British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

This is a three section Bill to amend the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, of 22 March 1999. It is a technical amendment to that Act, designed to ensure the change in the status of the follow-up programme to the current PEACE programme does not inhibit the North-South Special EU Programmes Implementation Body carrying out the functions envisaged for it in the original legislation.

The British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, made provision inter alia in relation to the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland establishing the North-South imple mentation bodies. The annex to that Agreement sets out the functions of each of the six implementation bodies to be established under the Agreement, while part 4 of Annex 1 sets out the functions of the Special EU Programmes Body and parts 4 and 7 of Annex 2 set out the arrangements to apply to the body. This body's functions, include, inter alia, functions that relate to both the current PEACE programme, which is a Community initiative, and to its successor, which is also categorised as a Community initiative in the Agreement and in the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999.

Following the EU European Council in Berlin in March, it was decided, in the context of reducing the overall number of EU Community Initiatives, that the PEACE programme would henceforth be categorised as mainstream Structural Funding. Legal advice form the Office of the Attorney General and from the British-Northern Ireland legal advisers is that remedial action should be taken to ensure that the agreed role of the Special EU Programmes Body in regard to the PEACE programme, post-1999, is not ultra vires.To ensure legal certainty and as proof against possible legal challenge, the Irish and British Governments have agreed to effect a technical supplementary agreement, which will represent an interpretative statement on the previous Agreement. This has been effected through the exchange of letters between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as detailed in the Schedule to this Bill. The Agreement is intended to be a subsequent Agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty for the purposes of Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The supplementary Agreement will ensure that, despite the decision of the Berlin European Council, the successor to the PEACE programme will not be a Community initiative, the original intention of both Governments that the Special EU Programmes Body will cover the successor programme will be carried into effect.

It is considered legally appropriate to bring forward primary rather than secondary legislation, as the provision for making regulations in section 5 of the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, relates to facilitating implementation of the existing Agreement and could not safely be used to give effect in domestic law to a technical amending Agreement.

Our objective must be to ensure that the Special EU Programmes Body can function concurrently with other implementation bodies as soon as the British-Irish Agreement comes into force. We must, therefore, have the amending legislation enacted prior to that date. The UK Government is making parallel statutory provision in its jurisdiction.

I wish to comment briefly on the functions agreed by the parties to the Agreement for the Special EU Programmes Body. The EU programmes involved in the present round of Structural Funds 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 the Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel. A 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 body.

The body will have significant functions in relation to post-1999 Structural Funds. 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 Community Initiatives and the successor to PEACE 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 the successor to the PEACE programme.

The body will also be directly responsible for a new proactive 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 of the respective national plans. The body will provide a unique focus point to ensure maximum complementarity and added value in the delivery of cross-Border programmes. It will facilitate the drafting of cross-Border EU initiatives in a way that will ensure a coherent, cohesive, integrated and effective response to the problems and the challenges posed by the peace process.

I should emphasise that under the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, the operations of the devolved implementing funding agencies, for example, the Area Development Management and the Combat Poverty Agency, will continue to function as before. I compliment them on their efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out their functions. They will continue to play a full role in the development of northern and Border counties. EU funding in respect of the successor to the peace programme is expected to be some 500 million euros, of which 100 million will be spent in the southern Border counties. In addition, Ireland's share in the next round of Community initiatives is expected to be 150 million euros.

There are two elements in the current process to copperfasten the function of the special EU programmes body in relation to the successor to the current peace programme. The first is the exchange of letters between the two Governments agreeing to the interpretation of the Agreement. The text of these letters is included in a Schedule to the Bill. Section 1 provides for a definition of the Principal Act as the British Irish Agreement Act, 1999. Section 2(a) provides for the insertion of an additional definition in the Principal Act of the supplementary agreement, being the letters exchanged between the two Governments and included as a Schedule to the Bill.

Section 2(b) provides for an addition to section 23 of the Principal Act, which ensures that references to the functions of the special EU programmes body should be construed in accordance with the supplementary agreement and include the successor to the current peace programme. Section 3 gives the short title and collective citation and provides for the commencement.

The proposed legislative amendment will ensure legal certainty in the new round of Structural Funds to guard against legal challenge and, with the corresponding British statutory provision, will underpin the technical supplementary agreement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Manning

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a technical Bill and there is nothing of substance in it. However, it is important in that it will ensure legal certainty in the new round of Structural Funds and will help to ensure the legal underpinning of the original Agreement. It merely guarantees legal certainty.

