| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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-a-vis the Scottish Parliament.
I was struck by a couple of comments that weremade 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
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
The editorial continues:
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
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.
"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".
"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.
"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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |