House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Mar 1999 (pt 37)

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

8 Mar 1999 : Column 138

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,

8 Mar 1999 : Column 139

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 The Irish Times and 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

8 Mar 1999 : Column 140

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.

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.--[Mr. Jamieson.]

11.27 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I would have thought that on an occasion such as this the Minister might have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is the opportunity for the House to consider the financial implications of a private Member's Bill that has received its Second Reading. As I recall, none of the financial implications of the Bill was examined on Second Reading, and that makes this money resolution debate that much more important and germane as it gives the House the opportunity to examine in more detail the financial implications of the Bill.

I have glanced through the Bill and identified four areas of potential additional expenditure that it may require. I shall examine each in turn so that the Minister has an opportunity to let the House know what the financial implications are so that it can take a view. The first area is, self-evidently, costs arising in the Department of Health. That issue arises immediately from clause 1, which states:

"The Secretary of State shall keep a list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children."

I presume that there will be a cost implication within the Department of Health in the maintenance of such a list. That is especially true as one examines the provisions of clause 2, which lays a number of responsibilities on the Secretary of State, including determining the references, provisionally including individuals on the list, inviting observations and confirming an individual's inclusion on the list. All of those activities imply a process within the Department of building up and maintaining the list and

8 Mar 1999 : Column 141

suggest that an underpinning of bureaucracy and officials will be required to fulfil all the different functions outlined. It would be useful to hear from the Minister about the extent to which his Department will require additional officials to carry out the responsibilities laid on it by clause 2.

I shall come later to the tribunal, which I suspect will add the biggest single extra cost. First, the next additional element of cost arises from clause 5, which refers to the additional grounds for prohibiting or restricting employment with regard to the Department for Education and Employment. I had some passing experience of these matters when I was responsible for List 99 at the Department for some years.

I believe that clause 5(2)(c), which refers to

"the grounds that the persons concerned are not fit and proper persons to be employed as teachers or in such work as is mentioned",

considerably widens the scope that has traditionally been available through List 99--always a relatively narrowly focused mechanism that was rightly concerned with ensuring that people who had committed some offence would, after due consideration by the Department, be put on the list and barred from teaching.

I suspect that clause 5 gives rise to the possibility that much wider consideration will be needed, and that implies considerable additional effort by the Department and its officials. What extra cost does the Minister believe will fall on the Department for Education and Employment over and above the cost of the existing List 99?

The next heading that I have identified as involving almost certain additional expenditure falls within clause 8, which is titled:

"Searches of both lists under Part V of Police Act 1997".