I wish to complain about the way in which the Bill was presented to us. An explanatory memorandum was not published with it. We are told that this was because it was only a three section Bill, yet the Minister of State has provided us with a helpful explanation and has told us what the Bill is about. It is not for civil servants or Government to decide whether a Bill should have an explanatory memorandum. It should be normal practice. The guts of the Bill are contained in section 2, which is very difficult to read because there are a number of references to the Principal Act, etc. As a matter of procedure we should be given an explanatory memorandum and we are the better judges of whether such is needed.

However, I readily support the Bill. The background against which it is being passed is more relevant today. There have been many debates in the House, before and after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, and during every one there was a sense of optimism that the process was moving forward, however slowly, and certain targets would be met. Today the mood and atmosphere are very different.

Last night I attended the launch of a book about the Orange Order written by a former classmate of mine, Ruth Dudley Edwards. Reverend William Bingham, one of the saner and braver Orange Order leaders, spoke and he said simply that the polarisation between the two communities was greater now than at any time before or after the Agreement. He is a sane and decent man who spoke from his experience in his community. That is a frightening comment. In spite of all we hoped for and the efforts of the bodies referred to by the Minister of State and the Government leaders, we have reached this juncture.

This morning a march is starting in Derry. However high minded the motives of some of those taking part in it may be, one can only see it as misguided and something which is likely to lead to provocation along the way. The impasse at Garvaghy Road is ongoing and we are close to another conflict at Drumcree because there has not been a resolution to the problem, despite huge efforts by a great number of people on all sides. The planting of pipe bombs which are targeted at schools and innocent, decent, ordinary people without any regard to the consequences is continuing. We have witnessed the murder of Rosemary Nelson and the continuing distrust of the RUC; last week's murders of alleged drug dealers, probably by the IRA; and the daily worsening of the atmosphere between elected politicians in Northern Ireland.

Consequently, we must look at this legislation in a way that we have not during any of the debates in the House since the Agreement. It is something which fills everybody with a great deal of despair because the worst thing that has happened is the poisoning of the atmosphere and the breakdown of civilised relations between the elected politicians. That must not be allowed to continue.

However, one must always acknowledge the huge progress that has been made since the Agreement. One of the biggest tasks facing the leaders of both Governments and the elected politicians in the North is to ensure that this progress and the achievements that have taken place are not jeopardised by the current sense of danger. The two Prime Ministers have set a new deadline; only history will judge whether they were right to do so. There will be no complaint from me about what they are doing. They are in the driving seat and have been responsible for an enormous amount of progress to date.

One must ask whether the new deadline and new series of talks is based more on hope and an attempt to recreate the momentum that made the Good Friday Agreement possible and the positive atmosphere which characterised the culmination of those talks. It will be very hard to recreate that atmosphere and difficult to regain the momentum because too much has happened over the past months to make that easy. The European elections were not helpful on the Unionist side but much else has also not been helpful.

In a way we must be prepared for the worst and the possibility that things will not work out on this occasion. This is the first time that I have said that since the Agreement. That is why it is vitally important that the two Governments have contingency plans in place which are aimed at salvaging as far as possible what has been achieved over the past year. Hopefully, we will not reach such a juncture and the momentum will be generated once more. However, it is difficult to see what proposals can work because so much has been tried. Every aspect has been looked at, but perhaps it can be presented in a new way which will make an agreement possible.

Ultimately, however, I must agree with the editorial in this morning's edition of the Belfast Newsletter which states that essentially this problem which cannot be resolved by Mr. Blair and Mr. Ahern. It can only be resolved by the people of Northern Ireland talking to each other and reaching agreement. The Prime Ministers have done a great deal and can do more, but ultimately if dialogue cannot be recommenced, especially among the elected politicians, the situation looks very bleak. I am sorry to sound so gloomy in the context of a Bill which this side of the House does not oppose and which is aimed at ensuring the co-operation, positive economic development and acquisition of funds for the Border region will be put beyond any possibility of legal challenge. I wish the Bill well, but I also wish that we were discussing it in an atmosphere more conducive to long-term hope.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome the Bill which is another important step on the right road in terms of the future of the island of Ireland and both communities on it. I agree with Senator Manning's comments about the fact that Members did not receive the customary explanatory note on the Bill. This may have been an oversight and it was not intended as a discourtesy to the House because the Department and the Minister have always been most courteous to the Seanad. To date any information we required prior to the introduction of legislation has been forthcoming. I thank them for that, but as the former Leader, Senator Manning, who has been a respected Member of the House for many years, pointed out, such oversights should not take place. I agree with the Senator's sentiments in that regard.

