Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999

Vol. 501 No. 6

British Irish Agreement Bill, 1999: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The introduction of this legislation in Dáil Éireann and similar enabling legislation in Westminster represents a further major milestone in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It is another historic step in the development of relations on this island and between the islands of Ireland and Britain following the signature yesterday of the four treaties which are among the five treaties, including the Good Friday Agreement, for which motions have just been moved. The legislation makes provisions for a key institutional aspect of the Good Friday Agreement.

The key points in the Bill are as follows: Part 1 provides for the participation of the Taoiseach and Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council and for general provisions, including a power for the Taoiseach to make regulations to remove difficulties in the way of bringing the Bill or the Agreement into operation.

Parts 2 to 7 and the associated parts of annexes 1 and 2 to the international agreement scheduled to the Bill provide for the functions, manner of exercise of the functions, structure and powers of each of the implementation bodies.

These parts give the force of domestic law to the majority of the provisions of the Agreement, including, in particular, annexes 1 and 2.

Concerning structure, four of the six implementation bodies – food safety, trade and business development, language, and aquaculture and marine will have boards. In the case of the Food Safety Promotion Board, it was agreed that the board would be of an advisory character. The special EU programmes body and the Waterways Ireland body will be in the nature of executive agencies headed by chief executives reporting to the relevant formations of the North-South Ministerial Council. All the bodies will have chief executives. This represents a satisfactory outcome. To ensure the bodies get off to a good start, provision has been made for interim CE0s to be in place from day one pending the appointment of the definitive CE0s by open recruitment in most cases. The necessary funding and staffing for the bodies has been pre-agreed by the two sovereign Governments for year one, at satisfactory levels, with corresponding indicative figures for years two and three, when the bodies would be expected to be operating at their full initial levels.

Key points to note in relation to individual bodies are, in the case of Waterways Ireland, that in addition to immediate transfer of the Shannon-Erne waterway, all the island's currently navigable waterways will be transferred to the body from 1 April 2000 when a three region structure – eastern, western and northern – will come into effect. The body is empowered to engage in promotion, including marketing and development, of the tourism and commercial potential of the inland waterways for which it has responsibility. This body thus has the opportunity and the capacity to make a major contribution to the development of parts of the island that have yet to reap the fullest benefit from tourism.

The Food Safety Promotion Board will have responsibility in an area of key concern to the general public, as indicated by recent debates and controversies. The body will have an all island remit in relation to the promotion of food safety and will work in association with the existing food safety agencies, North and South, which will continue to be responsible for inspection and enforcement. The Bill amends the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act, 1998, with a view to a rational and effective division of labour with our authority in the State and a clear operational remit for the implementation body. As provided in the supplementary Agreement on the bodies, it is intended that the body will, in an independent manner, through independent scientific advice, promote the safety and hygiene of food pro duced, distributed or marketed on the island of Ireland. To that end, the North-South Ministerial Council will appoint, in addition to the advisory board, an advisory committee, including scientific experts and representatives of broader food safety interests.

The trade and business development body will exercise a significant range of functions, including responsibility, from the outset for a number of specific operational schemes, such as administering a programme to enable companies to undertake joint product and process development projects of commercial benefit; implementing a science and technology awareness programme on a North-South basis; and an innovation award scheme on the same basis. The body will be tasked to bring forward to the North-South Ministerial Council within three months proposals on the development of a North-South equity investment fund programme for consideration and decision by the Council. Again, this represents a satisfactory outcome.

The special EU programmes body will have significant functions in relation to post-1999 Structural Funds, including advising the North-South Ministerial Council and the Finance Departments on the negotiation of the post-1999 Community initiatives and the common chapter on co-operation between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It will prepare, for the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council and in close consultation with the Finance Departments and other relevant Departments, detailed programme proposals under the new Community initiatives. It will also undertake grant-making and other managerial functions in respect of INTERREG 3 and North-South elements of programmes under other initiatives. The proposals are to include recommendations on: the structure of measures for inclusion; the allocations to measures; and the objectives of each measure. The body's importance will be significantly enhanced if, as now seems likely, the recent visits by Messrs. Trimble and Mallon to Brussels and Bonn and the supportive activities of the two Governments bear fruit in terms of major special programmes funding for Northern Ireland and the Border counties in the post-1999 period.

The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission will be able to tap the significant potential for the development of aquaculture and marine tourism in the areas concerned with obvious benefit to the economies of counties Donegal and Louth, following the extension of the functions of the Foyle Fisheries Commission to include Carlingford Lough and its basin and the extension of functions to cover the development of angling and marine tourism. Complex legislation is required to provide for the agreed function of the development and licensing of aquaculture. It has been agreed that this legislation will be brought forward in both jurisdictions before the end of 1999.

Draft legislation on this matter had been well advanced in this jurisdiction, in the context of the existing Foyle Fisheries Commission, and it should be possible to move this forward expeditiously, although the Northern side is less advanced.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights is a reserved matter for which the Whitehall Department of Environment, Transport and Regions has responsibility. However, the Agreement provides that British and Irish legislation will be brought forward to make the body the general lighthouse authority for the island of Ireland. This legislation will be brought forward, if possible, before the entry into force of the Agreement on the bodies but as soon as possible thereafter.

In relation to the North-South Language Body, a point of note is that it will take the form of a single body with two separate parts, one concerned with the Irish language and the other with Ullans and Ulster Scots cultural issues. With the input of funding and enthusiasm from the Northern side, the body, which will have more than double the staff of Bord na Gaeilge, should give a significant impetus to Irish language promotion on the island. The two agencies within the body will operate almost completely independently of each other, thus ensuring that the Irish language agency will be able to operate in Irish, which is stated in the Agreement to be its working language. Given that the part of the Bill dealing with the language body will replace the Bord na Gaeilge Act, 1978, it is set out primarily in Irish in the Bill, with an English translation attached to facilitate British and Northern Ireland readers. A courtesy translation into Irish of the relevant part of the Agreement is being supplied to Deputies and Senators with the Bill.

Part VIII makes provision in respect of matters common to all bodies, including the transfer of staff to the bodies, grants to bodies, reports and accounts of bodies, the application of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, and the application of the Data Protection Act, 1988. The Bill provides for the application of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, to the implementation bodies and, in the interest of harmonisation, provides for any necessary liaison and consultation with the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Under the Agreement to which the Bill gives effect, the bodies will be subject to the data protection legislation applicable in each jurisdiction. Provision is made in the Agreement for liaison and consultation between the relevant authorities, North and South – the Data Protection Commissioner and the UK Data Protection Commissioner.

In the absence, at present, of a statutory FOI regime in the UK, and given the substantial differences between the two jurisdictions in terms of access to information, the Agreement provides that the Ministers responsible for freedom of information will as soon as practicable draw up a code of practice on access to information for approval by the North-South Ministerial Council. Similarly, and for much the same reasons, the Agreement provides that each body will draw up a code of conduct for approval by the NSMC, covering its aims and values, its obligations to the public and the accountability and conduct of its members and staff. In addition, in order to avoid any problem that could arise from differences in the law of the two jurisdictions, including such as could arise from varying court interpretations of the law as it applies to the implementation bodies, arrangements have been agreed for consultations between the Attorneys General.

In the course of the intensive and difficult negotiations which led to the preparation of this Bill and its British counterpart, the Irish side was concerned to ensure two things above all: first, that the substance of the package agreed on the 18 December should be fully maintained, and, second, that the legal mechanisms for establishing the bodies, together with the financial and organisational arrangements, should be such as to ensure that the bodies will be in a position to function fully and effectively from the entry into force of the Agreement.

The Government is satisfied that both of these conditions have been met. The overall package as reflected in the Agreement and the Bill represents a very satisfactory outcome. The fact that the provisions regarding the implementation bodies are set out in an international agreement to be given the force of law in the State and at Westminster ensures that there is the necessary legal assurance and certainty underpinning the operation of the bodies. The Government is satisfied that, taken together with the separate programme of co-operation through existing bodies and having regard to the possibilities for further development through the work of the North-South Ministerial Council, the implementation bodies will have the potential to significantly enhance North-South interaction on this island.

The separate programme of co-operation through existing bodies arises from the requirement in the Good Friday Agreement to identify, in addition to at least six implementation bodies, at least six matters where existing bodies would be the appropriate mechanism for co-operation in each separate jurisdiction. The 18 December statement recorded agreement that specified aspects of transport, agriculture, education, health, environment and tourism would be suitable for initial consideration by the NSMC in this regard, and that it would be open to the North-South Ministerial Council, by agreement between the two sides, to consider other matters. The relevant Departments have been asked to work out the details of this programme with their Northern counterparts and this is ongoing. I have already referred to this position with regard to tourism.

In ballpark terms, the implementation bodies, once they are set up and running, will involve some £56 million in annual expenditure, with a total staff of about 880. The additional cost to the Exchequer for the bodies is still provisional, but is roughly estimated to be in the region of £5 to £10 million for this year, rising to an extra £25 million in round terms by 2001.

Accountability arrangements for the North-South bodies are dealt with in Part VII, Annex 2 of the draft treaty. In particular, the financial accountability arrangements will mirror existing provisions covering bodies which come within the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General within this jurisdiction, with reciprocal arrangements for Northern Ireland. In relation to Dáil Éireann, this will require the bodies to be amenable to account for the expenditure of money provided by the Oireachtas and for other matters arising from value for money examinations.

The text of the draft treaty specifies that the bodies will submit copies of their statements of account to the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General, who will in co-operation examine and certify the accounts. It also provides for access by the Comptroller and Auditor General to all necessary records of North-South bodies. Any report concerning the body by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland will be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Bill ensures that audit reports and other reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General will be presented to the body concerned and to the relevant Minister who will cause copies to be laid before Dáil Éireann. The Financial Memorandum to be prescribed for each body will specify an upward time limit for the completion of the process of three months after receiving the audited reports of the accounts.

Members of the body or its staff will be required to appear before and otherwise co-operate with the Committee of Public Accounts. Other practical day-to-day management issues relating to the accounting and audit arrangements of the bodies, including value-for-money studies and inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General of other bodies receiving grants from the North-South bodies in both jurisdictions, will be incorporated in the Financial Memorandum.

I am convinced that the new North-South arrangements make good, practical sense for all of the people on this island. Up to now opportunities for co-operation were available mainly in a non-structured, ad hoc way and while many organisations, for example, CBI and IBEC, have long pioneered North-South economic co-operation, the new implementation bodies provide opportunities to bring the work for our mutual advantage to another plane. There is a crucial imperative to put both parts of this island in a position to compete and to succeed in an era of global markets and global competition. This requires serious co-operation in areas of the economy such as trade and business development and developing together our relationship with the European Union, through the EU programmes body.

Cross-Border trade remains well below the lev els that are typical of neighbouring economies or regions. We in the South have reaped the success of an approach to our economy based on partnership and co-operation. We want to conduct our business in a spirit of partnership with a proper institutional framework that can support and break down the barriers to effective co-operation.

In the negotiations leading up to the Good Friday Agreement, the Unionist and loyalist parties acknowledged that North-South bodies were needed, not only for the practical benefits they would bring but also because they represent a vital institutional expression of the Irish identity of northern nationalists and of their associated identification with Ireland as a whole and with this State. The Agreement which this Bill is implementing lays the foundations for a closer coming together of North and South. There are many ways in the years ahead that the choice of a united Ireland can be made more attractive to a majority of the people in the North. The responsibility is ours. As expressed in the Downing Street Declaration, Irish unity could be achieved only by those who favour this outcome persuading those who do not, peacefully and without coercion.

In recent times the tendency has been to focus on the differences and the difficulties, but there is and has been a huge amount of agreement on the way forward and practical expression has been given to the areas of agreement. We must continue to strive for agreement on all aspects of the implementation of the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. All parties must recognise the overwhelming consensus on the island for peace. For our part we will continue to work on fulfilling our obligations under the Agreement and we expect all of the parties to do the same.

