Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement debate -
Thursday, 10 Oct 2024

Apologies have been received from Deputies Tully and Feighan and Sorcha Eastwood MP, Dáire Hughes MP and John Finucane MP.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome our guests to our meeting today: Ms Andrée Murphy, deputy director of Relatives for Justice; Ms Orla O'Connor, director, Ms Kate Mitchell, head of development and policy, and Ms Rachel Coyle, head of campaigns and policy, from the National Women's Council; and Reverend Karen Sethuraman, who has been here before and is welcome for her work in bringing communities together in particular. I thank them all for their attendance.

I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to another person or persons in their evidence. This is a standard thing I have to read out. The evidence of witnesses who are physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. However, witnesses and participants who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Witnesses are also asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter should be given and should respect directions given by the Chair. They should also respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should neither criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I see Claire Hanna MP behind the witnesses on the screen on the wall. I congratulate her on behalf of the committee. She is the new leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. It was a pleasure to meet her at the weekend. I wish her all the best for the future. We have people online and here; it might be a little confusing. I call Reverend Sethuraman and will then call Ms Murphy, Ms O'Connor and Ms Mitchell, in that order.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for their kind invitation to address them today. I am the first and only female Baptist minister on the island of Ireland. I was born into a Protestant unionist family and grew up in east Belfast, raised by a single mum. For more than 20 years, I have been involved in peace and reconciliation work both within and outside the church walls. I currently lead SoulSpace, a peace and reconciliation hub created for those who feel they do not fit within the institutional church. We are currently in partnership with other faith organisations across the UK. My work has involved providing pastoral care to the community, establishing a space for LGBT+ people of faith, engaging in interfaith initiatives, serving as a chaplain to two Belfast Lord Mayors, promoting gender equality, and so on. Additionally, I serve on the management board of Ireland’s Future.

One of the greatest privileges of pastoral ministry for me is listening to the stories of women from diverse backgrounds and communities across our island. These have included stories of pain, grief and joy, brokenness and healing, inclusion and exclusion, division, sectarianism and the effects of partition. Everyone has a story and women's voices - our narratives, experiences and perspectives - are essential in any decision-making process. I was stunned to read a recent report released by the Northern Ireland Executive Office on violence against women. The report stated that almost 98% of the women surveyed experienced at least one form of violence or abuse in their lifetime. Furthermore, half of those experienced at least one form of violence or abuse before they were 11 years old. Since 2020, it has been reported that more than 20 women have been murdered in Northern Ireland. The North of Ireland is not a safe place for women. We are a society struggling with the effects of intergenerational trauma. I have witnessed and journeyed this at first hand with many women. It is essential for us to strive for a new Ireland that aims to heal the woundedness experienced by our women, addressing the obstacles to their full participation. I want a society that is fair, equal and safe for all of us. In order to create a new and united Ireland that serves everyone, it is crucial to include the voices of women who have been marginalised and silenced.

Irish history features narratives of women paving the way for change throughout our island. Since the 1800s, women have been uniting to advocate for their civil rights and challenge laws that limit their freedoms. One of the earliest women’s peace groups that grabbed my attention was Women Together, formed in 1970 by Ruth Agnew, a Protestant, and Monica Patterson, a Catholic from England. Together, they exemplified a sense of togetherness with the focus and aim of working for the betterment of their communities.

The conversations concerning Irish unity are growing and unstoppable, and I have often stated that we are not complete without our Protestant and unionist neighbours. I am deeply committed to ensuring that all women, including women from our PUL community, are included in this conversation about constitutional change, as their involvement can unlock the potential for progress and offer hope to communities that often feel overlooked. The women I have spoken to often ask me, if there is to be a new Ireland, how it will impact their families and their daily lives. This highlights how planning and preparation are crucial, and it is time we begin offering our communities the necessary details.

I extend my thanks to the joint committee for all the work and discussions it has undertaken regarding constitutional change. I appreciate its outreach, the hand of friendship and welcome it has extended, as well as its openness and willingness to listen and engage in these important conversations. Going forward, I believe that all political parties advocating for a new and united Ireland should prioritise Irish unity at the core of their election manifestos. Additionally, a focused effort is needed to establish an Oireachtas committee dedicated to Irish unity. Someone once said, "If they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair." I do not want any woman to feel she needs to bring a folding chair to this discussion on constitutional change. Instead, I want to ensure her seat at the table is guaranteed. There is a distinct strength when women from diverse backgrounds unite to drive change and we must do the same today.

I thank the committee for the invitation and particularly for paying attention to the need to apply a gender lens on the constitutional debate. It is very welcome. I also thank and pay tribute to this committee for its unstinting focus on victims and survivors of the conflict. From Relatives for Justice, in particular, I thank the committee for its engagement with the British legacy Act, the threat it posed to the Good Friday Agreement and for the committee’s strength on it and its consideration of it in a most victim-centred way. Focusing on victims' needs and rights and victim-centredness was so important.

This committee’s rigorous approach to the examination of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and all that flows from it is the correct place to have a conversation on how to ensure equal gender participation is included in the wider constitutional conversation. The Good Friday Agreement was a stand-out international peace agreement that we are all justly proud of. That praise, however, does not forgive the reality that the agreement itself did not deal with the past at the time. However, by ensuring that in its DNA it is a document framed by the European Convention on Human Rights, it provided the pathway and hope for victims and survivors. While, in 1998, some wanted to leave the past behind and not mention our conflict, by 2014, with the Stormont House Agreement, the body politic of both Irish and British Governments and all parties on this island recognised that the human rights obligations of everybody and the rights of victims and survivors will not only not go away and have much to contribute to peace building. They are not a barrier to that. That was all possible because of the Good Friday Agreement.

