Jim Wells (DUP)

Two amendments to the motion have been selected and published on the Marshalled List; the amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on that list. When the debate has concluded, I shall put the Question on amendment No 1; if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall. If amendment No 1 is not made, I shall put the Question on amendment No 2. I hope that that is clear.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the increasing significance of North-South co-operation in a range of sectors such as health, agriculture, education, research and development, and on a range of infrastructure projects such as roads and public transport, energy and tourism; and calls for an intensification of such co-operation to maximise the mutual benefit to the people of the whole island.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to move the motion on all-Ireland co-operation, especially since today is the last chance that I shall have to contribute to debates in the Chamber. As a Southerner — or at least a Southerner for the first 30 years of my life; I am not terribly sure how to classify myself now — who received a warm, perhaps sometimes too warm, welcome wherever I went in Northern Ireland, I have always been anxious for relationships throughout our island to develop in a mutually harmonious and beneficial way. In recent years, particularly since the Good Friday Agreement, the pace of the intensification of North/South co-operation has pleased me. We now speak of an all-island economy in a mutually beneficial, not threatening, way, and there is evidence of that in certain investments and initiatives.

Gregory Campbell (DUP)

It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the Member said:

“We now speak of an all-island economy”.

Whom does he mean by “we”?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Members can define “we” for themselves. However, many Members on Mr Campbell’s side of the Chamber — perhaps not all Members — are willing to react positively to certain proposals and initiatives. Those Members could be included in the “we” to whom I have referred.

As I was saying, there is evidence of the intensification of North/South co-operation in certain investments and initiatives: the upgrading of the Belfast to Dublin road is almost complete; a single energy market for the entire island will be in place before the end of the year; an integrated North/South gas supply has been created; there is an increasing number of cross-border hospital service contracts; joint research and development projects are being conducted by the island’s universities; the South has invested in City of Derry Airport; and there have been many smaller, but nonetheless significant, North/South initiatives by voluntary and community groups in both parts of the country.

All those initiatives highlight what can be described as the “normalisation” of practical co-operation with mutually beneficial outcomes.

Indeed, such is the success of the North/South co-operation in recent years that there is no longer a question over its capacity to deliver economic and social benefits to both sides of the border. Rather, we are now recognising the current scale of North/South co-operation to be only a fraction of its full potential.

Achieving the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement in that respect has been hindered by suspension, and I trust that the days of suspension are rapidly drawing to a close. That is why the SDLP has been determined to ensure that all-Ireland initiatives should not be a hostage to political stalemate. Further­more, it is why, in the years since suspension, my party developed its “North South Makes Sense” campaign, which is aimed at putting a clear focus on the opportunities that lie in joint initiatives across the entire island.

As we approach devolution, we want North/South co-operation to rise to an even greater level of development, and we want it to be achieved under the auspices of restored political institutions. That is why we particularly, and very warmly, welcome the proposals for enhanced North/South co-operation contained in the Irish Government’s new national development plan, which was published last week.

The plan invites the Assembly and its Executive to engage with their Southern counterparts in realising the potential in those proposals. However, the national development plan is not a set of proposals offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; instead, it is a set of proposals to be negotiated and jointly developed. The plan contains proposals for significant Irish Government investment in North/South projects and initiatives for mutual benefit, which must be agreed with a restored Northern Ireland Executive and which will cover the period from 2007 to 2013.

The proposed package includes two, quite innovative elements: first, joint investment in new strategic projects to benefit North and South; secondly, to open access to existing development funding on an all-island basis. A further element is the introduction of new agreed joint-funding measures with the Northern Ireland Executive following restoration.

The strategic projects and services highlighted in the Irish Government’s national development plan encompass such familiar matters as roads; rail; energy; tourism; health; education; telecommunications and so on. However, it is the scale and comprehensiveness of the proposed investments, and the opportunity for an agreed approach to developing and implementing the projects, that are most significant. In other words, it is an approach that should mark the end of back-to-back planning.

The second proposal to open up all-island funding opportunities is one that the SDLP has long urged. That proposal is modelled on the European Union example of funding that transcends political boundaries. The purposes envisaged for the proposed all-island funds could be in the following areas: education; skills; science and innovation; regional development; tourism development; poverty; social inclusion and community infrastructure.

Those funds would address the long-term challenges that the Irish and British Governments, as well as most Members in this House, agree must be faced in the modern global economy. Such funds would be awarded on a competitive basis, thereby rewarding innovation and collaboration and ensuring that funds are allocated to the best projects.

This is the very first time that all-island economic and social dimensions have been so prominently represented in an Irish Government national development plan. The proposals represent a massive opportunity to boost the economy and develop services, taking account of the needs and resources of the whole island. I trust that our restored Executive and Assembly will lose no time in entering negotiations in order to ensure that those proposals are realised.