While the implementation of this part of the Agreement has primarily been a matter for the two Governments, it has, of course, involved close consultation with the Northern Ireland parties, in particular the UUP, the SDLP, and Sinn Féin. I wish to record my appreciation of their role in progressing this key part of the Agreement. The First Minister designate, David Trimble, has adopted a constructive approach throughout, on the basis that the implementation bodies will bring real practical benefit to both parts of the island. The contribution of the Deputy First Minister designate, Seamus Mallon, has been enormous throughout and is deeply appreciated by us all. We also greatly value the co-operation of Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams and his colleagues.

I also pay tribute to the Opposition for their helpful and constructive approach to processing this important Bill and of their continuous support for the Good Friday Agreement and its implementation. The approach of all Ministers and Departments to the negotiations was extremely constructive and open. The implementation of the new Strand Two arrangements represents a major undertaking for the whole admin istrative system, involving a re-orientation in a way that has not happened since the foundation of this State. What is involved is a dramatic re-orientation for our administrative system.

Last April, as we concluded the historic Good Friday Agreement, all of Ireland was focused on television sets as the news broke and as details emerged. There was a great sense of achievement and of goodwill. That goodwill, and the enormous support for this tremendous achievement, was further confirmed in May last, when the people of Ireland – North and South – voted so decisively in favour of the Agreement.

That same desire to ensure the successful implementation of the Agreement has also been clearly manifest in the public service, who have approached the many tasks involved in a very positive spirit. I pay tribute especially to the officials in my Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and in the Offices of the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman and in all of the line Departments, who have approached this complex and historic project in a very positive spirit. I know that all involved will continue to do all that is necessary to ensure for the people of Ireland – North and South – the achievement of all aspects of the Agreement which they so clearly want to see succeed.

I am honoured to have this opportunity to join the Taoiseach in commending the British-Irish Agreement Bill to the House. It represents a major step forward in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and in the transformation from conflict and division to peace and co-operation.

The vision of the Good Friday Agreement is underpinned and reinforced by the solid, detailed work of institution-building and this Bill will, when enacted, put many of the key elements in our Statute Book. Taken with the Northern Ireland Act passed at Westminster last autumn, and with the British order in regard to the implementation bodies now going through their legislative process, it will allow for the establishment of the North-South and British-Irish structures envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement.

Yesterday I signed, with the Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam, four international agreements supplementing the British-Irish Agreement signed on Good Friday. The most substantial of the agreements signed yesterday is that establishing the implementation bodies which form the basis of the great bulk of the Bill now before the House. The Good Friday Agreement said relatively little about the bodies. They would have a "clear operational remit" and would "implement on an all island and cross-community basis policies" agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council. They would also be funded on the basis that they "constitute a necessary public function".

An indicative list of 12 possible areas for North-South co-operation and implementation was set out. A key element, from our point of view, was an absolute commitment that the two Governments would make the necessary legislative and other enabling preparations to ensure the bodies, once agreed, would function at the time of the entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement and the transfer of powers to the assembly.

The essential compromise made on Good Friday in relation to the bodies was that all the detail, including the areas in which they were to operate, was deferred to later negotiation. In return, there was a commitment that the bodies would have to be established and be ready to function alongside all the other structures as a key part of the overall institutional balance.

The first phase of that later negotiation, in which we were heavily involved, culminated in the agreement reached on 18 December among the Northern Ireland parties which identified the areas in which the six bodies would be established and gave a broad description of their functions. It was significant that three of the agreed areas were not in the earlier indicative list. Trade and business development and language were both priorities of ours and of the nationalist parties. Food safety was a UUP proposal, the attractiveness and potential value of which was immediately apparent and to which we were happy to accede. The importance of the food safety issue and the logic of treating it on an all-island basis has become more obvious.

Immediately after the Christmas break the two Governments began to work intensively to put flesh on the bones of what had been agreed in December. In broad terms we had to do five things. First, we had to work out in greater detail how the agreed functions would be exercised. In the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, we had to give the bodies a clear operational remit. Second, we had to agree a range of common provisions in regard to accountability and reporting, financial and personnel principles and the rights of citizens in respect of the bodies. Third, we had to agree how the individual bodies would be structured. Fourth, we had to work out in broad terms what the bodies would require in terms of funding and staffing, both in the start-up phase and later on. Fifth, we had to agree a legal framework which would give us sufficient certainty that the agreements reached on all these issues would be maintained and delivered.

While the primary role was for the two Governments to play, it was politically essential that the Northern Ireland parties were broadly satisfied. I am satisfied that all these objectives were adequately, indeed amply, realised in the supplementary agreement signed yesterday, as reflected in the Bill. The Taoiseach outlined the essential elements of what was agreed. I stress the particular importance from our viewpoint in ensuring that all these elements were contained within the text of an international agreement, which offers the maximum possible confidence that what has been agreed will be followed through.

The annexes to the agreement contain a great deal of detail, while its main Articles set out the guiding principles. Article 1 of the agreement establishes and names the bodies. Article 2 provides a link to the detailed annexes. Article 3 restates the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement in relation to funding and to the accountability of the bodies to the North-South Ministerial Council. The chain will lead through the council back to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the assembly. Article 5 relates to future amendment of the functions and detailed arrangements. While this will be formally for the two Governments, we envisage that in practice any changes will be on the basis of a decision of the North-South Ministerial Council.

An important additional safeguard put in place yesterday was that, in an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State and myself, we agreed that the two Attorneys General will consult and co-operate as necessary to address any problems which may arise concerning the interpretation and application of our respective domestic legislation in regard to the bodies. The two Governments are also committed to taking all the appropriate steps should problems arise. The adoption of an approach under which most of the substantive detail is contained in an agreement between the two Governments, rather than in separate legislation, should minimise the risk of divergent judicial interpretation.

None of this was easy. It took a great deal of hard work of a highly technical character, guided at all times by an awareness of the political sensitivity of many of the issues involved. I join the Taoiseach in paying tribute to the role played by our colleagues in Government and their officials. I place on the record of the House that, without exception, the approach of all the Departments involved has been positive, constructive and imaginative, and that their commitment and determination have been remarkable.

Yesterday at Dublin Castle I and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, congratulated the Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam, Paul Murphy and their officials. This was a collaborative venture, as it had to be. British negotiators, most of whom were officials of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, also worked extraordinarily hard and effectively in a pragmatic and constructive spirit. The contrast with what one reads about the post-Sunningdale experience was striking, but it reflected the ever-growing amount of practical co-operation between North and South within the public sector and beyond over the past decade or so.

The Northern parties have also approached the matter in a realistic and positive way. I pay tribute to the roles played by Mr. David Trimble and Mr. Seamus Mallon and their advisers and colleagues, as well as by the Sinn Féin leadership of Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness.

All this bodes well for the future of North-South co-operation under the agreement. The success of the bodies will depend not just on what is legally provided for but on the energy and creativity of their boards, where these exist, and their staff. However, I am satisfied the arrangements now in place, while they will need to be actively implemented, provide an excellent springboard.

In the longer run, the most significant motor of North-South co-operation will be the North-South Ministerial Council, which will bring our two Administrations together in a systematic and structured way and on a regular and frequent basis. It will oversee the implementation bodies and take forward co-operation in the other areas agreed in December, but it will also allow for the spotlight to be shone on all sectors and on all issues of mutual interest or having the potential for co-operative action.

The supplementary agreement on the council signed yesterday was largely of a technical character. The Good Friday Agreement dealt fully with the role and composition of the council. However, detailed work is continuing at official level both on the practical arrangements for the council's inaugural meeting and on future procedural arrangements, including its secretariat, which will be headed at a senior level on both sides. While a final decision has yet to be taken, the likely location is Armagh, the historic and symbolic resonance of which is apparent. Naturally, the timing of these developments depends crucially on the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland, but I assure the House that all the necessary preparations are well in hand.

In accordance with the provisions of Strand Two of the Good Friday Agreement, the Bill provides for the designation by the Taoiseach of those Ministers or Ministers of State who are to deal with the business of the council or to attend any particular meeting of it. A parallel provision was made in the British Northern Ireland Act.

Analogous provision is made in respect of participation in the British-Irish Council, about which a similar technical supplementary agreement was signed yesterday. Useful work has been proceeding at official level to work out detailed procedural arrangements for this council and to prepare a possible work programme which might include such issues as transport, the environment, including Sellafield, education issues, and cultural and sporting matters. While the future operation of the British-Irish Council will in practice depend heavily on the approach to be taken by its members, including the as yet unformed administrations in Scotland and Wales, our consulates in Edinburgh and Cardiff report consistent interest, as reflected in today's edition of The Irish Times.

The final agreement signed yesterday concerns the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which is to replace the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference established in 1985, and which will promote bilateral co-operation between the two Governments on all matters of mutual interest, including in particular non-devolved Northern Ireland matters, with the discussion of which members of the Northern Ireland executive will be involved. All of the necessary practical preparations are well in hand.

We are putting in place everything which is necessary for the entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement. In parallel, the reorganisation of Northern Ireland Departments, and the adoption of standing orders by the Assembly, will together allow for the Strand One institutions to function as planned.

To adapt a mantra of the talks, nothing will work until everything is working. All the institutions have to come into place together. That means that the difficulties over the formation of the executive have to be resolved, in accordance with the effective deadline to which we are now working, before Easter. The problems are manifest. We all know what they are and we realise how little space Unionist and republican political leaders have to move through them. It is important that they continue to talk, and that all possible assistance is given to General de Chastelain and his commission in their work. The two Governments will together make every effort necessary to encourage and achieve a breakthrough.

The opportunities with which we are presented are also manifest. Those opportunities, and how they are to be realised, have been made more tangible by yesterday's agreements and by this Bill. The day to day work of co-operation and partnership may lack the intensity of division and conflict, but it is that steady, painstaking work which will give to all our people, North and South, Nationalist and Unionist, the future they want and deserve. It would be an outrage against our deepest hopes and aspirations were we now to fail. The tragic absurdity of that possibility is surely the most powerful possible incentive to success.

We must approach this debate with a sense of history. Two hundred years ago in this city, not far from here, the legislative assembly of the Irish people was debating a proposal for an Act of Union that was being promoted by the British Government of the day because it felt itself to be under threat from Napoleonic Europe. It is interesting that we have the space to deal in a more constructive and united way with the issues dividing us on these islands, now that we are part of a Europe which itself is becoming more united. The fact that Europe is no longer a threat to Britain means that Britain can take the sort of constructive attitude it is currently taking to the relationship it has with Ireland and, equally, now that we are an independent part of Europe, we have the capacity to take a less defensive attitude to our relations with Britain and with Northern Ireland. It is important, as we contemplate the millennium, that we see the changing relationship between Ireland and Britain and within the community in Ireland in its wider European and historical contest.

I propose to share my time in the debate with Deputy Flanagan. He will deal with the details of the legislation and I will address some of the wider political issues.

I welcome the legislation before the House. It is an historic step forward. It involves this House in sharing some of its powers with Northern Ireland. These new institutions will bring people closer together. They will also have economies of scale, conducting business over a larger territory, and this will lead to efficiency. We must ensure that does not mean just another layer of Government. There must be no triplication of action or responsibility. This will be teased out in the debate as will the issue of how the body will be accountable to Dáil Éireann and to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is important that in addition to answering questions here on the annual report, the body should be seen to be responsive to the concerns expressed by Members of the Oireachtas and members of the Northern Assembly.

We will also pursue in the debate the possible difficulty referred to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of a difference of interpretation of the Agreement in courts in the two jurisdictions. There is not to be a single all-island court and therefore it is possible that a British court might interpret a particular clause of the powers of the body in a different way to a court in this jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction will be different with the Supreme Court and the House of Lords potentially coming to different decisions. The proposal is that this will be dealt with by means of consultation between the Attorneys General, but that can only happen after the event. It is not possible for the Attorneys General to interfere in a court case and it will only be after the House of Lords, as a supreme court of the UK, and the Supreme Court here have come to a different decision that the Attorneys General can do anything about it. There is not any solution to this issue. One hopes that the common sense of judges will ensure that the issue I refer to does not arise.

I now come to the remaining problem – decommissioning, and the setting up of an executive. The guns are silent. That is important but it is not enough. The existence of the guns poses a threat. Loyalist and republican weapons engender fear and generate misunderstanding. Normal political interaction is difficult between parties, one of which is armed only with a democratic mandate and another which is armed, however indirectly, with other means of persuasion also.

