Northern Ireland

HC Deb 08 March 1999 vol 327 cc120-40

10 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy)

I beg to move, That the draft North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)(Northern Ireland) Order 1999 be approved. The debate in the new Northern Ireland Assembly on 15 February dealt with some fundamental aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Members of the Assembly discussed the civic forum and how it would be best for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to appoint members to it. They debated how the British-Irish Council might perform in ensuring that relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and the new devolved Administrations, can work in the future.

Members of the Assembly dealt with the 10 Departments of the Executive that are to run Northern Ireland after devolution. The House of Commons approved the order setting up the 10 Departments of State in Northern Ireland, as did the other place some weeks ago. Today, we are dealing with what was known during the talks process as strand 2 of the agreement. We are dealing with what is termed the North-South Ministerial Council—a body based in many ways on the European Council of Ministers—which is to deal with areas of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The agreement specified areas in which co-operation may occur, and those areas were extended and debated in the Assembly on 15 February—they include transport, tourism, the environment, agriculture, education and health—although the details are to be decided by the Council itself.

The order provides the statutory basis for the six agreed so-called implementation bodies, to deal with inland waterways; food safety; trade and business development; language; and aquaculture and marine matters. The details are in the Library for hon. Members to consult.

The order deals with how the bodies will operate, including details on their functions; annual reports and accounts; grants; staffing; and other issues. It is important for the House to realise that after devolution the British Government will have no role in the day-to-day operation of the bodies.

The two Governments were charged by the agreement with drawing up the legislation and the treaty, which is in schedule 1 of the document and was signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland's Foreign Affairs Minister in Dublin this morning. All the details on the implementation bodies and the treaty itself are the result of intensive negotiations before Christmas, ending in the early hours of 18 December, after Christmas, and indeed right up until only yesterday.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

Part VII of the order deals with aquaculture and marine matters. What is the likelihood of the implementation body engaging in matters relating to the common fisheries policy or fish farming?

Mr. Murphy

My hon. Friend doubtless heard me when I said that the way in which the bodies will operate will depend on the Northern Ireland Assembly and on the Republic. It is important that there will be an opportunity in the British-Irish Council for people from the Scottish Parliament, from the Welsh Assembly, and of course from Westminster, to discuss matters of common concern, including fishing. The European side will of course remain a matter for the Ministers from the sovereign states. The appropriate Minister for agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland will play his or her part in discussions on fisheries.

The negotiations continued until yesterday. That explains the relative lateness of the documentation, which right hon. and hon. Members might normally have expected to receive earlier. I apologise to the House for the lateness, but these are unusual circumstances and times. We have discussed the issue through the usual channels and, of course, much of the detail is already in the public domain and has been discussed and debated in the agreement itself, in the various meetings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and in documents that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the Deputy First Minister have circulated to all parties in Northern Ireland in the past few weeks.

Another reason why we are dealing with the matter today is that the Government pledged to complete all the necessary legislative preparations for devolution, and all the issues in connection with the agreement as far as they affect devolution, by 10 March. That we have now done, if the House approves the motion—as I presume it will— and if the other place approves it tomorrow. The only step then remaining will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to judge whether it appears to her, as it says in the agreement, that sufficient progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement, to permit the transfer of powers to the new Assembly. That transfer would be the devolution order itself, which will be debated by this House and the other place.

Dr. Godman

My hon. Friend mentioned the British-Irish Council. If that body is to have a fixed locus, I can think of no better city than Glasgow. The Nordic Council has a fixed locus, with a secretariat of some 70 people. I know that Liverpool has a good case, but I do not believe that Belfast, Dublin or London has a case. It should be Glasgow—does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Murphy

I would get into terrible trouble if I agreed anything on the British-Irish Council and its secretariat. Stranraer, the Isle of Man, Liverpool and Cardiff have all expressed an interest, and we shall have to wait and see. It is a matter for the council itself and the two Governments to discuss.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated that she would be ready to call a meeting of the Assembly as early as 10 March to allow the so-called d'Hondt procedure to be run. As hon. Members will know, that procedure would trigger the formation of the new Assembly's Executive. She has made a further announcement about that matter today. She announced that in her consultations with Northern Ireland parties she heard differing views. Some wanted the running of d'Hondt to be delayed and others wanted it to go ahead immediately. All those who support the agreement remain committed to achieving full implementation of all its aspects as quickly as possible, and all the parties said that they wanted to move forward on an inclusive basis.

In the light of the differing views, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that 10 March would not be the best time to run the d'Hondt procedure. She has concluded that if it were to be run, it would not produce an effective Executive on which both communities would be represented. Indeed, some parties feared that running d'Hondt this week might even collapse the process. My right hon. Friend also recognised that the decision could not be put off indefinitely. Therefore, she announced today that she would call a meeting of the Assembly to run the d'Hondt procedure no later than the week beginning 29 March. That is the week of Good Friday, which is the anniversary of the agreement. That will give the parties the time and space to find a way forward. Many of the Northern Ireland political leaders will be visiting the USA. There will be opportunities to build confidence and to talk informally in preparation for an intensive round of discussions on their return to Belfast.

Many of us find such an announcement disappointing. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we can, with determination and courage, take the next steps towards bringing the agreement to fruition. We will work closely with the Irish Government and all other supporters of the agreement to find a constructive way forward.

It is against that background that the House is considering the order. It will put in place the new implementation bodies, which are an important piece of the new infrastructure under the agreement. The bodies will operate fully in accordance with the terms of the agreement as is spelled out in the treaty attached to the order. Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council who are responsible for the various bodies—or any additional bodies that they may decide to establish by future agreement—will be fully accountable to the Assembly and to Oireachtas.

