Holywell Trust Conversations

Latest Episodes:

S2 - Episode 6 - Deirdre Heenan May 25, 2020

Show notes

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.

S2 - Episode 5 - Jim Dornan May 18, 2020

Show notes

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.”

S2 - Episode 4 - Suzanne Rodgers May 11, 2020

Show notes

FULL EPISODE DESCRIPTION

“Journalists have always had to have integrity”

The media are at a crossroads, with fears over the future of some of Northern Ireland’s best known newspapers. Existing trends favouring social media over print newspapers have been accelerated by the Covid-19 crisis, with additional financial pressures from a collapse in advertising revenues.

This is an appropriate moment to reflect on the future of the media and on ethical responsibilities on journalists working in a post-conflict society. The latest Forward Together podcast from the Holywell Trust features an interview with Suzanne Rodgers, a media commentator who is media studies lecturer at the North West Regional College.

“New types of newspapers are coming up,” she says, some of which have a more open minded view of society, less connected to traditional social and political divisions. “And of course bloggers, podcasts are becoming very popular. People are finding they have a whole range of other areas where they can access their news and information and also contribute to it as well.

”We’re now talking about two-way conversations, whereas in the past, certainly when I started my career in journalism, journalists delivered the news, delivered the information to people and people absorbed it. Now we're having this two-way conversation. You're finding even in the BBC where people are doing news programmes, even traffic reports, they're asking people to come back and give their opinion, what’s happening where you are.”

But, Suzanne adds: “On the other side, we still have the very traditional news outlets. There hasn’t been a massive change since the deepest, darkest days of the Troubles. You have small places like Limavady, Strabane, Portadown, having two newspapers, because they are serving two very different constituencies: one nationalist, the other unionist. And there hasn’t been a huge change in that – which is strange, because I expected that.”

There have been limited changes in reading habits in recent years, with Sam McBride, the political editor of the News Letter, reporting that his newspaper sold out in nationalist areas because of his coverage of the RHI scandal. And some columnists write for outlets on both sides of the community divide.

“I suppose,” says Suzanne, “one of the things that has happened is that there are some people who have a social media presence and have lost their anonymity. They have become like a trusted person sitting at your kitchen table. I know from the students I teach, they would follow journalists sometimes, rather than the outlets.

“We have always been news hungry in this part of the world and people do look, even to be annoyed, to read someone like Newton Emerson, Alex Kane or Brian Feeney, because they are provocative. Maybe that’s a change that has happened. People feel more able to reach out and look at the other side and consider the other point of view.

“By and large people are now looking for online news…. The only paper I was aware of that was able to monetise that was the Donegal Daily”. It benefited from emigrants to Australia, Canada and America wanting to keep up with local news, “but very few others managed to do that.” Now, though, an increasing number of newspapers see their futures as being more online than in print.

But has the purpose of the media changed? “The role of the media has always been to stand to one side and to shine a light in dark corners,” insists Suzanne. “That's what we all like to say. Of course, commercialisation and the commercial reality is that newspapers and media have to sell advertising space.”

One of the improvements to the media scene is the emergence of fact checking organisations, verifying truth both for consumers and reporters. “Some newspapers, some news organisations, have furloughed staff, so the less staff the less chance you have of fact checking,” Suzanne explains. “But we do have a number of organisations, like FactCheckNI, that do really good work, explaining what some of the myths are: they are there as a resource.

“The Ethical PRISM Network is working with different fact check organisations, to set up multiple tools, free online training and resource hubs, to help journalists check and cross check their facts. But the old rule of journalism still applies. You don't put something out as a fact unless you have got more than one source for it. And unless you've got reliable sources for it.”

One of the big questions is whether journalists have specific responsibilities operating in a post-conflict society. Do we have a responsibility to help society improve, to reduce division, or at least to avoid making divisions worse?

“Journalists have always had to have integrity,” says Suzanne. “Integrity is key. We can't say publish and be damned. You have to stop and think, what's the context here? Am I adding anything here to wider knowledge or discourse, or is this just a sensational headline?... For journalists, that's part of the job they are always weighing up. What are the consequences of this? Does it add more than it takes away? What's my role here?

“In a post-conflict situation, I think maybe less so. It was more so while the Troubles were being reported. Hume-Adams, for instance, a lot of people knew that was happening, but people decided to give it a bit of space. In a post-conflict society, journalists can perhaps press the pedal a bit harder.”

So if we accept there are stories that should be ignored because reporting them would spark violence or other community harm, are there other stories that should be covered because they will do good, that might be termed ‘ethical journalism’?

“Yes,” says Suzanne. “I think journalists do have that responsibility, because they have a unique power to disseminate information, to reach out and ask questions, with access to people that people on the street don’t have.

“Maybe that's where the real ethical responsibility lies. Not just how you report the stories that come your way, that you come across, or that you find, but also actually going in search of those stories that do shed a more positive light… I think it is incumbent on journalists to go and look for those stories.”

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

S2 - Episode 3 - John Fitzgerald May 04, 2020

Show notes

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.”

S2 - Episode 2 - Siobhan O'Neill Apr 27, 2020

Show notes

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.”

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.’

S2 - Episode 1 - Jess Sargeant Apr 20, 2020

Show notes

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.

Review 4 - Constitutional Question Oct 21, 2019

Show notes

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.

Review 3 - Addressing The Past Oct 14, 2019

Show notes

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.

Review 2 - Shared & Integrated Society Oct 07, 2019

Show notes

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.

Review 1 - Civic Voice Sep 30, 2019

Show notes

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.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Holywell Trust Conversations

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected