Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT debate -
Thursday, 24 Nov 2011

North-South Ministerial Council: Discussion with Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade

The main item on our agenda is last Friday's plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, NSMC. It is a great pleasure to welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to the committee. He is accompanied by Mr. Niall Burgess, director general of the Anglo Irish division in the Department and Mr. David Barry and Mr. Conor O'Riordáin, directors, Anglo Irish division. I welcome them and I thank them for their attendance.

The committee is keen to strengthen the consideration of North-South issues and issues relating to Northern Ireland more generally in the Oireachtas and, in this context, we welcome the Minister to report on the outcome of last Friday's plenary meeting of the NSMC. This is the Minister's first opportunity to appear before the committee and I hope he will have an opportunity to return at a later date for a broader discussion on the peace process, the ongoing work on the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the key challenges that will emerge in the coming years.

I thank the Chairman. I am delighted to be able to join him and his colleagues at this meeting. This is my first appearance before the committee and I am happy to agree to attend the committee again for a wider discussion and to address issues committee members would like to raise. I commend the Chairman on the breadth of work he has undertaken since the committee was established in June and on the ambitious work programme he has set for the committee.

Though we live in challenging times from an economic perspective, it is heartening to look back at this point at the progress that has been achieved in Northern Ireland through the continued implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The institutions established under the Agreement, including the NSMC, continue to play a vital role that the Government is determined to support and develop.

I have in recent months had the opportunity to meet political leaders from all the main parties in Northern Ireland and I have taken the opportunity to point to the potential benefits that can accrue, North and South, through greater economic co-operation. At a time Administrations, North and South, are trying to manage the delivery of effective public services with constraints on the public finances, I am convinced that closer co-operation can lead to only better results and more cost-effective services for all our people. This theme has characterised the Government's approach in our discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive, in discussions at the NSMC plenary meeting on 10 June, in my meeting with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at the institutional meeting on 3 October and again at the NSMC plenary on 18 November. I believe the Northern Ireland Executive shares our belief in the benefits that can accrue from closer economic co-operation and is open to considering options for practical co-operation that is mutually beneficial. We will seek to pursue this primarily through the mechanism of the NSMC.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the outcome of the most recent plenary of the council in Armagh, which was hosted by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 18 November. This was the 13th plenary and, as these meetings have become part of routine ministerial business in both jurisdictions, the atmosphere and manner in which we conducted our business was cordial and constructive. Since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly in May 2007, there have been approximately 100 meetings of the council in various formats at plenary, institutional and sectoral level. Since the Government came into office, a total of 16 sectoral meetings have taken place along with a plenary meeting in June and the institutional meeting in October.

The plenary meeting on this occasion was characterised by substantive exchanges on a range of important issues. It was also an opportunity to look ahead at the challenges that face both Administrations and to begin to focus on the priorities for joint action over the next four years. A busy agenda of work is under way and a growing relationship between Ministers North and South, which bodes well for improved co-operation in the future. In addition to the formal plenary meeting, there were also a number of informal bilateral meetings between Ministers which focused on matters of shared interest in sectors such as finance, education and health. In addition, Ministers with similar areas of work were able to continue their discussions over lunch.

The agenda contained a number of specific items which I have been strongly advocating such as the north west gateway initiative, the St. Andrew's Agreement review, tourism issues and the North-South Parliamentary Forum. Other important issues, which did not feature on the formal agenda, were third level education, the costs associated with the duplication of cross-Border services and the agrifood sector. My colleagues in Government at this meeting were uniformly consistent in conveying our wish for closer and deeper co-operation on matters of mutual benefit.

It has become almost an established practice for the opening remarks of the plenary to be dominated by a wide-ranging discussion on economic issues, with a particular focus on the economic challenges faced in both jurisdictions, the constraints imposed on the public finances, the work of NAMA and the banking system. The Northern Ireland Executive referred to the desirability of appointing a Northern Ireland representative to the board of NAMA, the impact of bank recapitalisations on lending in the North and the future of the PEACE and INTERREG programmes. As regards future PEACE funding, the Deputy First Minister made clear the political importance they attached to a future PEACE programme and the importance of securing a new line of EU funding to that end and I assured him we shared this view.