The process must be inclusive. We need Sinn Féin at the cabinet table, just as we need Unionists and the SDLP. The transition is difficult for republicans and loyalists. All of us are proud of our own parties' roots. No one is asking republicans or loyalists to disavow their past or surrender anything. We are simply asking them to recognise that they have created a new reality, and in that new reality there is no place for the gun. That is a republican achievement and repub licans should claim ownership of it. The defensive line they are taking on disarmament is preventing republicans claiming in full the benefits they have created for themselves and for the rest of us through their peace process.

I know there are terrible memories – memories of the burning of Bombay Street, of sectarian killings and of prejudiced policing. These Nationalist insecurities must be addressed. Unionists must recognise them. Incessant demands for decommissioning that do not take account of these concerns are not always helpful.

In this House we must recognise that political violence in and around Northern Ireland has had many casualties. Sensitivity is called for in dealing with the feelings of the victims of violence and also with the presumptions and beliefs of the perpetrators of violence. In a democracy based on freedom of expression, sensitivity has to be measured against the need for plain speaking and the need for truth. The greatest insensitivity of all in a negotiation is that of misleading people by concealing from them the real difficulties of their argument, thus allowing them to get into false positions when this might have been avoided if real difficulties had been highlighted earlier.

We owe it to those who have died and to those who live lives of incessant pain to be realistic about actual facts and not to pretend to see in words meanings that we might like them to have but which they do not actually have. The dilemma over decommissioning shows up a continuing contradiction between the recent public statements of the Provisional IRA and the political logic of the peace process initiated by Gerry Adams and John Hume. Until that contradiction is resolved, we will not have decommissioning and we will not have security or lasting peace. Unless it is, the republican movement will continue to spawn new splinters, all able to claim that their difference with mainstream republicanism is no more than one of tactics not of principle.

The core concept in the Hume-Adams approach to the peace process was that of Irish national self determination. Republicans claimed that self determination had been denied whereas other Nationalists argued differently. The peace process aimed to unite the two strands by agreeing a new method of expressing national self determination. That was to be done by having a new exercise in self determination acceptable to all, that would replace and transcend the 1918 election.

Republicans had claimed since 1920 that the original Sinn Féin 1918 mandate had been blocked by the British. This unfulfilled 1918 mandate has provided the ideological and internal logic of the IRA campaigns of the past 40 years. One aim of all-party talks, which Sinn Féin demanded and got, was that they would lead to a new act of 32 county self determination to transcend 1918. In the view of the SDLP and all other Nationalists, that new act of national self determination was provided by the all-Ireland referendum on the Good Friday Agreement.

The Hume-Adams document prepared by Sinn Féin in June 1992 contained two key statements which Sinn Féin wanted the British and Irish Governments, respectively, to make. First, it wanted the British Government to say that "it accepts the principle that the Irish people have the right collectively to self determination and that the exercise of this right could take the form of agreed independent structures for the island as a whole". Second, Sinn Féin wanted the Irish Government to say that "it accepts that the democratic right of self determination by the Irish people as a whole must be achieved and exercised with the agreement and consent of the people of Northern Ireland and must be consistent with justice and equality and respect for the democratic and civil rights of both communities". These words were drafted by Sinn Féin.

The conditions set out in Sinn Féin's draft of the Hume-Adams document for peace in Ireland have been met by the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. There is, therefore, no continuing justification in terms of the republican movement's declared republican principles for the maintenance of a military capacity by the IRA. There is no longer any colour of a mandate from the Irish people for the maintenance of a military capacity by the IRA. That mandate was withdrawn by the fulfilment in the Good Friday Agreement referendum of the conditions set out by Sinn Féin in the passages of the Hume-Adams document from which I have quoted.

Unfortunately, the Provisional IRA said the referenda on the Good Friday Agreement do not constitute the exercise of self determination by the Irish people. It is wrong. By any definition, that vote was an act of national self determination. It is wrong for the IRA to continue to deny it; it is wrong for Sinn Féin to support or condone that continuing Provisional IRA position.

The position of the republican movement on the legitimacy of violence after Good Friday needs to be clarified at a theoretical level. The Good Friday Agreement contains the following words: "All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations". The Irish people, in endorsing the Good Friday Agreement, have thus voted for the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. That is not a new precondition; it is not a Unionist precondition or a Tory ruse. It is part of the Good Friday Agreement approved by the people of the thirty-two Counties of Ireland.

The Sinn Féin leader said before President Clinton's last visit to Ireland that "the violence we have seen must be for all of us a thing of the past". This was just a statement of a wish, not a statement of what the IRA would do in all circumstances. He did not say the war is over, just that it should be over. There is a difference. The core problem comes back to the fact that the republican movement, Sinn Féin and the IRA, have yet to fully take on board the fundamental change in the political context of republicanism caused by the endorsement by the Irish people of the Good Friday Agreement. That endorsement was an act of national self determination which should be recognised by Republicans.

The Provisional IRA has also stated that the Good Friday Agreement "clearly falls short of presenting a solid basis for lasting settlement" and has repeatedly said, possibly in consequence of this, that there will be no decommissioning by the IRA. The appointment of Mr. McGuinness by Sinn Féin to liaise with the decommissioning body did not change the IRA policy on disarmament because, as Sinn Féin repeatedly points out, it is the IRA which has the arms.

This duality allows the republican movement an each way bet on the Good Friday Agreement. Whereas other political parties committed themselves unreservedly to the democratic path, the republican movement has continued to date to say it will maintain its military capacity indefinitely. This is a huge political problem. It is no mere technicality or procedural precondition.

The contradiction in the position of the republican movement must now be removed, and public confidence be restored, by a clear and united statement from both the IRA and Sinn Féin that, first, they now accept the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement was a valid exercise in national self determination and that it transcends the 1918 election; second, in consequence of that referendum result, the IRA war is over; third, in consequence of the IRA war being over, the IRA is prepared to disarm itself of its own accord, for its own sake and voluntarily provided the other terms of the agreement are being honoured on a step by step basis and, fourth, also in consequence of the foregoing, punishment beatings, witness intimidation and other breaches of the ceasefire will cease.

The IRA said last August that it would not say the IRA war is over because it would not waste time in word games. Saying a war is over is not a word game. Words are the only tool available to democratic politicians to convey meaning. Words are important, the meaning of words is crucial. The meaning of the statement "the war is over" is crucial and extremely simple. It is a fundamental civil rights issue. Under our Constitution, only bodies authorised by the Oireachtas are entitled to hold arms or maintain an army. This is fundamental to any known concept of civic republicanism. One army, one state and one democratic authority, the people – that is republicanism as I understand it.

Last September I said in the Dáil, "It is unthinkable that the Dáil would accept that a politician associated with a private army, that exists in defiance of the State's laws, should simultaneously sit at a Cabinet table in this or in any other jurisdiction". A Member of the Government, Deputy McDaid, came into the House afterwards to criticise my statement as insensitive. Other commentators accused me of accepting Unionist preconditions. I am an Irish democrat and I take my positions as an Irish democrat, proud of the democratic, non-violent traditions of this State and this House.

I am glad that when the Taoiseach addressed the same question I addressed in September six months later in an interview with a British newspaper, The Sunday Times, he took a similar view. His statement to that newspaper was one of unprecedented clarity. Asked if parties could enter Government if their military associates had not started decommissioning, the Taoiseach said: “I am on record in recent weeks and months as saying that it is not compatible with being part of a government, I mean part of an executive, that there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning and that would apply in the North, it would apply in the South”. Those were and are my sentiments, exactly. That is not and was not a Unionist precondition. It is not and was not insensitive either. It was a Taoiseach doing his job, laying down a fundamental of democracy.

The peace process would be further advanced today if the Taoiseach had spoken in the same clear terms in the Dáil seven months ago on 2 September as he did to The Sunday Times a little more than a fortnight ago. However, we are—

Will the Deputy give way?

I first stated that on 22 August in an interview in Omagh.

Deputy McDaid does not appear to have read that statement. It is important that the Taoiseach is taking the right course at this stage.

The republican movement needs some time to adjust to the new realities, which it can take credit for having created. Republicans need reassurance on the protection of their community. They can best get that by having their representatives sitting at the cabinet table, shaping the future of these islands through executive action. All they need to do to take their seats at the cabinet table is to make a start in fulfilling the commitment to disarmament given a year ago in the Good Friday Agreement. That is not unreasonable.

This historic debate sees the placing of British-Irish and North-South relations on a new and positive footing. The signing of the Agreement last year, the address by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to this House last autumn and today's ratification of new and exciting treaties after years of cold war between our respective islands heralds a new relationship with our nearest neighbours.

It is important to note the broad remit given to the British-Irish Council under the Belfast Agreement is to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands. The Agreement acknowledges that the citizens of the two islands are fundamentally linked together and with each other. We have sadly ignored much of our shared experience of Celts, the Vikings and the Normans, our common sports and popular cultures and we sometimes choose to forget that more than eight million people living in Britain claim Irish origin, with more than half of them having an Irish parent. On this side of the Irish Sea, almost 25 per cent of those living on this island claim to be at least part British.

The huge achievement that is the Belfast Agreement cannot be over-estimated. It acknowledges for the first time the right of those living in Northern Ireland to a dual identity. In the aftermath of the referenda in May last year, any citizen in Northern Ireland can legitimately claim to be British or Irish or both. The right to a dual identity is very important. For the first time it allows the declaration of a dual allegiance to British and Irish sovereignty.

In essence, the Agreement is an act of recognition between States and peoples. We have recognised the status of Northern Ireland as being part of the United Kingdom, subject to the implementation of the Agreement. The United Kingdom, in turn, has recognised the right of the people of Ireland to exercise their national self-determination. The United Kingdom has recognised the right of Northern Ireland to secede by majority consent and to unite with the Republic of Ireland at any future time. On the other hand, we in this Republic recognise the British political identity of the Unionist community. The United Kingdom recognises Northern Nationalists as a national minority, not simply as a cultural or religious minority, and as part of a possible Irish national majority at some time in the future. The United Kingdom and the Republic recognise that paramilitary organisations are on ceasefire. Nationalists recognise Unionists as Unionists, not only as Protestants, and Unionists recognise Nationalists as Nationalists, not only as a Catholic minority. Nationalists and Unionists recognise others who are neither Unionist nor Nationalist.

Most importantly, the Agreement recognises a balance of power and a sharing of power under accepted structures of democracy. This Bill and debate on strands two and three of the Agreement are based on the mutual recognition of Unionists and Nationalists and their participation in the ordered administration of justice, executive power-sharing and parliamentary democracy.

Having regard to the wording of the Agreement to which I referred, I assume the British-Irish Council is not merely a forum for Government Ministers nor for Ministers and parliamentarians because the phrase "peoples of these islands" indicates a relationship through culture and society embracing various strands of civil society. I assume the council will commence business as a ministerial forum in view of the fact that the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies will not come into operation until perhaps early next year.

In his address to this assembly last year, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, spoke of improved relations. Under these treaties there will be approximately five tiers of arrangements. First, there are the intergovernmental relations, which have been in place in some respects since 1922 and which will be formalised by way of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. Second, there is the interministerial aspect of the British-Irish Council, which will definitely extend beyond the British Government and the Irish Government to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and, presumably, to other regions of the United Kingdom where regional chambers and development agencies of England may from time to time evolve into self-governing assemblies. Third, the interparliamentary tier, also adverted to in the Good Friday Agreement, will probably be an extension of the very useful and successful British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. I invite the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, both of whom are present, to initiate a debate in this House on the future of that very useful body. Fourth, reference must be made to civic society organisations and quangos. In this regard, trade unions, business, trade organisations, cultural and sporting bodies and churches have cross-island links. I refer, in particular, to the British-Irish Association, Co-operation North and many schools' liaison groups. It is important that their role and function will be preserved under the new arrangements we are ratifying. Fifth, in his speech here Prime Minister Blair was very strong on family and personal links and rightly so. Although this area is not addressed in the treaties, it forms a fundamental part of what we can describe as the totality of relations. There must be a strong interparliamentary body and an independent secretariat with an independent budget. I hope the reply to this debate will refer to this aspect of the arrangement.

With particular reference to Scotland and Wales, it is difficult to forecast how matters will evolve at British-Irish Council level. The council could suffer with the increasing nationalist fervour in Scotland. The demand of the SNP for a Scottish Parliament is similar to the campaign of the Irish parliamentary party 100 years ago. The stated aim of the Scottish Nationalist Party is for the Scottish Parliament to be seen not as an event but as a process.

It is also worth noting the envy of the Scottish Nationalists of our Celtic tiger economy and our influence in the European Union. Our Republic has been highlighted as a role model for an independent Scotland. The role of the Scottish Nationalist Party in the British-Irish Council has the capacity to introduce matters not envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement, as Scotland and Wales face challenging and exciting time without any reference to British-Irish relations or to the situation in Northern Ireland.

Clause 10 of strand three of the Agreement requires amplification in the context of this debate. We could have a joint Scottish-Irish approach to certain matters which, in essence, could operate independently of the British-Irish Council. This could cause problems for the British Government. The more energy accredited to the drive for Scottish independence, the greater the likelihood of the destabilisation of the United Kingdom. We should ask what this will do for British-Irish relations. It is very much in our interests that Britain should become more European, not less, and that the euro should be embraced sooner rather than later. A British-Irish Council with a strong Scottish nationalist hue would be likely to arouse nationalist and, hence, anti-European tensions in England, thus retarding England's and, therefore, Britain's relations with the European Union.

We can itemise the importance of strands one, two and three in that order of importance. If strand one succeeds, democratic institutions in Northern Ireland will be a success and the violence, strife and inequality will be a thing of the past as normal democratic politics takes root. The success of strand two depends on the success of strand one. If strands one and two are running well, the strand three arrangement will be far less relevant. The provisions for the British-Irish Council come under strand three, which will depend, in terms of its importance, on the success or otherwise of the provisions of strands one and two.

Section 3 deals with the North-South Ministerial Council, the target date for the setting up of which has long since passed. Notwithstanding that, it is important that we should provide in law for the body in the event that the Executive is set up at short notice. The Council can and will work well and that we have changed the Constitution to ensure the Council will exercise all-Ireland jurisdiction in areas of mutual co-operation is most significant.

My reading of the Council is that it will operate in a similar manner to the Council of Ministers in the European Union, with Ministers having a measure of discretion to reach decisions but remaining accountable to their parliamentary Assemblies, North and South. Perhaps the Minister might elaborate on this at the conclusion of Second Stage – how often is it envisaged that the Council will meet in plenary session and will it break up into smaller groups to deal with specific sectors such as education and health on a more regular and frequent basis?

There does not appear to be any provision for a North-South parliamentary forum, as there was in Sunningdale, but the Agreement states that assemblies will "consider" developing such a forum. I would like to hear to views of the Government on this issue.

I welcome the ratification of the treaty which deals with the six Implementation Bodies, the setting up of Waterways Ireland, the Food Safety Promotion Board, the Trade and Business Development Body, An Forás Teanga and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. The transfer of power and composition of the new boards are dealt with at length in the Bill.

I am concerned about accountability to the Oireachtas. There is provision for the attendance of board representatives before Oireachtas committees and the laying of reports before the House.

As the European Union continues on a path of integration North and South, we will see the advantages of co-operation, given the geographical position and similar interests in problem areas such as agriculture and tourism. At present it is legally possible for Northern Ireland to join EMU with us, even if Britain remains outside, provided the Assembly, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Westminster assented to such an arrangement. This is the extent to which the bodies envisaged under the Agreement can exercise power and influence far beyond that referred to in the Agreement.

I join Deputy Andrews and the Taoiseach in paying tribute to officials North and South, and in Westminster, who have earned their place in history by their diligence and commitment in recent years. As elected representatives of the people, we acknowledge the enormous role played by officials day after day in the course of the negotiations and in the drafting of documents.

The Good Friday Agreement offers all the people of Ireland a new future. This is a bright future and one worth working for.

The Labour Party has agreed to the procedures to enact this legislation on Second Stage today and on Committee and remaining Stages tomorrow because the timetable for debating these measures has taken on a sense of urgency. I hope the manner in which we pass the legislation in this and the other House will send a clear signal to those who have work to do to complete all the components of the Agreement and will help to remove the obstacles which, sadly, still remain.

In recent months, Irish politics has been dominated by two distinct problems. One is the failure of Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party to agree a compromise between themselves which will enable the formation of the Executive in Northern Ireland and secure an end to the impasse over decommissioning. The second problem has been about a compromise of an altogether different sort – the compromising of politics by the activities of a former Taoiseach and our current EU Commissioner.

At the time I described the signing of the Good Friday Agreement as a testament to the craft of politics of which every member of this House could be proud. The process does not belong to any one party, it represents a victory for us all and, as such, we should all guard it closely.

Unfortunately, because of the disrepute that politics has fallen into, arguing the case for politics and its potential has not been an easy one in the months after the signing of the Agreement. Nevertheless it is one in which I passionately believe.

Such is the cynicism which surrounds politics that compromises tend to be regarded by some solely as an abandonment of principle. In fact, often the opposite is true. I say this because we stand at a juncture in a peace process which can only be resolved through the principle of honourable compromise. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, the final piece of the puzzle is sometimes the hardest to place. We all know, however, that if we succeed in overcoming this hurdle few others remain.

The fear of compromise and the perception of it as an abandonment of principle is perhaps most acute within the Republican movement. The history of that movement is rife with moments when short-term reality and long-term aspirations have clashed. As we know to our cost, many have paid a huge cost in such circumstances.

We should not underestimate the challenge facing the Republican movement. It is also a challenge that it cannot afford to duck. It stands on the brink of an historic achievement: participation in the governance of Northern Ireland in a Government which will have organic links with the Republic of Ireland and which is prepared to work in tandem with it, on an all-Ireland basis, on a range of issues, some of which were promoted by Sinn Féin.

If it succeeds in moving forward, it will get the opportunity to work for the first time ever to implement change on a broad range of policy fronts. If it is serious about politics, and I believe it is, it is an opportunity it cannot afford to miss. Sinn Féin often speaks about its mandate, but, as other parties have discovered, it is difficult to deliver for people one represents if one is standing outside the doors of power.

Republicans have always insisted they will not be dictated to by Unionists or constitutional Nationalists, that they will not surrender. This, they argue, is why they are not in the position to decommission any arms – or make any gesture on decommissioning – either prior or subsequent to the formation of the Executive.

Sinn Féin is making a classic error and endangering it's greatest achievement yet. It is Sinn Féin which has taken to using terms like surrender and, in effect, talking up the problem. Recent opinion polls suggest that Sinn Féin supporters support decommissioning and certainly do not view it in those dramatic terms. Neither do they appear to believe there is a danger of their communities being attacked, as some Sinn Féin spokespersons have suggested.

The real danger is that Sinn Féin will talk up a hurdle the IRA cannot leap. To do so would put it outside even its own narrowly defined obligations on decommissioning in the Agreement. There is another way of putting things. Decommissioning or a gesture on decommissioning – it is not for me to suggest which, but I, like most other people, would be happy with the judgment of General de Chastelain – could be undertaken not as an act of surrender to Unionism or the British but in compliance with the most recent exercise of self determination of the Irish people in the thirty-two Counties.

It would be an act of strength, an expression of confidence in the Irish people and in Sinn Fein's capacity to work the Agreement in the interests of the people who support it. It would also be an acknowledgement that prisoners are being released, Border roads have been opened and the policing system is being reviewed. It would be, to use the movement's own language, 'calling the Unionists bluff'.

I have made this argument in recent months and will continue to make it to Sinn Féin. It is fair to ask, as Niall O'Dowd did in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times, whether unionism is prepared to allow this process be aborted for the sake of a few guns which are not being used? The problem is that it is also a fair question to put to republicans. If the war is over, why the need for guns and semtex?

I am pleased in recent days that there has been some softening of language on the part of Sinn Féin. Niall O'Dowd's piece is significant, close as he is to republican thinking. There is some movement away from the "not now, not ever" position which epitomised the republican position up to now. I hope this view is representative of thinking within mainstream republicanism and if it is, I urge Unionists not to be dismissive of it either.

Compromise though is a two way street. I have long since argued that one of the problems in this process is that neither side, Unionist nor republican, has been prepared to put themselves inside the mindset of the other. Both find it difficult to think the unthinkable. I welcome, for instance, the meeting between the First Minister at his invitation and the President of Sinn Féin. However, I wonder if this type of meeting had taken place on a more regular basis, would the gulf between the two sides be as wide as it is? It also has to be acknowledged that the fault lies here with unionism, not Sinn Féin. Yet clearly the deep suspicion with which each side views the other, understandable in the context of the past 30 years, is the root cause of the current difficulties.

Unionists can rightly point out, and I have done so myself, that decommissioning remains the only element of the Agreement on which we are yet to see any significant movement from the IRA. This is correct. Sinn Féin can hardly claim that unionism is seeking to ride roughshod over the Agreement. Nevertheless, Unionists can hardly wonder that elements within the republican movement should regard the failure to establish the Executive thus far, despite the fact that there is no stated link between prior decommissioning and the formation of the Executive, in a suspicious light, given unionism's stated reluctance to share power with Sinn Féin.

They must also know that the history of the past 20 years has also conditioned Nationalists with a fear of unionism's failure to face down its own more extreme elements. Ultimately, they know too that their best chance of achieving decommissioning and a permanent end to violence is through the operation of the Agreement.

All of this is the backdrop to the work that must be done between now and the new deadline established by the Secretary of State yesterday. Failure cannot be contemplated, though in recent weeks people must have begun to consider its implications, if only to concentrate their minds on the task ahead.

It is not for me to be prescriptive about what must happen now. Some form of compromise or concession is clearly required, probably from both sides, as is usually the way in these circumstances. I send my best wishes and support for those closely involved in the negotiations. Today's debate, and the manner in which it has been facilitated, is further evidence of how far we have come in the past five years. At times progress has been painstakingly, but understandably, slow. However, that is hardly surprising.

The Bill before us today is a significant one and no doubt represents the culmination of a great deal of negotiating and drafting work. On behalf of the Labour Party, I state our appreciation, having been in Government and now in Opposition, of the extraordinary dedication and hard work done by a team of officials in the various Government Departments to which the Taoiseach has already referred, and which was endorsed by the Leader of Fine Gael and Deputy Flanagan.

This Bill is an important one and such is the ceding of powers envisaged in the Bill that if they were being made to any other bodies other than the six North-South implementation bodies, there would be considerable opposition to it. For my part, I have argued in the past for the succession of even stronger powers to the North-South Ministerial Council, particularly more direct powers in the economic area. I did so, not in an attempt to secure more southern influence in the management of areas in Northern Ireland but rather in an effort to bind people in the Republic to the process of consolidation and compromise.

I said at the time, and I am not so sure the situation has changed all that much, that a considerable proportion of the population in this State viewed the peace process as something which while it may be taking up a considerable amount of their Government's time, did not impact significantly on them. In the same vein, the council of the isles or the British-Irish Council, to give it its formal title, has not received the same attention as other aspects of the Agreement. Nevertheless, I look forward to its establishment. Britain and Ireland have many mutual interests, particularly within the European Union.

As Deputy Flanagan said, our relationship has evolved considerably in the past 20 years, mainly due to our common membership of the European Union. However, matters have changed considerably even in recent years. The process of devolution initiated by the Labour Government will radically alter the distribution of power within the UK and there is a lesson for us in that.

The Good Friday Agreement empowers the council to formulate and co-ordinate policy in respect of a number of areas between its members and to fund a secretariat to assist it in this process. The Irish Government has been quick to foster relationships with these newborn administrations by establishing consulates in both Edinburgh and Cardiff. I congratulate the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs for taking that initiative. However, it is the start of a process rather than the culmination of one.

