gerard deane

Human rights are under threat in the UK, warns the Northern Ireland Human Rights Chief Commissioner Alyson Kilpatrick. 

While the immediate question is whether the British government will change the law in order to remove large numbers of asylum seekers to Rwanda, this is in the context of proposals for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. This would have significant, negative, implications for Northern Ireland, given that this is one of the foundations of the Good Friday Agreement. 

The future of human rights legislation is the subject of the latest Holywell Trust Conversations, our podcast series looking at contentious challenges facing Northern Ireland. This latest podcast contains an in-depth interview with Alyson Kilpatrick, along with contributions from the new director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Daniel Holder, and Queen’s University Professor of Human Rights, Colin Harvey. 

Both Alyson and Daniel express real concern about the threats to human rights in all the UK. Colin shares those concerns, while suggesting that much of the rhetoric from government ministers is to create a political environment for exploitation in the next General Election, and may not be realised in the actual legal changes that will be approved by Parliament. 

It is important to recognise that the context is about much more than deporting asylum seekers to Africa, including those who are fleeing from wars and oppression in places such as Afghanistan, Syria and the Horn of Africa.  

Questions were raised about the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights – and being subject to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights – during the Brexit referendum debates. This is despite the ECHR being separate from the EU; pre-dating the creation of the EU and its predecessors; having a much larger membership; and it having been an initiative of British Conservative Second World War Prime Minister Winston Churchill.  

Three government Bills affect – diminish, argue human rights lawyers – human rights in the UK. The most profound of these is the Bill of Rights Bill, which was a pet project of former deputy prime minister Dominic Raab. Whether the Bill of Rights Bill will proceed given Raab’s resignation over bullying allegations is not yet clear. If it does, it will remove some protections included in the Human Rights Act. 

In addition, the Illegal Migration Bill seeks to limit the European Court of Human Rights’ role in adjudicating over British actions to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda. And the Government’s Troubles Bill, often called the legacy bill, puts an end to prosecutions and investigations into Troubles deaths in Northern Ireland. 

Removing human rights protections is of serious concern to lawyers, but is relevant to the daily lives of much of the population. Indeed, the failure of successive British governments to deliver the promised Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is blamed by the podcast interviewees for holding back our society in achieving greater progress towards social equality within NI. 

The podcast can be listened to at the Holywell Trust website.  

Longer versions of the three interviews are also available there. 

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.   

'I'm talking about a culture change in government in Northern Ireland: I mean the civil service and politicians'

Evidence-based policy-making is largely absent from government in Northern Ireland, but the new Pivotal think-tank has been established to correct that, says its director Ann Watt. She was speaking in the last of the second series of Holywell Trust Forward Together podcasts.   

The aim of Pivotal “is to help improve public policy in Northern Ireland,” says Ann. “It’s got a strong emphasis on research and evidence and on using evidence better in public policy.” The very first Pivotal report, published in November last year, made a big splash through its focus on waiting lists and waiting times in the NHS locally, stressing that numerically the Northern Ireland waiting list is more than a hundred times longer than that in England, despite England being almost 30 times’ larger in terms of population. 

Pivotal is the first think-tank established specifically to consider governance in Northern Ireland, despite these being a normal feature of Great Britain, Ireland and most developed nations. Pivotal is backed by the north’s two universities and Ann herself is a former Cabinet Office and Treasury civil servant. “So I’ve got lots of experience in policymaking and policy delivery” as well as “a background in economics”, she explains. “Evidence-based policymaking was very much central to what I did in my civil service days.” 

By contrast, in Northern Ireland, “there’s been a reluctance to take the tough choices”, specifically in the NHS, “which might not be popular, but actually would deliver a better health service in the longer run,” says Ann. She explains that “reform in health and social care... might mean reconfiguring services so that particular aspects of healthcare happen in specialist centres, rather than in a wider set of hospitals across the country.” 

Coalitions always make decision-making more difficult, and Ann concedes that “having a five party coalition makes government work more difficult”. She adds: “I think it’s particularly difficult for the Northern Ireland Executive because you’ve got departments headed by different ministers from different parties and without a clear common purpose.” This makes the natural ‘silo’ division between government departments even worse. 

Ann does not understate the challenge facing Northern Ireland, which was clearly evident from the RHI debacle. “I think that the big, big thing in our good government report [published in March] was the need for a real change in the culture at Stormont.” This requires the parties and departments to work together, with more long-term policymaking. 

While the process for agreeing a Programme for Government in Northern Ireland has been flawed, Ann argues that in itself “it is a good step in the right direction.” But she continues: “I think it needs to be developed and refined and, really importantly, it needs to the genuine set of objectives that government are jointly bought into and committed to.” 

Northern Ireland’s weaknesses in government go beyond the political parties and into the heart of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, as was evident from Sir Patrick Coghlin’s report into RHI. “One clear recommendation from the report is recognising the civil service doesn’t have the skills that it needs in either training its own people up so that they have those skills, or getting external people in.... At the very end of Sir Patrick’s introductory remarks, he talked about RHI being a project too far for Stormont. It was just too complex, too technical. You got the sense that there wasn’t a full understanding of it.” 

Part of the required culture change for the NICS might be achieved through greater diversity in the workforce, bringing people in from other jurisdictions and with different experience. “Any organisation that thinks it hasn’t got things to learn from other people is probably really falling short, because we’ve always got things to learn,” observes Ann. “Every organisation, every individual, every team should be thinking, how can I continue to get better? How can I improve? One of the ways I’ve seen individuals and teams and organisations improve is, over time, being much more open and willing to learn from others and having those interchanges with others... There needs to be much more openness to ideas from outside”, including from Pivotal and other think-tanks, academics and business groups. 

“When I talk about a culture change in government, yes I mean the civil service and politicians as well. I think we have to have a situation where there is not a monopoly on policymaking amongst civil servants or politicians... they are not the only ones with good ideas... There is so much value in listening to and understanding the perspectives of people outside who may actually have far more expertise and far more insights about how policy works in practice.” 

Pivotal has more reports being prepared and is considering what Northern Ireland should look like in 20 years’ time and what type of place its citizens want to live in. Meanwhile, the Holywell Trust’s Forward Together programme is also moving to the next stage, with a book to be published in the coming weeks featuring ideas for making progress in Northern Ireland suggested by interviewees in the first series of podcast interviews. A streamed panel event will take place on the 15th September to reflect on the observations in this second series of interviews, which will itself form a new podcast to be released soon after. 

The latest podcast in the second Forward Together series, featuring Ann, is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust. It is funded by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme. 

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council. 

‘It is absolutely crazy to think that constitutional change in Ireland would happen overnight’
Consideration of Irish unity needs careful preparation, argues Seamus McGuinness, research
professor at the Republic’s Economic and Social Research Institute. He suggests looking to the
example of Hong Kong, where the handover of control was undertaken over a 13 year period.
Seamus was talking in the latest Holywell Trust Forward Together podcast.
The difference in economic performance, North and South, sits “at the centre of debate around
constitutional change,” believes Seamus. “I come at it from the perspective of someone who worked
as an economist in Belfast for the first 10 or 12 years of my career, and now has spent around the
same amount of time looking at the issues relevant to the Irish economy.
“There are a number of differences, but the central differences between the economies North and
South really relate to differences in the level of productivity and the extent to which they exhibit
dynamic growth and are able to respond to shocks.”
Seamus explains: “There are fundamental underlying differences that drive lower productivity... The
first relates to human capital – we see that levels of educational attainment in the North are really
lagging other British regions and the Republic of Ireland. I have to say this, actually, was a shock to
me as someone who works in the Republic and is domiciled in the North. When I looked at the
data.”
Seamus points out that in 2015, over 35% of young people, 24 to 30, in Northern Ireland were
educated only to the lowest level, compared to 11% in the Republic. And while 40% of young adults
in the North hold third level qualifications, the figure was around 60% in the Republic. “So that’s a
key aspect,” of the difference in economic performance, argues Seamus.
Another factor is that the Republic is much more export-focused than is the North. Exports are
worth about 15% of Northern Ireland’s economy, or 35% if GB is included, compared to 54% in the
Republic. In addition, “the export sector in the Republic is much more value added than in the
North.” And, of course, the Republic has been very much more effective in attracting foreign direct
investment than the North, with the South’s FDI being highly productive.
The composition of the two economies also differs. While that in the North remains highly
dependent on public services, the private services sector in the Republic is very much larger than
that of the North. The Republic also has a large presence in the pharmaceutical, technology and
advanced services sectors. “A lot of that really stems from the success of the IDA,” the body that
promotes inward investment and economic development in the Republic, “in bringing these large
multi-nationals into Ireland – and the policies that have facilitated indigenous companies to grow up
around them.”
One of the disappointments about Northern Ireland is that the Good Friday Agreement did not
stimulate a greater economic impact. “When I looked at the data, one of the things that baffled me
was that we should have seen a peace dividend of some description.... I do wonder why foreign
direct investment has not been a bigger feature. And why bodies such as Invest NI have not been
more successful over the period in bringing large multinationals into the North, as the IDA has been
in the South.”
The difference in effectiveness between the IDA and Invest NI points to the opportunities that might
be achieved by greater cross-border co-operation, irrespective of whether the constitutional
settlement should change, believes Seamus. “Just thinking strategically... there are clear
opportunities for cross-border co-operation in a number of areas that are just so obvious and 
mutually beneficial that should be pursued. The obvious case is health services. Another is around
infrastructural planning, but another is economic development.... You can only imagine that the
North would be a net beneficiary of that joint approach.”
Seamus concedes, though, that Brexit does reduce the attractiveness of Northern Ireland as a
foreign direct investment location. What Brexit achieves instead is accelerate the debate over
Northern Ireland’s constitutional situation – generating a much louder conversation over Irish unity.
This stimulated a major research publication, The Political Economy of the Northern Ireland Border
Poll, from Seamus, along with colleague Adele Bergin at ESRI.
“Without a doubt, in the absence of Brexit we wouldn’t be having this conversation.... The issue of
Brexit has put the question of the constitutional future of the North more centre stage. Even without
Brexit we know that there are continued demographic changes taking place that are likely to make a
border poll arise at some point in the future... But Brexit has made this likely sooner rather than
later.”
What is essential, believes Seamus, is to avoid the mistakes of the Brexit referendum by having an
evidence base “so that, when the time comes, people can make an informed opinion”. That evidence
base should consider the economic arguments, which include, says Seamus, that households in the
South are almost €3,000 a year better off after tax, while households in the North are at a
substantially higher risk of poverty compared to those in the Republic.
Seamus admits that at present it is not possible to predict the overall impact of unification, nor to
know the process by which it would take place. These are questions that planning and intergovernment negotiations must address. But it is “absolutely crazy”, he says, to think that
constitutional change would happen overnight, instancing the 13 year transition of Hong Kong from
UK to Chinese rule.
This latest podcast in the second Forward Together series is available here on the
website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust. It is funded by the
Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme.
Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland
Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society
characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence.
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

’The unity conversation needs to be open, transparent, and let's keep open minds, because we need to flesh out what Irish unity would look like and what the UK union would look like’

Ian Marshall is a beef farmer, a former dairy farmer, and was president of the Ulster Farmers Union from 2014 to 2016. But more significantly he was until earlier this year a senator in Ireland’s Oireachtas – a unionist in Ireland’s second legislative chamber. A quite remarkable situation. Many observers were disappointed – as was Ian – that he was not elected back into the Seanad’s agricultural panel, nor appointed on the lists of new Taoiseach Micheál Martin or the other coalition party leaders Leo Varadkar and Eamon Ryan. Ian was speaking in the latest Forward Together podcast from the Holywell Trust.

He reflects on his initial election. “The opportunity was something I hadn’t anticipated or prepared for. It was a fascinating two years. I work in Queen’s, so I have an office in Belfast that's 104 miles from the office I had at Leinster House. The reality is that it's light years in understanding. It's light years because the people in Belfast have very little knowledge of Dublin, of the South, of what goes on. There's an equal lack of knowledge in Dublin as regards Belfast, about Northern Ireland and the culture, which seems bizarre because we're a small island and we're neighbours.”

Despite this, Ian felt much more welcomed in the Seanad than he expected. “I was nervous. I was always told that Dublin was a cold house for unionism. But it was a warm reception. It was very welcoming. And I was told that you're a Northern unionist,  be very proud of your identity, you’re not here to be any more than that.  So from the first day, inside Leinster House, it was very warm, welcoming.”

Some unionists were reportedly unhappy that someone from their background and affiliation went to Dublin to sit in the Oireachtas. “The reality was that there was some noise from some individuals, but not very much,” recalls Ian. “The vast majority of political leaders were very supportive. Privately, they were very supportive of me. They thought that we needed dialogue with Dublin... the private conversations were very positive, upbeat and supportive.”

Ian reflects that much needs to be done to connect the two jurisdictions. “I learned that there is still a lot of work to do, still a lot of bridge building to do.... We're 22 years on from the signing of the Belfast Agreement and we're in a truly global marketplace now. There are huge benefits working together across an island, which should present no threat to anyone's constitution. I see huge opportunity. I see a generation of people coming on who have never experienced the Troubles, who haven't experienced the sectarianism, the bigotry, the hatred that many of us grew up in, which is a breath of fresh air. And I believe that's the future. The younger people who are coming on who don’t carry this baggage and certainly don't have the prejudices that many of the older generation may have.”

One of the false perceptions Ian met in Dublin was that unionists are unable to enjoy themselves. “When I first went to Dublin and I spoke to a number of people who said, oh, you're a northern unionist. We assume a number of things about you. You're very conservative. And you wouldn't take a drink, you wouldn't have fun. I said, no, we’re actually a very open minded bunch. We're not at all conservative, we are forward looking. So I think there's a lot of misconceptions of Northern unionists.

“The misconception that I pick up in Northern Ireland about the South is that there’s this appetite by everyone to have Irish unity. Certainly there are many, many people who want to strive for Irish unity, which they are perfectly entitled to do, but equally there are many, many people south of the border who say, you know what, not at the moment. 

“I think the best analogy was someone in Leinster House who said to me that the Irish unity question was a bit like heaven. That sounds like a really good idea, but we're not ready for it now…. For most people it is about uniting people across the island.”

He argues: “The way you unite people is to bring people together. So that's by virtue of organisations, sport, for example rugby. Rugby has presented a platform where irrespective of whether you're from a nationalist background, a unionist background, a loyalist background, or a republican background, everyone follows the Irish rugby team. It presents no threat to anyone's culture, identity and the model would be something that unites people as well as rugby does. We can replicate that through other parts of society. So I think this is about uniting people, uniting young people, getting schools to work together. 

“Businesses already work together. There's a huge all-Ireland economy, which can be so much greater. And I think that we need to do that in conjunction with an acknowledgement that North-South relations are hugely important, but equally so are the East-West relations, because those are important as we go forward, looking at how we build two islands working together.”
 
Perhaps a more surprising observation from Ian is that his experience of the Seanad has made him a strong supporter of second chambers – despite the proposal to scrap the Seanad only seven years ago.  “What I've learned in the last two years is the importance of an upper house,” he says. “The interesting thing is that we have a Senate chamber in Belfast, in Parliament Buildings. We used to have senators.  I think there's huge value in reinstating an upper house... [as] a scrutinising body. It's a governance structure. It will cross reference, check legislation. It will perform a task of scrutinising the legislation that comes before it... [We could] use an upper house [in Stormont] as a mechanism to drive good governance, good government.”

Ian is committed to improving engagement across the political divide, within Northern Ireland and cross-border. “There needs to be a constitutional conversation,” he says. “The difficulty is effectively the conversation has been presented in such a way as this is a conversation about Irish unity. And the analogy I draw is that it's like going to turkeys to have a discussion about Christmas dinner and what stuffing they would like  - why on earth would a turkey ever get involved in that conversation? 

“So for me, the unity conversation needs to be open, transparent, and let's keep open minds, because we need to flush out what the Irish unity situation would look like, what the maintenance of the UK union would look like, how the island would function. How would it affect education, healthcare, society, how would businesses function, would we ultimately be richer or poorer? In the absence of that conversation, it's a very dangerous conversation to have...

“You need to present all the information to people, so that people know what it would look like, so that people can judge whether they will be richer or poorer, better or worse off. And then, and only then at that point, it's perfectly reasonable to ask those people to take a vote on that.”

This latest podcast in the second Forward Together series is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust. It is funded by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme.

 
Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

‘A united Ireland that is socially liberally, tolerant, European and economically successful is attractive’

Irish unity could be an attractive option if the new nation is socially liberal, outward looking, multi-cultural, European and economically successfully, while respecting both the Irish and British cultures and traditions, believes Will Glendinning. To be economically successful it may need support from both the European Union and the United States, he adds. Will is a former chief executive of the Community Relations Council, has been an Alliance Party MLA for West Belfast and was also a member of the UDR. He was talking in the latest Forward Together podcast from the Holywell Trust.

Will’s family history brings together different traditions of Northern Irish politics. His great grandfather on his father’s side was Sir Robert Glendinning, a Liberal MP at the beginning of the 20th Century, who was a supporter of Home Rule for Ireland. But a grandfather on his mother’s side was a Unionist MP in Stormont, who had opposed Home Rule. “There was a marriage that occurred in the middle of the schism,” he observes.

It might be argued that there is something of a parallel between the point in history that debated Home Rule and contemporary politics, where Irish unity is beginning to be actively considered. It is a topic Will is seriously engaged in. He has concluded that a change in the constitutional settlement could be positive. “I have reached the position that someone from my background could see myself voting for a united Ireland, or for a new Ireland, if what was on offer was beneficial.”

Will explains: “During my time in politics, I always argued for the issue of consent. That was one of the big advantages I saw for the Good Friday Agreement, that the issue of consent was fully recognised and indeed that consent was an all-Ireland consent. The thing that I think is important in this debate is that unionism was given an opt-out from any all-Ireland structures because it saw itself as a minority in the island of Ireland. 

“But the problem for unionism is that it never treated the minority in its own midst with the generosity it should have done… and indeed opposed issues of equality all the way through the development of fair employment laws, and right up to same sex marriage and abortion.”

Will is concerned that, despite this, republicans need, where they have power in local or central government, to demonstrate a much greater generosity of spirit towards unionists than was shown to them.

“That's one of the reasons why I was very taken with Seamus Mallon’s book ‘A Shared Home Place’, because he argued very strongly that if there is to be a change in the constitutional nature, the danger is that it is 50% plus one and that therefore you end up with a [disaffected] minority in the island of Ireland….

“Mallon doesn't argue that you have to have a majority of unionists. What he does argue is that you have to have a sufficient number of unionists. I would take an analogy back to another change process that we had to undergo, which was the change in policing. Policing, if it is if it is to be effective, needs to be by consent rather than by force. One of the big changes was a whole change in structure from the RUC to the PSNI, a whole change in ethos, changes of symbols and also changes in the recruitment process to bring about an increase in the number of people from the Catholic and nationalist community into the PSNI. 

“Now we can argue about how effective or ineffective that has been - numbers inside the police still do not reflect the make-up of the of the population. But I think before we come to a point where we have a referendum, we need to have the discussion about what the new Ireland would look like - in the same way that in the Republic they had discussions over the same sex marriage referendum and particularly over the abortion referendum, where they developed a consensus on what was on offer – [in the same way there must be discussion] across the island about what was is on offer [in a new Ireland], and only then do you reach the position of having a referendum on any future. So, in other words, you know what is possible. 

“From a unionists’ point of view, to enter into those conversations it needs to be recognised that they are entering into them in a position where they can come out the other end – if they go in knowing they are going to lose, whether it is five-nil or three-two, is not a way for those conversations to take place.”

As discussion has advanced over the possible form of Irish unity, so the question arises whether Stormont should be retained or abandoned – and if it is retained whether it should be for the existing six counties of Northern Ireland or the nine counties of the Ulster province – and whether the other provinces should also have their own legislative assemblies. Will argues: “There would still need to have a devolved legislature inside Northern Ireland…. There would need to be a recognition of the position of the monarch.

“And, also, there would need to be, as with the unification of Germany, a guarantee of funding for a period of time until the two economies got together. A further thing, there would need to be discussion of the issue of dealing with the past, through the 1960s and 1970s, up to the 1990s.”

Will believes that politicians present more of a barrier to progress than people within the communities of Northern Ireland. “I have seen many examples of situations where people from very different backgrounds have been prepared to listen and talk, to hear the stories from the other side. And I think that sometimes, actually the community is further along than the politicians are. I recognize that that is not the case in the most deprived areas. Not in the case sometimes in areas where the degrees of segregation, etc., remain as high as they did [during the Troubles].”

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

FULL EPISODE DESCRIPTION

‘Politicians will argue, they will fight over it and they will come up with reasons for not dealing with the past’
 
It was hoped that the Patten reforms would herald a new start for policing in Northern Ireland, but, argues Denis Bradley, the PSNI remains burdened with its legacy from the old RUC. Denis is a former vice-chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past. He was talking in the latest Forward Together podcast from the Holywell Trust.
 
“In the setting-up of the PSNI, the new service inherited, carried with it, the deeds of the RUC. That was done at the time to placate unionism, which is understandable, I wouldn’t have any great problem with that,” says Denis.
 
“The difficulty with it was that it was taking the past with it, in the sense that it had to deal with the past while being part of the conflict itself. That left it in a bit of a bind. That goes through right to the present day. It may have been better to not carry the deeds of the RUC with it, but we are where we are, as they say.”
 
Denis adds: “The other thing is that in the establishment of it, the RUC overhung the new policing service. So does the conflict, in the sense that neither did militant republicanism totally go away, with dissidents breaking off from the Provisional IRA. Their whole base was within nationalist working class areas and they kept their presence there, through things like the Omagh bomb and right up to the present day.
 
“While one of the most prominent people in the whole Provisional organisation, Martin McGuinness - and within the new political establishment - described them as ‘militarily pathetic’, they also carried a threat – and the main threat was against the new policing service, on the grounds that they claimed that it wasn’t a fully re-established, reconstituted, independent service.”
 
This created serious challenges for the PSNI, made worse, argues Denis, by the lack of any tradition or culture of organised policing in working class nationalist areas. Though, he stresses, these areas were lawful, they were not used to a uniformed police service being present. This combination of factors meant that “policing in these communities was not what it should have been”. That should have led to a heavy concentration of recruiting police officers from those communities, along with a strong commitment to community policing in those areas – but that did not happen, says Denis.
 
Yet, despite this, community satisfaction with policing in Northern Ireland is by international standards unusually high – at around 80%, which is comparable to that across Europe. “Certainly higher than in some other countries, such as America,” explains Denis.
 
The PSNI remains a difficult force to lead. Chief constables who had a background in the RUC have found it impossible to shake off their association with the past, while all but one of those who came from England have been accused of naivety in their understanding of the complications of Northern Ireland society. Denis believes that only by tackling the inherent problems that he described can these leadership challenges be overcome. “I don’t think it matters so much who is the chief constable, because he or she is only one person.”
 
Denis praises the PSNI for improving community relationships across much of Northern Ireland. “I think that they have worked reasonably hard, and partially successfully, integrating themselves into communities. I get good feedback at times.” Denis adds: “I don’t believe the middle class in any country has difficulty with policing…. Where you find problems in most countries is in working class communities.”
 
Structures of accountability should mean that the PSNI is challenged to improve policing in Northern Ireland’s working class areas, including nationalist areas. But instead, says Denis, the response is “if we go in and do what you are asking us to do, we will get ourselves killed”.
 
Policing anywhere works though a combination of trust and what might be termed ‘dispassionate engagement’, argues Denis. “If the community it is policing has more trust and respect in it than it has mistrust and disrespect - if the balance is 50, 60, 70% -then policing can tackle most things - they will take the community with it, in good times and in bad.
 
“If, on the other hand, it is 30, or 40, or 15 or 20% - a minority feeling of trust – then in good times or bad that community will not liaise with, will not communicate with, policing in ways that are positive and successful in policing terms. If you scale that up into situations where there is organised crime, where people use guns, use drugs, or are very ruthless and violent, then you have the clash - between whether the community has trust in the police enough as a humane body, but also as a professional body. Then that police force will be more powerful and more successful than the organised crime.
 
“Dublin is a perfect example of that. Where communities have been more frightened of the drug gangs than the police, with young people more attracted to crime gangs than to the police.” It then becomes necessary for the police to engage with communities to generate the respect necessary to defeat crime gangs.
 
While the PSNI are dealing with the legacy of the RUC, and the complaints of its operations as a partisan force, there is also the legacy of Troubles killings. With the UK government apparently committed to avoiding new prosecutions of soldiers, this has again become extremely contentious.
 
Denis is wary about moves to set up another committee looking at the past, given the work that he and Archbishop Lord Robin Eames were engaged in when co-chairing the Consultative Group on the Past, which contained just three people. “One of my fears around the Stormont House Agreement, which came about ten years after the Consultative Group on the Past, in its management of how to deal with the past has about 30, or 40, or 60 people involved, in the sense that each aspect has more and more people involved, including a very strong representation from our political parties.
 
“I have never been of the opinion that the political parties are capable of dealing with the past. They will argue, they will fight over it and they will come up with reasons for not dealing with things. But they will never deal with it. There will always be a stand-off.” The Consultative Group addressed this by concluding that the two governments – the UK and Ireland – would have to resolve the problems.
 
“The second thing in dealing with the past is to be incredibly sensitive towards the victims. But in dealing with victims you must never allow the victims to be the leaders around this. There will always be divisions. They have different narratives and different needs and different passions. So you can never allow the victims to be the leaders in this. And to some extent victims have been politicised.”
 
Those comments were made by Denis several weeks before the arguments emerged that are now holding up the payment of pensions to Troubles survivors. But the deadlock certainly seems to vindicate his observations.
 
Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

FULL EPISODE DESCRIPTION

‘My coping mechanism is talking, seeking peace and reconciliation’

Alan McBride’s personal journey is well known, but remarkable nonetheless. It was in 1993 that his wife Sharon and her father Desmond Frizzell were killed in an IRA bomb attack on the family fish shop in Belfast’s Shankill Road. But with immense dignity, Alan has since dedicated his life to reconciliation and progress, as well as campaigning on behalf of victims. He is the latest interviewee in the Holywell Trust Forward Together podcasts.

Alan admits that initially after Sharon died he had to deal with a range of emotions attached to bereavement – guilt, anger, profound sadness and emptiness. But then “I started getting involved, speaking out and getting involved in rallies with an organization called Families Against Intimidation and Terror, who highlighted human rights abuses. They fulfilled a need I had to speak out and to challenge paramilitaries and those that supported them”.

He adds: “I was trying to make sense of everything that was going on.” A lot of his anger was directed against Gerry Adams, who helped carry the body of the dead Shankill Road bomber, Thomas Begley. But his personal story included his father having been a member of the UDA. 

“I had this breakthrough moment when I started to think about my own upbringing, and started to think about how many Catholics I knew, the things I had got involved in as a kid – the riots, fires, 12th July celebrations, etc. And I believed the society we had here was abnormal – it was very different from any other part of the United Kingdom. The society itself produced some of the types of things that led to what the people who killed my wife did.

“It wasn’t that I had forgiven them, or gone soft on them, but I sort of understood that if they had grown up in any other part of the United Kingdom they probably wouldn’t have done the things they did. So when I’m thinking about peace and reconciliation and I’m thinking of pointing the finger – the net has to be cast much wider than just those who planted bombs and shot and killed people. The churches are involved. As a young boy I went to church and heard some very sectarian sermons from the pulpit…. I also remember politicians who didn’t give us any sort of leadership. If anything they were compounding our sense of sectarianism. 

“To be honest that hasn’t really changed that much in recent times. One of the things I hope that comes out of this coronavirus is that we have a kinder more humane society. The bullshit politics we have had in this country for far too long.”

He adds: “It was when I started to think like that I began to not feel the need to campaign against people like Gerry Adams and paramilitaries and instead involve myself in peace building and tried to engage in dialogue with people I had previously been opposed to and tried to build an understanding with them of where I am coming from. 

“These days I see my role as someone who is involved in peace building, advocates a peaceful life, a peaceful society. My criticism is not only for those who were involved in violence to achieve a political end, but also for those who gave them cover. I include in that, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, not just Sinn Fein, anybody who had any tacit support for paramilitaries – advocating for them, or turning a blind eye as was quite often the case.” 

In today’s society, one of the issues we still struggle with is whether all those who died should be treated equally, whether there should be ‘a hierarchy of victims’. “What we have to consider is the families who are left behind,” says Alan. “I just see them as families whose relatives lost their lives in this conflict. But I will say this – I will always challenge the person who tries to put my wife on the same page, in terms of her guilt or her innocence, with [the bombers] Sean Kelly or Thomas Begley. They murdered my wife. They went out that day to commit murder. My wife wasn’t the intended victim – she was just expendable, collateral damage.

“So I won’t put them on the same page. But their families? Absolutely. I will put them on the same page. I suffer just as much as the Kelly family suffers, or the Begley family suffers.” But he recognises there are people who regard them as soldiers in a war. “It’s obviously not an opinion I share… It is not helpful to me at all to say we are all victims in the same way.”

But the trauma today is not restricted to the families who mourn dead relatives. There is also the trauma of people left with profound injuries and disabilities because of events – and the trauma that passes down generations and can be manifested through addictions. It can be “the wider family circle”, stresses Alan. 

He is open that his coping mechanism is talking, campaigning, challenging others and seeking peace and reconciliation. “Yet there are others who cope in different ways.” Alan admits that his journey to seek reconciliation was traumatic for his relatives, especially for his mother-in-law. “We have coped in very different ways. And the way I coped had an impact on her.”

Alan adds: “It’s ok not to talk about it, if that’s you and that’s your thing. But if you are going to bed at night and that is the thing stopping you going to sleep, causing you recurring nightmares, then you probably do need at some stage to get that out, to talk about it, get it out into the open.”

This latest podcast in the second Forward Together series is available here on the website of peace and reconciliation charity Holywell Trust. It is funded by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

FULL EPISODE DESCRIPTION

“Most people believe social care should be free, but there's a lot of confusion out there”

Social care must be reformed. If it wasn’t clear before the Covid-19 pandemic, it has become tragically obvious over recent weeks. So this is an opportune time to hear in the latest Holywell Trust Forward Together podcast from Deirdre Heenan, professor of social policy at Ulster University and joint author nine years ago of a major study into Northern Ireland’s health and social care system. 

“The vast majority of people accept and want the NHS to be free at the point of delivery,” argues Deirdre. “Many are happy to pay increased taxation, or feel that the taxation system needs to be changed so that we can adequately fund the system - and have transfers within the system to support those less able to pay. 

“Most people also believe that social care should be free, but there's a lot of confusion out there…  We know that health care is free at the point of delivery. We're just not really sure about social care.”

Without adequate funding “we have a system that's not fit for purpose,” says Deirdre. “We really need to think about how the system can be completely transformed and what principles will underpin that.”

There is also unhappiness, argues Deirdre, about the lack of transparency in the system and in how resources are allocated between the differing demands across the health and social care system. “It seems to me that much of the resource distribution happens at a high level: it happens at a central level. We have this commissioning through the health and social care board. It's just not clear how decisions are made, how you can appeal decisions, and then how families can make their decisions around who's going to do what. What level of additional care will we need? What level of care will we need to buy in? Because it isn't clear who's going to get what for how long.”

Much of this comes down to the lack of clarity about whether social care should be regarded as a public or a private service – or, if a mix of both, what the criteria should be for support from the public purse. “Most people believe that the NHS should be a universal service free at point of delivery. They're slightly more confused about the issue of social care,” observes Deirdre.

Too often, social care is overlooked in terms of political priorities, leading to it being categorised as the ‘Cinderella’ service. Much of the sector has been privatised in recent years, with a parallel process of pay cuts. “If we are serious about wanting people to go into social care, to give social care prestige, to have career progression, we have to think about the level of professionalization,” Deirdre stresses.

All these pressures have come to a head during the Covid-19 pandemic and are much more deep-seated than the lack of personal protection equipment, which has put workers’, as well as residents’, lives at risk. There is also the parallel challenge of an aging population, more people living longer with serious disabilities and the new complication that many survivors of Covid-19 may themselves be left with new life-threatening problems that need ongoing care and support.

So how will social care be funded in the future? Should people’s lifetime assets be used for later years’ care? Should families contribute from their collective assets? Should a wealth tax be imposed? Should people be expected to contribute in advance through a mandatory social care insurance system? “People struggle with issues around fairness and equality when those sorts of examples are put before them,” says Deirdre. “So I think we have got to have that conversation to say this is how much you will get from the state regardless of your income.”

She adds: “What we do know now is that it's this mix between the private, the formal, the informal and the public sector. And unless we discuss it, what we're going to end up with is the worst of all worlds. I think now is the time to have the honest discussion about how we fund this in the future. The very worst thing is people sitting around worrying about what's going to happen to them, or indeed what's going to happen to their loved ones.”

A citizens’ assembly considered these challenges in the context of Northern Ireland. “I thought the idea was good,” comments Deirdre. “But to be honest, I think those debates around social care need to be led by experts. You need to have people who are at the forefront of policymaking. You need to have the organizations that are advocating for older people. And whilst the principles may have been right, I think you need to have the right voices there who understand that you cannot just wish for motherhood and apple pie… I just think that a lot of people here are talking about social care, are well-meaning, but may not be that well informed about what the realities of the system are.”

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

FULL EPISODE DESCRIPTION

“Epidemiologically, we're all one Ireland”

It is clear that health services in both Northern Ireland and the Republic will need to be reformed as our society recovers from Covid-19. They need to be more resilient and flexible to cope with both underlying existing demand and the capacity to cope with the current and possible future pandemics. Reform was already planned in both jurisdictions – the Bengoa plan in the north and Sláintecare in the south.

But could reform be even more effective – in terms of cost-effectiveness, efficiencies and quality of outcomes – if there was more cross-border integration of health services? Could there even be a merger cross-border single healthcare system, irrespective of the question of Irish unity? This was the theme of the latest Holywell Trust Forward Together podcast, with Professor Jim Dornan. Jim is a former clinical director and head of fetal medicine in the Royal Maternity Belfast Trust. He was also senior vice president of the Royal College, running its international office.

Jim played a key role in the development of cross-border healthcare provision in recent years, specifically the arrangements for children’s heart surgery in Dublin. “It seemed so very obvious,” he says. “I was around at the beginning of the very successful paediatric services for Ireland. I'm reassured by many others that that example has been followed in other areas, such as perinatal and mental health. I believe there are quite a few ideas bubbling around.”

The benefits of these arrangements have been improved health outcomes for children, reducing the risks for extremely ill patients undergoing difficult travel and also reducing the stress on parents, who otherwise would have had to travel or stay with their children in Britain after surgery.

In addition, specialist consultants improve their skills if they do lots of similar cases. “You don't want somebody not having enough cases so they might lose their experience,” says Jim. “But you don’t want to be flooded by having too many. Ireland is Goldilocks sized – not too big and not too small for its own health service. With a joint population of six million, that's about right.”

It is obvious that this is a moment to consider the future structure of healthcare across the island of Ireland. Jim says: “It was well put by somebody who said that epidemiologically we're all one Ireland, no matter what borders are there.”

Jim explains: “Both sides of the border, big decisions have to be made as to how much taxpayer money should be spent on health. It's really down to that at the end of the day. America has a wonderful health service for everybody except the twenty seven and a half million who don’t have health insurance. They use about 18% of their gross national product on health. Britain uses just under 10% of its gross national product for health. And the Republic, somewhere around about 7%. 

“So it's a very simple thing - people must vote in politicians who are willing to put what the people have decided should be put into health going forward. The health service is a very hungry animal. People working in it on both sides of the border are doing their best. Medicine will always not be two-tiered, but a multi-tiered system - that's just a fact of life. But everybody must have access to life-saving medicines that are evidence-based and that we know work.”

He adds: “Personally, I can see no reason why both governments should not now try to look at where are the best places to integrate health. We don't have to wait for a political decision. For example, it is so obvious with paediatric surgery that having one successful unit is better than having two failing units…. There is no great clashing of cultures for us all to work together.”

Jim continues: “We're talking about efficiency. I think everybody in Ireland wants to have a health service that meets the needs of everyone, free at point of delivery based on need, which is the basis of the National Health Service. In fairness, that's exactly what the public side of the health service in the Republic is based on as well…. But you've got to be realistic. It's going to be more than one tier. It's idealistic to think of a one size fits all health system. There's no country in the world that does that.”

But moving towards more evidence-based policy-making with regard to the structure of health provision, means that arrangements need a level of flexibility and near constant change and reform. As new evidence emerges, as new treatments are proven to be effective, so health care delivery has to respond. This is uncomfortable for the health service, but essential for its future. It both permanent revolution and evolution, concedes Jim, who stresses that “everything has to be evidence-based”.

Jim has also been a strong advocate for reconsidering the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. “I 100% think that at some time in the next five years the border is going to have to be addressed. But I honestly think that it cannot and should not be addressed until we have all the answers on various options on major issues, like health, education, economics, culture. I feel that is the best way forward. Instead of just going narrowly into should we get rid of the border. With what is happening in Scotland and in people’s mind, we should be looking at the status quo, an independent Ulster, the union of Ireland, the position of Scotland, could we have a new federated Celtic islands situation? But let’s have an awful lot of facts…. This is where the universities can step forward.”

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

John FitzGerald Podcast Interview

John FitzGerald is one of Ireland’s most respected and influential economists –formerly research professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute and currently chair of the group advising the Irish government on climate policy. He is a strong critic of Northern Ireland’s policies on education and skills training, arguing that these are core factors in the weakness of the northern economy.

He is the latest interviewee in the Holywell Trust’s Forward Together podcast series.

“In terms of productivity, Northern Ireland is at the bottom of the scale,” he says. “That reflects the fact that the educational attainment of the population in Northern Ireland is the lowest for any region in these islands.

“Ireland, London and Scotland are at the top. Northern Ireland is at the bottom. Measuring both in terms of early school leavers, who don’t complete high school, and the proportion of the population who have third level qualifications. Northern Ireland is at the bottom on both of those measures. That helps to explain why productivity performance is so poor.”

Moreover, the proportion of young adults who have third level qualifications is a major factor in determining the location of foreign direct investment, says John. Between a quarter and a third of Northern Ireland's undergraduates leave to study in Britain and two thirds of those do not return.

The contrast with the Republic is significant. A larger proportion of school leavers go to university, and while “quite a high proportion of them, 25 to 40 percent, would then go abroad for whatever reason, but they're homing pigeons and they come back,” says John. “It looks as if the pattern is that you return to where you did your third level of qualifications. Even if you're from Northern Ireland, if you do your undergraduate degree in Britain, you don't come back.”

Moreover, a significant number of those people who do graduate in Northern Ireland go into the public sector. “The public sector is much bigger in Northern Ireland than it would be in most other parts of the United Kingdom,” says John. “That reflects the fact that in the crisis years between 1970 and 2000, and in particular in the 70s when employment collapsed because of the Troubles, it was ramped up in the public sector. And really, the public sector still dominates.”

Another core problem of the Northern Irish economy is the shortage of relevant vocational skills. “In the Republic, one of the success stories of the last 30, 40 years was the institutes of technology.” These, argues John, have been a foundation for some of the key industrial growth areas, such as health care devices and pharmaceuticals.

The contrast with Northern Ireland is substantial and linked to the influence of academic selection to the structure of northern society. Selection at 11 tends to separate pupils at a young age, with one route being academic and the other vocational. Research, says John, “shows that segregation by educational attainment in grammar schools and secondary schools is very damaging to kids, in particular from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

He adds: “It seems to be an urban working class problem, which has been overcome in the Republic, but it's really damaging in Northern Ireland. And it goes back to the selection by schools. The research done in the Republic shows that mixed ability teaching is really important... The research showed streaming doesn't improve the prospects of good bright kids, but seriously impacts on the prospects of kids in the lower half of the distribution of attainment.”

The result is demotivating for those pupils not doing well, while “the bulk of kids from a middle class background get into grammar school. So you're segregating, if you like, on a class basis as well.”

Alongside education and skills, the other basis for necessary reform is infrastructure investment, argues John. “The evidence is that Northern Ireland is an exception in the investment in physical capital compared to the Republic, compared to the United Kingdom as a whole, compared to Scotland. The transfers from London have been used to provide support income through employment, through welfare or good public services, rather than holding back some of that and investing in infrastructure, which would support a productive and active business economy.”

But the strains on infrastructure have been accentuated by urban and rural planning policy. “Belfast has decentralized and partly because of the Troubles, it has not grown. There has been much more dispersed population growth. Whereas in the Republic and in Britain, the problem is that there’s been overconcentration in London, overconcentration in Dublin. But cities across Europe are successful.” The “failure to develop Belfast” backed by good public transport has led to a dispersed population. “So I think there's a need for a change in approach and investing in infrastructure.”

But John concedes: “It's an issue which we face in the Republic as well: Irish people, north and south, would like to live in rural areas and work in urban areas. That's totally unsustainable. And the dynamic of a dense city works.... That is the future.”

This latest podcast in the second Forward Together series is available here on the website of Holywell Trust, a peace and reconciliation charity, and is financed by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme

Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

Northern Ireland's mental health crisis

Mental health is a global challenge, but poor mental health is at crisis levels in Northern Ireland. That crisis is in part an ongoing impact from the Troubles, Siobhan O’Neill, professor of mental health science at Ulster University, says in the latest Holywell Trust podcast.

“We're seeing a rise in mental health problems in the Western world,” says Siobhan. “We know that around one in four or one in five people in Europe and the West have a mental health problem. In Northern Ireland, that's somewhat higher. Our research showed that in 2008, around 39% of the population had met the criteria for a mental illness at some point in their lifespan.”

She continues: “We can see that the trauma of the Troubles seems to have had an impact on the population that has led to that differential compared to other places.”

What is more, the most deprived areas were both the setting for much of the worst of the Troubles and of mental ill health in our society today. This has particularly been felt in the poorest parts of Belfast and Derry. “People who live there were more likely to be exposed to trauma related to the Troubles. Other places were affected too, obviously, but I think there's the double whammy of poverty and deprivation and those same urban areas that saw the worst of the violence of the Troubles. So you have those things working together.”

Perhaps counter-intuitively, there was a low level of suicide during the Troubles, but a high level today. Siobhan explains: “We saw the rates of suicide were much lower during the period of the Troubles. One of the reasons for that is that people who are most marginalised and vulnerable were involved in their struggle. And that gave them a reason for living. It gave meaning, provided men that sense of purpose, that keeps us all going. But unfortunately, after the end of the Troubles there has been a weighing-up of the result of all of us suffering, as a result of what happened. And we see that the rates of suicide increase after that.”

There is another factor, says Siobhan, which is that key life events many years later may stimulate post traumatic stress, triggering reflection on past events that individuals tried to ignore at the time. That later point may be retirement from work, or moving home as part of that retirement – with the result that the trauma is deeply felt many years after a serious event. “PTSD can emerge years after the traumatic event,” says Siobhan.

This means that although the Good Friday Agreement is now more than 20 years old, for many people the Troubles is not in the past. “This is a really important point,” says Siobhan. “The trauma of the Troubles is there. It's part of us. It's part of who we are.”

Another layer to this problem is that many people coped with traumatic events through addiction. “The Troubles was a source of stress that was uncontrollable.... you need to do something to try and get rid of that terrible, terrible feeling. A lot of people turned to drugs and alcohol, and alcohol particularly is easily available. And culturally, it's what we do to cope with things, to celebrate. So that was a way that people learnt how to manage their stress. 