Mechanisms to ensure proper accountability and transparency were included in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They include the requirement that the Executive Committee and the Assembly should be notified of the dates and agendas for meetings of the ministerial council. Northern Ireland Ministers will be accountable to the Assembly for their actions in the council, just as they will be for their other responsibilities.

By law, Assembly Ministers who participate in the council will be required to act in accordance with the decisions of the Assembly or the Executive Committee. Northern Ireland Ministers will also require Assembly approval for any decisions that go beyond their defined authority. Any agreement in the council that requires new legislation will require the support of the Assembly. No agreement to establish a new implementation body can come into operation without the specific approval of the Assembly.

We have a balanced package of measures to enhance co-operation, north and south. The bodies will operate within a clear framework of democratic accountability as defined in the agreement, supporting legislation and the procedures of the Assembly. The bodies, and any others that may be agreed in the council, will provide a foundation for close co-operation between the Northern Ireland Administration and the Irish Government.

The order provides the statutory basis for the six agreed implementation bodies. In my view, and, I am sure, in the view of both the people of Northern Ireland and the House, it is an important part of the path towards a political settlement in Northern Ireland which will, we all hope and pray, lead to peace. I commend it to the House.

10.13 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

We support the order, and we shall not divide the House on it. We support it for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it was an important part of the Belfast agreement, and it is essential that all aspects of that agreement should be implemented in full. It is a matter of deep regret to Members on both sides of the House that certain aspects of the agreement are not being implemented at present.

I completely accept the Minister's apology for the lateness in our obtaining the documentation. The negotiations went on throughout the weekend, and we were satisfied with the key text. I shall quote briefly from it to record the important definition that gives us comfort that the order is the right way forward. It states that the arrangements— an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council, and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland"— are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functions of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other". I know that the Minister will agree that that is a point worth underlining.

I have always favoured proceeding with all other aspects of the agreement, especially the north-south bodies, so that there could be absolutely no excuse for the lack of decommissioning of illegally held weapons. We want a clear message to emerge from the House tonight that the two Governments and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have fulfilled their responsibilities in full; and that there is now no reason why there should not be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Only one thing holds that back: that Sinn Fein-IRA have still not started to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives—not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in.

The reason why I was pleased to learn over the weekend that the two Governments and the constitutional parties had reached a clear agreement on setting up the north-south bodies is that doing so removed any last hurdle or excuse that allowed Sinn Fein-IRA to say that they could not decommission yet because they were still waiting for this, that or the other, or because they were not convinced of the good faith of the British Government, the Irish Government, the Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party, or whoever they wanted to blame at that point. Once the order has been passed by the House of Commons today and by another place tomorrow, there will be no excuse.

The eyes of the world will be on Sinn Fein-IRA, watching to see whether they really meant what they said and signed up to on Good Friday last year; whether they have really renounced violence for good; and whether they will decommission their illegally held weapons. If they do not decommission, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, it is not possible for the Northern Ireland Executive to be set up. It is not right or proper in a democracy for people to take ministerial office, with all the responsibilities that such a duty entails, while continuing to hold illegal weapons without any suggestion that they will be handed in. It would be quite unfair to expect constitutionally elected politicians who have never taken part in violence to take part in an Executive with such people.

I conclude by underlining the fact that the buck now stops with Sinn Fein-IRA. They must commence decommissioning, and the process must be verifiable and genuine. Only when that happens can we have a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, which many of us believe is long overdue.

10.18 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

As the Minister said, the order and the associated treaty give effect to agreements that were made between the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 18 December, although they were not formally approved until 15 February because of some outstanding business.

In their effect, the order and the treaty achieve something rather unique. Co-operation between states is a common feature of western Europe today, and co-operation between the two parts of Ireland has gone on for decades—indeed, the key elements were developed under the previous Stormont Administration. However, the treaty and the order go further in that they create implementation bodies—bodies in international law—to which each jurisdiction transfers functions as a means of carrying on a scheme of co-operation. There are six different areas of co-operation. The concept formed a central part of the agreement, we worked out the detail of the schemes in December and we are now giving effect to them. Therefore, the order marks a significant step forward in the implementation of the agreement, and embodies one of its chief characteristics.

Most of the documentation, which is lengthy and detailed, simply fleshes out the detail of what was agreed on 18 December. The 18 December documents are in the order, and further memoranda flesh out the situation in greater detail. There was difficulty with the particular legal concepts used and I am glad that, following much discussion, we got it right. However, it is interesting to note that the Northern Ireland Assembly will not have the power to create such bodies in the future. It may propose schemes for future co-operation, but only the House and the Government can exercise treaty-making powers. That is a rather cumbersome, roundabout way to proceed, but I think the Government are reluctant to create precedents that might be applied elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

We had one significant difficulty. It has been suggested in some quarters that the process would result in the creation of some freestanding bodies that would not be accountable or subject to any sort of veto or direction and would somehow continue if anything happened to the agreement. I am glad to say that it is clear from the agreement that that is not so. Article 8 of the treaty is sufficient to dispose of such claims, and the preamble to the treaty makes the situation absolutely clear.

As the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), said, the agreement states that all the arrangements—in particular the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council and associated schemes—are "interlocking and interdependent". One relies upon the other. The relationship between the particular bodies created by the order and the North-South Ministerial Council is also made absolutely clear. Hon. Members will find in each of the documents a sentence that states that, in exercising its functions, the body will act at all times in accordance with any directions— whether of a general or specific nature—given by the North-South Ministerial Council. That demonstrates the correct relationship between the bodies and the council.