As Deputy Flanagan said, there is clearly growing interest in the council in Scotland in particular, as highlighted in this morning's article in The Irish Times. The outcome of May's elections in Scotland could prove to be interesting in that respect. I hope the council will not just promote better relations between the UK and Irish Governments and the new devolved administrations but possibly also break down national barriers. There must be a completely new set of relationships between the four nations who make up these islands and who have cross-channel and cross-sea connections of one kind or another. For instance, my party has as much in common with and, an interest in pursuing, the same policy agenda as members of the Labour Party in Wales, Scotland and England. The ultimate success of the Northern peace process for me will be when, on some issues at least, shared purpose transcends community divisions.

In Government, my party benefited from the support showed by the then Opposition in respect of the peace process. Bipartisanship has been an essential component of the whole process and my party has been pleased to reciprocate now that we are in Opposition. It is unfortunate that bipartisanship has broken down in the UK. The contribution of a Conservative Party Prime Minister to the whole process will undoubtedly be recorded and that has already been recognised by the present Government.

However, bipartisanship does not preclude constructive criticism of the Government. For instance, I have been critical of the pace at which some of the legislation promised in the Agreement, such as the legislation establishing the human rights commission, has been forthcoming.

I welcome the presence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. His Department, in both the content of legislation it has brought forward and the speed at which it has responded to the body of work required, is very disappointing and warrants severe criticism. Frankly, the Department is not up to this task, and that perhaps reflects badly upon it and, ultimately, its Minister. It is unfortunate that the whole corpus of legislation promised under the Agreement is not in place and in some instances has not even been published.

The normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland remains the central aim of this process. The establishment of an executive is the last critical brick to be put in place to allow this process begin, and it will not be an easy one. There are forces within Northern Ireland who remain hostile to the normalisation of politics; these forces talk up the sectarian divide. These people speak the language of division, not unity, and they will have to be taken on and confronted with the contradictions of their position and with the fact that they have no democratic mandate from anywhere in this country.

We do not have forever to resolve the current impasse. We are now approaching a year since the Agreement was signed. The amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution must be ratified by the Oireachtas within a year of being passed by the people. Were that not to happen because of a delay in the North and a failure to establish the last component of the Agreement's operation, the Government would be forced to seek an extension of the allowed ratification period from the Oireachtas. However, I cannot help but feel that a further deadline, on this occasion imposed by the Oireachtas, would not help matters. Moreover, the continued impasse at Drumcree does not augur well for the new marching season.

Both parties to the current impasse seem to have given some thought to what might happen if they failed to reach agreement before that stage. Mr. Trimble has referred to parking the Agreement, whilst there is some suggestion that Sinn Fein would press for the implementation of some aspects of the Agreement despite the failure to establish an executive. I counsel against serious contemplation of these options.

The problem with parking the Agreement may be that it proves impossible to get it going again, particularly if progress cannot be made on the issue which caused it to falter in the first place. The only real outcome that may come out of any serious consideration of this suggestion is the easing off of the pressure on both sides to find a solution to the current impasse.

Similarly, while it is not wise to prejudge the options facing the two Governments in the event of the collapse of the Assembly, no one should even consider this option lightly. In that respect I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, when she said that there was no plan B. It would engender further cynicism amongst the electorate on both sides of the Border and damage the political process even further.

I remain optimistic that we can resolve this problem. The two Governments, the Northern political parties, the United States Government and all the parties in this House have invested too much time in this process to see it fail. Most significantly of all, it would represent a failure by us all collectively to implement the wishes of the people of the whole island, and in the current situation that would be a disastrous blow to our democracy.

All sides, particularly the so-called republican movement, long sought a clear act of self-deter mination by all people on this island on a common question posed to them on the same day and counted in a similar manner. The result brooks no equivocation, no interpretation and no repudiation as not being freely expressed and clearly communicated. That communication is now our responsibility, and this legislation is but one component in putting that responsibility into an edifice that will enable the people of this island and those of the adjoining island to share this space as we move into the next millennium.

I have many questions about the operation of this legislation which will need to be answered on Committee Stage for the purpose of clarification, if not amendment. It would be remiss of the House to pass legislation of such enormous constitutional magnitude if we did not ensure that the record of the House did not contain questions regarding the operation, interpretation, meaning of and reason for certain sections of the Bill.

Section 5 is an example that is all-embracing; it relates to regulations to remove difficulties. If any Bill came before this House with the sweeping powers envisaged in this, there would be a rush to fax machines, the press and the defences of our fragile democracy. It states:

If, in any respect, any difficulty arises in bringing any provision of this Act or the Agreement into operation or in relation to the operation of any such provision, the Taoiseach may by regulations do anything which appears to him or her to be necessary or expedient for removing that difficulty, for bringing that provision into operation or for securing or facilitating its operation, and any such regulations may modify any provision of this Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for carrying such provision into effect for the purposes aforesaid, but no regulations shall be made under this section in relation to any provision of this Act after the expiration of 3 years commencing on the day on which the provision came into operation.

This is a section of an extraordinarily draconian nature and sweeping scope, even given the sense of conscience at the end, when the draftsman put in some termination by including the three year time limit. The fact that this section is included and deemed necessary signals the willingness of the House to make this extraordinary democratic experiment work. We are moving into uncharted waters regarding the two parts of Ireland, and we do not want to handicap ourselves with legislative measures which may themselves become impediments to a process which is difficult enough in itself. I draw attention to this section on Second Stage to give the Government notice that clarification on this and other sections will be necessary. That is a reasonable quid pro quo to be sought by the Opposition, and the Labour Party in particular, given the scale of co-operation being offered in this matter.

I propose to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen.

At least these provisions are gender neutral and refer to "he or she" when dealing with the Taoiseach.

It is not the gender I am worried about.

There was a time it would only have specified "he".

As we move towards the first anniversary of the British-Irish Agreement, it is a good time to reflect on how far we have come on the road to peace. For too long this island has suffered at the hands of the men of violence, and for too long our true potential has been stifled because of the fears and inhibitions engendered by decades of unrest. We must ensure that those dark days are behind us once and for all, and we must seize with both hands the opportunities the Agreement presents. We as politicians owe it to the people of this island to find solutions to the obstacles currently in our way. The guns have fallen silent, but we must ensure that they stay silent so that future generations will never know or experience the pain and suffering they inflicted over many years. The Good Friday Agreement is our most realistic and most tangible hope for a lasting peace. In the South we have, in recent years, experienced unprecedented economic success built on the platform of a young, well educated and well motivated workforce, a favourable corporate tax regime, a modern telecommunications infrastructure and a positive climate for industrial prosperity. We must now seek to build on that recent success so that the island as a whole can benefit from the new potential which the Agreement offers.

The introduction of this Bill marks a watershed in the development of the peace process. It is an historic step on the road to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I join the Taoiseach in paying tribute to all the parties involved in bringing the peace process forward to this advanced stage. I join the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton and Deputy Quinn in paying tribute to the officials on both sides involved in the painstaking work of negotiating what is before us this evening. To the officials in the many Government Departments involved in this work for a considerable period we owe a great deal of gratitude. It has not been easy to reach the Agreement which has been reached. It is an historic one. Those of us who have been here for a considerable time never thought we would see the day when we would make provision for all-Ireland bodies. I earnestly hope we can quickly move to the point where all the institutions are in a position to go live.

The historic signing of the four agreements yesterday between the British and Irish Governments, including the Agreement on establishing the six North-South implementation bodies, offers the potential to bring considerable economic benefits North and South together with the opportunity to move forward together in a spirit of partnership and co-operation in the interests of the common good.

The functions of each of the six implementation bodies, including the Trade and Business Development Body, for which I will share responsibility, are set out in the Agreement establishing implementation bodies. In addition to setting out the functions of the body, the document contains details of how it will exercise its functions and particulars as to how the body will be structured.

The existing enterprise support agencies North and South will continue to be funded by and operate under the direction of their respective administrations. In drawing up and agreeing the functions and activities of the body, care has been taken to ensure the role of Enterprise Ireland, established by Act of the Oireachtas last year, will not be undermined or duplicated. The new body will not have any role in relation to inward investment which will remain with IDA Ireland. The proposed new Trade and Business Development Body will complement the work of existing agencies and in some specific cases assume certain functions currently executed by existing enterprise support agencies.

As provided in the Agreement establishing the implementation bodies, each body is required to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Multi-Party Agreement and in particular to implement any decisions of the North-South Ministerial Council on policies and actions relating to matters within the scope of the body's functions. Each body will be funded on a joint North-South basis as provided for in the Multi-Party Agreement.

The focus of the Trade and Business Development Body will be on business development opportunities North and South. Its main functions will include developing co-operation on business development opportunities North and South; developing new approaches to business development in a cross-Border context, in areas such as research, training, marketing and quality improvement; supporting business by making recommendations to increase enterprise competitiveness in a North-South context in areas such as skills availability, telecoms, information technology and electronic commerce; promoting North-South trade and supply chains, including through business links and partnerships; promoting, under its own brand, cross-Border trade events and marketing initiatives, including identification of new areas of trade, promoting market awareness and researching measures to raise the level of trade or remove any artificial impediments to trade; undertaking other specific projects and events in relation to trade promotion when tasked jointly to do so including bringing forward proposals for consideration by the North-South Ministerial Council on specific projects in these areas.

The body will review the scope, extent and effectiveness of relevant existing activities undertaken by agencies and departments North and South and recommend to the North-South Ministerial Council for consideration and decision areas where cross-Border co-operation would add value and ways of extending and deepening such co-operation. Specifically the body must bring forward to the North-South Ministerial Council within three months proposals on the development of a North-South equity investment fund together with proposals on placement programmes, arrangements for testing services and for implementing a standards development and certification programmes on a North-South basis for consideration and decision by the North-South Ministerial Council.

The body will have a special focus on the area of science and technology. There already exists a shared appreciation of the importance to economic development of science, technology, research and innovation. The body will administer a number of programmes in this area with a view to improving competitiveness. It will also examine options for the achievement of greater coherence and deepening of research and development North and South including drawing on the findings and recommendations emerging from the Foresight Initiatives in the UK and Ireland.

The functions of the Trade and Business Development Body will be exercised by a board which will be appointed by the North-South Ministerial Council. The board will comprise not fewer than eight and not more than 12 members. The North-South Ministerial Council will appoint a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The terms and conditions of board members will be determined by the North-South Ministerial Council with the approval of the Finance Ministers. The term of office of the first members of the board will be three years. The term of subsequent appointments may be varied by the North-South Ministerial Council to facilitate continuity of membership but shall not exceed five years. Members will not serve more than two consecutive terms. The chief executive to the body will be appointed by the North-South Ministerial Council.

The financial arrangements for the six implementation bodies are set out in Part 7 of the Agreement establishing implementation bodies. The "Common Arrangements" applying to the bodies provide for the payment of grants from voted moneys by the Northern Ireland assembly and Dáil Éireann, accounting and audit arrangements and requirements as to the keeping of accounts. It is estimated that in its first full year of operation the Trade and Business Development Body will have a budget of £11.5 million and a total staff complement of 42. In general, except for some specific exceptions, costs will be shared on the basis of 30 per cent North, 70 per cent South. The body will be empowered to employ its own staff by means of open recruitment, temporary secondment and the transfer of staff. Pending the formal appointment of the chief executive the functions of the chief executive will be exercised by a person to be designated by the Irish Government and the British Government.

The establishment of this new Trade and Business Development Body will be of substantial benefit to business North and South. Provisional trade figures for the first ten months of 1998 show that trade continues to grow. The scope for increasing this trade and for co-operation in selling to overseas markets is considerable. In recent years, the business community North and South has provided strong and courageous leadership in pointing to the economic price of conflict and instability and in urging a generous and pragmatic approach to reconciliation. I hope any remaining obstacles to the establishment of the Executive can be quickly overcome.

I welcome the opportunity to support the Taoiseach in recommending this Bill to the House. It is an opportunity to make a number of points on the financial and accounting aspects of the bodies.