“We know that alcohol causes depression over time. And it causes addiction. People get addicted to alcohol or drugs. The harm that has been caused as a result is measureable across Northern Ireland: it causes harm to families and children when parents are using substances to cope with stress. This is part of what we talk about as intergenerational traumas. Whenever parents inadvertently create adversities for their children because of how they are coping with the trauma that they've experienced. And alcohol is a huge, huge part of that.”

There are also ways that individuals can protect their physical and mental health during this crisis. “The first thing to do is structure your day and make a plan for what you're going to do. That structure should include exercise, or getting outside, or moving your body in some way: that's really important and it's really important for your mental health. Exercise is a natural anti-depressant. It gets rid of all those unpleasant chemicals that are associated with anxiety...The other thing we must do everyday is connect with people in some way, shape or form. Ideally, it would be visually, using a screen if we can.”

Siobhan adds in a positive vein: “There is also some evidence of that sense of connectedness that people are experiencing, the feeling that we are in this together... that could be something that protects us.”

The internet provides both a way of bringing us together, but also of providing false messages, so must be used with care. “Social media is useful because it can help you connect with people here who are like you,” says Siobhan. “You get a sense that there's a whole community out there. So even if you're physically alone, that you're part of something bigger. So it's really about ensuring that your timeline of your preferred social media platform is not full of negative stories.”

There are also ways that individuals can protect their physical and mental health during this crisis. “The first thing to do is structure your day and make a plan for what you're going to do. That structure should include exercise, or getting outside, or moving your body in some way: that's really important and it's really important for your mental health. Exercise is a natural anti-depressant. It gets rid of all those unpleasant chemicals that are associated with anxiety...The other thing we must do everyday is connect with people in some way, shape or form. Ideally, it would be visually, using a screen if we can.”

Once we emerge from this crisis we need to concentrate on strengthening societies in ways that assist from the very earliest age. We need to have what Siobhan refers to as “a multi-layered approach, a multi-level approach,” promoting good mental health. That needs to begin in the early years of childhood, with support for parents. “Our funding for early years, for health visiting, is absolutely crucial to this effort,” she says. “And then in the education system, we need to help kids with coping and resilience... We can help children identify their emotional responses and help them work out their own ways of addressing that at an early stage. And that would limit down the numbers that will be coming through to the mental health services. We also need to be doing a lot more screening.... early intervention really is the key.”

The latest podcast in the second Forward Together series is available on the website of Holywell Trust, a peace and reconciliation charity, and is financed by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme.

Disclaimer - 'This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.’

Reforming government in Northern Ireland

Government in Northern Ireland needs reform, but the fact that it works at all is actually impressive given the past, says Jess Sargeant of the Institute for Government, a London-based think-tank. She was speaking in the first of a new series of podcasts produced by the Holywell Trust, which feature opinions from policy experts who consider some of Northern Ireland’s biggest challenges.

The Institute for Government published a review of Northern Ireland’s system of government at the end of last year, which considered how the civil service had coped with a three year period in which there was no political leadership. She concludes that the vacuum led to the emergence of a stronger civil society, with business organisations, human rights bodies and charities developing a stronger voice – which they continue to exercise, even after the Executive has resumed work.

However, while it is positive that the Northern Ireland Civil Service was able to function and run the system without an Executive, the Renewable Heat Incentive failings illustrated the weaknesses in the administration. It needs to be acknowledged that unlike the situation in Scotland and Wales, the Northern Ireland Civil Service is a separate entity from the British civil service. And that has had implications about limiting skills development in Northern Ireland administration, which showed through from the inquiry into RHI.

Jess makes the point that the “power sharing arrangements are almost completely unique”, which makes bold decision-making “very difficult”. “The fact that it works at all, is quite remarkable... we shouldn't forget that.” But that does not deflect from the need to introduce reforms that enable better collective decision making. Building relationships of trust between representatives of parties that would prefer not to be working together is very challenging, but could benefit from good personal relationships and the development of mutual trust at a personal level.

Another weakness of the current system of government is the lack of evidence based policy-making and the absence of independent expertise into decision making. That has been partially addressed by the formation of a new think-tank, Pivotal, but the process could be further improved, says Jess, if think-tanks based in GB engaged more with Northern Ireland. It would be helpful if the devolved governments could learn from each other in terms of policy development and implementation.

One difference between Stormont and Westminster is the lack of expert support for Assembly committees, in contrast to select committees in Parliament. With Northern Ireland government departments servicing the committees at Stormont there is a limitation to their ability to gather the expertise needed to challenge the departments. That is exacerbated by the political reality that with five parties within the Executive, a robust scrutiny function becomes more difficult when the committees are largely comprised from those same five parties.

“There's a tendency to see the Northern Ireland Assembly as an extension of the Executive, as opposed to a check on it,” argues Jess. “And so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to allow the Assembly to develop its own individual identity.” There needs to be what Jess calls a “buttressing of the institutions” in Northern Ireland.

One opportunity for systemic improvement comes from the example of the Republic, where citizens’ assemblies have enabled politicians to gain external cover in addressing difficult political decisions. That process could be adopted in Northern Ireland to make progress on challenging issues, such as healthcare reform, where the Bengoa reform proposals have partially stalled. Citizens’ assemblies, though, are “not a panacea”, Jess stresses. Politicians still need to work hard to engage the wider public to assist them in understanding why difficult decisions need to be taken. It can, though, help with building public trust. 

Another reform that might be considered, suggests Jess, is returning some powers to local government. She points that political power is unusually centralised in Northern Ireland. 

The interview with Jess Sargeant is the first of 18 new podcasts produced by the Holywell Trust, a peace and reconciliation charity, financed by the Community Relations Council’s Media Grant Scheme. 

This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.

Brexit Focus Podcast - Episode 19

Gerard Deane and Paul Gosling discuss recent developments in relation to Brexit as the original deadline of 31st October approaches. The revised Withdrawal Agreement currently before parliament and likely impacts on the North West are considered including: 

• Future relationship between UK & EU 
• The proposals in relation to the Single Market and Customs Union in relation to Northern Ireland
• VAT complications 
• Future of UK trade 
• Strengthening links between NI and Republic of Ireland
• Consent provision within the proposals 

Further reading on each of these issues can be found in Paul's excellent article on The Detail site - https://thedetail.tv/articles/what-is-the-impact-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-on-northern-ireland

Keep an eye out for (at least one!) future episode/s of the podcast on how Brexit will impact on Northern Ireland and the North West.

FULL EPISODE NOTES

Considering the future of Northern Ireland

A panel considered how to engage in a friendly and unthreatening conversation about the future constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland. This was held as part of a concluding reflection on the Holywell Trust’s series of 35 Forward Together podcast interviews.  

The panel comprised author Julieann Campbell, the commentator Denis Bradley (who was co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past and former deputy chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board) and Maureen Hetherington of the Junction, plus myself as the person who conducted interviews for the podcasts.

This podcast also includes contributions from audience members Eamonn Deane, chair of the Holywell Trust, and Declan McGonagle, a former director of the Irish Museum of Modern Art in Dublin.

We began by listening to extracts from earlier podcasts.  Former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party Mike Nesbitt called for unionism to recognise that the environment is changing: the demographics are changing, there is a rise in English and Scottish nationalism and the attitude of the DUP is causing the political environment to change.

Irish language activist Linda Ervine urged a new discussion to take place, considering a new Ireland within a close-knit British Isles, involving a closer link between Ireland and England.

Victims campaigner Alan McBride argued this is not the right time to have a discussion about Irish unity, but that the time might come in the next few years, depending on the impact of Brexit – a bad Brexit for Northern Ireland while the Irish Republic prospered through its membership of the EU could create the conditions for that discussion.

Peter Sheridan – chief executive of Co-operation Ireland and former assistant chief constable of the PSNI – said that this is the wrong time for a debate on unity, which might need to wait for five or 10 years. What is required is for everyone to be told what Irish unity would look like, not to just have a yes or no vote with inadequate information.

In his earlier podcast interview Denis Bradley said that one of the things that has changed is that the Europeans have accepted that they have a key role in determining the future of Northern Ireland, for cross-border relationships and the constitutional settlement.

Solicitor and former president of the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce Philip Gilliland described Brexit as “a gift”, because it allows Protestants for the first time to discuss the constitutional settlement without it being a heresy. Brexit has demonstrated that the British don’t know or care about Northern Ireland. “It has allowed all of us to consider why we were unionists in the first place.”

In the panel debate Denis said that everything at a constitutional level has now changed. He predicted there will be another referendum on Scottish independence. “And of course we can consider Ireland re-joining the Commonwealth.” He added that it is no longer just about Protestants and Catholics, or just north and south, but about relationships across all of these islands. Brexit will force us to have a mature debate.

Denis added: “I don’t think a border poll should happen any time soon, but it shouldn’t be off the table.” A border poll being up for discussion is the only way to get unionists to discuss the future, he suggested.

In my contribution I raised doubts as to whether republicans are correct in suggesting that a unity poll would necessarily generate a majority in favour in the south, especially given the weak state of the northern economy. I argued that it is in the interests of both unionists and republicans for Northern Ireland to be an efficient and functional society – for unionists to continue to receive the financial and political support of English nationalists and for republicans to obtain the votes for unity in a referendum of people in the Republic.

Maureen suggested that much of the population in the south is not deeply committed to reunification, nor do they have much understanding of the north. Her main concern is the recovery of truth. She added that Brexit is “a brilliant opportunity” to move beyond tribal politics. We need to have an informed choice over the future, not a simple yes or no vote.

Julieann expressed the view that it is wonderful that the current situation provoked by Brexit is seen as an opportunity, not just as a negative.

Declan McGonagle argued that it is dangerous to consider only the economics of unity – we need to deal with the bigotry and divisions within our society. Eamonn Deane added that we should consider the current situation as an opportunity to create a better society.

This is the very last Forward Together podcast. A complete collection of the transcribed and edited interviews will be published in the early part of next year.

Holywell Trust receives support for the Forward Together Podcast through the Media Grant Scheme and Core Funding Programme of Community Relations Council.

FULL EPISODE NOTES

Dealing with the past

A discussion on how to deal with the past was held as part of a concluding reflection on the Holywell Trust’s series of Forward Together podcasts.  The panel was author Julieann Campbell, the commentator Denis Bradley (who was co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past and former deputy chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board) and Maureen Hetherington of the Junction, plus Paul Gosling who conducted the interviews for the 35 podcasts.

This podcast also includes a contribution from audience member Declan McGonagle, a former director of the Irish Museum of Modern Art in Dublin.

We began by listening to highlights from the recordings.  Senator Frances Black emphasised that our communities are united in pain from the violence of the past and that the trauma is passing through the generations.

Mark Durkan, a former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, argued that we can’t simply draw a line under the past, but we mustn’t endlessly pore over the past, nor glibly pass over the past. And we must recognise that some of the issues that are central to our understanding of the past – including distrust, accountability, evasion – affect attitudes and perceptions that continue today. The Eames-Bradley report had made clear that there could not be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to legacy issues.

Victims campaigner Alan McBride said he favoured Eames-Bradley as the best blueprint for dealing with legacy issues, but that the Stormont House Agreement was perhaps now our last chance of having an agreed approach to addressing the legacy of the past.

Former justice minister Claire Sugden expressed concern that our society has not resolved how to deal with past trauma. Conal McFeely, a community sector activist, argued that we have not learnt from the past and instead are repeating the mistakes of the past. Lord Robin Eames warned of the danger of re-writing history.

In the panel discussion, Julieann Campbell spoke of her work in telling the stories of women’s personal experiences during the Troubles. But she said that while story telling is important and that these stories need to be told, they also need to go somewhere and influence the future direction and policy.

Denis Bradley said that he stands over Eames-Bradley as a good report, but a lost opportunity. Its value was that it was a holistic report. One aspect that is now typically forgotten is that it recommended the allocation of £100m to go into trauma services

Maureen Hetherington spoke of her work on ‘testimony’. The community sector, she said, has held people together, but there is a massive need for more counsellors and more availability of counselling sessions for people dealing with trauma.

Declan McGonagle warned that the narrative of the past has become a re-fighting of the Troubles by other means. The consideration of what has happened needs to be framed not as dealing with the past, but as dealing with the future.

Denis Bradley responded that this will only be possible if the two governments – of the UK and Ireland – see the process as being about the future.

Julieann Campbell said that she believes politicians are sweeping everything under the carpet: “It’s a big carpet.” I added that my feeling is that Northern Ireland’s politicians focus on what they want to do, not on what they have to do.

This latest Forward Together podcast is available here. The podcasts are also available on iTunes and Spotify.

A further panel discussion will be included in another podcast to follow next week.

 Holywell Trust receives support for the Forward Together Podcast through the Media Grant Scheme and Core Funding Programme of Community Relations Council and Good Relations Core Funding Programme of Derry City and Strabane District Council.

FULL SHOW NOTES

Creating a shared and integrated society

A discussion on how to create a shared and integrated society was held as part of a concluding reflection on the Holywell Trust’s series of Forward Together podcasts.  The panel was author Julieann Campbell, the commentator Denis Bradley (who was co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past and former deputy chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board) and Maureen Hetherington of the Junction, plus Paul Gosling who conducted the interviews for the 35 podcasts.

We began by listening to highlights from the recordings.  Linda Ervine suggested that the majority of people want to share Northern Ireland, want peace and do not want to go backwards, or support the stalemate politics we have here.

Claire Sugden MLA explained that while we all have our ideologies we need to focus more on improving public services, and that too often the political differences get in the way of this. Fergus O’Dowd TD urged greater educational integration, based on children attending their local schools.

Simon Hamilton argued there needs to be a greater recognition that social reconciliation is a long term, 50 year project.

In her podcast interview, Maureen Hetherington said that while integrated education is essential, there needs first to be greater social integration across society. She added that if more people understood the financial cost of social and educational segregation there would be more support for school integration.

Conal McFeely urged greater support for a human rights framework as the basis for making social progress, which the Good Friday Agreement provided for.  But, he argued, this has still not been properly or fully implemented.  He added that the failures of governance that led to the Troubles are still reflected in Northern Ireland society today.

In the panel debate Maureen urged greater focus on parenting and child development, which requires more support and respect for women as, usually, the main parent.  “We need to start with the children upward,” she said.

The discussion also considered the contribution in one of the podcasts from Andrew McCracken of the Community Foundation of Northern Ireland. He emphasised the class differences within our society, with class and family income often reflected in the different intake of selective and non-selective schools.

Naomi Long had said in her interview that there was a £750m to £1.5bn cost per year of service duplication because services in many cases are segregated.

Interviewees had suggested ways of bringing society together. Peter Sheridan had called for a Department of Reconciliation, Father Martin Magill had proposed a Social Integration Agency, while Peter Osborne had urged a review of the schooling system to reduce costs and promote social integration amongst children.

Denis Bradley responded that parents are determined to get their children into the best academic school, rather than focusing on integration.  “Having said that, it is an absolute disgrace we are wasting about £1bn a year. And the way to sort that is to pull the £1bn out.”

But Denis added that he is optimistic that Northern Ireland will sort its challenges out – in contrast to the situation in England, which is beginning to deal with divisions that are now surfacing.

Maureen warned that too often schools are focused on academic achievement, rather than servicing the needs of all children, including those with disabilities, and are often not helping children to develop beyond education qualifications.

Julieann stressed that increasing numbers of children want more than the schooling system currently offers – especially those children of the very many mixed background families.

Further panel discussions will be included in other podcasts to follow over the next three weeks.

Holywell Trust receives support for the Forward Together Podcast through the Media Grant Scheme and Core Funding Programme of Community Relations Council.

FULL SHOW NOTES

A discussion on how to strengthen civic society was held as part of a concluding reflection on the Holywell Trust’s series of Forward Together podcasts.  The panel was author Julieann Campbell, the commentator Denis Bradley (who was co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past and former deputy chair of the Northern Ireland Policing Board) and Maureen Hetherington of the Junction, plus myself as the person who conducted the interviews for the 35 podcasts.

We began by listening to highlights from the recordings.  The now retired Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry and Raphoe Ken Good said in his interview: “I would like our politicians to be speaking less, or be reported less, and for civic forum people to be speaking more, or reported more, or asked more”.  Former Ulster Unionist Party leader Mike Nesbitt said: “I would like civic unionism to be more active.... I look quite enviously at civic nationalism”.

Avila Kilmurray of the Social Change Initiative stressed “participative democracy doesn’t replace representative democracy, it enhances it”.  Irish language activist Linda Ervine added that “so many people are not voting,” asking “how do we change that, how do we give [people] a greater voice?” And victims campaigner Alan McBride said: “I thought the Civic Forum was a great idea – it’s not a threat to democracy – I would like to see something like that happening again.”

Peter Sheridan, chief executive of Co-operation Ireland and a former senior officer in the RUC, explained in detail how a Citizens’ Assembly in Northern Ireland might work.  While Alliance Party leader, and MEP, Naomi Long pointed out that there is now a recognition amongst many politicians that they need to improve civic engagement to address some of the big unresolved challenges.

In the panel discussion I underlined the general support across the interviews for stronger civic engagement, with the exception of the strong reservations in the interviews with politicians representing the DUP and Sinn Fein – who both appeared concerned that a strong civic society would be at the expense of the perceived legitimacy of the main parties.

Denis Bradley expressed his support for the experience of the Citizens’ Assembly in the Republic. Denis added that he believes that the significances of the problems – such as Brexit – that Northern Ireland is currently addressing makes it very likely that some new form of civic engagement will soon emerge.

Julieann Campbell responded: “I think there are people willing to speak, there are people willing to get their hands dirty, to get involved and come up with solutions – but who is out there listening?”  She added: “How are we going to change things otherwise? While the will is there, the passion is there, we haven’t got the mechanisms to do it? There’s a vacuum.”

Maureen Hetherington stressed her belief in the Citizens’ Assembly model and said that it was a model that could be mobilised behind. She added that the current political system is not working. “There’s never been a greater opportunity.” Julieann agreed with Peter Sheridan that a Citizens’ Assembly would be an excellent idea to trial in interface areas – drawing on the experience in Derry of resolving parading disputes.

Denis emphasised that the roles of representative democracy and civic engagement are different – but civic engagement can assist politicians to do things where otherwise there is too much resistance. That has been the experience of the Citizens’ Assembly in the Republic.

This latest Forward Together podcast is available here. The podcasts are also available on iTunes and Spotify.

Further panel discussions will be included in other podcasts to follow over the next four weeks.

Holywell Trust receives support for the Forward Together Podcast through the Media Grant Scheme and Core Funding Programme of Community Relations Council.

FULL SHOW NOTES

“You want to do them justice and to do their stories justice.”  Telling the stories of the children who died in the Troubles.

“We've done interviews with just shy of 100 families who lost children during the Troubles,” explains Freya McClements. “And you feel like you know them. The thing above all is that you want to do them justice and to do their stories justice.”  

Freya is discussing the research that she and Joe Duffy have done for their book Children of the Troubles, which is published in October.  She describes the opportunity to write the book as “a privilege”.  Freya admits that the research has been difficult and upsetting.  “Your focus is always that it's not about you. It's about the person that you speak to, but how you then convey their experiences or what they say to the world. 

“But there were times when we were doing several interviews in a day with people who had lost children. If you think of what might happen to you in your lifetime, to lose a child is probably the worst thing that can happen. And in violent circumstances - sometimes unimaginably just terrible, terrible circumstances. 

“You might be sitting down with the mother or father of this child, who has maybe never before spoken to anybody, who's been carrying the hurts and the trauma and the grief of this for 40 years, for nearly 50 years in some cases. 

“And there was one moment in particular - I'd been talking to the mother of a little baby called Angela Gallagher, who was an 18 month old who was killed by a ricochet bullet in Belfast at the very start of the Troubles. Her sister had her by her hand, and she was walking to go and get sweets. There was shooting going on between the IRA and the British army. One of these bullets ricocheted and hit little Angela. I was driving back up the road to Derry. And the tears were just coming down my face as I was driving along the road. I had to pull over and stop.”

Freya believes the work that she and Joe Duffy have done is important in helping people today understand the past.  “I'm confident and Joe is confident this is going to make a real contribution to our understanding of the Troubles and hopefully to that discussion about where we go from here,” she says.  “That is the achievement.”

For many parents, the most important thing is that their lost children are remembered and the tragedy of their deaths is acknowledged.  This is especially important because of the lack of counselling and support services during the Troubles – and the lack of them even today. “It's about giving space to reflect and to talk about things that really haven't been talked about,” adds Freya.

She continues: “There's the importance of acknowledgement.... there were families who would say, we have never spoken to anybody before, but because this is a book, we want this done in the book, because there's going to be a record of the children. And we want people to know. And I mean, there are mothers and fathers, siblings out there who are really elderly. In 10 years time, they are not going to be here.”

Freya explains: “There was a huge number of deaths, a toll of bad luck or bad chance or accident, they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. In some cases, there's nothing that can be done. One father said, ‘I wish we had a case. I follow all those other families in the news that can take cases. If that was me, I'd be up in that court every day. But it was just an accident. There's nothing that we can do.’ That's powerlessness.”

She recalls one story that she found particularly touching.  “One man spoke about how he thinks he received phone calls from the man that he thinks killed his daughter and it was an accident and he hadn't meant to do it. He got these phone calls late at night. And this man would cry. And he just said how sorry he was. That father's view was that he’s suffering - and that's a tragedy, that he's suffering.”

Freya believes that examining the past is a positive process for those involved “to give them a voice”.  “The idea that that you're bringing anything [traumatic] back is just ridiculous because it is always there.”  But, she adds, there are many children who died for whom there is no close family left – they have all died.  

An abiding reflection is that the pain of loss is common across the communities and whatever the causes of deaths.  Freya explains: “I always go back to two interviews I did when I worked for the BBC, with two sisters [of men who had died] - one had a brother who was in the UDR who had been shot by a sniper and killed, and the other had a brother who was a member of the IRA, who'd been killed by the British army. 

“We played the two interviews without identifying who the people were and who the victims were. When you listen to them without that knowledge, all you heard was two sisters who talked about how family life had been destroyed, who talked about the effects on their mothers, talked about the fact that the brothers weren't there, to see them get married, to see their nieces and nephews, to have children of their own.  It was that loss and the impact of the Troubles on a really human level.”

Freya is left with a strong sense of tragedy for the children who died.  “It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. The deaths of every single one of those children was wrong. And it should it should never have happened.”

Freya was interviewed in the latest Forward Together podcast, other episodes are available here. The podcasts are also available on iTunes and Spotify.

A panel of past interviewees Denis Bradley, Maureen Hetherington and Julieann Campbell, together with Gerard Deane and Paul Gosling, will discuss the Forward Together series of podcasts.  The event will take place at 2pm on Wednesday 18th September at the Holywell Trust, on Bishop Street in Derry/Londonderry.  It is open to all.

 
Holywell Trust receives support for the Forward Together Podcast through the Media Grant Scheme and Core Funding Programme of Community Relations Council.

FULL SHOW NOTES
Information on our upcoming Forward Together Podcast event taking place at 2.00pm on 18th September at Holywell Trust, 10-12 Bishop Street, Derry. The event is open for all to attend and we'll hear highlights from our series and have a discussion with our panel made up of Paul Gosling, Denis Bradley, Maureen Hetherington (The Junction) and Julieann Campbell (Museum of Free Derry).

FULL EPISODE NOTES

‘Telling Troubles stories can help deal with the past’

Telling stories about the past – about the Troubles – can help families and society move on, says playwright Jo Egan.  She dramatised the events that killed six children during the Troubles in‘The Crack in Everything’, which was produced by Derry’s Playhouse Theatre as part of a European Union Peace project.  She was also responsible for ‘Crimea Square’, a community theatre play about the history of the Shankill Road.

“People want to be heard,” says Jo. “They want their stories recognised. And I think we need to recognise and hear the stories.”

Some families had never told Troubles events to younger generations.  The staged dramatisations enabled younger family members to learn about past traumatic events in their families.  These productions involve people telling their own stories on stage and in their own words, helped by research from Jo.

“I had all the traditional fears that I wasn't going to be able to write the play that reflected what the people wanted,” says Jo. “And that fear drives you as an artist.”

One of the challenges was that the narrative of people’s experience had become distorted and needed to be placed in a clearer context for the audience to understand.  “It did feel as if their capacity to tell a story coherently had been fragmented, had been blown apart.  People go to tell you a story, and it's traumatic storytelling, they spiral off into different things and can't quite pull it together. They can't quite grab it.... it felt to me at the end of it, when we were performing the stories, that I was giving them back a coherent story that they hadn't been able to put together.”

She adds: “I needed a coherent story where [the audience] could clearly see the wrongs, the rights, the injustices of the story and hear what had happened.... [that] was a joyful aspect of it. I could see that there was a kind of happiness to have got this cogent story.... But there's always different perspectives that have crept in. It was not quite the play you thought you were going to deliver.”

While dramatisations and storytelling can be helpful for understanding and considering past events, it is also essential that support services are available to people dealing with trauma.  “It's fine to have counselling and psychotherapy,” says Jo.  “I think the correct type of treatment for post-traumatic stress is very, very important. I don't personally believe that we have enough counsellors who can do that.”

One of the features of post-Troubles Northern Ireland is the many books written by survivors about events.  “And that perhaps is a way for people to try and make sense and also to try to reduce the emotional impact of their experiences,” says Jo.

Jo Egan was interviewed for the second in a series of three special podcasts featuring writers of historic events in the Troubles, asking them how these stories affected them and what their experiences might mean for how we deal with the Troubles legacy.

‘The Crack in Everything’ was produced by the Playhouse Theatre, in partnership with the Holywell Trust, the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Foundation and Queen’s University as part of the Peacebuilding Academy, financed by the European Union’s Peace IV programme.  Performances took place in Derry and Belfast at the end of last year.  The programme of a range of peacebuilding performances continues into 2020.

The latest podcast interview is available here. The podcasts are also available on iTunes and Spotify.

Holywell Trust receives support for the Forward Together Podcast through the Media Grant Scheme and Core Funding Programme of Community Relations Council.