The plenary saw constructive discussion between Ministers, North and South, on these issues, including a clear presentation from the Executive of the impact in Northern Ireland of the decisions taken on NAMA and the impact of bank lending policy by our two pillar banks on business in the North. The Minister for Education and Skills raised the need to address third level education to meet emerging challenges, particularly in the wake of the increase in fees in Britain. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine underlined the opportunities for greater cooperation in the agrifood sector while the Minister for Health referred to the agreement by the two Ambulance Services on a memorandum of understanding to provide for cross-Border assistance in the event of major incidents and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport indicated the potential of joint action in the tourism sector, particularly around upcoming commemorative events.

There was a discussion about the difficulties being experienced by schools in Border areas and it was noted that the two education Ministers would undertake a survey to review the sustainability of rural primary schools in the Border region. There was strong interest in the joint secretaries' progress report, in particular, on issues regarding collaboration to maximise drawdown of EU funds from the FP7 research and development programme as well as the potential for co-operation on future EU programmes. A critical aspect for this State and Northern Ireland will be the outcome of the discussions being embarked upon to determine the future shape and scope of the EU budget. The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is a key issue for us and my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, made it clear he would be happy to maintain close co-operation with his colleagues in Northern Ireland and to take account of their concerns in the negotiations.

There was a positive response at this meeting to the proposal to have Northern Ireland officials seconded to the Civil Service for the upcoming EU Presidency. The Deputy First Minister acknowledged the mutual benefits that would accrue from such secondments and he confirmed that they were ready to assist us in our Presidency role.

While the North-South bodies have a clear operational remit and operate on an all-island basis, all of their work comes under the overall policy direction of the NSMC, with clear accountability lines to the council, the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The important step of appointing members to the boards of the North-South bodies was taken. This was done in a co-ordinated manner with our northern counterparts and will ensure the continued smooth running of these bodies when the current board members finish their terms of office in December.

Our discussions on tourism recognised the very important role that tourism does and can play in the economy that exists for tourism North and South. We emphasised Tourism Ireland is playing a valuable role in economic recovery on the island and we want to work closely with the Executive to ensure this potential is fulfilled. The council discussed the significant contribution that tourism can make to the economy and opportunities to work together. Ministers highlighted the success of the MTV EMA awards and the associated tourism benefits for Belfast. The council explored opportunities to work together to boost the tourism industry and maximise the benefit of forthcoming initiatives in both jurisdictions such as NI 2012, which includes the Titanic centenary, the Derry-Londonderry city of culture in 2013 and “The Gathering”, a year-long programme of events in 2013 driven by arts, sports, business and community groups. The Ministers, Deputy Varadkar and Ms Foster, MLA, will be continuing their discussions at their next NSMC tourism meeting.

On infrastructural issues, we had a discussion the A5-A8 road project. The council noted progress on the A5, north-west gateway to Aughnacloy, and A8, Belfast to Larne, projects and agreed that payment of £3 million will be made by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the agreed procedure. However, the deferral of the Irish contribution to the project has naturally aroused concern. As those present will appreciate, and as we conveyed to our colleagues at the plenary meeting, the decision to defer our financial support to this project was not taken lightly by the Government and it must be seen in the context of the other major capital projects that had to be either postponed or cancelled. We reiterated our commitment to the project albeit on a longer timescale than originally envisaged. We confirmed the Government will provide £25 million per annum in 2015 and 2016 towards the project. Officials will now prepare a new funding and implementation plan for the projects for agreement at the next NSMC transport sectoral meeting with endorsement at the next NSMC plenary meeting. We recognise the importance of the A5 road to the further development of the north west and I know Northern Ministers appreciated the assurances we were able to offer them as regards future funding for this project.

We also took note of the introduction, on 28 January 2010, of the mutual recognition of driver disqualifications between Ireland and the United Kingdom and continuing work on the longer-term objective of mutual recognition of penalty points. Also on the theme of road safety, work continues on a co-ordinated approach to reducing permitted blood-alcohol levels in both jurisdictions. Taken altogether, these measures will contribute greatly to enhanced road safety on the island.

