Agreement or where we are now, essentially, we should be planning for all potential eventualities. We do not, in the opening statement, point to simply one outcome. There is also the fact that Scotland may also become independent in the decade ahead to consider. In that context, it strikes me that the Executive Office and our Ministers and Departments should be thinking about how we will respond to some of those developments. Mark and I talked before this meeting, and we thought about this: do the Executive and Assembly have a view about their continuing existence, for example? Those are some of the debates that are happening. It seems that the Executive should have a view on that.

Finally, there are important research and capacity functions in the recommendations, and Departments and the Executive Office could be thinking about research that is being undertaken and research that is still to be done. I am conscious both of the potential to link up with the Shared Island unit in order to have a conversation about how it explores how we cooperate on the island in the here and now and of how the Executive Office can engage and think about that in the here and now and in the context of where things might be going next.

6 People throughout this society would expect their Government and the Departments there to map forward potential constitutional and other futures, and it seems at least plausible to say that we are heading into a period of constitutional change and want the Executive Office and Ministers to be ready. I know the response: I might be an academic, but I am not naive. I know the reality of that, but let me reiterate what we started with. It is relevant for all political parties and all communities here that we be prepared for the status quo and be prepared and ready for possible change. It seems that if we respect some of the values that are supposed to govern the society that we live in, that should be an utterly unproblematic statement to make.

Mr Bassett: Thank you, Colin. I just want to check that the Committee can hear me OK.

Ms Anderson: Yes.

Mr Bassett: Thank you. Apologies for the difficulties so far. I would have said what Colin already set out. There are some clear blue-sky proposals on what a united Ireland might look like. Unless and until something else is agreed, we think that the devolved institutions set out in the Good Friday Agreement will be an important feature of a united Ireland, and it would be helpful if the Committee could put forward a view on that that either supports or opposes it.

Another useful task that the Committee or the Assembly's Research and Information Service could perform would be to identify features of Irish constitutional law or Irish law that may perhaps not adhere to principles of equality or parity of esteem. It would be helpful to an Irish Government if that were pointed out from this forum.

Ms Anderson: That is the Assembly, so thank you both for outlining your thoughts further on that. However, you will have seen polls that show that there is growing support for Irish unity North and South. In the context of the conversation that you talked about on planning and preparing, how beneficial would the establishment of an all-Ireland citizens' assembly be in assisting with the conversation and with planning and preparing for potential constitutional change?

Professor Harvey: Citizens' engagement in the discussion is essential. The idea that is out there of establishing an all-island citizens' assembly or forum to discuss some of those questions has proved to be a remarkably productive way of addressing issues in Ireland — in the South of this island. It is a good idea, essentially because I do not think that answers to some of those questions should necessarily come from the top down. They should be bottom-up conversations where the hard questions are addressed and emerge.

I would also like to respond to something that you said. I realise that I have been writing letters to Brandon Lewis since December, but there are two things there. The Secretary of State is under a duty to act where it appears likely that a majority would take the proposal up, so there is a duty there to act. The Secretary of State could take that step at any time if he felt that it was in the public interest to do so. It seems to me that not to be ready for it is remarkably foolish. The responsible thing to do is plan, and, if we are going to plan responsibly, it would be a great idea to have citizens' engagement across the island in order to address the harder questions on some of the things that we talked about, and I think that it would be thoroughly supported.

Ms Anderson: I am a firm believer in participatory democracy, so a citizens' assembly should have engagement from the bottom up; it should never be from the top down. We should always consult, hear and listen in the co-design process, which that some people talk about now. Regardless of whether that is on policy development or constitutional change, it is absolutely necessary. I am also conscious of the report that you are presenting today — 'The EU and Irish Unity'. The EU has played a role in protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts on having no hardening of the border and on the unique and special circumstances, and I know that both of you identified that the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts, also deals with rights. I will leave that to Emma, because she will probably pick up on it, as she is the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Bill of Rights. What role do you envisage the EU playing in planning and preparing as we move forward to, some of us believe, a constitutional conversation about a changed future on this island?

Professor Harvey: Mark, do you want to start with that?

Mr Bassett: Thank you, Martina. In the report, we take as a starting point the unanimous decision of the European Council that Irish reunification would be approached by the institutions in the same way

7 that German unification was approached in 1990. The EU institutions are going to view it as consistent with public international law. They can see that a process for reunification is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, Irish constitutional law and UK constitutional law. One of the important steps after that would be to make sure that the institutions are ready for a united Ireland. In the report, we mentioned a study of the implications for Ireland's membership of the eurozone. There is a single monetary policy, but there are coordinated economic policies between the member states, so it would be helpful if there was a view and if research was undertaken in the EU institutions.

Another issue that we address in the report is the status of British citizens in a united Ireland. It is a fundamental feature of the Good Friday Agreement that British citizens be entitled to that status in perpetuity. That will be based on British nationality law. Effective protection has to be built into Irish law, but we think that it probably should be built into EU law also so that there would conceivably be some sort of category of British citizen in Ireland who would be afforded equivalent rights to EU citizens in the like of free movement and data protection etc. Another measure that could be taken in the EU institutions is research on rights issues and the economic consequences for a united Ireland.

Professor Harvey: To echo what Mark said, this process will happen in a member state of the European Union. You will note that, in our report, our recommendations are primarily addressed to, for example, the European Parliament, the European Commission and other institutions. We think that the European Union has a significant interest in what will happen in one of its member states, so the preparatory work that we recommend in the report could also be undertaken, unproblematically, I think, by the European Union in advance of that. Moreover, what is often neglected in the debate is that anything that happens on this island will be a responsibly managed transition process of change that will enjoy the support of the European Union and other international actors and will take place over time, too. To repeat the point: just as we have talked today about the work of your Committee, the institutions of the European Union could be doing useful work in advance of that taking place.

Ms Anderson: There are loads of questions that I could ask both of you, and I could listen to both of you for a long time. I would love to ask more questions, but I will leave it at that.

Mr Lunn: Thanks, Colin and Mark. It is great to see you before the Committee. The session has been very useful so far.

You made a recommendation for an Ad Hoc Committee of the Assembly to look at this issue. Martina also rightly brought up the question of a citizens' assembly. Do you agree that those two bodies working in tandem, one from perhaps a political point of view and the other from a more civic point of view, should be able to establish answers to the questions that everybody wants to know?

The citizens' assembly in particular, in a non-political atmosphere, could ask questions about the economy, the health service, the police and all the rest of it, garner the answers and put them before the people. You rightly say, in paragraph 12 of your report, that it is essential that everybody have the information and know the issues, and that that will inform how they vote.

That leads me on to my other point. There are no unionists here today. I imagine that they are watching, but they are not here. Let us say they are adopting an abstentionist attitude rather than a boycott because, apparently, they do not do boycotts. We have this conversation, we have your report, and we have the others that you referenced — the activities of Ireland's Future, the papers from Jim O'Callaghan and, most recently, Neale Richmond, all of which are valid and useful.

However, you would have to form the opinion that they are all directed, without, perhaps, meaning to, in one direction: Irish unity. Surely it is vital, and maybe we could put it on the record today, that we hear from unionists to get their point of view. They are as entitled to make the case for the continuation of the Union as people like us are to make the case for reunification.

Professor Harvey: I agree with you on the important role of the citizens' assembly in shaping the debate in dealing with some of the harder questions. We have also seen citizens' assemblies being forums whereby you receive expert evidence, you tease out the issues, they are discussed with people, and informed conclusions are then reached. It is a useful model and would be very helpful.

In some senses, the preparatory work has already started and is ongoing. In a sense, it is now about people joining work that is already ongoing to flesh out the details, much of which has been done in a university context but a lot of which has been done in wider civil society as well.

8 I hope that the point of wider engagement has been made clear to Committee members. We underlined in our opening statement, and in everything that we have said today, that this issue is of interest to all communities in this society and to all political parties. We framed some of our recommendations around contingency planning quite deliberately because we need to be ready for all eventualities and outcomes. Obviously, one outcome is the maintenance of the status quo, and we need to think about that. Why? Because you will be aware that there are people in the UK at the moment making proposals about what the UK might look like in 10 years' time.

We need to tease those out, too. We are seeing the debates that are happening in Scotland and Wales, and we are seeing debates about decentralisation in England. It seems to me that it would be of enormous value, and in the interests of everyone in this society, if a dedicated mechanism in the Assembly could tease out some of the implications of that for Northern Ireland.

In no sense are we saying that it would be a conversation about a united Ireland only, although I think that that work needs to be done. It would be a conversation about whether the Assembly and Executive are prepared for all constitutional eventualities that might happen on these islands and seem to me almost impossible to deny.

To end where I started, I absolutely want all political parties in the Assembly to engage in that conversation. They should be warmly welcomed and invited to participate.

Mr Bassett: One of the suggestions about made by Neale Richmond in his recent paper was that there would be a formal relationship between a citizens' assembly on the island of Ireland and a number of parliamentary committees. So, there would be initial suggestions from a citizens' assembly that would be commented on by the Executive Committee in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in London, and the Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Those comments would come back to the citizens' assembly, and a recommendation would be made to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin and to the Northern Ireland Secretary of State. That is one suggested model in which a citizens' assembly and formal institutions would work together.

Unionist engagement and participation in the debate would be very welcome and very helpful, but its absence cannot prevent responsible planning from taking place at this time. In my view, the only legitimate basis for Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom is the assumption that, at the moment, the majority of people in Northern Ireland want that to be the case. That is no longer a completely safe assumption, particularly in the context of UK withdrawal from the European Union. If the question was posed in terms of, "Do you wish to return to European Union membership through Irish unity?", there may already be a majority in this jurisdiction that would vote yes.

I suspect that if both Governments indicated that the referendums were to take place in the medium future, there would be much greater unionist engagement and a much more attractive and effective case made for the continuation of the status quo and the Union between Northern Ireland and Britain. So, I am sure that it will come at some stage, but it would be helpful if it was set out clearly and early on.

Mr Lunn: I mentioned unionism in particular because I have had some involvement in the various campaigns, as you well know, but have had virtually no political reaction from unionism at all to what I have said or done. However, I have had considerable reaction from what I would call ordinary unionists who are not particularly political people. Those are the people who I think would really be able to contribute usefully to a citizens' assembly. I would like to think that that would happen. I am not sure how you would go about selecting the membership of a citizens' assembly, but it should contain all shades of opinion.

I would like to think that unionist politicians would engage with the Ad Hoc Committee, as that is vital. There is a possibility that they may moderate their approach and join in. I think that it would take both. There is no question there, but I would like to thank you again for coming before the Committee. It has been very useful.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you, Trevor. I do not wish to be announced as a defender, but I think that it is fair to say that Doug Beattie is here, and I assume that, like all members, he is listening. It is his choice not to ask questions, but he is at the meeting. There was reference to there being no unionists here.

9 Ms Sheerin: I thank Colin and Mark for their presentation on the report, which covers an awful lot of what we have been talking about on the approach to Irish reunification and the sensible way to take it forward. I welcome the presentation. It is groundbreaking that the Executive Office Committee is taking a presentation from two academics who have worked extensively on Irish reunification, how likely it is, how it could look and the opportunities that it presents. It demonstrates how mainstream the debate now is.

Trevor's observations about ordinary unionists and people of a British identity who have engaged with him and asked questions are really welcome. Following on from what he said about the lack of unionist representation at the Committee, notwithstanding Doug's being here, we have a problem. I think that it was Martin McGuinness who said:

"I am so confident in my Irishness that I have no desire to chip away at the Britishness of my neighbours."

We have a frustrating situation. We are trying to have a conversation about potential constitutional change, and we are in a period of flux because of the events of the past few years. Yet we do not have strong representation from unionists either to say, "We are open to change, what would it look like?, what can we do to be a part of it?" or to speak in defence of the status quo and the Union. I know that Colin touched on that in relation to the potential outcomes and that nothing is guaranteed or inevitable, but we have to be around the table and having a conversation. Even following on from the remarks earlier today about the North/South Ministerial Council, it is a sad indictment of political unionism that it is not coming to the table and having mature conversations.

I want to ask about a rights-based approach, as there is a chapter in the report dealing with the protection of rights. It makes references to membership of the EU and the rights that that allows citizens of the North. As you will know, and as Martina said, I am the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights. As part of that work, we have been taking evidence on creating a bill of rights for the North. In my view, a long-reaching rights framework would be beneficial for us all and a good background for this debate. What do you think?

Professor Harvey: Thank you very much, Emma. In response to your question, I am tempted to agree. Ultimately, there should be a rights-based approach. Withdrawing from and being outside of the European Union has raised profound concerns from an equality and rights perspective. There is real worry about where the UK may be going over the longer term and where the Westminster Government may be going on these particular areas. You will be aware that there is a "no diminution" protection in the protocol, which does not get a lot of public attention, but it is there in relation to equality and rights.

At the moment, the bill of rights debate is fundamentally important, and I think that we still need a bill of rights for this region. In my view, also neglected is the fact that, because of the equivalence arrangements in the agreement, any gains made in relation to equality and rights here and now will be leveraged into the discussion on constitutional change as well, because there must be at least an equivalent level of protection in the Irish context as a result of that. That is an argument for getting a bill of rights in place in the here and now.

Finally, again, there is a lot of talk, particularly on the constitutional change side, about this being a new debate and a new discussion. It seems to me that if equality and human rights standards and protections are not at the heart of that discussion, it will not be a new debate: it will be a very old debate. As you will know, there is work going on at the moment to think about how equality and human rights standards can be brought to the heart of the discussion if it is going to be a genuinely new conversation.

I will highlight something that I should mention today that really concerns me. The premise for our discussion this afternoon is that this should be a rather unproblematic discussion that we are having. People should be able to talk quite freely and openly about their constitutional objectives and preferences, but, as we know, we live in a society in which that is categorically not the case at present, and I detect an anxiety that people have in civil society about sharing their views about this issue. So, in a small way, I hope that by my doing things like this, I am encouraging other people to join in, but I will get to the point that I am trying to make. Equality and human rights organisations here need to engage in this discussion; they need not shy away from it. If it is a genuine discussion about planning and preparing for all constitutional eventualities, they have to be ready for the constitutional change option as well. If it is going to be a new discussion, human rights and equality need to be part of it.

10 On a final, final point — I have a habit of saying "a final point" and then adding one — that also applies to those arguing for maintaining the status quo. What will the UK look like in the years ahead in human rights and equality terms? If people are arguing that they want to make Northern Ireland work, would a bill of rights be part of the project of making Northern Ireland work within the UK? There are hard questions from an equality and rights perspective for all sides of the constitutional discussion, and I hope that they are at the centre of all sides in the campaign that I think is coming on those referendums.

Mr Bassett: I have one small point to add to what Colin said. Very importantly, you mentioned the equivalence provisions in the Good Friday Agreement. There are a number of provisions of Irish law, principally Irish constitutional law, which confer rights on Irish citizens. In a united Ireland, that will have to be revisited. Those rights will have to be available on an equal basis to Irish citizens and to British citizens. [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] by the Irish Government in the way in which the referendum for unity is to be pitched and identify those [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality] of the Irish constitution that will have to be amended on unification. For instance, the franchise for amending the constitution is available to Irish citizens resident in [Inaudible owing to poor sound quality.]

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): I am sorry, Mark; I think that we have lost you again, unfortunately. That is regrettable. We will pass back to Emma.

Ms Sheerin: Mark broke up at the end there due to poor connections. Better broadband provision in a united Ireland is something that we should all strive for. It has largely been covered, but when we are having this conversation, there are lots of things that people will say to you, and, often, people think that this is just about scrubbing away at the border and adding six to 26 and going from there. From my perspective, and that of my party, we need change North and South, and the status quo on a lot of things in the Twenty-six Counties needs to be changed.

When we talk about rights, Mark made the point about extending the franchise, and it is my opinion that we should look at votes for 16-year-olds. We should look at the Irish diaspora abroad and how we encourage it to be part of the conversation and how we include it. We also need to look at socio- economic rights: healthcare free at the point of delivery, North and South; a healthcare model for a new Ireland is something that we should work on. I would welcome your thoughts on that. That is largely it from me. Thank you again for your work and for putting this conversation first and foremost.

Professor Harvey: I will respond to some of points that you raised, Emma. Scotland is showing the way on voting age and who can vote. To follow up on something that Mark said, the Good Friday Agreement requires, and will require, things of the Irish state and the Irish Government. One of the questions that that raises is, "Why wait?" Why wait for constitutional change if it is clear that aspects of Irish constitutional law and Irish law, policy and practice need to change? A start could be made now with accommodations that would anticipate possible change. That is important and is already clear in the Good Friday Agreement.

It is slightly tangential, but you will know that an independent review of the Human Rights Act is happening in the UK context. There is a lot of worry there about what the Westminster Government might do. I do not need to tell the Committee how important the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights are to the agreement and to society. Part of the debate about change is motivated by the sense in which Brexit is creating a dynamic that will create a very cold house for human rights and equality in the UK in the years ahead. People are, perhaps, looking to a different and better way forward, based on the human rights and equality protections that you have talked about.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you very much for that. Colin and Mark. That ends members' questions. I appreciate that the line was not great for you, Mark, but we got some contributions from you, which are appreciated. Members have the report in their packs and have, I am sure, read it in advance of the meeting, but they can refer to it. I have no doubt that we will be engaging in conversations again. Thanks to both of you for giving of your time this afternoon. It is appreciated.

Professor Harvey: Thank you, Chair.

11