The Minister quoted from material in the agreement that shows clearly the relationship between the council and the democratic bodies: the Assembly of Northern Ireland and the Oireachtas in the Irish Republic to which accountability then flows. This structure maintains democratic accountability and ensures that the operations will proceed in a way that is genuinely beneficial to both parties.

There is a continuing problem that was not apparent when we made the agreement on 18 December. Hon. Members will see it referred to on page 39, which deals with aquaculture and marine matters. We thought that we could include provisions regarding the Commissioners of Irish Lights but, subsequent to 18 December, it became clear that some quite complicated matters were involved. Hon. Members will see those references in paragraphs 7 and 7.1 on page 39, which state that the existing arrangements will continue until such time as more general United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland legislation can be brought forward.

The question remains as to what is the best way to cope with this issue. I was interested in some earlier comments about the British-Irish Council because I suspect that it might present a solution to the real practical problems that we encountered when addressing the question of lights. That matter might be best handled—as it is at present— on a British Isles basis. The British-Irish Council could be an effective way of dealing with the issue. That matter will be carried forward in further discussions within the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.

As the Minister said, our general approach has been to move as quickly as we can. Although it has taken from 18 December until now, we have spent that time doing serious work in order to produce all the material. It has been our intention throughout the past few months to move as quickly as possible to the point where we can say that everything that we can do to give life to the institutions of the agreement has been done. We have now reached that point. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I—and, to some extent, the House—will be able to say after tonight that everything we can do has been done.

All the institutional and structural arrangements provided for in the agreement, which are necessary for the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, will be put in place and ready to go live as soon as the necessary conditions are present. That point relates to the one outstanding issue in the agreement on which there has, as yet, been no progress. I refer to the commitment of the paramilitary-related parties to the agreement to achieve the total disarmament of paramilitary groups. There has been no progress by any of those parties that have endorsed the agreement.

The one act of progress, which coincidentally took place on 18 December, was the first act of decommissioning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force, a precedent that was very welcome. The paramilitary parties to the agreement have, as yet, done nothing to implement the commitment that they made nearly a year ago. Until they do, there will not be sufficient confidence in the community to enable the agreement to proceed—nor ought it to proceed, when we consider simple justice and defence of the democratic principle. An important principle is at stake here—that of ensuring that we are proceeding on a sound basis that will ensure peace and democracy for the future.

I hope that it will be possible for that further step to be taken, sooner rather than later. I regret the Secretary of State's statement today. We tried very hard last week to have everything ready for 10 March, and as the Minister has said, discussions continued throughout the weekend. The order has been tabled and is being debated tonight so that everything will be ready for 10 March. It was therefore disappointing to hear the Secretary of State announce this afternoon that 10 March did not matter any more and that the Government will just forget about it. That demonstrates a slightly mistaken approach.

The Secretary of State should maintain the posture, as should we all, that we have the institutional arrangements sorted out, so from tonight, each and every day, we are ready to take whatever further steps we can as soon as the necessary confidence-building measures occur. To announce, as the Government have done today, "We shall not bother because we have given up hope for this week and we'll forget the matter for another couple of weeks," is the wrong approach and undermines the efforts that we have been making in the past week.

I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about the approach to adopt in these matters and focus on the need for confidence-building measures to be taken. We must focus pressure on those who are refusing to act, wasting time and delaying progress, because as from tonight, everything that can be done from our point of view has been done. We hope that the arrangements will work out well in practice—experience, of course, will determine that—but the arrangements are flexible and can be developed and altered in the light of experience.

I look forward to the time when we can operate this part of the agreement together with all the other parts and, through them, change people's view not only of north-south co-operation but of how society operates in Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, we must remember that the arrangements provide the potential to transform circumstances in Northern Ireland and give life to those hopes that were engendered nearly a year ago by the Belfast agreement.

10.29 pm

Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

The Liberal Democrats also welcome the order. Politics is as much about processes as anything else. To put it another way, "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it." That lesson has clearly been learned by the British and Irish Governments, judging by what is being presented to us today.

If we compare the situation now with that of 14 years ago, when the last great effort in cross-border co-operation—the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985—was implemented, we realise that co-operation between London and Dublin was the exception, and now it is the rule. Direct involvement with the parties in Northern Ireland was rare then, but now those very parties are leading the process. Back then, the public were shut out of decision making; now, they are decision making— through the referendum and election last year, which continue to determine policy this year. Those are crucial changes, and they have made the settlement process possible. Part of the Good Friday agreement included the repeal of the 1985 agreement. Can the Minister give any details on a possible time scale for that repeal?

The message, "It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it", must not be lost on Sinn Fein. To some extent, the question is not whether the IRA decommissions, but how—particularly when it starts and its time frame for fulfilling that requirement. If it starts now and finishes by April 2000, the consequences will be far better for everybody, including the republicans, than if it starts a year from now.

The official Opposition have once again highlighted the impatience that many of us feel when some, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), are working so hard to make the agreement work, yet there is no sign whatever of the IRA decommissioning. Of course, we will all continue to wait until decommissioning begins, although the worry about whether it will happen at all concerns us most. I think that Gerry Adams knows that very well. We are optimistic, but can hardly be blamed for becoming impatient for some progress on decommissioning.

The order is very detailed and thorough. We are glad that it has been worked out so thoroughly, especially concerning the bodies on food safety, trade and business development, and with regard to special European Union programmes, which have been drawn up very specifically indeed.