At the plenary meeting, we also considered progress on the St. Andrews Agreement review of North-South bodies and areas of co-operation. On the review we took note that the recommendations of the panel of experts and advisers, and future NSMC ministerial meetings are now tasked with discussing those recommendations of the review which were considered worthy of further consideration. This will be with a view to decisions being taken at the next NSMC plenary meeting in June 2012. These recommendations were on the first term of reference of the review, the efficiency and value for money of existing North-South implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland. We also agreed a way forward on the other elements of the review, namely, to examine objectively the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the NSMC where mutual benefit would be derived; and input into the work on the identification of a suitable substitute for the proposed lights agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. This will include consultation within the Executive and within the Irish Government, and possibly through the NSMC with final proposals to be agreed at the NSMC plenary meeting in June 2012.

The establishment of the North-South consultative forum has been discussed at all plenary meetings since May 2007. We submitted our ideas to the Executive on the role a North-South consultative forum might play in advising on social, economic and cultural issues with a cross-Border dimension and we had hoped for some positive feedback on them. In our discussion on this issue the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Robinson, MLA, made it clear that the present financial constraints under which they are all operating greatly limited what could be done as regards the forum. I stressed that any proposals to take the forum forward would, of course, be considered in the most cost-effective way and that we remain keen to engage with them on this issue. Clearly the lack of progress on this matter is a disappointment but we will be coming back to this at our next meeting where we hope to finalise deliberations on this issue.

The North-South parliamentary forum is, of course, primarily a matter for the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand that considerable progress has been made in recent months between the Ceann Comhairle and his Northern counterpart, William Hay, MLA, with a further joint meeting of the working groups of the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly planned for 15 December 2011 to discuss issues raised on the role and arrangements for the parliamentary forum. There are encouraging signs that we may see the establishment of the forum soon and I know everyone here appreciates the advantages to parliamentarians that can spring from parliamentarians, North and South, coming together to consider the ever-increasing range of issues of mutual concern.

I am glad to say that we made progress at our meeting on getting a greater focus on the north-west region at the NSMC. I first made the suggestion to have a cross-sectoral meeting at ministerial level on the north-west gateway initiative at the institutional meeting in October. It was agreed at the plenary meeting that the NSMC joint secretariat would convene a meeting of officials from relevant Departments in both jurisdictions, who in turn will consult their Ministers, with a view to a progress report being presented to the NSMC institutional meeting in spring 2012. While the decision at the plenary meeting is for an official level meeting, I see this as being a step in the right direction.

North-South co-operation is important to the future development of the island of Ireland. The outcome from our plenary meeting in Armagh gives me confidence that we can continue to progress this important work jointly by Ministers from both jurisdictions across a range of sectors.

On a final note, members of the committee will wish to be aware that the next plenary meeting is scheduled to take place on 15 June 2012. It was also agreed that I will meet the Northern Ireland First and Deputy First Ministers in the spring to prepare those discussions. I would, of course, be happy to meet members again at a suitable date in the future to brief them on developments at the NSMC.

I am very grateful for members' attention and I would be happy to answer any questions on the plenary meeting and indeed on other Northern Ireland related issues which may be of interest or concern to members of the committee.

Chairman

On one of the points the Tánaiste made, we have invited representatives of NAMA to appear before the committee and I hope they will be here in February. I know that some members of the committee from Northern Ireland would be particularly interested in talking to them. We hope to get a response from NAMA in coming weeks.

As the Tánaiste must leave by 6.15 p.m. we will need to keep our questioning brief and I ask members to limit their contributions to two minutes. I will take the speakers in batches, starting with Mr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP, MLA.

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP, MLA

I will ask three simple questions without a speech. What would it take to get a Northern Ireland representative on the board of NAMA? Can the Tánaiste give us reassurance that the A5 project has not been abandoned? Having discussed it with the Tánaiste, I appreciate the £25 million being invested in 2015 and 2016. Some people would construe that as the end of the Southern contribution. Would it be possible to have some discussion on commemorations at the next meeting? Is it an appropriate item to have on the agenda?

It is great to have the Tánaiste at the committee's meeting today. I wish him every success. Further to what Mr. McDonnell, MP, MLA said, the committee has expressed its concern about commemorations. We have raised the issue with our Northern counterparts and also at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. What does the Tánaiste intend to do in coming months to address this situation? I was going to raise the issue of the A5, but I believe it has been adequately covered.

Chairman

I will take one more member before asking the Tánaiste to respond.

Ms Michelle Gildernew, MP, MLA

I appreciate the Tánaiste's presentation and welcome him and his officials. Further exploration of the A5 issue at this meeting would be helpful, especially the commitment from the Government to that project given the very important infrastructural link it will be. The road runs through my constituency and I have a very parochial interest in it.

I attended the North-South Parliamentary Forum held in Newcastle and I saw a softening of some of the attitudes of people between the beginning of the conference and the end. This was very helpful to building relationships and trust between parliamentarians North and South. I would like to hear more of a flavour of where this is going.

With regard to speaking rights, which is something we have been interested in for many years, while we welcome the opportunity to participate at these meetings I am keen to discuss speaking rights in Leinster House as an MLA.

I welcome the Chairman's invitation to NAMA to come before the committee. It will provide a good opportunity for discussion, particularly on issues arising in Northern Ireland. Much concern has been expressed by members of the Northern Ireland Executive at the North-South Ministerial Council on the impact of NAMA in Northern Ireland. It is an issue that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have discussed directly with me on various occasions. NAMA board members are appointed by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the political parties here. The Minister undertook to take on board suggestions made at the meeting that he might consider the nomination of a representative from Northern Ireland but it is his decision.

A question on the A5 was asked directly and I want to be very clear that it is not being abandoned. The commitment of the Irish Government to the A5 and A8 projects is not in any way diminished. We are committed to proceeding as was agreed. However, as everybody knows we are going through an extraordinary set of financial circumstances here and we have had to recast the capital programme. In this recasting and reprioritising we have made a shift, for the moment, away from roads and transport projects to concentrate on capital works in schools and hospitals and in the enterprise area. Consistent with this, funding has not been provided for the A5 and A8 projects.

The Taoiseach has met the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on this issue and the case was made very strongly for the necessity of the Irish Government to provide funding in the coming years within the framework of our capital programme so planning can proceed on the Northern side also. This is why we have committed to £25 million each year in 2015 and 2016. Arising from this will be a reprofiling of the projects, and discussions will take place between officials on both sides of the Border on how this will proceed. The question was asked as to whether this is the end of the Southern contribution. It is not. We accept it will take much more than this to see the A5 completed and constructed. This funding has been provided as a clear indication of our continued commitment to the A5 project. Obviously, we would prefer to be in a position to make all of the funding available to make it happen now but it just is not possible given our current financial circumstances.

We are very anxious to see the North-South Parliamentary Forum progress, and I know progress is being made with regard to its establishment. Much discussion has taken place and Ms Gildernew's description of how the atmosphere has warmed to it is very true. The Ceann Comhairle has been having discussions with the Assembly Speaker on this and we hope progress will be made.

Discussions on commemorations are still at early stages. I have discussed the matter with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at each meeting I have had with them and I have also discussed it with the Secretary of State, Mr. Paterson. Discussions are taking place at an official level on how a framework for commemorations might be progressed, and the type of thematic model we are considering is the mutually respectful way in which Queen Elizabeth II and President McAleese managed the various events during the Queen's visit here. Mutual respect was clearly demonstrated. We will pursue this in further discussions and I would be very happy to hear and have guidance from the committee on the matter.

I thank the Tánaiste and his team for attending the committee meeting. Will the Tánaiste expand on the statement he made on the impact of bank lending policy by our two pillar banks on business in Northern Ireland with regard to the insecurity of the euro and the perceived flight of deposits from the Southern side of the Border to the Northern side? What impact would a discussion on this have on the recapitalisation of our banks?

Will the Tánaiste outline any discussions which took place on the ongoing security situation and the worrying rise in dissident activity? This forum has had much discussion on the commemorative process we will go through in the coming years, with a presentation from the Parades Commission at our previous meeting. We are very sensitive to the potential for divisive emotions to arise in the coming ten years. However, there is also the potential for great coming together in celebration and I am intrigued and encouraged by the discussion taking place on tourism and the potential positive effects of these commemorations. I would appreciate if the Tánaiste expanded on these points.

I thank the Tánaiste for attending the committee meeting. I note the point he made on the A5 and that the intention is to concentrate on schools and education in the capital programme. This is to be welcomed because we are in the middle of a very deep recession. I welcome that the Tánaiste is committed to the project in the long term if the funds are available. I live along the N2 and I understand funding has been pulled from the section between Monaghan and Emyvale. In his speech the Tánaiste mentioned road safety. People travelling to the north west must still contend with this section of road. Given that work on the A5 may be stretched out for a number of years are the necessary improvements on this section of the N2 required given the volume of traffic on it? It would be sensible to complete the N2 now given the delay in the completion of the A5 project. Will the Tánaiste comment on this?