I listened with interest to the contributions of the Minister and Senator Manning. It is a difficult time in the history of Northern Ireland. However, all of us who were associated with and participated in bringing the Good Friday Agreement to fruition knew that at some stage there would be a difficult time when a matter went to the wire. It appears this is such a time. There was never a more critical period in the history of the Good Friday Agreement, but there have been many achievements in terms of the setting up of infrastructure and bodies.

When considering the previous legislation in the Houses of the Oireachtas and the House of Commons, Members knew that at some stage a specific issue would bring matters to the wire. Unfortunately, it appears this is the time and I hope and pray that the wisdom of the people of Northern Ireland in the political system and the political parties, the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and the goodwill from the US President, Bill Clinton, and others in America and elsewhere will help bring about a solution to the decommissioning problem.

The recent progress of the economy in the South and the progress of the economy in the North is beginning to make since the Good Friday Agreement is unbelievable. Investment is being made by multinational companies to assist in rebuilding parts of Northern Ireland and enhancing the entire island of Ireland. The success of the economy in the South could be mirrored in the North in the next five years. Business people in Northern Ireland were successful prior to 1968. They were years ahead of the South in relation to commerce. The South has become one of the most prosperous and successful economies in the world over the past ten to 15 years and young people are looking to their future in the North and the South. We have an enormous amount in common and by working together we could enhance both economies.

This is the positive message I wish to give in my contribution. In 1987 and 1988 the economy of the South was probably one of the worst in the European Union. If it was possible to turn it around through education and high tech industries, and for the South to become one of the most prosperous countries in the EU today, there is nothing the young people in the North cannot do for their generation and country in the next five years to ensure they achieve similar success. It was great to watch the young people on the discussion programme on UTV this week with the British Prime Minister. They are a great generation, they know where they are going and what they want to achieve.

Members of the Seanad, the Dáil, the House of Commons and Stormont are all working to get around the various obstacles for the good of future generations. In that context, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill because it will guarantee large allocations of funding from the EU. The Minister mentioned figures up to 500 million euro. Most of this money will go towards infrastructure and building the economy of Northern Ireland. This is what the future and the Good Friday Agreement is about. The Agreement will give the younger generation in the North of Ireland the chance of a better future and life than their parents and grandparents over the past 30 years.

A peaceful Ireland would be prosperous and offer plenty of employment. Fifteen years ago, the unemployment rate was 17 or 18 per cent. The current level is 6.4 per cent but it is moving towards the target of 5 per cent. In excess of 75,000 to 80,000 people from Northern Ireland could be working in the South at present. There is a possibility that all these people could work in their own villages and towns in the North. This is within their grasp in the next few weeks and people should behave responsibly.

It behoves the leaders of the political parties at the final stages to have courage. As a former colleague, Paudge Brennan, who was a learned and long-standing Member of Parliament, often said, it is never the wrong time to do the right thing, irrespective of the problem or obstacle. As the Leader of the House, I call on the people and the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland to note that there was never a better time to do the right thing.

Mr. O'Toole

The Minister would probably agree that the saddest part of his speech is the phrase "as soon as the British-Irish Agreement comes into force". None of us could have anticipated when we debated this matter previously that 18 months later we would still be wondering when it will come into force.

The Good Friday Agreement opened up all manner of possibilities. It was probably six months later, in the week before Christmas that year, that we finally saw what could be done. The Agreement which was signed at that time set up a number of extraordinary possibilities. It defined, described and put in place the structures for the six implementation bodies, the ten departments of state, the co-operation groups and the east-west structure. At that time we found a North-South dimension and an east-west dimension, relationships between Belfast and Dublin, Westminster and Dublin, and Belfast, Dublin and Westminster. The Good Friday Agreement achieved what we had been trying to do for ten years – it established, dealt with and gave recognition to all the sets of relationships, in many ways.

It is sad that we should have to discuss it this morning. Some aspects of the Agreement are ready for operation and many groups are trying hard to get this working but, sadly, they are waiting for the political leadership in the North to get its act together. In the area I know best, education, the INTO has established a North-South committee and is working closely with our colleagues in the Ulster Teachers' Union to identify areas of co-operation and see how they can be developed. We know what they are and we can do it. Mar shampla, tá Roinn Stáit ag plé le cúrsaí Gaeilge. Chomh maith le sin, tá Gaeilge in san chuid den Chonradh atá bainteach le Tuaisceart-Deisceart. Freisin, is féidir plé le Gaeilge arís san sliocht oirthear-iarthair. Developments since the Good Friday Agreement will make the structures even more efficient.

There are elected assemblies in Scotland and Wales but we who are working in this regard have failed to give the proper substance to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is disgraceful that it should have to wait any longer. The teachers' unions in Britain and Ireland have discussed education on a number of occasions and there are broad strands of interest and agreement. On the question of languages, there are connections between Scots Gaelic, Welsh and an Gaeilge, and many other issues can be dealt with on an east-west basis.

The ICTU has worked in close co-operation with IBEC in the South and the Confederation of British Industry in the North, and the three organisations have held joint meetings to make the Agreement work. We have looked at issues on the ground and consulted the Treaty of Rome in discussing matters like the free movement of labour North and South. In my area, this relates to the recognition of teachers both sides of the Border and it applies similarly to all qualifications, trades and crafts. These matters must be decided. Trade unions and employers North and South are close to full agreement on this, which is unprecedented. We have issued a number of joint statements in the last six months. This is the kind of progress which is possible. We have also met the Scottish TUC and Welsh members of the British TUC. We can see that in broader areas like transport and industrial development we can pull together an important new set of relationships, a positive synergy, which will release a new energy into the contact between the two islands. We have already seen how it can be made to work more effectively.

While all this is happening, we are faced with the possibility of men in bowler hats walking through an underprivileged area, the Garvaghy Road, in order to assert their superiority. Members in this House know that I do not have a one sided viewpoint – I can be as critical as one side as of another, depending on how I see it. People must look beyond the current position into the future to see how it can work. I deal with people North and South, I have an office in Belfast, and I do not know anyone who wants us to go back to what was happening in the North one year or 20 years ago, because we have moved beyond that. It is extraordinary that we should take decisions other than something to improve our future.

Some parents in Northern Ireland still worry about their children going to school. On the first occasion we discussed the Agreement, a year and a half ago, the news which affected me most was that parents in working class areas paid for a taxi every morning to bring their children to and from school because it was the only safe way to transport them. We are almost back to that again. Media coverage of the North is not fair at the moment. There have been pipe bombings every night for months and the Nationalist community is under threat. The process is breaking down before our eyes, there is no point pretending otherwise and it is getting worse as weeks go by. It is two weeks until the height of the marching season and it will get worse again.

We would like what we signed up for and agreed to be implemented – the ten departments of state in the North working and interacting with Departments in the South, and the implementation bodies working in the way which was set out. Setting up those bodies is like dipping our toes in the water, they are not hugely important in the broad sense. Inland waterways are important to people like Senator Mooney and myself, who take pleasure in them, but in this context they are simply an indicator of what can be done. The same is the case with the Commissioners of Irish Lights and our coastal service – it is important to people like myself who will be sailing on occasion, but in general terms it is a stepping stone which shows we can work together, responsibilities can permeate through both jurisdictions, and we can learn from this and move on to new things. After making the implementation bodies work we can concentrate on the co-operation issues, which have huge potential and scope.

By showing that the North-South strand can work, we can then move to the east-west strand, the Council of the Isles. My firm belief, although it is not widely shared at present, is that the true and bottomless potential is in the east-west strand. Interaction between all parts of both islands would give us a new force in Europe. I have seen it work in education, where the unions on both islands work closely together. We have no difficulty working closely together, whatever our differences may be.

We could, for instance, examine issues like ferry transport and the establishment of industry from the point of view of both islands, in terms of opening up movement between them. We get stuck on the wrong issues. One major question at the moment is what should be the main ferry connection across the Irish Sea; should it be in Wexford, close to the Minister's constituency, or in Larne? The answer is simple – there should be at least three and perhaps four ferry connections – from Belfast to southern Scotland, Dublin to Wales, Wexford to Wales, and perhaps also from Greenore to Britain. There is no reason not to have easy interaction back and forth – in commuting terms Britain is almost as close to the centre of Dublin as Bray is on some mornings. There is no big deal about this movement.

I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill which is another example of the parallel legislation mentioned previously. There is great potential and the Celtic tiger would pale into insignificance compared to what we could do if we harnessed and directed the positive synergies of the structures and relationships under the Good Friday Agreement. I hope this brings us a step closer to that.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. On an unrelated issue, but in the context of his brief, I want to express my appreciation for his initiative and that of the Government on the purchase of Farmleigh in the Phoenix Park. It is an indication of the maturity of the State that we have the vision to make a decision of that nature. Such a decision would not have been made years ago because we would have been concerned about what people might say. Farmleigh is a wonderful asset for the country, part of the family jewels, and I compliment the Minister on it because I know he played a central role in the context of the Government's decision.

We were all impressed, not for the first time, with Senator O'Toole's contribution and his impassioned plea for what could be summed up as common sense. As he spoke, however, I could not help but reflect on his vision of the future, which we all would share, and the logical arguments he was making for a better understanding and closer relationships between North and South, east and west. I wondered how that would impact on the individuals who are planting pipe bombs in Catholic Nationalist homes on a nightly basis in Northern Ireland. How will the philosophies, ethos and concepts outlined by Senator O'Toole, that all of us share, impact on what he referred to as the bowler-hatted gentleman who will march down the Garvaghy Road in the interests of what they call "religious freedom and tolerance"?

It brings home to us all the enormous challenge we face and highlights the huge gulf between what the vast majority of fair-minded people on this island and the neighbouring island believe is the way forward and a small but potent minority of what are little more than medieval men and women. They are fighting a medieval war that ended in Europe 300 years ago, yet it is still as real to the people who are planting pipe bombs and taking out Nationalists because they are Catholics – let there be no equivocation about it. It is sectarian hatred that is behind these attacks and we must find a way to overcome it.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, I heard experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs speak yesterday about Balkan affairs and the question of ethnic hatred came up time and again. Along with my colleagues on the committee, I reflected on what happened after the Second World War when there was a process of "de-Nazification" because the people of Germany had been so brainwashed by the propaganda of the Nazi regime for 12 years that the Allies felt there was a need to re-educate the civilian population of Germany. The benefits of that can be seen in Germany today. Germany is a model of democracy in central and western Europe. Something similar will have to happen in the Balkans, not just among the Serbs but also the Kosovar Albanians.

In the debates that have taken place here through the years about co-education, Members pointed to segregated education as being a symptom of the sectarian hatred in Northern Ireland. I do not necessarily share that view. The two Governments should begin to examine seriously the type of society that produces the psychopaths and the mindless violence that can motivate otherwise civilised people at the latter end of the 20th century to engage in mayhem and death. There must be a better way. All the talk about implementation bodies, North-South relations and east-west relations will not change the simple fact that there is a group of people in Northern Ireland who are blinded by history and hatred. No amount of legislation, European money or agreements will change that unless there is root and branch reform of the conceptual approach which has divided that society.

I realise we may be accused of being pleased with ourselves, but we fought hard for the type of society we enjoy. During all the troubles in the North, a major fear of the majority of people in the South was not that the problem would be solved but that it would not spill over into this part of the island. That is a sad reflection on us. How often have we heard senior politicians say that despite their best efforts and the attention they had given to Northern Ireland affairs, particularly over the past ten years, it has not been reflected in the ballot boxes in the South? Politicians from any party who went on the hustings and presented their vision of closer relations between both islands did not have an impact in certain constituencies in the South.

We should not feel so clever because we tend to forget what is happening in the North when violence takes over. I am concerned that a similar syndrome is developing here as a result of the intractable and endless negotiations taking place since the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Yet again, people are beginning to switch off when it comes to Northern Ireland and the old cliché that evil triumphs when good men, and I presume good women, do nothing holds true. As Senator O'Toole said, there is a real danger that we will sink slowly back into the abyss even though the vast majority of people North and South do not want to return to violence.

I am voicing the views of many people but we should be on our guard against complacency. The Good Friday Agreement was signed, and over 70 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland voted for pro-Agreement candidates, but a time bomb is ticking away deep in the heart of the Unionist community. That is a cancer it will have to cut out if, along with its neighbours in Northern Ireland, it is to work towards a better future for all.

I am particularly interested in the aspects of the proposed legislation as they will impact on the Structural Funds that will be allocated to the Border counties. I visited Brussels recently as a member of a subcommittee of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. One of the reasons we were in Brussels was to meet with various heads of the directorates responsible for the implementation of the Structural and Social Funds post-2000, the special initiative which forms part of this legislation and the continuation of the PEACE money. We were made aware at that time that there were implications for the decisions taken in Berlin to reduce the number of Community Initiative programmes from 15 to three. It is in that context that this legislation is before us. Although it may seem like a technical measure, from what I heard in Brussels the reduction in the Community Initiatives will lead to a more efficient disbursal and much better administration of the funds post-2000.