The North-South bodies will be responsible for spending taxpayer's money provided by the authorities here and in Northern Ireland. As the Taoiseach outlined, these bodies will be responsible for a significant amount of expenditure, currently estimated at about £56 million in a full year and staffing of some 880 people. This funding will be subject to the recommendation of the North-South Ministerial Council. The corresponding additional cost to the Exchequer will be in the region of £15 million to £20 million, over and above the sums already provided in the forecast estimates. For 1999, an extra £5 million to £10 million will be required for the bodies, provision for which will be made this year, as appropriate.

As in all circumstances where money is spent on behalf of the taxpayer, it is essential that proper financial procedures are observed and that the appropriate mechanisms of accountability are put in place. These requirements are fully recognised in Part 7 of Annex 2 of the Treaty. For example, the Treaty ensures that: a member of a body or of its staff will, if so requested, appear before or otherwise co-operate with a committee or subcommittee of the Houses of the Oireachtas or the Northern Ireland Assembly, in accordance with normal practice and relevant legislation in each jurisdiction; bodies will be obliged to keep proper accounts and financial records and prepare an annual statement of accounts; they must submit copies of these statements of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General who will "in co-operation examine and certify the accounts"; these audited statements must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and this House; bodies will be required to permit officers of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General access to all necessary records.

The practical day-to-day operational arrangements arising from these principles will be contained in a financial memorandum which is now being drawn up by the relevant authorities, including the Finance Departments, in both jurisdictions. This memorandum will prescribe detailed financial arrangements relating to the accounts, the accounting year and currency matters.

In practice, the arrangements for accountability before this House will mirror existing provisions covering bodies which come within the audit remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General within this jurisdiction. There will be reciprocal arrangements for Northern Ireland.

Other detailed financial management and accounting issues, such as arrangements for value for money studies and inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General of other bodies receiving grants from the North-South Bodies in both jurisdictions, will also be elaborated in the Financial Memorandum.

I welcome the provision in section 50 for the bodies to come within the remit of the Ombudsman in relation to actions taken by the bodies in the State. Similar provisions are being made in the British legislative proposals for the bodies in relation to actions taken in Northern Ireland.

Part 5 of the Bill, together with Part 4 of the Annex, refers to the Special EU Programmes Body. The proposals enshrined in these sections were first advanced by the Department of Finance in late 1997, considered in the context of the Good Friday Agreement and culminated in the political agreement by the Northern Ireland parties to the Assembly on 18 December 1998.

The EU programmes involved are the current Ireland-Northern Ireland INTERREG Programme and the Special EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The programmes support a wide range of socio-economic activities in Northern Ireland and the Border counties. The programmes are jointly managed by our Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Bill provides that the range of functions carried out at present by the two Finance Departments, including the management and monitoring of the programmes, will be transferred to the North-South body. It will also be directly responsible for a new pro-active approach to the support and encouragement of an ever increasing range of North-South co-operative actions along the lines set out in the common chapter, first published as part of the respective national plans back in 1993.

The body will have significant functions in relation to post-1999 Structural Funding. It will advise the North-South Ministerial Council and the Finance Departments on the negotiation of the post 1999 Community initiatives. It will prepare, for the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council, detailed programme proposals under the new Community initiatives and will be involved in the negotiations on the new programmes with the European Commission. It will also be responsible for grant-making and other managerial functions in respect of INTERREG III, the cross-Border elements of other initiatives, and any successor to the peace programme.

The Bill provides for the secondment of staff already dealing with the functions to be transferred. This will be on an interim basis for a period not exceeding two years. The purpose being to ensure that there is no disruption in the management and delivery of the current programmes. The body will be headed by a chief executive, to be appointed, after due process, by the North-South Ministerial Council. The Bill also empowers the body to employ staff directly.

The Bill provides that the body shall be recognised as, and having all the attributes of, a body corporate, including perpetual succession, the power to acquire, hold and dispose of land or other property and the power to sue.

The outcome of the agreement with Northern Ireland in relation to the EU programmes body is a particularly worthwhile development. The EU programmes body will provide a unique focus-point to ensure maximum complementarity and added value in the delivery of cross-Border programmes in particular, and all-island co-operation in general. It will facilitate the drafting of cross-Border EU initiatives in such a way that will ensure a coherent, cohesive, integrated and effective response to the problems and the challenges posed by the peace process.

I am pleased to inform the House that my Department, the Office of Public Works, was engaged with its counterpart, the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland in a joint North-South art exhibition series in 1997-98. I was honoured to open the Belfast exhibition of the series in the Waterfront Hall with my colleague Mr. Tony Worthington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. In 1998, I accompanied Lord Dubs, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland to launch this significant exhibition of Irish Art in the National Arts Club in New York.

Arising from this co-operative venture in the arts, my office has sought to expand the areas of mutual interest for both organisations. Accordingly, in parallel with the substantive process, my office has engaged in exploratory discussions with representatives from the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland. I was pleased to meet some of the participants in these discussions last November.

The House may be interested to learn that the following areas have been identified as being of mutual interest to both organisations. As regards structural engineering and geotechnics DOE Northern Ireland is in a position to provide technical and design support to the Office of Public Works for its arterial drainage and flood relief programmes. Office of Public Works expertise in the area of stone conservation can be provided to DOE Northern Ireland for significant renovations of major public buildings. DOE Northern Ireland may be in a position to provide limited resources to support Office of Public Works requirements in the area of quantity surveying services. In the area of Art Management – and I have already referred to some – building on the very successful North-South Exhibition during 1997, proposals are being advanced to arrange further joint exhibitions in the future.

In addition to these specific areas, both sides have identified other issues of potential for future co-operation and have exchanged the information preparatory to progressing on these issues. These matters include: energy management, Government policy on architecture, office accommodation and benchmarking, training and development, the Green Design Guide and furniture supplies.

I am also pleased to confirm that there has been preparatory assessment of the possibilities of following through on the exchange of expertise and resources.

I am sure the House will be pleased to note, mine and the Government's commitment to building on this process of mutual co-operation and expanding it to the mutual benefit of both organisations which can reap benefits for the whole of this island.

It is a good day for Ireland North and South, and indeed for these islands, to see these provisions before the House. I hope we will see them being fully implemented because they are based on the premise that a North-South Ministerial Council will be in place. I hope all that is necessary to bring that about will take place without further delay because it is something we all want to see. It has received strong democratic endorsement.

I join others in expressing my concern about the section 5 provision concerning regulations to remove difficulties, and the powers this proposes to give to the Taoiseach. Drawn as widely as it is, this would be nothing short of rule by decree in the area referred to in the section. We will have to come back to this matter and look at it more closely on Committee Stage. It is something which on first examination certainly gives rise to concern.

The Minister of State spoke about provisions for the Comptroller and Auditor General but did not refer to the Committee of Public Accounts. Will the Minister of State make clear on Committee Stage whether it is intended that the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the bodies referred to will go to the Committee of Public Accounts in the normal way? The Minister of State referred to value for money audits, which are welcome.

There needs to be a re-examination North and South – as much South of the Border as North of it – of the way we respect differences. Somehow, in an unhealthy way – particularly in the Republic – there is an attitude of mind which says that one is silly or out of line if one does not hold the currently accepted viewpoint. I will come back to that matter towards the end of my contribution.There was a time when to be Irish and Unionist was something to be mocked at and denigrated even though the leader of Unionism was as much a Dubliner as I am. Edward Carson was not only a Dubliner but a Member of Parliament for Dublin until the election of December 1918 when he moved to the working class constituency of Duncairn in Northern Ireland. This has been excised from our collective history. That is unhealthy.

As things have transpired Unionists are to be found exclusively north of the Border. I imagine there may be some south of the Border but they keep their opinions to themselves. The reality is that we drove Dubliners such as Edward Carson north of the Border because we were not prepared to integrate in the community people with different viewpoints. Edward Carson, Solicitor General and I think Attorney General for Ireland went at the instigation of Mr. Balfour, if memory serves me to London to practice at the Bar. He had difficulty establishing a good practice because he spoke with a broad Dublin accent. Edward Carson was a Dubliner and an Irishman every bit as good a Dubliner as myself and the Minister, Deputy Woods whom I think is a Dubliner. Somehow we lost respect for people with a dissenting view. A lack of respect for differing viewpoints is part of our culture and today the Catholic Church faces intolerance. There is something very wrong in society when we are not prepared to allow people with differing viewpoints express them and be respected for it be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, non-believer, British, Irish and so on. This is also visited on the immigrants who are coming in numbers. There is a basic lack of respect for differing viewpoints. It is desire for assimilation rather than integration that is the source of many of the problems we have faced on this island.

Last year in 1998 a vote was taken on the whole of the island which could be considered in any definition to be self-determination. Those who hold that a decision was made in December 1918 on self-determination must now accept without equivocation that last year, 80 years on, self-determination was determined in another direction by the people of Ireland, North and South, voting freely in large numbers. After 30 years of troubles which followed 45 years since the signing of the Treaty we have to learn to respect that people have made a decision and have on their own determined their future and want to live in peace and harmony on this island. I believe – and I do not often hear it articulated in this way and some may consider I am not articulating it in the right way – we have two minorities. We have a double minority problem, the Nationalists are in the minority in Northern Ireland and the Unionists are in the minority on the island of Ireland. We cannot hope for a lasting peace on the island until we respect that both minorities are entitled to have their minority status respected. That is the kernel of the Good Friday Agreement proposals. Furthermore there are to be new arrangements on the island and I welcome that.

There are 800,000 people of Irish birth living in Britain. British newspapers and television channels are widely available here and increasingly our newspapers and television channels are available in the United Kingdom. Mr. Gilmartin was able to watch the "Late Late Show" in London. We have much in common. The British Prime Minister has family connections with Ireland. We have very much in common. I welcome the development of closer relationships. Our histories are intertwined and there is no reason that our future cannot be similarly intertwined in an agreed way. We want to see a united effort to live in peace and harmony not just on this island but within these islands and to do that we need agreed ways of proceeding which in general are provided in this Bill.

When we joined the European Economic Community in 1973 our per capita income was 54 per cent of GDP of the then poorer nine states. Now our per capita income is 106 per cent of GDP and more than 90 per cent on a GNP basis, that does not include transfers from the European Union, of the much larger and wealthier 15 member states and is growing at twice the European average.

People have expressed concern about our assimilation into the European Union and all the terrible things that have happened and will happen as a result of membership. We have not been assimilated but have been integrated into the European Union. The pooling of our sovereignty has worked to our advantage and our sovereignty has greatly increased. We have recently concluded our fifth term of presidency of the European Union in our 25 years of membership. What would the founders of this State say if they could see that since the Irish Republic joined the EEC, half a century after its foundation, we have held the Presidency of the EU five times. They would be very proud and we should also be proud of that.

The number of gaelscoileanna in existence when we joined the EEC was in barely double figures. Now there are in the region of 120 gaelscoileanna. That is not indicative of a reduction of our sovereignty and culture or that we have been assimilated but that we have grown in confidence and do not want to lose what is good about our culture and that integration is a good thing. Similarly we are not seeking to assimilate the Unionists into the Republic or Nationalists north of the Border and we are certainly not seeking to have the island assimilated with Britain. We are looking for integration, where people of different religious beliefs and none exist side by side and respect each other, where people with different political beliefs exists side by side and encourage each other and where we can build on the strength of diversity so that we can do for the island as a whole what membership of the European Union has done for us on a grander scale.

If we are to have an integrated Ireland in which we respect each other's differences, work together to find ways of accommodating others, and feed off the richness of that diversity, as we have in Europe, there is no place for anyone operating outside agreed democratic principles. If we are to respect the double minority, as we have done, no minority within either of those minorities has the right to use violence, intimidation, and threats to impose conditions on others.

The referenda passed north and south of the Border concerned the Good Friday Agreement, which includes sections on the release of prisoners, North-South implementation bodies, and decommissioning. The Agreement does not provide that decommissioning must commence or prisoners be released before April this year but it is implicit in it. If decommissioning is to be effected by April next year, it must commence sometime before then. Since it is just over a year from that date and the Agreement is almost a year old, it is disingenuous to suggest decommissioning should not have begun already or should not start in the near future. We do not know how many weapons or how much semtex is held by the Provisional IRA or loyalist organisations. If they state on 2 April next year that they have destroyed all their weapons we have no way of confirming it. However, we would know their intentions were good if they commenced the decommissioning process because it would show good faith.

