| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |