9.  THE FUTURE OF THE BODY

The Body proceeded to an informal discussion of the future role of the Body, having regard to the possibility

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North), introducing the debate, noted that the Taoiseach had already touched on the future of the Body earlier. It would be appropriate to consider why the Body came into existence in the first place: as a gathering of parliamentarians, not as a mechanism to try to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland inevitably loomed large during debates on political motions; but the purpose of the Body was to maintain dialogue between Members of both sovereign Parliaments, in addition to the ministerial contacts which have been built up over the past ten or fifteen years. The parliamentary tier had been considered necessary as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the talks between both Governments in 1981. He regretted that the Unionists had decided to boycott the Body from the beginning. He recalled hesitation in the beginning about discussing sensitive matters. Initially, political motions were debated in private in case bitter controversy arose which could have split the Body but as the Body had become more mature, Members became less hesitant about discussing such matters.

Apart from the intergovernmental council, if the talks were successful there was the possibility of a Council of the Isles which would take in the two sovereign Parliaments and proposed assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He endorsed the idea in the outline of the Heads of Agreement between the two Governments it was considered that there should be a parliamentary forum comprising representatives from the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Body was not in the business of self-promotion at the expense of any agreement and everyone wanted a lasting settlement, but it would be unfortunate if the ability to work together and to represent different opinions developed over eight years were to cease. If there had been such links in the past, some of the appalling problems of the past 25 years might have been lessened. He expressed the Steering Committee's view that the Body should find ways of continuing its work, and suggested two possibilities: either continuing as at present or possibly acting as a parliamentary tier within the proposed Council of the Isles. These were matters not only for the Body but also for the two Governments. There was no criticism from the UK side of the Body's work and existence, except from the Unionists, and there was a general consensus that such a parliamentary link was useful. He would be surprised if there was criticism on the Irish side.

The Chairman agreed that it was appropriate, given the situation in Scotland and Wales and the possibility of a Northern Ireland Assembly, to discuss the future role of the Body.

Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) said that his upbringing had been bathed in democracy and inter-nation debates. His parents were from Estonia, he was raised in Northern Ireland and was a Welsh MP who was very involved in the assembly referendum debates. Whether the Body should continue or not centred around its role; and he referred to three specific points - East-West arrangements, the Welsh and Scottish dimension and the need to generate a short, medium and long-term strategy for the Body.

The Body should provide the basis for the East-West elements of the Council of the Isles; and Westminster and Dublin should make sure that this was handled responsibly. The remit of the Body might need to be extended to help to define how the Council should operate. The potential for relationships between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales could not be over-emphasised. He referred to his work on the creation of a regional air network in Wales which would have implications for the economic development of the British Isles and suggested that it might be appropriate for the Committees to take on formal roles to advise the evolving economic and political structures.

It important to remember that the relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland was different from that between the UK and Northern Ireland. He worried that some people felt the Council of the Isles would be the complete solution. The relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland was international whereas that between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was intra-national. The Body had to define its role very clearly and ensure that the relationship between the four elemants of the UK and the Republic of Ireland developed in a sensible way and with the approval of both Parliaments.

It was important for the Body to develop a clear strategy in order to maximise its contribution to the debate. The Body needed to consider what should be done in the short-, medium- and long-term. In the short-term, as a backbench organisation, its usefulness was great in times of crisis because strong relations between the two Parliaments would help higher level talks if they became strained. He believed it should be made clear that the Body was a tool that others in Government could use to great effect when they needed to overcome an impasse. In the medium-term the Body should put down a marker in terms of its role in the Council of the Isles; and in the long-term it was important to emphasise the belief of some members in a Europe of the regions where regional differentiation would be promoted in providing an economic and cultural diversity. The Body needed to discuss its long-term role even though there were some (with whom he disagreed) who believed that was too long a timescale to consider in today's volatile environment. Finally, he observed that many people forget the importance of Europe in the longer term. The Body had to be clear on its remit, distinguishing between intra-national and international relationships.

Mr Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) pointed out that this was his maiden speech from the floor and expressed his gratitude to the Labour Party for enabling him to be on the Body.

The Body had had a good debate in Cardiff when it examined its future in the light of the developing peace process. Its role should not be diluted but it might have to be fitted into greater things. It could become a subcommittee of the Council of the Isles, to which he did not object provided that it had a separate identity. If the Body was diluted, its effectiveness and the notice the Governments paid to it would diminish. The Assembly in Strand One spoke for itself and that Strand Two was vital. He noted there would be a ministerial council and an agency with elective and executive responsibility. The implementation bodies would also be important, but the most vital aspect of Strand Three would be the continuation of the conference.

Having spent his parliamentary life on the backbenches, he was engaged in and concerned about the control of the executive by the legislature. and this Body had an invaluable role in that regard. The parliamentary link was not mentioned in the original Framework Document and it was up for discussion in the most recent framework documents. He stressed the necessity of the Council of the Isles and highlighted the difference between sovereign parliaments being engaged in peace, security and such matters and the necessary regional input. The intergovernmental council and the totality of relationships would broaden the issue in that it would involve the two Governments, the Northern Ireland Administration and those in Wales and Scotland; there were elements involved in the process which wanted this.