Recently I received a letter from prisoners in Portlaoise – I presume other Members received one also – and in reply I said my party had put its faith in the Good Friday Agreement and in every aspect of its implementation process. In response they thanked me for my attitude. My letter also stated that decommissioning must commence as part of this process, and this was not a matter of imposing something because it is implicit in the Agreement. I sincerely hope those prisoners, who have an influential role in this process, will use their good offices as other members of the republican movement should, to bring about the commencement of decommissioning. That is what the people of Ireland want. I realise this is a difficult issue for the republican movement but we must find solutions to problems, not raise problems to be solved.

As I said at the beginning, there is intolerance for new, dissenting or non-mainstream views. At present this is being visited on the Catholic Church and it does not indicate healthy or liberal thinking in Irish society that we must always have a whipping boy. It used to be Unionists, particularly those of that tradition who lived south of the Border. This is an indication of our lack of confidence and it is time we had more faith in ourselves. Partition has brought about a fractured confidence and, since we are trying to heal the problems which arose from partition, we should look at this in some detail.

Strabane has been in NATO since 1949 but Lifford has not. The people of Lifford are good, decent and moral, but no more so than the people of Strabane. When we talk about security and defence issues, inside or outside this House, we should take on the illiberal cornerboy element which constantly calls people names whenever this issue is raised for discussion, no matter how respectfully, so that we might understand the principles on which it is based. That irredentist DUP-type thinking is prevalent south of the Border. Some say people north of the Border are intolerant, but we should look to ourselves.

When I was Lord Mayor of Dublin, I proposed that Ireland might host the Olympic Games. Some people could not laugh long or hard enough, yet all the empirical evidence and the studies subsequently carried out, including a Price Waterhouse report, show that we could make a credible bid. I mention this because no one would think twice about Helsinki, Stockholm or Brussels bidding to host the games – they were held in Helsinki at one time, before they were profitable. It is illustrative of our lack of confidence that our initial belief is that we cannot do these things.

As a Minister of State, I had occasion to visit my counterpart in Northern Ireland. When our discussions concluded and neither of us had anything else to raise, my counterpart said a senior official on his side wanted to ask me what happened to my proposal to host the Olympics. I said the matter was being pursued by the Dublin International Sports Council and that I had not lost sight of it. He said he thought we could co-operate on this venture, north and south of the Border.

For some reason, we do not have confidence to look at these things. The debate should not be about whether we could hope to host such an event but whether we want to do it. An Olympics bid by Dublin would not be just for the Republic of Ireland but the whole island. Since we are neither prepared to look at it nor have the courage to put it before a Dáil committee, I hope it will be considered by one of the implementation bodies and taken away from the bogeymen, like the other issues we are not capable of discussing.

Once and for all, we should put behind the unhealthy sneering at people for being Unionist, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, or for having daft ideas about bidding for the Olympics. We should respect the right of people to suggest ideas and to have them debated. When we reach that stage, we will have built a healthy Ireland where we can thrive, an integrated, peaceful, and stable island.

I am privileged to have the opportunity to support this historic Bill. It is a vital foundation on which to build real and lasting peace and co-operation on this island.

The Bill provides for the participation of the Taoiseach and Ministers in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. It also provides for the Taoiseach to make regulations to remove any difficulties in the way of bringing the Act or the Agreement into operation. Most importantly, it makes legislative provision for the six implementation bodies. Four of these bodies, including aquaculture and the marine, will have boards. They will each, through chief executives, manage the areas assigned to them and report to the North-South Ministerial Council.

The agreement of 8 March establishing the implementation bodies is another milestone on the journey under the Good Friday Agreement. I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend the Bill to the House, in particular, those provisions relating to aquaculture and marine matters.

Part VII deals with the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and it is this to which I will refer. The new implementation body to be known as the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission enshrines, in a very special way, past achievements and future opportunity. As the House will appreciate the body is strongly rooted in long-standing mutual co-operation on the island reflected in the work of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. These bodies have been in operation for many years.

In addition to encapsulating the functions of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the remit of the new body underlines the significant potential for sustainable development of aquaculture, marine leisure and tourism, as well as inland fisheries in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough. The body will also assume responsibility for inland fisheries, conservation, protection and management in the Carlingford Lough area.

The remit of the new body reflects general agreement that the inland fisheries resource, aquaculture and marine leisure represent very positive opportunities for economic activity. The body will have the challenging task of being a catalyst and realising those opportunities to the benefit of the communities in both of the areas concerned. In delivering on its remit, the body will start from a position of solid advantage. Strong co-operative links on inland fisheries, aquaculture and other marine matters are already well established on an all-island basis. We have similar objectives on both parts of the island to conserve, manage and develop those resources to the highest standards. Those co-operative links and shared objectives have been exemplified in the work of the Foyle Fisheries Commission, co-operation under the INTERREG Programme and joint cross-Border aquaculture initiatives. They will be carried through and enhanced in the remit of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and that established tradition of co-operation and achievements will undoubtedly bear fruit in the future work of the body.

Part VII provides for the establishment of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission with the functions and remit which I have already outlined. The Bill provides for the vesting of the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the Foyle Fisheries Commission in the new body, the extension of the Foyle functions to the Carlingford area and the additional functions in relation to marine recreation, marine tourism and aquaculture. The Bill also provides for necessary consequential amendments and repeals to the Foyle Fisheries Acts and legislation relating to Irish Lights.

The House will note that under Part 6, paragraph 6, of the Agreement as scheduled to the Bill, both Governments agree the legislation required to provide the detailed framework for the development and licensing of aquaculture and for the exercise of the inland fisheries development function in the Foyle and Carlingford areas will be jointly brought forward before the end of 1999, following consultation with the North-South Ministerial Council. This additional timeframe was agreed by both sides as necessary to ensure that the quite complex legislative requirements in aquaculture licensing in particular are comprehensively addressed. I assure the House that the necessary legislation will be delivered as quickly as possible by both sides and much of the preliminary groundwork is well advanced.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights have a long and honourable history of devoted service to the seafaring community of the entire island of Ireland and to international shipping. My grandfather was a lighthouse keeper. For many years after their inception and before the development of modern ship-borne navigational systems, the lighthouses established and maintained by the CIL were the first indication of landfall for vessels approaching these islands.

Uniquely, the Irish Lighthouse Service continued as a single entity serving the island as a whole following the treaty of 1921 and has continued over the years to be funded from the general lighthouse fund as part of a common system of aids to navigation for the UK and Ireland. This historic arrangement has been a concrete example of east-west co-operation over the years and I am pleased the Bill provides for its continuation into the future as a cornerstone of the new body. I assure the House that the present excellent service provided by the Irish Lighthouse Service will continue and that there will be no change in the day to day arrangements.

I congratulate and thank the current commissioners and their predecessors for the excellent service they have given over the years, on a voluntary basis, together with the executive and staff of CIL who work so hard in the interests of safety of life at sea around the island.

The establishment of the new body will also mark a new era for the Foyle Fisheries Commission which has, since 1952, carried out its remit with commitment and dedication.

Is the Minister sharing time with colleagues?

With how many colleagues does he propose to share time?

Three. The Ministers for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and Education and Science, Deputies de Valera and Martin, and the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy Ó Cuív.

I must inform the Minister that he has already used seven of the 20 minutes available.

The new body, in a special sense, represents a positive and appropriate endorsement of the unique achievements of the Foyle Fisheries Commission over the years in conserving and protecting the inland fisheries resource. I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the commissioners, the executive and the staff, past and present, of the Foyle Fisheries Commission.

The work of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Commissioners of Irish Lights will go on in a newly enhanced way and I know that all concerned will rise to the challenges and opportunities of the new era which this body represents. We have a wonderful opportunity for real development and co-operation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands will outline the establishment of the implementation body for the Irish language, Ullans and Ulster Scots cultural issues, which was provided for under the Good Friday Agreement. There will be two agencies in the new body, the Irish language agency, which will exercise the functions of the body, and the Ulster Scots agency, which will exercise the functions of the body in relation to Ullans and Ulster Scots cultural issues.

The functions of the Irish language agency will include supporting Irish medium education and the teaching of Irish through support for curriculum materials research and methodology. This may include reviewing the curriculum resources made available for Irish medium education and the teaching of Irish, including the provision of appropriate textbooks, other teaching materials and teaching aids, and publishing the outcomes of its research and reviews, including recom mendations for actions, etc. This will involve the transfer of the work and staff of An Gúm and An Coiste Tearmaíochta within my Department.

The new body will exercise the functions heretofore exercised by the Department of Education and Science, through An Gúm, with respect to the publication of books in Irish; exercise of the functions heretofore exercised by the Department of Education and Science through An Coiste Tearmaíochta with respect to the development of terminology and vocabulary in Irish; exercise the functions heretofore exercised by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland through the Irish medium curriculum materials unit at St. Mary's College; and, importantly, facilitate co-operation with the body established in accordance with section 31 of the Education Act, 1998. The functions exercised by my Department in relation to An Gúm and An Coiste Tearmaíochta will be transferred to the new body.

The staff of An Gúm, the Irish language publication branch of the Department of Education and Science, work on the preparation of textbooks to support Irish medium education and on general publications, concentrating largely on books and publications for children and young people. There is likely to be a substantial increase in the provisions of publications of materials, including materials in or adapted to the Ulster dialect of Irish.

I look forward to effective co-operation on the island as a whole in terms of the advancement of the Irish language and in the context of the development of new methodologies, research and developments on the curriculum front in respect of the Irish language within Irish medium education and in the teaching of Irish in general.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on this historic legislation which makes provision for the establishment of the six implementation bodies in furtherance of the Good Friday Agreement. Two of the implementation bodies, Waterways Ireland and An ForasTeanga, come within my remit as Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I welcome the establishment of these two bodies and look forward to working with the North-South Ministerial Council in ensuring their success.

In relation to inland waterways, addressed in Part II of the Bill, the new body will have the functions of management, maintenance, development and restoration of the inland navigable waterway system throughout the island, principally for recreational purposes. The transfer of these functions will take place in two phases; phase one, to take effect initially, will see the body take responsibility for the Shannon-Erne waterway and for carrying out studies and appraisals relating to the possible restoration and development of the Ulster Canal. Depending on the results of these studies the body may be assigned responsibility for restoration of the Ulster Canal. Phase 2 will see the Erne system, the Shannon navigation, the Royal Canal, the Grand Canal, the Barrow navigation and the Lower Bann transfer to the new body with effect from 1 April 2000.

The Bill provides for the transfer of my statutory powers and functions as Minister relating to inland waterways to the new body, and for the body taking over the functions of Shannon-Erne Waterway Promotions Limited. The Bill must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland establishing the implementation bodies approved by the House earlier today.

The Bill puts in place the legislative framework for the establishment of the new waterways body and is intended to ensure the body will have the necessary powers to fulfil its important mandate. The potential for development of the connected network of the inland navigable waterways on the island for recreational purposes and, in particular, their tourism potential are considerable. For example, more than 100,000 visitors per annum are attracted to British waterways. The water recreation sector in Holland has 1.4 million clients and 100,000 vessels from abroad. My Department is fully committed to the development of the inland waterways and the Government has, with the assistance of EU Structural Funds, provided more than £20 million for the waterways development programme in the period 1994-99.

I will now deal with the main provisions of Part II of the Bill. Section 8 is the interpretation provision. Section 9 provides that Waterways Ireland shall be a body corporate with attributes, including powers in acquisition and disposal of land and other property and to sue and be sued.

Section 10(1), (2) and (3) provides that the functions of the body are as specified in Part 1, Annex 1 to the Agreement between the Governments and the arrangements specified in Parts 1 and 2 of Annex 2 and paragraph 1 of Article 3 to the Agreement shall apply to the body. Section 10(4) provides that the body shall not permanently close a waterway or part of a waterway without the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council. Section 10(5)(a) and (b) provide that the Minister may by order add inland waterways to the list of waterways to which the body's functions shall apply and may amend or revoke such an order.