Notwithstanding that, the unilateral legacy Act 26 years later, which deals with the past, is the standout failure of our peace process, but that is not to place a full stop on that narrative. That the Irish Government is defending the rights of victims and survivors in the interstate case speaks to the dynamic and invested approach to remedying those previous failures, and that is also true of this committee. It is also important to note there are many people in this committee who have been stalwarts in trying to remedy that and to ensure the rights of victims and survivors become part of our peace narrative and become something the Good Friday Agreement in its broadest sense does pay attention to. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Chair, Deputy O'Dowd, on the disappeared. We would all acknowledge that we did not deal with the experience of disappearances during the conflict in a way that was human rights compliant or in a way that makes sense to the broader peace agreement. Piecemeal approaches fail everyone. The type of work the Chair has put into that experience is very important.

Just as many point to Britain’s failures on Brexit as an opportunity to learn positive lessons for our constitutional debate, so too our failures on dealing with the past can inform our national debate in a positive way. Those failures, and the subsequent efforts to remedy them, can inform the constitutional debate on what not do, not least regarding gender. It gives us hope we can do better. It is not only desirable but essential and possible.

A constitutional conversation cannot and will not leave our past behind. Our shared future, whether that involves constitutional change or remaining with two jurisdictions, will carry the past with us. It will carry the hurts, pains, traumas, violations and human rights obligations that are implied in the wider discussions on dealing with the past. There is a danger in this conversation that, just as in 1998, we do not deal with the past as part of this conversation and that we prefer to avoid it and talk about the future because talking about the past might feel uncomfortable and may become difficult. Yes, it is tricky to deal with the past. There are no two ways about that, but that makes it all the more necessary. The lesson of the past 26 years is that the sky does not fall in when we do address the past. Whether that is disappearances, systemic state abuses on this island or the Bloody Sunday inquiry, when we dealt with tricky issues and addressed them in an open and honest human rights way, we were all the better for it. While there remains much to be done, we as a population have learned we are better for facing our truths and our paths in a collective way, and we must continue that path to build better for the future.

One of the other lessons of our efforts to deal with the past is that we have also failed to apply a gender lens. We have abjectly failed to ensure women are equal participants in the processes of dealing with the past and, in that way, we have created a blind spot for women who have been harmed. That applies from the Good Friday Agreement to Eames Bradley to the Stormont House Agreement and, of course, to the legacy Act. This directly informs the constitutional debate. Where we have created blind spots on dealing with the past on gender, we will carry them into the processes for shaping the debate on a new Ireland unless we do what the committee has done today and pay attention to gender.

Despite the reality that women were disproportionately affected by our conflict, this blind spot persists. Some 91% of those who were killed were men and boys. Obviously that has implications for gender for all of us, yet we continue to ignore those profound implications. We only treat women in the most passive ways, as next of kin in legal processes or maybe eyewitnesses when they have so much more to offer. We have not quantified the gender-specific violations and harms that were experienced. There is no definition for the harms experienced in the private sphere such as the domestic and sexual violence perpetrated by the military actors of the conflict, both state and non-state. These are still seen as domestic incidents. We have a scheme for the permanently injured which treats them as such. This is unconscionable in this day and age.

Women experience trauma differently in their bodies. They will engage with health professionals differently and will be the caregivers in families affected by transgenerational trauma. Mothers whose children were killed during the conflict experience their trauma not as a secondary harm but as a primary harm. We need to inform our health systems, our judicial system and our support systems. That kind of gender lens can carry into the constitutional debate and inform us all for the better. Only applying a gender lens to building process affords us the unquantifiable opportunity this presents. Imagine if this island, after our centuries of shared history, built a trauma-informed, gender-sensitive mental health system. That could be restoration, reparation and ground breaking. It would truly create a new Ireland no matter what decision we might make on our jurisdictions.

We can do better and our past tells us that. We can only do it by applying a gender lens to our understanding of the past, our understanding of the contribution of women and the processes of discussing constitutional change. It is an opportunity to create hopeful and better conversations. When it is participative and framed by human rights, it has the best chance of not leaving anyone behind, as Reverend Sethuraman has said, or creating blind spots. Participation of this nature will be reconciliation in itself. It is a process of reconciliation and acknowledgement. An informed recognition of our past informs a better future that is human rights-complaint, values peace, and our peace agreement.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for inviting me from the National Women's Council. I am joined by Kate Mitchell, our head of policy. The National Women's Council is the leading representative organisation for women and women's groups in Ireland. We are a movement-building all-island organisation made up of nearly 200 member groups and a large and growing community of individual supporters. Our ambition is to see an Ireland where every woman enjoys true equality and no woman is left behind. We are committed to fostering cross-Border solidarity by addressing shared challenges faced by women across the island of Ireland.

We believe an all-island approach is critical to advancing women’s equality and, as an all-island organisation, we have sought to bring together women from across communities in the North and South to share experiences, learn from each other about the inequalities we face and how we can work together to bring about greater equality for women across the island. We facilitate a range of cross-Border campaigns and policy initiatives on many aspects of women's equality and we work with our members, North and South, to develop a shared understanding. From this work, we are learning from each other and working together to find solutions to address the inequalities and discrimination that women face, such as poverty, issues relating to women on low incomes, housing and homelessness, violence against women, healthcare issues and lack of access to public services, such as childcare and public transport. We are involved in many initiatives but I want to highlight three today that are probably relevant to the work of the committee.