The process was far from over; and it was clear that the settlement would be fairly outline in nature. It was the outline institutions that would deliver the eventual peace, rather than the settlement alone. There might be a partial peace, and it would be up to public representatives to develop it into a full peace. There was a definite role for the two sovereign Parliaments and a contributory role with regard to a Northern Ireland Assembly. The sovereign Parliaments would remain the driving force for some time.

Dr Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan) agreed with the Chairman that it was regrettable that the Unionists could not attend this plenary session, the first in an Ulster county. Although there was agreement that the Body should remain, the question was whether there should be one or two bodies - a British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and a Council of the Isles. He would prefer one body.

He wondered where this Body would fit in. An integrated body would cause problems because on the UK side, there would be the sovereign Government and representatives of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, while on the Irish side there would only be one unit. The new body might accommodate representatives of the regions. He also felt that the two Governments should look at the logistics of having a Council of the Isles, which might be cumbersome-it was important to get the structures right.

Mr Denis Canavan (Falkirk West) said he had before him the document on the Heads of Agreement produced by both Governments on 12 January referring to an intergovernmental council to deal with the totality of relationships to include representatives of the British and Irish Governments, the Northern Ireland Administration and the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales. Within the intergovernmental council there would be representatives of the sovereign Governments, and the Northern Ireland Administration would be the executive body in Northern Ireland. It was interesting that the document did not repeat the word "administration" regarding Scotland and Wales, but referred to devolved institutions. It was ambiguous whether members of the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament who were not members of the associated executive bodies would be eligible for membership of the intergovernmental council.

It was important the Body put forward views on how a parliamentary tier should develop, and there was merit in such a tier being associated with an intergovernmental tier. A parliamentary tier would enable more freedom of expression and a more frank and robust debate; it should comprise members of the Oireachtas, the British Parliament, the Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. He understood that the concept of a Council of the Isles had been put forward by the Ulster Unionists and was referred to as a "Council for the British Isles" by David Trimble. This would cause offence to Irish colleagues; he suggested as an acronym IONA-Islands of the North Atlantic.

He questioned whether there should be one, two or three parliamentary tiers and indicated there was a case for a North-South and East-West parliamentary tier which would be a continuation of the present Body, and for the Council of the Isles which would be a broader and more representative body. He accepted that there might be too much confusion if there were too many parliamentary tiers but that it would be wrong to come to a firm conclusion before the end of the talks. If there were one tier only, it should involve members of the five bodies to which he referred, and not just the two Governments.

HE questioned whether membership should be confined to both Parliaments, since the Body did not have sovereign or executive powers but was a useful forum for the exchange of views and the building of better relations. He asked whether it mattered that membership should be confined to the two sovereign Parliaments; disadvantage of the Body as it operated at present was the absence of the Ulster Unionists, who might find it easier to join a broader parliamentary body-which would be enriched by their presence.

Mr Michael Colvin (Romsey) said that it was a fact of life that the intergovernmental organisation established would be executive and that such bodies needed to be accountable to the organisation they represent. One difficulty would be that they might tend to take nationalistic positions; the value of the Body was that it encompassed more than national or party political outlooks. The new forum should be of the same type; but he was resigned to the fact it might be subsumed into a Council of the Isles at a future date. Committee B had had difficulty getting to grips with precisely what the Nordic Council was about; but it was certainly an example of how a number of countries with differing views could overcome their national differences and agree on common approaches to certain problems. It might be a useful model for a Council of the Isles.

The existence of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation had to be taken into account when deciding the composition of the Council of the Isles because it was established as a result of paragraph 11 of the Joint Declaration which called for the Irish Government to set up a forum where democratically-mandated parties could discuss issues related to the conflict. Membership of the Council of the Isles and what it should do had to be worked out. He acknowledged Mr Öpik's reference to the short-, medium- and long-term. With regard to Iona, he questioned what the people of the Isle of Man might have to say.

Lord Merlyn-Rees considered that it might be instructive to look at the reports of annual conferences of political parties in the Republic and Great Britain over the past years to see what they talked about. Their outlook was transient by nature because they were influenced by a constantly changing society. He believed that the change in Scotland was much more powerful than in his native Wales where there would be an Assembly. Nationalism in Wales was weak and was more of a cultural phenomenon than in Ireland. He stressed the need for caution because we did not know whether the talks would succeed. Mr Canavan's analysis of the structures which might appear was very instructive. He wondered what type of structure would appear in Northern Ireland and said he would like the Unionists to join the Body.

There should only be one Body. If the peace process came to fruition there might be a security problem which could not be ignored . It would be best to wait to see what emerged from the peace process.

Mr David Winnick took the Chair as Chairman

Senator Pascal Mooney hoped that such a security problem would not arise. He echoed the sentiments of Members about the absence of Unionist parliamentarians; their presence at the Body would be very useful. He shared the view that the Body should remain in existence, whatever arose from the talks, and that with the great changes taking place for Scotland and Wales the Body should remain pre-eminent as it represented the two sovereign Parliaments. The agenda of the Body invariably concerned Northern Irish or North-South issues; and he wondered how that would be affected with a settlement in the North. Perhaps the work of the committees was the way forward. He referred to the shared and common heritage of the people of Ireland and Britain and saw a development of the relationships in the European context. The uniqueness of the Body was founded in its non-executive nature.