Section 11(1) and (2) provides for the transfer of the statutory powers and functions of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to the body. Section 11(3) provides for the transfer from Bord Fáilte Éireann to the body of its functions, assets rights and liabilities in Shannon Erne Promotions Limited. Section 11(4) provides that the powers of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands relating to scheduling of waterways pursuant to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Powers and Functions) Act, 1998, do not transfer to the new body. Section 11(5)(a) provides that the powers transferred to the body under the Canals Act, 1986, section 6(b) relating to the closing of a navigation and 7(1) relating to the making of by-laws shall require the consent of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. Section 11(5)(b) makes the same provision in respect of the Shannon Navigation Act, 1990, in relation to the closing of a navigation and the making of by-laws.

Section 12(1) provides for the compulsory acquisition of land by the body with the consent of the North-South Ministerial Council. Section 12(2) provides that any proposed acquisition or disposal of an inland waterway or part of an inland waterway will require the consent of the council. Section 12(3) provides that in the compulsory acquisition powers of the body, the Schedule to the Shannon Navigation Act, 1990, shall apply duly amended to refer to Waterways Ireland and with any objection submitted to be considered by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.

Section 13(a) and (b) provides for the repeal of section 6(d) of and the Second Schedule to the Canals Act, 1986, in so far as they relate to compulsory acquisition, and similarly in relation to section 2(f) of the Shannon Navigation Act, 1990. Section 13(c) provides that the provisions of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Powers and Functions) Act, 1998 section 5(1)(a) relating to acquisition or disposal of an inland waterway and section 5(1)(d) relating to the body's powers to provide financial assistance to other persons and bodies are repealed in so far as they relate to waterways, as these issues are addressed specifically in the Bill and in the Agreement. Part 8 contains miscellaneous provisions relating to all of the bodies, including Waterways Ireland.

I welcome the establishment of Waterways Ireland which will have the important task into the new millennium of developing the inland navigable waterways on the island principally for recreational purposes and promoting the development of their tourism and commercial potential. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mar Aire Stáit ag an Roinn Ealaíon, Oidhreachta, Gaeltachta agus Oileán cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo chun Forais Fheidhme – Foras Teanga ina measc – a bhunú.

Tá na forálacha maidir leis an bhforas teanga a bhfuil gá le reachtaíocht ina dtaobh leagtha amach i gCuid VI den Bhille seo. Freisin tá tagairtí i gCuid VIII den Bhille de nithe illghnéitheacha a bhaineann leis na forais go léir, an Foras Teanga ina measc. Tá na struchtúir don Fhoras Teanga leagtha síos i gcuid 5 d'iarscríbhinn 2 a ghabhann leis an gcomhaontú faoi na Forais Fheidhme.

Feicfear ón iarscríbhinn sin go bhfuil i gceist Foras Teanga amháin a bhunú le dhá pháirt ar leith, ceann amháin ag plé leis an nGaeilge agus an ceann eile ag plé leis an Ultais. Go bunúsach is dhá áisínteacht ar leith a bheidh sa dá pháirt ar leith.

Cé go mbeidh na háisínteachtaí ag feidhmiú faoi choimirce an Fhorais beidh siad beagnach neamhspleách air. Os rud é gurb é an Foras an comhlacht corpraithe is é an Foras a fhostóidh a fhoireann féin agus foireann na n-áisínteachtaí agus is leis an bhforas a íocfar an deontas-i-gcabhair ón Stát seo agus ón Tuaisceart. Ar ndóigh beidh Boird ar leith ann don dá áisínteacht, 16 dhuine don Bhord don áisínteacht Ghaeilge agus ochtar don Bhord don áisínteacht Ultals. Is iad an 24 dhuine sin a fheidhmeoidh mar Bhord an Fhorais. Aimnneoidh an Rialtas seo leath de na comhaltaí do Bhord an Fhorais agus ainmneoidh an Feidhmeannas nua ó Thuaidh an leath eile. Is trí Chomhairle na nAirí Thuaidh-Theas a dhéanfar na ceapacháin.

Tá feidhmeanna an Fhorais Theanga sonraithe i gcuid 5 d'iarscríbhinn 1 a ghabhann leis an gcomhaontú. Maidir leis an nGaeilge, bainfidh obair na háisínteachta don Ghaeilge le cur chun cinn na teanga ar bhonn uile-oileánda, le comhairle a chur ar na húdáráis ó Thuaidh agus ó Dheas, ar eagrais phoiblí agus ar eagrais agus ar grúpaí príobháideacha agus deonacha eile, le tacaíocht agus maoiniú a thabhairt d'eagrais agus do ghrúpaí, le taighde agus poiblíocht a dhéanamh maidir leis an teanga, le forbairt a dhéanamh ar théarmaíocht agus ar fhoclóirí agus le tacaíocht a thabhairt do mhúineadh na teanga agus d'oideachas tri mheán na Gaeilge. Beidh freagracht ar an Áisínteacht Ultais maidir leis an Ultais agus cúrsaí cultúrtha Ultais ar bhonn uile-oileánda.

Faoi na socruithe nua díscaoilfear Bord na Gaeilge, déanfar an tAcht um Bord na Gaeilge, 1978 a aisghairm, agus déanfar feidhmeanna Bhord na Gaeilge a aistriú chuig an bhForas Teanga. Ar ndóigh tá foireann Bhord na Gaeilge á haistriú go hiomlán go dtí an Foras Teanga agus tá súil agam go bhféachfaidh siad ar an aistriú sin, mar a fhéachaimse air, mar aistriú chun leasa don náisiún, don Ghaeilge agus dóibh féin. Ba mhaith liom fiorbhuíochas a ghlacadh le baill Bhord na Gaeilge as a ndíograis agus a ndúthracht i mbun chúraimí an Bhoird.

Tá sé i gceist go n-aistreofar na feidhmeanna atá ag an Aire Ealaíon, Oidhreachta, Gaeltachta agus Oileán i láthair na huaire maidir le maoiniú eagras áirithe deonacha Gaeilge chuig an bhForas Teanga chomh maith. Is iad na heagrais atá i gceist ná:

Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge

Gael-Linn

Conradh na Gaeilge

An tOireachtas

An Comhlachas Náisiúnta Drámaíochta

Cumann na bhFiann

Comhluadar

Iontaobhas Ultach

Tá go leor de na heagrais seo ag feidhmiú ar bhonn 32 condae cheana féin agus tá mé cinnte go dtuigfear go luíonn sé le réasún go gcuirfí mar sin faoin bhForas Teanga Traseorann iad. Tá solúbthacht sa socrú seo sa gcaoi is gur féidir leis an gComhairle Airí Thuaidh-Theas eagrais bhreise a chur leis an liosta nó eagrais atá ann a bhaint de.

Tuigim gur féidir go mbeadh imní ar dhaoine agus ar eagrais áirithe maidir lena bhfuil beartaithe, ní amháin maidir le feidhmeanna an Fhorais ó thaobh na Gaeilge de ach maidir le haistriú cúraimí mo Roinnse go dtí an Foras. Mar sin, tá socraithe agam bualadh le hionadaithe ó na heagrais sin atá luaite thuas ar an Déardaoin chun impleachtaí an tsocraithe nua a phlé leo. Freisin beimid ag bualadh le hionadaithe ó Bhord na Gaeilge ar an lá céanna.

Cuirfear tuilleadh le freagrachtaí uileghabhálacha agus le sainchumas an Fhorais Theanga nua trí na feidhmeanna reachtúla atá ag an Aire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta maidir leis An nGúm agus maidir leis an gCoiste Téarmaíochta a aistriú chuige chomh maith. Beidh obair thábhachtach le déanamh freisin maidir le foclóirí a réiteach agus a fhoilsiú.

Suim shubstaintiall de bhreis ar £12m a bheidh mar bhuiséad ag an bhForas Teanga sa bhliain 2000, an chéad bhliain fhéilire iomlán ar an saol dó, timpeall £11m don Ghaeilge agus £1m don Ultais. Tiocfaidh 75 faoin gcéad de bhuiséad an Fhorais Theanga don Ghaeilge ón Stát seo agus an fuílleach ó na hÚdaráis sa Tuaisceart. I gcás an bhuiséid don Ultais is í an Tuaisceart a bheidh ag cur 75 faoin gcéad den airgead ar foil agus beidh an Stát seo ag íoc as an bhfuílleach de 25 faoin gcéad.

Maidir le cúrsaí foime tá sé i gceist go mbeidh 65 duine fostaithe ag an Áisínteacht don Ghaeilge. Cuimsíonn an líon sin foireann Bhord na Gaeilge, foireann na Roinne Oideachais agus Eolaíochta atá ag plé leis An Gúm, srl., mar aon le foireann bhreise de 19 a bheidh le hearcú a mbeidh a bhformhór ag plé le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge ó Thuaidh. Beidh ochtar le fostú maidir leis an Ultais.

Tá mé cinnte de go nglacfaidh an Dáil leis go bhfeileann suíomh uile-Éireann do chúrsaí teanga agus go dtaispeánann an réiteach stairiúil seo go bhfuil fíorspioraid an chomhoibrithe Thuaidh agus Theas le sonrú i gcúrsaí Teanga. Guím gach rath ar an bhForas Teanga nua seo.

I thank the Deputy for his kindness in allowing me time to speak.

This is an historic day, although from looking at the Chamber, the public gallery and the press gallery one could understand if people did not believe it to be. However, often very important events occur not with a bang but a whimper. Perhaps that is a good thing.

I look forward to the time when the new institutions created by this legislation will bring about a situation which will enable us to do as a matter of fact many of the things which have separated us over the years and about which we worried. The speeches by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands were workmanlike in dealing with practicalities. That is what we should look forward to.

It is difficult to believe we were once told these North-South bodies would be the crunch issues, the important fundamentals that could break up the discussions. Let us hope there is a lesson to be learnt here with regard to another issue that is obsessing us at present. As time goes on what has been accomplished and what is being provided for in this legislation will be seen to be in the interests of ordinary people, North and South. That is what will count in the long-term, that ordinary, decent people will see that the arrangements we have made are to their practical advantage. They are not concerned with land or territory but with people, their interests and their quality of life.

On Question Time I said that despite problems over decommissioning I was confident there will be a successful outcome. I said I believed that both sides had gone too far and would have too much to lose to fail at this juncture. How could any Nationalist risk loosing these new arrangements, the proposed cross-Border institutions? There is a benefit to Unionists also, not just practically but on the political level, where they have much to gain.

The Good Friday Agreement, the new institutions and arrangements that have since been created and especially the emphasis on consent provide a guaranteed position for the Unionist tradition on this island. That is extremely important. It is to the advantage of Unionists as well as Nationalists and republicans.

All of the new bodies are to have chief executives. There is provision for interim chief executive officers and chief executive officers from day one to enable them begin to address practical measures almost immediately. That is good. It is an assurance that we are not just concerned with talking shops. The chief executives and their staffs will have a personal and vested interest in getting things done. They will want to show that their work is important and of good to the people we all represent. There are, therefore, practical benefits to all people on the island.

However, as a Northern Nationalist, and proud to be one, I am acutely aware of the importance of these new cross-Border institutions as institutionalised expressions of the Irish identity, of my identity. Partition tried to cut us off from the rest of the Irish nation. Unionists did their best to stamp out nationalism and the Irish identity. It is not that long ago where one could not register the names of one's children if they were Irish. For example, in my family those seeking to register the names Séamus and Seán were told that no such names existed in Northern Ireland and that the English equivalents, James and John, were to be registered. That is what appeared on the birth certificates because they were not allowed to have that expression of their Irish identity.

It is difficult for people to remember that there was a time when, to seek to do menial work, such as sweeping the roads or cleaning the ditches – soicas as we called them and continue to call them – which was organised by the committees of county councils, one had to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, the Queen. That was deliberate, to ensure that Nationalists would not apply for such jobs. That is what our Irish identity meant in Northern Ireland within my lifetime. I raised this matter as an MP in Stormont when I inquired about the number of people who had to take an oath of allegiance to get some of those menial jobs.

There were elements in this State who assisted in the development of partitionism. They did not much care about Northern Nationalists and ignored us as long as we could be ignored.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share