In 2022, the National Women's Council established the All-Island Women's Forum, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and shared island initiative. That brings together women's groups and activists to examine issues and areas of commonality North and South and identify key areas that can be addressed on an all-island basis. The National Women's Council's All-Island Women's Forum works to empower marginalised groups to participate in cross-Border structures and initiatives, to foster greater all-island partnerships, and to model greater co-operation across the island of Ireland. The origins of the forum came from the National Women's Council's engagement as part of our strategic plan in 2021. The members identified the need for deeper all-island work. They identified an urgency to address the continued marginalisation of women across the island and marginalisation from decision-making spaces and peace-building initiatives. There was a desire within women’s groups across the island for the facilitation of greater co-operation and a space for dialogue. The forum is not about taking a constitutional position as the women involved come from many different communities in the North and South. At present there is no comparable space for women's voices on the island of Ireland. Despite the significant recognition of the contribution the forum makes to peacebuilding on the island, unfortunately, it has no permanent or multi-annual funding, and we are constantly trying to raise funds to continue its work. That is a feature of what many members of the National Women's Council have said, that when attempting to do this work, resourcing is a key issue.

The second initiative I want to bring to the committee's attention is the all-island violence against women group. In collaboration between the Women's Aid Federation Northern Ireland and the National Women's Council, we undertook a North-South initiative addressing intimate partner violence across the island of Ireland. That was supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the shared island fund. The project involved meetings with civil society organisations, service providers, and experts in violence against women to look at how to develop an all-island approach and the services and gaps that currently exist. The outcome of this work was a comprehensive report outlining key recommendations and strategies to more effectively tackle intimate partner violence across the island. This is an innovative and unique project, which, for the first time, is developing ways forward from an all-island perspective. The report will be launched next month. We will be extending the invitation to that launch to all members of the committee. This is work we want to continue and there is demand for it to continue, given the epidemic of violence against women across the island.

The third initiative I want to bring to the committee's attention is the women's assembly - a feminist shared future. This is a new initiative by the National Women's Council. We recognise from our all-island work the different experiences of women North and South, including experiences of income inequality, higher poverty levels experienced by women in the North, and the barriers women face in being in two jurisdictions and trying to access different systems such as childcare and violence against women services. This understanding highlights how critical it is that the voices, experiences and perspectives of the full diversity of women across the island are proactively included in all discussions and forums discussing the future of our island and in relation to constitutional change. To this end, we are embarking on an exciting new initiative to bring women into this critical conversation in an inclusive, transformative but, most importantly, safe way. Our women's assembly, called a feminist shared future, will involve 50 women from diverse backgrounds and sectors across the island coming together to explore feminist visions for the future. The initiative will be chaired by former President Mary McAleese and will provide a space for women to share their hopes, concerns, and ideas about the future of Ireland.

The assembly does not seek to push participants toward a single view on constitutional change. Instead it aims to nurture thoughtful dialogue, active sharing and listening and agreeing a set of feminist values we want to see included in future debates. What is important about this is that we see this as a feminist approach to shaping Ireland's future, which takes account of gender equality, intersectionality, ecological sustainability, and challenging patriarchal structures. They are the critical things we want to see the assembly discuss and develop for the future. We would love to come back to the committee to speak to it more about the outcomes of that.

The National Women's Council does not have a specific mandated position from our members on Irish reunification but we firmly believe that any conversation on constitutional change must centre women and their experiences, ensuring they are not just heard but actively shaping the debate. That is why we really welcome the fact we are here, talking to the committee today. As supporters of the Good Friday Agreement, we are aligned with the vast majority of the Irish population in valuing peace, reconciliation, and democratic governance. The agreement clearly acknowledges the potential for a referendum on Irish reunification. We believe that when people are given time for a debate and input, to have ownership of what is being presented, then there should be nothing to fear about a national conversation on the future of Ireland. As feminists, we want to see the debate guided by women's experiences and shaped by our unique, complex and intersectional perspectives and lived experiences, which in the past have been sidelined in political discourse. For us, the inclusion of women is not a box-ticking exercise but an essential component for building a democratic and equitable future.

Women build our communities, often championing social justice, care, equality, and sustainability, issues that have to be at the heart of any conversation about the future. From the work we have been doing with our members, creating a safe space for this debate is critical. Safety means fostering an environment where women, particularly those from marginalised communities, can express their views without fear of intimidation, hostility, or marginalisation. This is currently not the case for far too many women. It is one of the issues that is outlined in our report that we will be publishing on violence against women, North and South. The fear of retaliation or ostracism within tight-knit communities, for example, where paramilitaries have historically had strong influence, creates an additional layer of intimidation. Safety is also about ensuring the process for discussion is inclusive and deliberative and not rushed or divisive, as we saw, for example, with the Brexit referendum.

We support calls for the establishment of a citizens' assembly, or perhaps even multiple assemblies taking place in either jurisdiction or within geographic regions, to ensure a whole-of-island perspective. These assemblies could be thematic or regional but, crucially, they must be gender and diversity balanced and designed for meaningful participation by women from all walks of life. A debate on Ireland's constitutional future must be broad, inclusive, and, most importantly, healing. To ensure the meaningful inclusion of women's voices in discussions about constitutional change, it is essential that dedicated funding and resources are made available from the outset. Inclusion cannot happen without participation being resourced, in particular for women and people from marginalised communities in order that they can engage fully.

Resources are necessary to ensure participation is accessible to women juggling care responsibilities, those with disabilities, women from the Traveller and Roma communities, migrants, the LGBT community, women from rural areas and women facing socioeconomic barriers. It is very important that we think about the participation of all people across the island.

We know, on reflection of the past decades, that peace and sustainability are not possible without the support of women. This is evidenced in so many ways, including by the development of the commitment to UNSCR 1325. Women have long been the backbone of peacekeeping and community-building efforts. During the peace process we saw the influence of women's rights activists and the role of the Women's Coalition in the development of the Good Friday Agreement and the continued role women play through civil society, North and South, particularly through the women's community sector. It is essential to provide support for these groups of women and to deliberately include them in any spaces we create. Investment is critical to embedding women's perspectives in shaping the future of Ireland, creating a space for reconciliation, healing, and long-term collaboration.

From conversations with our members, we want to see a better island for all women as an outcome of all of these discussions. This is about the creation of a better island for all women. Women face unique challenges, such as care responsibilities, economic inequality trauma, and issues accessing regional and cross-Border services. This must be addressed by both jurisdictions acting in harmony with regard to policy, legislation and resource commitment. The work must be ongoing and be a critical part of discussions on constitutional change. Our ambition in this process is to build the foundations of a new Ireland, shaped by feminist principles, equality, rights, and a commitment to genuine inclusion.

The addresses from the witnesses were very powerful. I thank them for the hard work they have been doing in reaching out to people in their communities. I have been very impressed in particular by what the witnesses collectively say about the need for consent and representation - gender and otherwise. If we are to build a new Ireland, the issue that goes to the heart of the matter is that - whatever altar they pray on or whatever God they support - everybody must agree to it. For that reason, consent is hugely important. If we have a future poll, it must be fully and thoroughly thought out. Everybody must have a place, regardless of their religion, sex or background. This is everybody's island and we cannot have a victory for one side and a defeat for the other. That cannot be; it must be consensual. That is key.

What this committee is about is shaping and changing opinions, and informing ourselves. We are very near to our last meeting. It will not be too long before some of the faces the witnesses see in this House will be on telephone poles around the country. What is more important is that we talk about the new relationship that we must have. The deepest part of that is that it is not just a majority vote, even though, technically, one vote would do it, but one vote on one side or the other will not do it. We must get significant buy-in. That is the work we must do. That is my own personal opinion, and the more I meet people and the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it is the way forward.

The witnesses spoke about the past and the Troubles. I have been reading about history. In 1792 in Armagh a Protestant family was attacked by a group of Defenders. He was a teacher, and he and his wife were appallingly mutilated. It shows the terrible stress and tension there was in Ireland then. We have seen the same in my lifetime. The witnesses referred to people who have been murdered and buried in unmarked graves, which is unacceptable. We cannot forget that but we must put it behind us and learn from it. Whether they happened 200 years ago or 20 years ago, we must ensure that these things never happen again. We must keep working on it.

The rotation is Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, Independents, Alliance and SDLP. I will take Fianna Fáil first if that is okay.

I thank the Cathaoirleach very much. Like him, I welcome the witnesses. I also wish to say how powerful the presentations were. I compliment all of the witnesses in that regard. I do not think any of us disagree with any element of the contributions they made. I listened to Ms O'Connor recently at a meeting of the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association, as did the Cathaoirleach and Deputy Conway-Walsh. The participation of marginalised groups in discussions is essential. My colleagues have heard me say previously that I do not think we get to the hard-to-reach groups often enough. I attend events and it is often the same people who are there. I know it is not easy. Our jobs and the jobs of the witnesses in representative organisations and advocacy groups is to try to get to those people who do not participate, and to get their views. That is critical. As we build a new shared and agreed Ireland, it is important that those voices are heard. We must ensure that constitutional issues are not seen as being removed, and only in the remit of those involved in politics. If we do not get over that perception, it would be a fatal blow to the Ireland we want to build. Everybody's voice needs to be heard when building and agreeing a new Ireland.

One point that is often made here is that we should establish a citizens' assembly or other such body. I do not believe in putting 101 people together and saying the wisdom will reside within them, regardless of their ability or knowledge, to shape the Ireland that we need.

In her concluding remarks, Ms O'Connor talked about expanding the idea of dialogue. In its manifestation to date, the shared island unit has gone out and tackled issues on a sectoral basis. We must do that because there are people with knowledge of particular areas, be it health, justice, education, women's issues, women's health or violence against women. We must ensure that we get buy-in from those groups who have the practical knowledge to ensure that it is not a group of people prescribing something for all of the rest of us. As the Cathaoirleach said, 50% plus one will not build the new Ireland that we need. I am a passionate believer in a united Ireland, but I am aware we have a lot of work to do to ensure that we achieve the Ireland that the likes of me, with my political philosophy, want to see happen.

Another theme of each of the contributions was violence against women. The Reverend Karen mentioned at the outset that 98% of the women surveyed experienced at least one form of violence or abuse in their life. Those statistics are frightening. I watched on the news on BBC and UTV late last night the story about the 22-year old young lady who was murdered in south Belfast. The news item referred to the number of young women murdered in Northern Ireland in recent months. The situation is desperate. It is terrible. Violence against women must be dealt with and reduced dramatically before we have a united Ireland. We have so much to do that requires urgent attention.

In building a new Ireland, we must ensure that the voices of women are heard and there is equality. More needs to be done to tackle violence against women across society and the island of Ireland.

As Co-Chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, we had a meeting in early March 2023 to mark the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in Stormont. I invited the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and the people who participated in it as our guests on the day. They made a huge contribution to achieving the Good Friday Agreement with the multiparty talks that led up to the agreement. Listening to those people such as Monica McWilliams and her colleagues, as I have done in many different fora, the commentary from some of the males who participated in the discussion at the time was absolutely deplorable. We should always bear that in mind but the contribution of the Women's Coalition and others was absolutely critical.

Reverend Sethuraman mentioned that a question typically asked by the women to whom she has spoken is how, if there was to be a new Ireland, that would have an impact on their families and their daily lives. This is why we need a comprehensive analysis, be it across health, social welfare, taxation, income and every aspect of society, civil and basic rights as well. Again, it has to be comprehensive in preparation.

Ms Murphy quite rightly mentioned that we cannot ignore the past in seeking to build a new Ireland. Not enough has been done to deal with legacy issues and Ms Murphy has quite rightly pointed out that the committee here, led by our Cathaoirleach, engaged extensively with regard to the deplorable British legacy legislation, as did every political grouping in the Oireachtas and at Government level. We fought a campaign against that legislation. Again, any legacy issues have to be victim-centred. That legacy legislation was perpetrator-centred. It literally gave dispensation to people who could absolve themselves of the most heinous of crimes. It was absolutely deplorable. Legacy must also be at the top of our agenda in thinking about the new Ireland.

I see that the time is running out. The National Women's Council talked about its all-Ireland women's forum and the different fora it has. Is the council happy it has got enough geographical spread with regard to the participants, both rural and urban? Again, and I cannot emphasise this enough, as all of the witnesses have done ,the hard-to-reach groups to try to ensure that they are involved in all of its conversations.

When discussing a safe space Ms O'Connor stated, "Safety means fostering an environment where women, particularly those from marginalised communities, can express their views without fear of intimidation, hostility, or marginalisation." I believe all the witnesses referred to this but in this context, are they talking about the desperate influence of paramilitaries still in communities? Is that what is meant when Ms O'Connor mentions the need to create a safe space? I might have to leave before the witnesses are finished. I am just watching the Dáil questions. The committee will excuse me if I have to leave.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. Apologies, but a launch report is happening at 11.30 a.m. and I hoped to get in to speak before leaving but I will try to come back. I thank all the witnesses for the amazing work they are doing. The work they do is absolutely powerful. It is people like them who are working on the ground who are making the changes and I thank them for that. I am inclined to agree with the previous speakers, both our Chair and Deputy Smith, who have said we have a lot of work to do.

Both questions asked were about how we can ensure the participation of marginalised groups in discussions on constitutional change. I imagine that for women on the island of Ireland, the most important thing is that it comes from here, that is, it comes from Leinster House and from our Government and that we present a safe place for them to be able to open up and share how they would like to see it. That should definitely come from here. The way to do that is by planning and preparing, which is something that almost is my constant narrative. What work do the witnesses think our Government and we here in Leinster House need to do for those marginalised groups, particularly women? This is bearing in mind that women live in a very violent society.

I was very shocked by what Reverend Sethuraman said about the report of the Northern Ireland Executive Office on violence against women that 98% of women suffer abuse. That is absolutely shocking and I am sorry to say I was not aware of that. What does our Government need to do to create a safe space for women? This is really important. It must be a priority in a new Ireland, both North and South. That is the first thing. We must also encourage those marginalised groups and women to tell us what they want to be able to say. I believe it comes from here. We have a responsibility here in Leinster House to create that space. Could the witnesses say a little more on that? Reverend Sethuraman might want to start, bearing in mind that she cited the report.

On that report, I sat with a group of women four or five weeks ago and I read out those statistics and I have to be really honest. It happened very naturally that each woman said "me too". That is why I wanted to highlight this report because women are willing and able to speak in a safe place that is given to them. The reason why I highlighted this is because we have a really deep problem of woundedness on our island and I know that Ms Murphy mentioned that. As we move forward, if we are planning and preparing, which is key, there needs to be a Department set up with a Minister in place that really champions this. As I mentioned, we also need an Oireachtas committee. We need this concentrated effort to go out into our communities and listen to our women and our people. Deputy Smith is absolutely right in that there needs to be room for multiple forums that task certain people who are capable of getting right into those communities. It is not enough to just listen to stories, we need to action. When I have a room full of women and they say it happened to them, what do we do about that?

Deputy Smith mentioned the influence of paramilitaries. Tomorrow, I am helping a family move out because they have been threatened by paramilitaries. This still happens. This is part of my every day. Again, there are stories, and that is why I emphasise the power of stories, because we are an island of stories. However, we must create the space that is safe for people to come forward and not just hear those stories but decide what we are going to do about them. We cannot sit easy with 98% of our women experiencing some form of abuse. That grieves me to my deepest core. Moving forward, I want to make sure women's stories of abuse are heard and that we give a commitment that this will get better. Those stories of abuse lead to stories of mental health issues and addiction. For me as a minister, I see it day in and day out. There needs to be a more concentrated effort and I really appreciate that the committee is so open to hearing our people and inviting us to have these conversations. However, this could range from a committee to a set Government position, right down to forums and into the heart of communities.

The women are there and they will speak.

Something occurs to me drawing on that question and also Deputy Smith's question around what is it that makes the change and what are the barriers to participation. If we have official processes that apply a gender lens, the difference that can make is ferocious. Where we see it most is when it has not happened. I will take the example of a scheme that is designed for the injured of the conflict at the moment. It is a great scheme. People who have been physically injured and who meet the criteria will receive a form of an acknowledgement payment and these are not inconsiderable sums. The way the guidelines have been written, however, means that the psychological and physical harms that are experienced are overwhelmingly people who are male and their experience of conflict, rather than women and, in particular, the experience of sexual violence. This is something that we really need to think about in terms of structural participation. If a woman has been in a relationship of any kind with one of the military actors, whether they were state or non-state, and if she was beaten or sexually abused during that time, that is seen as a private harm and is not eligible in this scheme. That woman is not believed and is not considered eligible in that scheme, so how is she considered an equal participant or an equal citizen within our post-conflict, transformative society? She is not. She has been doubly silenced by a structural policy that was put in place that never had a gender lens. It never did the work of examining how the big policy could be devised and have a gender lens applied to it to ensure effective participation and that the people who are most hidden are reached. There are great lessons in that for how we do the constitutional debate, because we need the macro policy. This needs to be led and resourced and people need to be tasked to do the work of identifying the structural barriers to participation. Are they within the community with actors who are preventing people genuinely meeting or speaking or is it something more structural? For example, how can a woman who knows nothing about trauma and is sitting in an inquest about her father being killed possibly contribute to a conversation about the constitutional future when she is barely putting one foot in front of the other at the minute because of these structural barriers? We can, but we really need to dig in to that and resource it.

I agree. It is about looking at multiple ways of doing this. I agree in terms of it being government-led. We have the shared island unit but the question is what comes from that. There are lots of initiatives being supported now but it is not necessarily feeding into a particular place in terms of who is responsible for taking actions out of it. It is very good on information sharing and learning but the issue is where it goes to from there. That is a critical piece. I could not agree more with what Ms Murphy said about the structural barriers. That is key and one of the most important things that can come out of this committee. We need to be really clear about what those structural barriers to participation are.