I would like to raise two other points with the Minister. First, every politician knows that the most important person in any office is the secretary. To control someone's diary, their post and their phone is effectively to control their life. The second most important person is the person who pays the secretary. That vital role needs to be remembered in funding the new bodies.

The order makes it clear that six new bodies are to be funded by money allocated by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement between the two Governments announced today suggests that they should be funded in accordance with the provisions of the multi-party agreement, on the ground that it constitutes a necessary public function—as set out on page 11 of the order. How will the balance of funding between the Belfast Assembly and the Dublin Government be addressed?

Presumably the two bodies should put in something like equal amounts, otherwise one may have undue influence on the day-to-day operation of one or more of the sixbodies. Is that the plan? By allowing the Belfast Assembly to choose how much it allocates, we may be giving it power to pay the secretaries more or less than Dublin. I am suggesting not that the Belfast Assembly should not have such a power, but that it should consult Dublin before it decides how much to pay. I can see frictions developing if that has not been clearly established. Similarly, I urge Dublin to consult Belfast on the matter.

Secondly, I am glad that the body dealing with language is to cater for all languages as well as Irish. It is good that the rich diversity of culture and heritage on the island of Ireland is so celebrated. Will any other languages be specifically catered for? There are more than 5,000 people from ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland, and no doubt more in the Republic. Some of those, such as the Chinese community, may wish to benefit from help in conserving or promoting their language. Can the functions of the language body be extended to help such people? May I stress that this is not special pleading on behalf of the Estonian community in Northern Ireland, or, indeed, the four or five people who still speak Estonian on the island.

We often hear the phrase, "The devil is in the detail." On this occasion, it would be more appropriate to say that the Minister is in the detail. His formulation seems sensible, consistent and empowering. That does not necessarily make him a saint, but it does clearly make him a very important player in the process. I praise him for the sure-footed and consistent way in which he has brought matters forward.

Despite the very assiduous efforts made by many people, including the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in attempting to achieve the important breakthroughs for which we were hoping by 10 March, it is probably smart to delay the procedure. Having said that, we have a very clear date—29 March—by which we must have made some progress. The clock is ticking. The reprieve is not a big one, but it gives us a chance to make this process work without the pressure that we may have felt over the preceding few days.

I have got to believe that, as the Minister says, with determination and courage, we shall reach agreement. Surely, now that we have come so far, we can get the last little bit sorted out. There are some hard times now, especially for those who have yet to show some good will with regard to decommissioning, but just think of the good times to follow. I, for one, am hoping for a happy Easter.

10.35 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I am looking forward to a happy Easter. I hope that it will materialise.

I welcome the order and the implementation bodies. They are very important for their symbolic and practical effects on the communities in Ireland, and especially for the nationalist community in the north of Ireland, which will no longer feel cut off from the rest of the island of Ireland.

The implementation bodies are very practical, and yet one wonders why other implementation bodies were not involved. Of course, one does not always know what is included under an umbrella such as food safety. There is BSE in both parts of the island; would that have been covered by it? Does trade and business include all-Ireland tourism and the possibility of a Northern Irish tourist board?

On the issue of food and food safety, remarkably, although we are happy to talk later about aquaculture, we are not prepared to talk about an implementation body for agriculture—and yet it would seem that farmers in both parts of Ireland have far more in common with one another than they have, for example, with the far richer farmers of England, with its large farms and large estates. Although some of the hill farmers may have some fellow feeling with many of the smaller farmers in Ireland, there is a real problem.

Rural depopulation is also a real problem in both parts of Ireland. It is difficult for small farms to maintain families when other smaller rural industries have not been built up to an extent that would enable farmers to work part-time on their farms and to supplement that income with sufficient income from other sources. There are limits to what one can do with bed-and-breakfast and other, perhaps somewhat more imaginative, schemes, but that is not reflected in the agreement.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that from these small beginnings, other things might develop, and perhaps some of these issues will develop in that way. I hope that they will, because on many of these economic issues, the two parts of Ireland have more in common with each other than they have with this island. They could benefit from further European Union programmes, as they are benefiting at present on both sides of the border.

Much has been made of the extent of progress so far. Like everyone else, I should like to see the Executive in operation, and I should like to see the Assembly meeting and debating, but there are problems on both sides. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has a problem in how far his party is prepared to go in accepting Sinn Fein into an Assembly. Sinn Fein, equally, has a difficulty in the problems and the questions that it is being posed by Unionists in the Assembly about how far it can go. I believe that neither side really understands the other's problems. Certainly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has a fixed position, from which he would find it difficult to move. I understand that.

Equally, the representatives of Sinn Fein have their difficulties. They claim that they cannot move on decommissioning because they do not control the decision making. That is something that some people doubt, but I think that we must take some of those statements at face value and in good faith. However, it is patently obvious that they are concerned that if three bullets, or whatever, are given up under decommissioning, that will be seen as an act of surrender.

It might be argued that that is not the case, and that it is a gesture, a magnanimous step forward or a sign. However, sadly, that is not how the representatives of Sinn Fein see it. Further, they are concerned that if a concession is made, it will mean that there will be not a trickle, as has been happening, but a flood of volunteers moving from supporting the Provisional IRA to bodies such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, which are outside the process and do not accept the agreement. It is a very difficult situation for the Official Unionists and for Sinn Fein, and we must understand that on both sides of the argument.

We all hope that movement can be made by both sides. Perhaps the meeting in Washington after the St. Patrick's day celebrations will result in a damascene conversion by both the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). We do not know. However, we know that if people continue pushing, asking one side or the other to do something that is not within its power to deliver and accusing it of being in bad faith because of that, we shall be in a difficult and dangerous position.

I hope that at the meeting on 29 March, we get progress, and that the parties on either side will, to use current parlance, go to the wire, or go to the precipice and then draw back. I hope also that no one involved will seek to push either side over the precipice. That would be a recipe for disaster for all the people of Northern Ireland, for the island of Ireland and for all these islands.

10.43 pm

Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)

There have been many political developments in Northern Ireland over the past year. There is no doubt that the agreement that was reached caused much division within Northern Ireland, and particularly within the party of which I am a member.

I have always taken the position that I oppose the agreement and that when the agreement is being implemented, I must, out of conscience, reject that implementation. Therefore, I must disagree with the implementation bodies that it is proposed to set up under the agreement.

I believe, of course, that the terrorists should be so defeated that they will be unable to carry out any more of their acts. That, ultimately, is the only way to defeat terrorism, whether it comes from republicanism or from the Unionist side of the divide.

I believe that the agreement is a device to try to persuade paramilitaries that they will get something of what they want. It is thought that if they get some of what they want, perhaps they will desist from their paramilitary activities. I believe that, rather than making them desist from paramilitary activity, the agreement is more likely to encourage them to keep at it. Therefore I have not supported the agreement, nor will I.

I feel that by setting up the cross-border bodies, the agreement gives us, to a great extent, joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland. At least three of the six implementation bodies will have considerable power. The food safety implementation body will have a long list of powers. If that body gets off the ground, will a food safety agency for Northern Ireland be needed, or will the food safety implementation body take over that function? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

The powers of the trade and business development body seem to be extensive, as do those of the special EU programmes body. I note that the bodies seem to have different types of government. There are to be three boards—one for trade and business, one for language and one for marine matters. However, the food safety board will only be advisory.

The other two implementation bodies—inland waterways and special EU programmes—will be run by chief executives, similar to the way in which agencies are currently run. As far as I can see, we have little control over agencies, and we do not have much control over boards. What we are setting up are six more quangos. It will be difficult for the Assembly to control their activities.

As we have heard tonight, the implementation bodies are likely to grow and acquire more powers, and we are likely to have more implementation bodies. Indeed, the agreement that was signed referred to 12 implementation bodies. Only three are included among the initial six, so we can be sure that those who wish to detach Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom will be pressing hard to get as many more implementation bodies as they can. Slowly but surely, Northern Ireland will start to be eased out of the United Kingdom.

I cannot say much more that is useful about these matters. I have taken my stand and I must maintain it. I know that some people are disappointed that nothing dramatic will happen on 10 March. I never thought that anything dramatic would happen on that date. I shall be surprised if there is any progress on an Executive on 29 March. Those who believe that an Executive will be set up in Northern Ireland who will work and provide good government in Northern Ireland are living in a dream. I do not believe that it will happen.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

If the hon. Gentleman's stand is set in stone, what can anybody ever do to shift the stone? Unless people begin to give and take, there can never be a solution.

Mr. Thompson

Unionists are not against co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. One thing that I dislike about the implementation bodies is that they are always mentioned in respect of north and south. I do not believe in north and south; I believe in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is no reason why we cannot have good co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but we do not need implementation bodies such as these.

We are to have those implementation bodies only because we are trying to buy off the terrorists and make them believe that they are going down the way to achieving what they are aiming at—a united Ireland. I do not see why I should encourage them in the process in which they think they are involved.

10.51 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

Although his case is not one that any of us accept, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) argues it honestly. He is exceedingly pessimistic about what he considers to be the likely failure of Assembly representatives to control quangos. Amidst all that gloom, he ought to express a bit of optimism about the calibre of the representatives and what I reckon to be their determination to control quangos. That is how I see the Scottish Parliament and people who will be elected to it.

Although there are pronounced differences, there are numerous similarities between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we in Scotland see the quangos coming under more critical examination from the Members of the Holyrood Parliament. I would hope that the same will eventually be the case for the Assembly in Belfast. The hon. Member for West Tyrone is too pessimistic in that regard. He can be gloomy at times in his prognostications, but let us have a wee bit of optimism as well—the kind of optimism that we are showing vis-à-vis the Scottish Parliament.

I was struck by a couple of comments that were made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

My hon. Friend described the speech of the hon. Member for West Tyrone as honest. No doubt it was, but was not it also highly dangerous? The alternative to the agreement is almost certainly what we saw last night on BBC 2:tit-for-tat atrocities—one committed by the IRA followed by another committed by some loyalist murder gang. Those who oppose the agreement live in Northern Ireland and represent Northern Ireland constituencies, so they know better than we do that we will go back to the terror and counter-terror of 25 years if the agreement is destroyed on the ground.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) responds to that intervention, I should say that we must return to a discussion of the order before the House.

Dr. Godman

I am grateful for your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr Winnick) said in his brief intervention. Might I say that I was struck by the fact that everyone who has spoken in the debate has referred to how the decommissioning impasse affects all those other developments? I compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister and his ministerial colleagues on the work that they have done to move us this far.

I was also struck by the toughly worded editorial on decommissioning in today's edition of The Irish Times, which says that from the beginning the IRA has not moved a millimetre. In contrast, the Ulster Unionists have time and again indicated their willingness to seek compromise. At Oslo, Mr Trimble made it clear he was not seeking a surrender of weapons to the RUC or the British army. Mr Ken Maginnis spoke a fortnight ago of giving the IRA 'wriggle room'. It would be interesting to hear a definition of "wriggle room".

The editorial continues: This weekend again, Mr Trimble has declared that if the IRA sends 'a signal' to General John de Chastelain and if the general conveys that to him, then the process will go forward. Like everyone else, I sincerely hope that such a signal will be given.

Let me ask a couple of practical questions, which are prompted to some extent by what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann had to say. Paragraph 2.1(b) of part 4 of annexe 1 states that the views of Northern Ireland Ministers will be represented to the British Government to contribute to the UK's negotiating strategy on topics relating to structural funds. I have made my views clear to Foreign Office Ministers—in a very public way; I have not been leaking. I have said that, in the negotiations concerning enlargement, it is necessary to ensure that the peace initiative is maintained, whatever happens to the structural and cohesion funds. I have made that known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the Minister responsible for European affairs, in two public formal evidence sessions of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have also said that the international Ireland fund must be retained.

I think I am right in saying that the north of Ireland and the Irish Republic are divided 80:20 on the peace initiative. That initiative must continue. The way in which objective 1 status is defined means that Northern Ireland falls outwith the criteria. I think that there is a specific criterion of 76 per cent. of gross national product per capita, but given the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland it is very important for the campaign to be conducted by our Ministers. I believe that there is a role for those on the body that we are discussing in relation to the negotiations that will continue in Brussels over the next two or three years.

The word "concordat" arises in this context. Ministerial colleagues of the First Minister will need to play a decisive role in the negotiations. It is possible that they will be unable to negotiate on the peace initiative, the international Ireland fund and objective 1 funds; but those Ministers—those represented on this implementation body—will have an important part to play in UK-wide negotiations with other member states of the union on the retention of those important funds. None of us must lose sight of the importance of the European Commission's structural fund plans to Northern Ireland.

I said that I would be brief, but let me say a little about marine matters. I was struck by what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the Irish lights. He is right: historically, there has been a remarkably good relationship between our system and the system pertaining in the Irish Republic. I had hoped that a recent order for a ship for the Irish republican lights would be won by a shipyard on the lower Clyde, but it was not to be. I believe that another ship is on order, which I hope will come our way—but I must stop such parochial pleadings.

An important development is taking place in respect of the development of such a body. The document that we have been given says that both United Kingdom and Irish legislation will be required in order for a body to become the general lighthouse authority for the island of Ireland.

The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) would perhaps say that that was another quango, but let me assure him that the lights as they operate in mainland Britain, in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic perform a useful service highly efficiently. I would expect that efficiency to be maintained, as is mentioned in the document, under the new general lighthouse authority. I look forward to the legislation being introduced in the House. As someone who represents a maritime community and who has a concern for Northern Ireland, I would want actively to engage in the matter.

I asked a question relating to the British-Irish Council. One or two of my colleagues thought that I was being facetious when I said that Glasgow would be an excellent locus for the secretariat of such a body. I say again that the Nordic Council has a fixed locus, with a secretariat of about 70.

It is all right the Minister saying that Stranraer and the Isle of Man are campaigning. I put my cards on the table. If there is to be a fixed location for the British-Irish Council, with respect to the hon. Members for West Tyrone and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), it cannot be in Belfast. It cannot be in Dublin or London. Glasgow is an excellent choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will no doubt agree with me without intervening in my short speech. Liverpool has a case, but it has to be Glasgow, as the Lord Provost has suggested recently. The Minister needs to take that special pleading on board, as do all.

The document refers to rivers and their tributaries. The development of aquaculture could be an important subject—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested it—for the British-Irish Council. We have much to learn from each other in relation to fish farming. Serious mistakes have been made in Scandinavia and in Scotland. I hope that, if the aquaculture industry is to develop in Northern Ireland, the people involved can avoid some of the mistakes that we have made in Scotland. Where those marine matters are influenced by a reformed common fisheries policy, we have again to think in terms of a concordat relating to maritime matters being developed between Ministers of the Assembly and Ministers in Whitehall.

11.4 pm

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said at the outset that there was quite a lot in common between Northern Ireland and Scotland. That is true in many ways. A great deal more in common will rear its head over the next few years as the Scottish National party increases its strength. He will find out then what nationalism in the Northern Ireland context and the Scottish context really means in political terms. His education is not complete, but it will be.

Like everyone else, I have received the documentation fairly late in the day. I have had an opportunity to glance through it. I must confess that I am not yet clear as to how the bodies are formed, how many persons will be on the bodies and how they are to be chosen. Undoubtedly, the Minister will clear up those matters for me in his reply.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was clear that the quasi-autonomous national Government organisations that will be created will be under Assembly control. That will depend on whether the Assembly is controllable enough to agree on what should be done with the quangos; I am not so sure that it will be. There is a slight chance of friction on the matter. Ultimately, it will all depend on whether the IRA will co-operate in surrendering its weapons. I see precious little sign of that.

The particulars of the agreement, on page 10 of the documentation, state that an Assembly in Northern Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council, and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland … are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functions of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other". My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann said that, if the Assembly fell—or if it never comes into operation, for whatever reasons—the cross-border bodies would cease to exist or never come into existence. Interestingly, when the subject was discussed during passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Minister was rather coy about it. I hope that he will not be quite so reticent about it today, and will confirm that my right hon. Friend's comments on it were absolutely accurate. Many people in Northern Ireland are fed up with fooling around at the edges of the issue and should like to have a very clear statement on it from Ministers.

I should like to deal with the matter of inland waterways—the four functions of the management, maintenance, development and restoration of the inland navigable waterway system"— which are mainly, but not only, canals, and chiefly for the tourist trade, either internal or external.

