Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

The Labour Party welcomes this Bill and is happy to support its passage through the Oireachtas. The creation of the North-South Implementation Bodies was a crucial part of the Good Friday Agreement. That Agreement was not merely a political contract between the political parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments on the administration of Northern Ireland. It also laid the foundations for increased North-South co-operation for the mutual social and economic benefit of all.

The North-South Implementation Bodies were key in this regard. Their success is crucial in ensuring that those areas identified for specific co-operation and day-to-day action between the Irish Government and Northern Ireland are developed for the benefit of both parts of the island. Given the economic growth experienced in the South over the past decade and the potential of the North's economy to expand and develop further in the context of a functioning and stable Assembly and Executive, the capacity of North-South co-operation to succeed is endless.

Moreover, North-South co-operation and the bodies themselves are not simply about delivering for the economy. They also have a key role to play in regard to the development of good relations and partnership between the two parts of the island. To quote Co-operation Ireland: "The promotion of effective North-South co-operation is an integral part of building peace on the island of Ireland." For that reason alone, the Labour Party supports this Bill and any effort that assists the work of these bodies. However, we do not shy away from the fact that the North-South Implementation Bodies themselves currently exist on a care and maintenance basis. Their establishment, work and future is dependent on the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Suspension of the Assembly and Executive since the autumn of 2002 has undoubtedly impeded progress towards North-South development. The intervening period — years that should have been used for the bodies to bed down and embark on important work in regard to spatial planning, tourism and economic development — has instead been full of frustration, as repeated political initiatives to re-establish the institutions they require to fulfil their mandate have ended in failure.

It is the Labour Party's sincere hope that the latest initiative, the St. Andrews Agreement, and the subsequent timetable towards restoration, succeeds. Subsequent to the return of the institutions, the North-South agenda so crucial for the future must be put centre stage and prioritised by any new Executive. Unfortunately, the positive view of increased North-South co-operation and of the Implementation Bodies themselves is not shared by all political parties in Northern Ireland. In recent years the Democratic Unionist Party has had the bodies in its sights in its repeated attempts to renegotiate certain elements of the Good Friday Agreement. This has not just been a matter of political expediency. It has not sought mere minor changes to North-South bodies as cover for accepting the Agreement. Rather, it has specifically sought to diminish the powers and scope of the bodies and to challenge the basis on which they continue to function.

In this regard I express some concern about the Governments' attitude to the DUP's agenda. Ever since early 2004 when the DUP published its North-South, east-west document on strands two and three of the Good Friday Agreement, the DUP's aims have been clear. In that document it stated:

We opposed the all-Ireland Implementation Bodies, amongst other things on the basis that they were not accountable to the Assembly and were not value for money for the taxpayer. We opposed the overall set of proposals because they were mainly driven by the desire to achieve Irish unity.

In the subsequent negotiations that led in the first instance to the December 2004 comprehensive agreement, and ultimately to the St. Andrews Agreement two months ago, the DUP sought concession after concession to make the North-South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies increasingly responsible to the Assembly and the Executive.

While accountability and responsibility would be crucial for important decisions on North-South issues, under the DUP's plan anyone working in the implementation bodies would effectively first have to seek Executive or Assembly permission for the purchase of a paper clip. As Peter Robinson said in his exchange with Northern Ireland Minister, David Hanson, in Westminster two weeks ago, during a debate on the legislation arising from the St. Andrews Agreement:

Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will mean that any decision of the North-South Ministerial Council, which is cross-cutting by nature, or any other matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland that are affected by external relations, will have to go to the Executive for agreement? Without such approval, will Ministers have authority to take such a decision? Would any such ministerial decision be valid?

All this is designed to make the work of the North-South bodies cumbersome, unwieldy and impractical. This would enable the DUP to argue that they are impossible to work and are in need of reform. It would then argue that North-South co-operation should only function on the basis of ad hoc consultation between Ministers in Stormont and Dublin on a case-by-case basis. There should be no superstructure, no formal institutions to promote North-South co-operation and development, in short, no implementation bodies at all in the DUP's plans.

What is most worrying about all this is Minister Hanson's response to Peter Robinson's questions. In reply he said:

The honourable Gentleman also asked the Secretary of State to confirm that, by virtue of the arrangements put in place by the Bill, details relating to the North-South Ministerial Council or any matter involving relationships with the Republic of Ireland will require Executive approval. I can confirm that such matters will be referred to under the ministerial code that applied until suspension, and will require Executive agreement. Under the arrangements provided for in the Bill, decisions taken without Executive agreement would not be legitimate and would be open to legal challenge.

I would have hoped that such a response from Secretary of State Peter Hain's second in command would have severely disturbed the Irish Government.

It is evident from this reply that the British Government has conceded major ground to the DUP in its efforts to make unworkable any decision taken by the implementation bodies or the North-South Ministerial Council with which it may disagree. Unfortunately, over recent weeks I have heard very little from the Government on this issue. I afford the Government this opportunity to clarify its position. Has the Government raised this matter with the British Government? What was its reaction to Minister Hanson's comments? Does it agree with the analysis that this represents a clear attempt by the DUP to damage the North-South agenda? More importantly, what efforts is the Government making to prevent the DUP from achieving its aim?

There is a real fear that in the period between now and the Assembly elections scheduled for March, if we get that far, the DUP will seek further concessions on North-South issues. To prevent this, I appeal to the Government to mount a robust defence of the implementation bodies and the North-South Ministerial Council to ensure that this vital area of co-operation and development is protected so that it can thrive in the future.

We must not forget that just as the DUP has sought to inflict as much damage on the North-South bodies as possible, Sinn Féin could have protected the bodies more strongly. When did we last hear anything from Sinn Féin representatives about their importance? Perhaps that will be rectified in Deputy Ó Caoláin's contribution. So far it has concentrated on its own interest rather than the wider public good. There have been delays in decommissioning, the ending of all paramilitary and criminal activity and now towards supporting the PSNI. In that regard I hope that as Sinn Féin approaches decision time on taking its seats on the policing board, it will not merely seek to win further concessions from the two Governments for itself but rather that it will ask the British Government to resist DUP demands to capitulate on the North-South bodies.

I wish to refer to some specifics in North-South co-operation. In education, which is of particular interest in my role as spokesperson on education and science, there is huge potential for co-operation. Recently I was involved in presenting digital schools awards. The particular school in Limerick had a digital relationship with a school in Northern Ireland. The information technology area provides major opportunities for co-operation in education between North and South. I was involved also with a conference in Dundalk on educational disadvantage organised by a school principal in a disadvantaged school in Dublin. Representatives from political parties North and South were present, as well as officials from the education and library boards in the North and from the Department of Education and Science in the South. It was a positive experience. Working groups have been set up as a result of that conference to continue the co-operation between North and South in that area of educational disadvantage.

I support what has been said about Waterways Ireland. Given that I am at the bottom of the line in Limerick, I have a great interest in the development of the Ulster Canal and in making the connection from the North, through my constituency, to the sea. There is enormous potential for the implementation bodies to have a positive effect on life in Northern Ireland and in the South and I hope they will be able to operate. I hope also that the points I have made, especially about the DUP and Sinn Féin, will be taken on board and that there will be a positive response to these bodies.

See this speech in context