I know it was mentioned in terms of the citizens' assembly. It is a way of having a government-led process as well but it is one piece. However, the assemblies have served us well by giving dedicated space for the citizens to come together and to get into an issue in depth.

Regarding safe spaces, we have spoken about paramilitarism. Our members have also talked about safe spaces in the context of bias, racism and discrimination. We need to look at that when we are talking about safe spaces. Safety means lots of different things to people, so when we are creating those spaces we need to be clear about what that means. We are at a particular moment, North and South, when we are seeing a rise in racism and discrimination and that is important to put into this.

There is a huge outbreak of racism. It starts in the political domain. They are using coded words and gathering negative momentum and causing strife and trouble. We are in a different Ireland now. The potential for negative outcomes is growing, certainly visibly on the streets and in our political discourse. We need to deal with it.

I thank the Senator and the Deputy for their important questions. I want to come back to a point Deputy Smith made on the all-island solutions. Earlier, Ms O'Connor alluded to the all-island violence against women, VAW, group that we have been leading and the report that will be published next month. That provides solid and robust recommendations for how we address violence against women and intimate-partner violence in particular across the country, on an all-island basis. We know that huge commonalities exist in women facing huge challenges in accessing the court system and their experience of it and the lack of a survivor-centred approach. There are challenges in accessing a range of services and supports, including refuge support, long-term housing, healthcare and social protection. We have made very clear recommendations on the need to clarify access to those services and how victims and survivors use the Border and how it also complicates their access to support where and when they need it. We need to look at how we can enhance our justice and court systems. We also need to ensure that we have secure, multi-annual funding arrangements in place. Furthermore, it is critical to consider how we continue this important work and build on and develop robust research and data collection strategies. We need to continue to identify how we resolve these issues on an all-island basis.

Safe Ireland is the umbrella body dealing with different groups that provide services for victims of domestic abuse. Is there good collaboration on an all-Ireland basis between the relevant statutory agencies, North and South? Ms Mitchell mentioned the cross-Border dimension to all of this, whether it is accessing services or the perpetrators of violence leaving one jurisdiction and being literally free in the other one. Is there adequate cross-Border, all-Ireland collaboration among the various agencies that have different responsibilities in trying to deal with violence against women?

Certain initiatives have been put in place but there are still huge challenges. Even if we take the example of protection orders, they will not necessarily apply in the respective jurisdiction. Brexit has created additional challenges with the withdrawal of particular EU agreements, which has made protecting survivors and victims more complicated. While efforts have been made, there are still huge challenges. We see that particularly in the context of third-country nationals. Where victims and survivors are trying to use the Border to perhaps flee a situation of domestic violence, that creates additional barriers in terms of access to supports. There are significant challenges that need to be addressed but are currently not being addressed.

Taking the example of violence against women or domestic violence, there has been an increase in reporting and in some ways that is positive because more women are coming forward. It means that services are really under pressure. The work around cross-Border collaboration and working together is not resourced. Unless it is resourced and given time for, services will not have the time to be doing all this collaboration that they would want to be doing as well. While some of this is happening, our members say to us that they would want to do more but there are no resources for this work.

They are providing services and those services are already facing huge demand, particularly in that area. We were all talking about that dedicated piece. This needs focus and dedication. It needs to be resourced and to be feeding into something specific. We need to give time to this work as well as the actual service provision.

Ms O'Connor's point around cross-jurisdictional need is really well made. If we think about the enormous work by the Houses here around the legacy Act and victims and survivors, there is an abject lack of services for the needs of victims and survivors on this side of the Border. They may find a place to be able to bring some violations they have experienced in their lives but when it comes to talking about conflict-related harms or dedicated complex trauma services, that does not exist on this side of the Border in the same way. There is not that joined-up thinking. For me, the big lesson of all of this is how we join up all of the policies, whether it is policing, the criminal justice system or supporting the trauma needs of the populations. People lives their lives across this island in and out in different parts, and different members of the same family may live in different parts of the island as well. One person may be getting very effective and useful support here but really not getting it on the other side of the Border. Giving some thought to that will be really essential going forward.

I thank the witnesses for their statements and for taking the time to be with us today. All of the statements were really strong with regard to what we are trying to do on this committee. What we are trying to do is prepare and examine constitutional change and the constitutional future, how we prepare for that and how we ensure all voices are heard, and particularly for this piece of work that women's voices are heard and that we get to the hard-to-reach women in communities. I commend all of the work that has been done by the witnesses and others. I am aware of several pieces that have come before us here but work is being done as well at the moment by UCD and the University of Aberdeen, with Dr. Shelley Deane and Professor Joanne McEvoy. I am really looking forward to that because I am lucky enough that they are choosing Mayo as one of their sites, as well as Longford. The women I know in the community in Mayo will have an opportunity to shape something good and I think that is what it is about. It is about shaping it and how we shape it.

We have a unique opportunity to do that and to reset so many things. We saw that even in the context of the previous report we did on finance and economics, in standing back and looking at what our values are as a nation and how we can set something that serves everybody. Everyone will agree across all parts of the island that we have had that piecemeal effect, if you like, in terms of never having the opportunity to stand back, look at what our values were and how we shape that so nobody is left behind. What the witnesses have done is really valuable.

We are concluding this piece of work but we are conscious there are some gaps in our report. If there are groups the witnesses are working with and they think it would be good for us to hear from them, they might feed it into our clerk or Chair so we do not leave anybody behind in the particular conversation we are having now. I would ask them to do that in the next week because I know Ms Emma McCarron is doing a job in drafting up the report. I would appreciate that.