With regard to tourism in the region, I live in the Border area and there does not seem to be a tie up in tourism along the Fermanagh, Monaghan, Armagh and Tyrone Border areas. All of the Ulster Way is in the Six Counties and the Monaghan Way is in Monaghan. Surely it is time to have a proper Ulster Way in Ulster? Tourism Ireland could publish appropriate documentation to get people from the North and the South to explore the whole of Ulster.

The ambulance service was mentioned. I am interested in its development and it is important to people living in Border areas. Do our guests have further information for the committee in this regard?

Chairman

I will take one more question before I ask the Tánaiste to respond.

Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA

I thank the Tánaiste for his submission and I appreciate the Government's political commitment to the A5 and A8 projects. It was a shock when the withdrawal of the funding was first announced, but a second shock was the quick discussion by some Northern Ministers of redistributing the money. The Executive has re-emphasised that the projects are an executive decision and that the Northern contribution has been ring-fenced.

Following the meetings with the Taoiseach and the North-South Ministerial Council, the extra €25 million in each of the years 2015 and 2016 and the reprofiling have restored hope to the project. It was always the case that the Irish Government's big money was not going to kick in until year three. Years one and two were to be carried by the Northern Executive. To date, €40 million has been spent 50:50 between North and South. Given that officials coming out of the North-South Ministerial Council have been asked to reprofile, will the Irish Government consider increasing its two €25 million inputs slightly? It would make the reprofiling exercise a live and real option.

After all North-South Ministerial Council and sectoral Minister-to-Minister meetings, the Northern Executive has a report back mechanism and at least a half hour of debate. There does not seem to be such a facility within the Oireachtas. There is a fair degree of knowledge in the Six Counties of what is occurring at North-South meetings. As someone who lives in County Donegal, I believe there is less knowledge in the South of these meetings, why they are meaningful and how productive they are. Perhaps the Tánaiste will consider how to address this issue in a meaningful way.

Regarding the issues raised by Deputy Ó Ríordáin, the Northern Ireland property portfolio taken over by NAMA has been a source of concern to Northern Ministers. The issue has been discussed at North-South Ministerial Council plenary meetings and at bilateral meetings of the Minister, Mr. Sammy Wilson, and his current and former counterparts in this jurisdiction. NAMA must manage its loans on a commercial basis and the agency fully recognises the importance of ensuring the continued viability of businesses that can generate cash flow to repay debt and provide sustainable employment. Particular Northern concerns are being borne in mind.

Issues were raised about the Northern operations of the two Irish-based pillar banks. Similar issues arise in the South, for example, the difficulties associated with lending to small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. As part of the conditions for the banks' recapitalisation, the Government has set down certain targets that must be met by the banks in respect of their lending to SMEs. The Government's economic management council has met the banks to discuss their lending practices to SMEs in particular. We plan to have further meetings with them about these issues. As part of these meetings, we will include in our discussions the issues and concerns raised at the North-South Ministerial Council about their lending practices on both sides of the Border.

There was no discussion on security issues at the North-South Ministerial Council meeting in Armagh. Separate discussions are held by the justice Ministers. While neither attended the North-South Ministerial Council's last meeting, they met yesterday. Security issues remain their concern.

Deputy Conlan referred to road safety and the condition of the road between Monaghan and Emyvale. I will bring his concerns to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. The Deputy also referred to tourism, which was comprehensively discussed at the North-South Ministerial Council meeting. Through tourism and the development of practical outcomes from the discussion, considerable progress can be made in North-South co-operation.

Our decision on the A5 is a product of our financial difficulties. As far as the Irish Government is concerned, there is no pulling back from the project and we are committed to it. We have needed to defer or reschedule certain transport and infrastructural projects because of our financial circumstances. Unfortunately, the A5 project has been considered in that context. I hope our difficult economic and financial circumstances will not last forever. As the situation improves, we can consider reprofiling our financial commitment to the A5.

The suggestion that we might consider a different way of reporting to the Oireachtas on North-South Ministerial Council meetings is one I have been considering. There is a detailed system of reporting back on the Northern side. The mechanism in the Oireachtas is through this committee. I am considering Mr. Doherty's suggestion that we need to give some thought to reporting to the Dáil, the Seanad or both in plenary session. I agree on the need for an equivalence of reporting arrangements arising from North-South Ministerial Council meetings to underlie the importance we attach to the institution.