There can only be a resounding yes to, for example, an integrated road network North and South, as well as east and west, that links Dublin, Belfast, Derry, Letterkenny, Sligo, Armagh and back to Newry; a resounding yes to the further development of all-island business opportunities under the auspices of InterTradeIreland, a North/South body that has already provided support for over 4,000 enterprises North and South; a resounding yes to enhanced developments of hospital, health and emergency services for communities along the border as well as on an all-island basis; a resounding yes to greater North/South investment in research and development in our universities and other centres of research in order to assist economic develop­ment in both parts of the country; and a resounding yes to additional funds being made available through the North/South Ministerial Council for projects intended to assist innovation, to help border communities and to promote all-island reconciliation initiatives.

We can do more together, in order to get more together. Our economies, North and South, face common challenges, so it makes sense to find common solutions. That is what the North/South agenda is, and must be, all about. Beyond the political and practical case for broad-based North/South co-operation there is growing acknowledgement of its importance in building trust and good relations between our communities in the North and across the island. The head of Co-operation Ireland — one of the organisations with the most experience in the area of North/South co-operation — has said that the promotion of effective North/South co-operation is an integral part of building peace on the island of Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement not only created a framework for political co-operation and partnership in Northern Ireland, but widened and extended the basis for co-operation and partnership to the whole island of Ireland and included a new framework for policy development with partners in a new British-Irish relationship.

I am conscious of the concerns and apprehensions that underlie the two amendments. Those concerns and apprehensions are unwarranted and do not need to be highlighted. There is an opportunity for debate on east-west issues; it was open to the Members opposite to table a motion on that subject. If they had done so, they might have found a positive response to some of their proposals from this side of the Chamber. However, this motion is about the significance of, and the potential for, North/South development.

As we develop the potential of the island as a whole, we must do so in the full knowledge that we are part of a global village in which we must play our proper role. We must be forward-looking in that respect. For far too long our tendencies, particularly here in the North, have been to look inward and to ignore the wider world and its opportunities and challenges, except, I suppose, whenever funds were dangled before us.

Tá seans iontach againn anois comhoibriú agus comhinfheistíocht ar son cómhaitheas ár ndaoine uilig a chur chun cinn. Sin an ghuí a fhágaim agaibh.

We have a wonderful opportunity to promote co-operation through a programme of joint investments and initiatives to the mutual benefit of all our people.

Ní neart go cur le chéile.

Our strength will grow the more we co-operate. The SDLP believes that in taking the opportunities, and in facing the challenges posed by co-operation on an all-island basis, we shall be even better able to face those in the wider world.

I beg to move the motion.

Lord Morrow (DUP)

I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “recognises” and insert

“the potential of North-South co-operation in a range of sectors; and calls upon Government to ensure that such co-operation is based upon practical, economic considerations, not politics; and, that in entering into any co-operative arrangements, the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are the primary consideration; and further notes that the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 ensures that all North-South structures will be fully accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

I want to say at the outset that it is quite understandable that, down the years, unionists have eyed cross-border co-operation with suspicion. So far today, we have not heard anything that makes us any less suspicious. In fact, the remarks in the opening speech make us even more suspicious, and our suspicions are well founded.

However, our suspicions may be down to the legacy of living with terror and the ever-present threat that bombers and gunmen are trying to force us out of our homes and our heritage. They try to take away the places where people were born and live. That might have something to do with it.

Those suspicions may also be down to the fact that, over the past 35 years — indeed, from the inception of the state of Northern Ireland — the Irish Republic has allowed its territory to be a safe haven for wanted terrorists. That might have something to do with it.

Those suspicions may also be because unionists view the Irish Republic as being hostile to their existence. As a unionist, I believe that that has a lot to do with it. Through the years, when this country was under the cosh of a Sinn Féin/IRA onslaught, we did not get much support or sympathy from the Irish Republic. Any co-operation that existed between the security forces involved the lowest common denominator rather than the highest. All those reasons account for the apprehension, fear and terror that existed in unionism, in particular among those living along the border who were driven from their homes.

Of course, Northern Ireland has much to gain from good relations with the Irish Republic, if they are on a pragmatic and appropriate basis. We are happy to work with, and alongside, our colleagues in the Irish Republic where it is to our mutual benefit and interest.

The work carried out by the elected representatives on behalf of the constituents on both sides of the border is often similar. I suspect that the bread-and-butter issues are similar North and South: roads, housing, hospitals and good schooling.

There is potential, with the future of Northern Ireland secure and all parties working in the interests of Northern Ireland, for a more relaxed, wholehearted co-operation. Such co-operation is possible in a stable environment in which unionists would not be looking over their shoulders, as they have had to do for the past 40 years. However, for that to occur, there must be a responsibility on nationalists not to politicise, or seek to politicise, for narrow party advantage, any sensible low-level co-operation that may go on.