I want to ask about the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and its importance. I know Ms O'Connor has referred to it, and I have heard Ms Murphy speak about it. Could the witnesses speak to that for a moment, and why it is so important?

What is important to note with regard to Resolution 1325, the women, peace and security resolution at the Security Council, is that it came in in 2000, two years after the peace agreement. Had that been there when we were negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, it would have been a different agreement because we would have had a stream that very clearly looked at the needs of women and their contribution to peace and security as part of the agreement. We do not have that. Instead, what we have is a contest between the two jurisdictions around how we will support the needs and rights of women who survived our conflict and who live in a transitional state. We have the Irish action plan, which is absolutely excellent and seen as a high standard in international terms, speaking to women in the North. There has not really been an action plan at all from Britain in quite a while, but even the previous one ignored it because they do not consider what we lived through as a conflict. They do not include it in their own action plan.

Women in the North, who are absolutely survivors of a conflict, do not have that kind of consistency or attention to their needs in the structured way at the United Nations and that really needs to be highlighted. If we think about this in a joined-up way, if we think about national action plans that are being devised, and really highly consultative and important processes for drawing up those action plans on a cross-jurisdictional basis, it is almost like a mini version of what we are talking about here in respect of constitutional change. They have been participative, cross-sectoral and really important. What was most important was the Irish Government paying attention to the needs and rights of women in the North with regard to their participation and the barriers they face as survivors of conflict.

Our dealing with the past processes have been influenced by not having Resolution 1325 as well. Had we had that application, we would absolutely have had a completely different dimension to how we viewed the rights to truth, justice and reparation. Reparation has often been left off the table, as the United Nations special rapporteur on transitional justice, Dr. Pablo de Greiff, pointed out in 2015. All of those things coalesce, and again it is that idea of the macro and the micro. If we have the big policy piece or framework which Resolution 1325 could offer us, then we could do so much more and really apply ourselves because we would have that framework. Women on the ground who have often felt silenced or invisible say, "Well, the United Nations sees me". That was the small work we did with our women, where they said they might not be seen by the Governments who say they pay attention but the United Nations sees them and their rights and talks a language they can actually relate to. It can be really empowering as well.

What I would add is that we are in a new phase of designing a new action plan. There is a real opportunity with regard to where the new action plan might go. We have experience with lots of action plans on different issues. There is an opportunity with respect to the development of the new one in terms of what we have just spoken about, and making sure that marginalised women are a part of it. There is an opportunity to bring this out into communities that maybe we have not taken in the past. That could really help in these discussions we are having on the wider issues across the island. As far as I know, the Department responsible for it is going to be doing those consultations at the start of next year.

That is good. I want to ask the witnesses about the framework. All of this really good work is being done and we need a framework within which to put this, not least because resources will be needed for doing the work and, as the witnesses rightly say, in facilitating people to break down the barriers that are there, whether it be childcare, elder care or the many other things that hinder women, or practical things like transport, and all of those things.

What type of framework does the Government need to set up to do that, and also to prevent reinventing the wheel so that there is additionality all the time with respect to what is being done, and so there is not a competitive environment where people are not competing for resources but, rather, everybody who is doing the good work is adding on to that of others? What might that look like?

I very much welcome the comments by Leo Varadkar.

He said we need a transition fund but that we also need funding for all the work done in the preparation phase. What resources do we need to prepare? How do we make sure we get value for money and that money is channelled in the right direction?

Senator Black's comments on having a place that begins here in Leinster House and the recommendations of the committee on having a unit or committee that starts here, brings all that learning into one place and can apply the different lenses to ensure participation and ensure people are not left behind are, with emerging needs and a changing Ireland, so important. That will ensure it can be responsive. That responsive process that can go into communities requires money to hire a room, make sure it is well ventilated and ensure that elderly people have transport to get there and that caring responsibilities are met.

On top of that, let us use a gender lens to make sure the people going to the meeting are not leaving the women behind looking after the kids and the granny. It has to be done on many levels by having everything in one place where there is learning and planning. Planning is key to participation. The recommendations at the beginning of the summer from this committee were useful in terms of that.

I worked with women in a loyalist estate up North for about five years. It does not matter about our background; all our needs are the same. They ranged from childcare to lone parenting. What has been said is key. It is about the connectedness between people in the grassroots to make sure we team up together. There is no room for competitiveness in this. I keep bringing up this report because I encounter survivors of abuse almost daily. I have recognised that people in housing developments and loyalist estates cannot afford therapy. There is help for abuse victims if they can afford it. If we then direct them to their local GP, they go onto a waiting list. In their waiting time, they are dealing with trauma. They are trying to be a mom and work while dealing with this stuff inside. This causes them to struggle with their mental health. Recently, funding has been withdrawn from organisations that work with abuse victims. We need to invest in that because many of us cannot afford to pay for a therapist. That is why there needs to be a concentrated effort. I love, champion and work with amazing organisations at the grassroots of our community but there needs to be a sense of togetherness to make this better for our women. The pain of a woman in a PUL community is exactly the same as the pain of a woman in a CNR community. We need to rise above seeing us as two communities, them and us.

We mentioned race as well. I am from a mixed-race marriage. My kids recently shared with me the racism they have faced. We have recently had as a family to sit down and talk about safety. I have never had to do that. There has to be a collective way to pull these stories together and an action plan. We need funding to help our women heal from abuse. Some 50% of those women experienced abuse under the age of 11. I am here as a minister and am ashamed of what the institutions and churches have done to our island. I would like to help in some way the healing from that. Toxic teachings have broken out into our communities where women feel shame, guilt and all the things I see every day. We have an opportunity when we think of something new to begin to feed hope back in and to feed back in that we are not just here to speak nice pious words but are committed to making sure women get healed from the abuses they have experienced.

We probably do not have that all set out. Currently there is a shared island unit but that is not necessarily bringing us to the things that need to change and to come together. I agree it is about a dedicated space within a Department but it has to be more than just sharing the experiences. There needs to be a way of bringing this together and the authority to do that. I do not know how we would do that but that is what is needed. It is as well to have the authority to go out into communities. There are lots of really good structures in our communities and community development approaches but it needs to go out, rather than trying to get all the information in.

There is resourcing going into fairly significant pieces of research on North-South comparisons. It needs to be gender disaggregated. We need to be able to get the information from that. That is key. It was shocking in a way that when we did the piece on violence against women, we found it really difficult to get good comparative analysis - it just was not there - of services around violence against women North and South that was up to date or that had gender-disaggregated information and data in it. There is a massive gap. That needs to be part of the framework and has to go hand in hand. It is not about waiting for all the information. Key to that framework is to have a part of it that is about identifying structural barriers around participation and what needs to be done around that. There are different pieces in terms of policy, data, cross-jurisdictional legislation and policy, and also the supports needed for things to happen.

The data is a huge problem we come up against all the time. There is non-congruence of data across the island in all the areas we are looking at. We have asked the CSO and Northern Ireland statistics office. Disaggregation of data from Britain and the North is also difficult. We are trying all the time to build the evidence and have everything evidence-based to almost take the emotion out of it. People want to see how things will impact them and their families.

Citizens' assemblies are a recommendation all the time. In my mind, I had the idea of a citizens' assembly but the more we go into the work, the more I see there would be a number of citizens' assembly across different sectors. There would be one for health; you might even break health down into mental health and other health. There would be one for education and so on. What are the witnesses' views on citizens' assemblies? How might we make sure they are really representative and nothing is left to chance?

It is important to acknowledge that those spaces where there is participation and it is representative are vital. In recent times they may have got a bit of a knock but the principles still apply and are useful. As this conversation is so big and reaches into all our lives in a multiplicity of areas, it is pretty unprecedented. We also have this amazing opportunity to understand each other far better as a result of this conversation.

No matter what the decision is on the far side of a Border poll, we will understand our Protestant unionist loyalist, PUL, community far better as a result of this conversation. We also have the opportunity to understand better how economics on this island work. There is also an opportunity to understand better how we can have joined-up mental health services. No matter what, we will come out the far side with a better understanding. The only way we can achieve that is through participation. The citizens' assembly-plus model, involving a large forum that will ensure participation, is something to consider. It is not going to be 100 people spending a weekend sitting in Dublin Castle. It is going to be big. It is a great opportunity for us, after all these years of participation, to do something really important on this island that we will all be the better for, no matter how we vote on the far side.

That is a key point. The difficulty is that if we have a Border poll before the time is right, without having public buy-in, it will be hugely divisive. The consequences for relationships between people, whatever they might be before that, could be catastrophic. A negative outcome risks tearing everything apart again. That is the difficulty I see. It is so important to get it right. That takes time and requires consent and putting in all the groundwork on all the issues. If that is done, it will succeed. If it is not done, it will not succeed. I feel very strongly about that.

Something I am encountering now is that people want detail. They want flesh put on the bones. There comes a point when we need to begin to shift. I do not believe a citizens' assembly can be held to 100 people. It needs to be an assembly-plus. Personally, I love the idea of quorums in every part of Ireland. That has to be tasked by the Governments. I pulled out the example of that little group, Women Together, from the 1970s because I loved that it was a Catholic and Protestant working together for the benefit of their communities. There is something very powerful for us, as communities on this island, if we have a team of people from different backgrounds working together. My friend Andrée will not mind me repeating something she said when we worked together in Ireland's Future. We are from different communities. I will never forget the day Andrée said to me, "If there is never Irish unity, this is peace and reconciliation." She said we are very from very different backgrounds but we are working together with the common goal of wanting the best for our island. That kind of representation needs to take place right across the whole island, not just involving 100 people. That is really key. I am in favour of citizens' forums but it needs to be a forum-plus.

The public participation networks have a big role to play in that process under the local authorities. There is also the PEACEPLUS funding, which crosses all local authorities. There certainly is an organised way to do this. There will be lessons from what happens in Belmullet and Longford, which will be useful when the same is done in Cork and in mid-Ulster as part of that project. We need to be learning and building from each engagement. It is an exciting time to be doing this work.

I agree. A citizen's assembly-plus is probably a good way of putting it. Our past experience of the formation of a citizens' assembly, in terms of creating a safe space and ensuring it is representative, has given a strong indication as to where people are. We can, for example, draw on some of the learning from how we dealt with abortion and the repeal campaign. It was not just about the citizens' assembly. That was probably the only Government-led forum. There were so many other conversations taking place in communities, led by civil society, for instance, and student organisations. We were going around having small conversations in communities. That is what we need in this case. It is really important, as the Deputy said, that all engagements feed in somewhere in order that the process has authority and people feel there is a point to engaging in the conversations. It is quite different in that way from how the movement for repeal worked in the case of the abortion referendum. We need all those conversations and for all of that to happen to ensure there is ownership of the process. As the Deputy said, the two types of engagement are not mutually exclusive. I would include the citizens' assembly within a larger framework. It offers a good deliberative process.

Looking back at the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality, the report that came out of that process is really strong and robust. We are now developing the next national strategy for women and girls and the report provides a really strong blueprint for what should be included in the strategy. It helps us to be quite visionary and ambitious in our approach. I agree that a citizens' assembly is one element in a process and not the full solution. However, there is good practice in what has gone before and we can draw from that. If we are talking about a citizens' assembly and other forums for engagement and participation, we really need to identify the barriers to engagement and look at supporting people's participation, whether by way of transport, payment for people's time or otherwise. We must ensure we reach the more marginalised groups of individuals and communities, including disabled women, migrant women and Traveller and Roma women. Their voices very much need to be part of the process.