Chairman

Five people have expressed an interest in speaking. As I am conscious of the time, I will take those five in one batch.

I will be brief. I thank the Tánaiste and his colleagues for briefing the committee. I support Mr. Doherty's claim that the Oireachtas as a wider body would benefit if the Dáil received the briefing.

The Tánaiste mentioned that it was the Minister for Finance's responsibility to appoint NAMA's board members. Has the North-South Ministerial Council ever sought or suggested to the Minister that he appoint a Northern Irish member? If not, could it be considered? If the committee suggested that appointing someone from the North would be beneficial, how much weight would our suggestion carry?

I welcome the Tánaiste and his officials. I am sorry for jumping back and forward, but the comments on NAMA were interesting. Part of the big worry in the North is that there will be a fire sale in that regard. It was indicated that Northern concerns were to be borne in mind but I do not know what that means. Is it a primary objective of the chairman of NAMA to bring money back in or will the all-Ireland economy be prioritised? That would be a concern. I know Mr. Sammy Wilson, MP, MLA, has mentioned this as a dangerous phase. That uncertainty must be clarified and all of us would be horrified about the idea of some kind of fire sale for short-term gain that would cripple the growing economy in the North.

There was mention in the document of bilateral meetings being cordial and friendly, which is good. There was a statement in June from the Government that we wanted to broaden and deepen areas of North-South co-operation, and this was to be emphasised by officials. Was that shared by counterparts in the meetings? There was agreement on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, and we are to revisit that in June. One of the more frustrating aspects is the slowness of change. If the job is done, there seems to be a long time between action in changing agencies. Why does it take so long?

As somebody who was principal of two schools in the Border area in the category for most of my teaching career, I was very interested to hear about the survey on the sustainability of schools along the Border. Last year I was involved in a junior achievers programme where 18 schools along the Border of all traditions were working together to develop links and understanding. I would have thought the schools along the Border were quite sustainable but I am interested to hear the basis of that analysis.

Is there any progress on a bill of rights, as provided for under the Good Friday Agreement? We should move that along. We discussed the A5 road but we should not forget that there is another project that has been sidelined, the Narrow Water bridge. As Mr. Pat Doherty, MP, MLA, has indicated, I would like to see this gain political support at this stage rather than be thrown in the scheuch. It is a very good project, not least from a tourism perspective and in the metaphorical building of bridges. I ask the Tánaiste to use whatever offices he can to persuade the transport section to allow that project to go to the planning stage, for which funding exists. If there is a worry that there will be pressure to fund the bridge itself, we can cross that hurdle when we come to it and wait for better times.

I welcome the Tanaiste and his officials. I have two questions regarding tourism. There may not be too much done on "The Gathering", which will happen in 2013 but the other issue in which I have an interest is the Titanic centenary. The Taoiseach launched a book in Caltra, County Galway, entitled The Titanic and West of Ireland Connections, and the Chairman may not be aware that Caltra is the parish shared by myself and the Tánaiste. There seems to be much interest in the centenary. Will the Tánaiste give an update on it?

I reiterate what Senator D'Arcy said as I live along the Border in that part of the country. I agree that the Narrow Water bridge is a major project and word of its shelving came as a significant disappointment to the area. We have spoken about the forthcoming commemorations and there is no greater project than building the bridge between North and South. It should not be shelved and I would appreciate the Tánaiste's views.

There was mention of road safety and the co-ordinated approach in the mutual recognition of penalty points for drink-driving. Is there a timescale for this and what work is progressing? I live along that stretch of the road and travel the M1 every day, and there is a significant issue with people who can nip across the Border and avoid penalty points because of different car registrations.

I thank the members for their contributions. With regard to Deputy Regina Doherty's question, the Northern Ireland Ministers suggested the possibility of appointing a representative from Northern Ireland on the board of NAMA. The Minister for Finance has undertaken to consider what they had to say. It was also made clear that the arrangements put in place for the provision of information from NAMA to Members of the Oireachtas will also apply to members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I should add a slight caveat as in the legislation establishing NAMA there is a prohibition on Members of the Oireachtas lobbying NAMA. There are arrangements whereby Members of the Oireachtas may obtain information from NAMA in respect of particular matters, with corresponding arrangements available for those in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That has been confirmed.

To answer Deputy Crowe, NAMA will not in any event engage in fire sales either North or South of the Border and must manage its portfolio in a commercial manner. I referred to the cordial and constructive engagement of Ministers and that is important for good working relations. I believe that approach is shared, although there is not agreement all the time on issues. There is a very practical and good working relationship which we hope to build on over time. One of the factors which might help the process is the fact that we are in a period of four years on both sides of the Border without elections since the re-establishment of the institutions. I always consider matters in a positive light and in this period we can work together over a prolonged period. If we succeed, as the Deputy would wish, there is always the renewal of our mandate.

The Deputy asked why the Irish Lights Agency was never set up. My understanding is that a number of complexities and technical issues arose. At the time, the NSMC, at its plenary meeting in June 2002, agreed that possible alternatives should be examined. The St. Andrews Agreement later provided for a review group to input into work on the identification of suitable alternatives to the agency, and that review is continuing.

In response to Senator D'Arcy, there have been discussions between the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, and the Northern Ireland Minister for Education, John O'Dowd, on the issue of schools along the Border. It is no secret that in both jurisdictions issues relating to the sustainability of some rural schools have been under consideration by the respective Departments. As part of that, they have discussed where there are schools along the Border areas, on either side of the Border, where viability might be at issue and whether, for example, there is potential for some co-operation in that area for the catchment of those schools, depending on the educational preferences of parents and pupils and so forth. That discussion is at an early stage. They reported on it to the NSMC.

On the bill of rights, there is no agreement among the parties at present. We very much regret this and we will continue to work in favour of securing a bill of rights.

Senator D'Arcy and Senator Moran raised the issue of the Narrow Water bridge. Apart from the A5 and the A8, it will be some time before it is possible to advance other projects, including the Narrow Water bridge between County Louth and County Down, because of the limited funding currently available. I heard what the Senators said about the possibility of progressing the planning side of the project. Again, one of the risks in progressing planning too far in advance of being ready to proceed to construction is that one will have to revise the planning at a later stage, so there is the issue of not committing funding that in the course of time might not be productive. However, I note the Senators' comments about that. It is something to which we can give further consideration.

On the issue of penalty points, it was suggested on Friday that we would pursue work to match up the penalties. There are differences in the penalty points regimes on both sides of the Border, and there was a discussion about, perhaps, progressing ways in which we can match the regimes.

On Deputy Kitt's point about the Titanic, that underlines the deep closeness between my and Deputy Kitt’s native parish and the city of Belfast. The people of Belfast built the Titanic and many of our neighbours’ relatives perished on it. I welcome the publication of the local history of the Titanic by Mattie Kilroy which was launched by the Taoiseach last Monday.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Tánaiste for his helpful engagement with us this evening. I commend him and his Department on the work they are doing on North-South issues. We are very interested in promoting dialogue on these issues; it is a priority for the committee this year and I expect it will continue to be next year. I am grateful for the Tánaiste's attendance and update on developments.

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP, MLA

There was nothing wrong with the Titanic when she left Belfast.

Chairman

Thank you. Is there any other business?

Based on the Tánaiste's response regarding the North-South Ministerial Council, I propose that the committee send a letter to the Minister for Finance suggesting that it would be a good idea for the Minister to seriously consider putting a Northern Ireland resident on the board of NAMA.

Chairman

We have a meeting on NAMA in February. Do you wish to do it in advance of that or would you like to wait until that meeting takes place?

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP, MLA

I understand there is a vacancy on the board of NAMA at present. Once that is filled, there might not be another vacancy for some time. That was the pressing need.

I believe we should do it now.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. Okay, we will do that. Our next meeting, on Thursday, 8 December 2011, will be on combating sectarianism through sport. We have received tentative agreement from representatives of the GAA and the Irish Football Association, IFA, in the North to attend. We are also considering a few other organisations. You are welcome to attend that.

Dr. Alasdair McDonnell, MP, MLA

Certainly the Irish Rugby Football Union, IRFU, in the southern context and Ulster Rugby in Northern Ireland would be very important.

Chairman

We will consider inviting them as well. Thank you for that suggestion.

I agree with that point. It is very important.

Chairman

Great. Thank you for the suggestion. Members will be advised of the time the meeting will be held.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.16 p.m. until noon on Thursday, 8 December 2011.
Top
Share