Undoubtedly, on account of our small population, there are matters for which it is not possible for us in Northern Ireland to have all the answers — likewise, for the relatively small population in the Irish Republic.

I note with interest what the Northern Ireland Office Minister of State, Mr Hanson, said in the House of Commons on 21 November, during the debate on the St Andrews legislation. He said:

“The hon. 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.”

Nothing could be clearer than that, and I note that the SDLP leader, in remarks made later that evening, criticised the Government for allowing the DUP to hollow out the provisions of the 1998 Belfast Agreement to such an extent.

I want to comment on Tourism Ireland Ltd, one of the cross-border bodies that was established under the Belfast Agreement. If there were no argument against cross-border bodies, Tourism Ireland would certainly provide one. It spends £40 million a year, one third of which comes from Northern Ireland, yet it has a history of failing to promote routes to Northern Ireland and failing to promote the distinctiveness of Northern Ireland’s tourism product.

Reading the Tourism Ireland brochures and website and watching its advertisements in the years since its establishment, one could be forgiven for concluding that the only access point to this island is Dublin. As far as Tourism Ireland is concerned, Dublin is the only access point to Ireland. Tourism Ireland may need a little tourism experience itself. That view is borne out by the figures: the number of tourists coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was down in 2006, but, in the same period, the figures for the Republic of Ireland were up by 10%.

Jim Shannon (DUP)

Does the Member accept there is east-west tourism potential? Some 250,000 people travel to Larne and Belfast from Scotland every year.

Lord Morrow (DUP)

I thank the Member for making that salient and sound point.

Market research that Tourism Ireland conducted also reveals that almost 50% of people in Great Britain view its marketing campaigns as relating only to the Republic of Ireland. Surveys also indicate that Northern Ireland is seen as having less to offer than the Republic of Ireland.

Initially, the brief that was given to Tourism Ireland was to “bridge the gap” in tourism between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was subsequently changed to:

“helping Northern Ireland achieve its tourism potential”,

whatever that means. Tourism in Northern Ireland contributes approximately 2% of its GDP. In the Republic of Ireland the figure is 9%, and in Wales the equivalent figure is 11%. Northern Ireland lags far behind. In such circumstances, it might be expected that the priority would be given to spending on, promoting and developing the underperforming and underdeveloped region. Is that the case? Alas, it is not.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

An analysis of the promotional photographs on the Tourism Ireland website reveals that, although it provides 33% of Tourism Ireland’s funding, Northern Ireland has only 23% of the promotional photographs on the website. Indeed, some of those photographs are stretching the point. How does Tourism Ireland promote Fermanagh, for example? The website simply shows a photograph of a swan. Superb stuff. Furthermore, there is a photo­graph of the Lammas Fair, but it could be a photograph of any fair in Ireland, or, indeed, the world. That is Tourism Ireland’s way of promoting Northern Ireland.

One may wonder why Tourism Ireland has the responsibility for leading promotion in the rest of the United Kingdom. The originators of Tourism Ireland allow Great Britain to be regarded as an overseas market — brilliant. At one sweep, Tourism Ireland was allowed to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. Tourism Ireland was effectively given charge of what, up until then, was Northern Ireland’s best market, yet, in 2006, it managed to reduce the number of tourists coming here from Great Britain.

If we look at the specifics of the tourism promotion of Northern Ireland, there are some surprising results. For example, in the 2007 holiday planner from Tourism Ireland — its key promotional document for the year — the events and festivals section does not list the North West 200, which is one of the biggest events in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is not mentioned.

Only 11 of the 40 events listed are in Northern Ireland, and guess what one of them is — the West Belfast Festival. It is listed, yet it hardly needs to be said that the Twelfth of July and Maiden City festivals are never mentioned.

It is as if they do not exist — that is the impartiality of Tourism Ireland in operation.

Northern Ireland needs to be sure that its tourism product is locally resourced and being promoted in a manner that will ensure that the current economic inequalities are addressed. All this highlights further the importance of North/South structures having been made wholly accountable to this Assembly. In such circumstances, none of us from any background should have anything to fear from straightforward relations — that are not politically driven — with those in the Irish Republic.

David McClarty (UUP)

First of all, I pay tribute to the SDLP Member for North Antrim, Dr Farren. I understand that he may have made his final contribution to the House, and I wish him all the very best on his retirement from public life.

I beg to move amendment No 2: Insert after the first “of”

“East-West and”; and

leave out all after “benefit” and insert

“to the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.”

We have no problem with North/South co-operation on matters that are of mutual benefit to the citizens of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and there are obvious fields in which that co-operation can take place. However, the political history of the island of Ireland means that unionists will inevitably, and understandably, be wary that measures, which are sold as being of mutual benefit, are in fact part of a wider political agenda designed to threaten the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and its place in the United Kingdom.