The order mentions the Shannon-Erne, the Ulster canal, the wider Shannon-Erne system and the other waterways—such as the Royal canal, the Grand canal, and the Barrow and Lagan systems. Interestingly, it includes also navigation on the lower Bann. The lower Bann is a long, long way from the border. Although it is a major waterway and has considerable potential for the tourist trade, I cannot understand of what interest it might be in the implementation of any cross-border body. If the Republic wished to be difficult about the matter, it could starve the river of any sums that need to be spent on it, to the benefit of its own areas and the cross-border areas. As the lower Bann runs through a chunk of my constituency, I should not take very kindly to that happening.

When I looked up the order's references to repeals and transfers, I discovered that the new bodies will be taking on liabilities—such as the liability of compensation— powers of land entry and certain powers in fisheries. It is clear that the longer-term intention is to take control of all inland waters that could be used for navigation. In many ways, and for a number of reasons, I find that prospect disturbing, especially as there will be three regional divisions—northern, western and eastern. Perhaps we could be told exactly which areas each of the subdivisions will cover, and why it is necessary to have the subdivisions.

The inland waterways body will have all the powers "necessary or incidental" to the exercise of its functions. The powers are not specified, but I think that they are probably stated in preceding legislation. I noted that the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which the House recently passed, is mentioned in the order. The new body would assume control of various aspects of that order— such as the power of the Department to carry out works, canal schemes, powers of maintenance, waterways, general powers of the Department, provisions of the drainage order, and all the rest of it. Those are wide powers. When they are applied to the Foyle area and Bann navigation, considerable sums of public money could be involved. Many people will not be happy with a quango controlling them. They are already quangoised to some extent, but the existing quangos at least have elected members and members of local councils.

The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to aquaculture and marine matters. That aspect of the order is interesting and involves the Foyle Fisheries Commission, which has a long history. I made a speech on it in the House some years ago. If hon. Members are interested in the body's roots, they should look up that speech. It is a cross-border body that was set up to protect the game fishing, mainly salmon fishing, in the Foyle, which is a valuable commercial and angling fishery.

The order says that the powers are to be extended to Carlingford lough. I do not know of any salmon rivers or game fish rivers of any description flowing into Carlingford lough. I do not know the area well, but I do not remember many of my game fishing friends taking expeditions to that area. I do not see the point of that. It must have something to do with navigation and lights. Some navigation aids in Lough Foyle have always been under the control of the Londonderry harbour authority.

Lough Foyle is not a suitable place for the development of aquaculture and salmon farming because it is shallow. It is a valuable wild salmon fishery and it would be crazy to do anything to damage it. We know what has happened to sea trout in the west of Scotland and down the west coast of Ireland and the problems of salmon fanning in Norway. There have also been recent infestations in salmon farms in Scotland. We do not want any of that; we have seen quite enough of it. I apologise to the Scots, but I should prefer it if they kept it at home.

Dr. Godman

That is my point. Any body with responsibility for such shallow water should refuse all licence applications for any kind of fish farming.

Mr. Ross

We do not need the cross-border body to do that. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is perfectly capable and has dealt with that.

The Foyle has quite a large shell fishery; we also have the largest eel fishery in Europe. All those matters, formerly internal to Northern Ireland, will now be cross-border matters. The new body is to have 12 members. An earlier draft said that there were to be three from the Republic and the Carlingford area and three from Northern Ireland, with the same proportions in the Foyle fisheries organisation. The Foyle is currently run by civil servants from Belfast and civil servants from the Republic. At least that was 50:50. Now the Unionist population will be in a minority of four against eight. Some people may say that that is a good deal, but I say forget it. It is a dangerous situation.

Those who are anxious about the powers over discharge can look them up in this year's Northern Ireland water order. We are handing over to the new body all powers over discharges into the river system in one of the most valuable salmon fisheries in Northern Ireland—indeed, one of the most valuable in these islands. The new quango will not be able to do a better job than has been done in the past. The Foyle Fisheries Commission is not one of my favourite bodies, but it has improved recently because it has some money. I fear that the proposals are a retrograde step and I do not welcome them. It is foolish of the Government to pursue them.

I could say a great deal more about food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has mentioned some of the issues. There are issues relating to trade and business and how a language body will be nothing but an attempt to increase the use of Irish Gaelic. That has not worked in the Republic since 1920.

Mr. Trimble

indicated dissent

Mr. Ross

My right hon. Friend may shake his head, but most of the money will go to the not very many people who wish to learn the language. Minority languages are a residue of the past—they are dying and being superseded by modern languages. The languages of the future are the languages of technology—English, German and Japanese. Minor languages can be sent off to the academics, universities and historians, who may want to look at ancient history. As far as useful everyday trade is concerned, forget it—no one really cares.

We are running out of time, and I want the Minister to have time to reply—although I could say a great deal more on a matter which I do not like any more now than I did 12 months ago.

11.15 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy

With the leave of the House,Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply; there is much in the debate to reply to. First, I thank the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for his support today, and for accepting my apologies for the way in which we have had to rush the documentation.

The right hon. Gentleman referred—as did the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—to the interdependency of the bodies in term of the agreement. Both were right—it was clear in the talks, and in the agreement itself, that the agreement is a package. The success of the agreement depends on the success of all the different parts of the package. It will work only if all the institutions and parts of the agreement work as well. That is why paragraph 5 of the declaration of support and the preamble to the treaty have embedded the principle in the treaty and the accompanying order.

As all of us have said throughout the process, the Government are not planning for failure—that is not an option. We have said that if there is no Assembly, there will be no North-South Ministerial Council. Each depends upon the other.