I agree with the reasons outlined by the Minister of State on Second Stage that it should not be open at any time to any legal challenge, real or imagined. Nobody in Government has any specific individual or groupings in mind when they refer to the possible threat of legal chal lenge, but I could not help but think, considering the history of the extreme Unionists in Northern Ireland, that Dr. Paisley or some of his people might believe that European money was not acceptable in Northern Ireland and might decide to challenge this Agreement if it were not changed.

I am a member of ICBAN, the Irish Central Border Area Network, one of the three Border groupings representing local authorities on both sides of the Border. I believe the Minister implied in his contribution, and no doubt will confirm in his reply the commitment given when the primary legislation was introduced in this House, that the Border groupings will have the same status in terms of input into the North-South implementation bodies as the bodies mentioned in this report such as INTERREG, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Area Development Management. It is important that they do this because they are currently involved in compiling an integrated area plan for the entire Border area. This covers many aspects of structural funding referred to by Senator O'Toole.

It is vital that the implementation bodies disperse this funding. Going back to my membership of the British-Irish body, it has become more and more apparent that there are different nuances and different emphases in a number of important economic areas between Britain and Ireland, specifically in agriculture. There is certainly a far greater benefit for North of Ireland farmers to be part of an all-island situation with a joint approach rather than having their interests looked after from London. UK officials and Government have conceded in our discussions with them that they are sympathetic to the view that there should be a joint approach on agriculture. I am sure the same will apply in other areas.

I agree with what has been said about east-west relations. The future for this island, North and South, is a closer relationship at legislative level initially between the various assemblies. I am one of those working hard within the British-Irish body to ensure we do not just focus myopically on what is going on North and South, but that we also look east-west to strengthen the relations already built upon. I believe we are in an era of friendliness and close co-operation between Britain and Ireland which is unprecedented in spite of what is taking place in the North of Ireland.

I welcome the legislation in the context in which it has been presented. I hope the implementation bodies will be set up and that we can get over the hump of decommissioning. I pray that David Trimble shows the leadership we have come to expect of him and that he does not allow himself, like previous Unionist leaders, to be torn down by the backwoodsmen of the Unionist Party. Hopefully the two sides will get together and that next week there will be some semblance of agreement on the setting up of an Executive. Otherwise, we can only think about what has hap pened in Serbia and what has been taking place in the former Yugoslavia.

Dr. Henry

I begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for all the work done in this area. The amount of time and effort this and previous Governments have put into the Agreement has been enormous. It is almost impossible to contemplate that the Agreement could fall at this stage. It would be so bitter if, after all the efforts of so many years, we found ourselves back to the appalling vista of the violence of previous decades. I read a book on Northern Ireland recently recounting the age and religion of the various people killed and injured there. Without a shadow of doubt, the civilian Catholic population suffered most deaths and injuries. Therefore, from the Nationalist point of view, it is extremely important not to return to the situation which pertained in the 1970s and 1980s. It is too easy to forget that in the early 1970s 300 and 400 people a year were being killed in Northern Ireland from all sides of the community. This is why it is so terrifying to have the deadline merely one week away which could see the breakdown of the whole process.

Following these pessimistic words, we must do all we can to ensure this does not happen. I support what has been said by Senators regarding the bodies which are to be set up and which have been set up. The bodies, which do not necessarily come under the Agreement, must be fostered and encouraged. I regret the attack and the call for the resignation last week of the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam. This was most unhelpful. She has put a splendid effort into Northern Ireland and, by a totally different approach to the two sides, she has managed to make great strides in the peace process.

Civic society in Northern Ireland has also made great efforts in this regard. I sometimes think it is some of the people involved in politics who are making the least effort. Great efforts have been made in my area of health where co-operation between the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland and the Department of Health and Children here has never been better. If we now asked the people of Donegal to turn tail, head for Dublin and forgo the facilities available to them at Altnagelvin Hospital in Derry, we would get a very sharp reaction. We must concentrate on the practicalities that mean a lot to everyone on the island. Great efforts must be put in to the areas where we have established good contact. For example, an institute of public health for the whole island has been set up. Interestingly, a woman from Northern Ireland has been appointed head of this institute. The Food Safety Authority is co-operating throughout the island. There are numerous initiatives which cannot be allowed to fail.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 24 Jun 1999