Mr Michael O'Kennedy resumed the Chair

Mr Gerry Bermingham (St Helens South) pointed out that the British Members of the Body were inevitably chosen for their independent-mindedness. The Council of the Isles was a very good idea, particularly given the common heritage of the people of the islands. As a person who considered himself a part of the communities on both islands he saw prejudice as the greatest enemy to living in peace and creating a society to benefit all.

Mr Robert Jackson (Wantage) considered the issue of East-West structures as an important element of the negotiations and that the Body must wait to see what agreement emerged and remain ready to assist that process. It would be sensible to consider the possible functions of East-West bodies. He shared Mr Canavan's analysis that a Council of the Isles should not be a purely executive body but should have a parliamentary element and that such a membership would have to be broader than the Body, representing a possible five assemblies. He saw a role for the Body in the broader context.

Mr David Tredinnick (Bosworth) recalled his visit to Northern Ireland as a soldier in 1969 and the difficulty of relationships between communities at that time and noted the sharp contrast with the friendly relationships that had developed since then, and which the Body demonstrated so well. There was no need to disband or even alter the Body and considered that it would be a mistake to alter its status: in short, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Mr Conor Lenihan (Dublin South-West) agreed with the views expressed by Lord Merlyn-Rees and Mr Tredinnick. The proposed Council of the Isles was a very good idea as an interregional body. In future, the Body should focus on economic matters, particularly Irish/British trade. He also suggested that the Body might broaden its membership to include affiliate members from the business community.

Mr David Winnick took the Chair as Chairman

Mr O'Kennedy (Tipperary North) recalled the atmosphere of suspicion at the beginning of the Body's existence which had stemmed from a lack of contact between Members of both Parliaments. However, since that time the Body had developed into an irreplaceable asset of knowledge and understanding. The Body could claim a contribution in having developed an atmosphere in which the two Governments had been able to come together. Composed as it was of elected representatives, the Body reflected the views of the people in providing support for the actions of the executive powers. The Body should be developed, and the work of the Committees has already extended its role to a degree. Whatever the outcome of the talks, the Body would still have an important role to play. With regard to the Body's future, he referred to the Taoiseach's indication earlier in the day that the parliamentary tier that might emerge from the talks would most likely be the Body.

Mr Roger Stott (Wigan) said that it was refreshing to hear the comments made by Mr Tredinnick. He recalled that when speaking at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation he had emphasised the role of the Body in promoting friendship and understanding between Members of both parliaments. The Body did not set agendas; rather, it provided a vehicle for the development of contacts between the Parliaments.

The Chairman said that whatever structures might emerge from the peace settlement, Members should seek to continue their working relationships. He saw a strong case for the Body to continue to function as a link between the Parliaments and a place to air opinions. He stressed that the Body was not simply in the business of self-preservation but should continue as a valuable link between the Parliaments.

He echoed Lord Merlyn-Rees's point that the Members did not know what might emerge from the talks process and what would develop from it. It was certain that those who did not want an agreement would seek to destroy it; moreover, any final arrangements might be some way from the initial settlement. As regards the points put by Mr Canavan and Dr. O'Hanlon that a Council of the Isles might lead to duplication of the Body's activities, he advised that the Body should wait to see what may emerge from the talks. His view was that the Body should continue to function, especially to carry out the useful work of the Committees. He also referred to Mr Canavan's point about parliamentary accountability and considered the Body useful in that regard. His own view was that there was a danger of being submerged in the new arrangements, and the important East-West issues might be somewhat obscured.

Mr Dennis Canavan (Falkirk West) clarified his point that the Body might not continue in its present form and he shared the view that the best form of developing it may be in a more inclusive format.

The Chairman said that the consensus was that the East-West dialogue should continue. He thought that the majority view was that the Body should continue and accepted that there were some Members who considered that it should do so under a wider umbrella.

Mr Robert Jackson (Wantage) said that it would a mistake to think that East-West relations in the future would just be between the UK and Ireland; the significant changes taking place in the governance of the UK had to be embraced.

Mr Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) agreed with the points made by Mr Canavan and Mr Jackson. There were two main issues: the enlargement of the Body to include the devolved assemblies, the idea of a council similar to the Nordic Council but which would retain the bilateral aspects. He also noted that if the Body was to continue as one institution inevitably there would difficulties with the composition on the British side with a mixture of sovereign and devolved assemblies.

Senator Pascal Mooney stressed that the devolution debate was a matter for the British side. In order not to dilute the Body, the British representation would have to come from the existing arrangements, with a small representative group from the devolved assemblies..

The Chairman summarised the debate, noting that no Member had suggested that the Body should not continue and that there was agreement on the importance of its continuing its work. If there were differences of opinion, they were on other issues. He concluded that future developments would determine the continuation and the form of the Body in the future.

The sitting was adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.