It is clear that the implementation bodies could not continue to function as envisaged in the agreement. Arrangements for the Executive functions that they carried out would have to be reviewed. For example, the Foyle Fisheries Commission has been operated as a cross-border body for many years, and doubtless will continue so to do.

Mr. Thompson

The Minister qualified what he said about the implementation bodies when he said that they could not continue in that form. Does that mean that the Government could continue them in a different form?

Mr. Murphy

I said—pretty clearly, I thought—that where there are examples of cross-border co-operation that have operated for many years and will do so in the months ahead, the Government will look at sensible arrangements by which that co-operation would continue. The North-South Ministerial Council, to which the bodies are accountable, would disappear if there were no Assembly. Similarly, the bodies envisaged in the agreement would disappear.

The right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann referred to the importance of progress on decommissioning. With the exception of decommissioning—the Police Commission and the Criminal Justice Commission are due to report— progress has been made. The Assembly has been set up, with 108 Members elected to it; the north-south bodies dealt with today have been agreed; the British-Irish Council has come into effect; the civic forum has been established; constitutional change has been agreed in the Republic of Ireland; the Human Rights Commission has been set up; and we are advertising for the appointments to the Equality Commission. In addition, 240 prisoners have, under the agreement, been let out of the Maze prison. A great deal of the agreement has been established.

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that the order marked a significant step forward, and he was right. He also emphasised, rightly, the interdependency of the different parts of the agreement, and the important issue of confidence between political parties and communities in Northern Ireland. We must enter negotiations on the basis of confidence as the remainder of the month progresses. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the arrangement is unique in Europe and possibly the world, but it was very important for the agreement.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to funding arrangements and to the 1985 agreement. That will cease to have effect on the entry into force of the British-Irish agreement on devolution day. He asked whether other languages would be dealt with, in addition to Irish and Ulster Scots. That is clearly a matter for the North-South Ministerial Council. I cannot guarantee that there will be an Estonian language body, but I am sure that his various points will be taken into account. He also referred to the importance of decommissioning, which will clearly be a priority for the parties over the next couple of weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) welcomed the order because of the symbolic effect on the nationalist community, and he is absolutely right about that, but the order is significant because of the effect of the bodies on the whole of Northern Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist. The bodies will improve the quality of life of women and men throughout the island of Ireland.

Tourism in Northern Ireland is dealt with uniquely by a publicly owned limited company. There is provision for co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic on the common agricultural policy, animal and plant health policy research and rural development. As the months and years go by, it will be a matter for the North-South Ministerial Council whether it wants to extend the roles of implementation bodies in those areas; at present it does not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North rightly referred to the difficulties that people in Northern Ireland experience in their own communities. Those difficulties are not confined to one side or the other. There is no doubt that political parties and leaders—not least, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—have to understand what matters to their own supporters and ensure that they can take people with them. That applies to both sides of the equation.

The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said that there was a division in Northern Ireland concerning the agreement. There is indeed: 72 per cent. said yes and 28 per cent. said no. That is the division in Northern Ireland. I do not agree with his view on the Good Friday agreement. People voted for implementation bodies, which by no means constitute joint sovereignty.

There is nothing wrong with having different types of boards, as long as they are properly accountable. Control over the boards is far better if they are accountable to an elected body of 108 people from Northern Ireland, representing other people in Northern Ireland, than if they are accountable to me, a south Wales Member of Parliament.

The agreement was based on the principle of consent. Talk about the bodies growing into a united Ireland, and all the rest of it, does not square with the concept of consent. The fears are unjustified. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide on their constitutional future, and that is the clear basis of the agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) brought his Scottish experience to bear. He talked about how quangos in Scotland will be more accountable to the Scottish Parliament than they are to the Scottish Office today. That applies to Northern Ireland as well.

My hon. Friend talked about the editorial in TheIrish Timesand rightly said that no one is talking about surrender when decommissioning is discussed. No one wants surrender of anything. We are talking about fulfilling the terms of the agreement. The independent commission on decommissioning under General John de Chastelain will play a hugely significant role.

My hon. Friend also referred to the work of the European Union body that has been set up. It will work alongside UK Ministers, and Irish Ministers when appropriate. He referred to the significance of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Administration in Northern Ireland in months to come, in the negotiations for European funding. I can tell him and the House that the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and myself visited Brussels and Bonn recently, where we presented the case for Northern Ireland. That case will continue to be presented by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and myself on every possible occasion. After devolution, Ministers will be appointed within the Northern Ireland Administration who will have responsibility for that. Those of us in the British Government will work alongside those Ministers to ensure that the best deal is obtained for Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) obviously does not like the order very much. The details of the new bodies are available for him to examine. He referred to interdependency and we all agree with him on that, but I cannot agree with his view on the Celtic languages. I would like him to visit my constituency in south Wales, which is very much an English-language constituency but where Welsh is now being taught to every pupil, whether or not they have Welsh-speaking parents. There is nothing wrong with the great diversity and richness of different languages and cultures, whether in Northern Ireland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. Indeed, there is a growing demand. I was in the Isle of Man recently, where Manx is being taught to the children, even though it has ceased to be used as a language for some time. That enriches our culture and our lives.

There is overwhelming support in the House for the order. It sets up strand 2 of the agreement and brings into effect the north-south arrangements that are an integral part of the Good Friday agreement. Those arrangements, and the other matters that I have mentioned, will ensure— I sincerely hope and pray—that between now and Easter

the people in Northern Ireland, through their political leaders, will find the solution and enable devolution to go ahead. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.