We do not deny that co-operation has brought, or could bring, benefits, but these are likely to have been, or will be, small — not about even 1% of the GDP and probably much less. People may talk of promoting more cross-border trade. There is already more cross-border trade per head of population than there is between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The extent of all-island trading is not unusual when compared with trade levels, for example, between Norway, Sweden and Denmark. There is already an extensive Northern Ireland-Republic market in company takeovers. Many Northern Ireland business names have been bought by Southern concerns. By and large, we accept this as the working of the corporate market, although we would like to see more Northern Ireland companies make acquisitions south of the border.

Rhetoric favouring all-island solutions is often based on misconceptions about Northern Ireland’s economy. It is not an economic basket case; it has the UK’s highest rates of GDP, manufacturing output and employment growth since 1990. It has a big subvention from the Treasury, but so do many UK regions, for example, much of Wales — perhaps the Secretary of State should take note of that. Transfers occur normally within a national single monetary and economic union, so it is less than clear what the Secretary of State means when he says that we should become less dependent.

Sometimes the issues involved are not really all-island issues but are more appropriately relevant to the British Isles as a whole or to Europe — for example, mobile-phone roaming charges, as raised by the Ulster Unionist MEP Jim Nicholson in the European Parliament, or a single European electricity market, as recently proposed by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

We must be realistic that often the Republic of Ireland is not our ally but our competitor. For example, it has tax advantages, such as more favourable corporation tax, vehicle fuel excise duty and the lower rate of value added tax (VAT) on tourism.

Some commentators point to the European Union (EU) as a model that Northern Ireland and the Republic should copy. The comparison is not relevant; in reality other European countries, for example, France, Germany and Italy, have managed their border regions without the institutional apparatus, such as the implementation bodies, which exists in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

What about the European single currency, the euro? It looks less and less likely that the UK will join this arrangement, which in so many of the continental economies has proved more of a straitjacket than a boost to trade. Even the Republic has problems with the imposition of policy directives from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. It seems likely, as Milton Friedman argued in 2001, that the Republic of Ireland’s membership of the single European currency club was always more about politics than sound economics.

Since 1993, trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic has grown by leaps and bounds — as much as 10% annually, in many years. The existence of two currencies on the island has hardly been an insuperable problem. Members should note that the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada has not required the two North American economies to adopt a single currency or, indeed, cross-border bodies.

Secretary of State Peter Hain may have taken up the all-island economic agenda in recent speeches, but is that not about politics rather than a sound business case? The Government’s economic policy documents are instructive: in February 2005 the ‘Economic Vision for Northern Ireland’, a sort of economic strategy document, devoted only a few sentences to the subject of cross-border co-operation. Similarly, the Republic’s recent enterprise strategy, ‘Ahead of the Curve, Ireland’s Place in the Global Economy’, hardly mentions Northern Ireland. When it comes to hard, competitive business reality, cross-border froth does not figure much.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

David McClarty (UUP)

No, I am sorry. I have limited time, and I have already thanked you for making your last speech. [Laughter.]

It is to be hoped that a more mature and responsible relationship will emerge from the political advances that have been made over the past decade, with the end of the terror campaign that sought to push this Province and its people out of the Union and into a united Ireland against their will. The defeat of the IRA’s campaign provides us with an opportunity to ensure that everyone in Northern Ireland has a stake in this Province and its future. That future will clearly be within the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy on the planet. It is a multicultural society, the destination of choice for many thousands of immigrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families. At a time when so many people appear desperate to enter the United Kingdom, by fair means or foul, we would have to be crazy to voluntarily cut our ties with the British mainland. Britain is where Northern Ireland does much of its trade. Many citizens work for companies that are based on the UK mainland, and many of our young people attend universities in Great Britain and go on to play a crucial role in the life of the nation.

The development of the Republic of Ireland’s economy is a recent phenomenon. For most of the twentieth century, the Republic’s economy limped along in a depressed state, and it was only saved from horrendous levels of unemployment by the fact that hundreds of thousands of its citizens were able to travel to Great Britain to seek a better life. The presence of large and thriving expatriate communities in cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow is testament to how well those emigrants did. The Republic of Ireland has had great cause to be grateful for its east-west links throughout the twentieth century. Northern Ireland is no different.

We wish the Irish Republic well. It is our neighbour. It is to be hoped that as this century progresses, links in areas such as trade and tourism will be developed that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. However, care must also be taken to ensure that relations continue to be maintained and developed with fellow British citizens in the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland endured a 30-year campaign of terror that sought to break that link, and they suffered grievously, as did many fellow citizens on the mainland. That link could not be broken in times of strife. It will, undoubtedly, be strengthened in times of peace.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to echo the sentiments directed towards Seán Farren.

Go n-éirí an t-ádh leat, a Sheáin, agus le do theaghlach go léir.

Rachaidh athaontú na hÉireann go mór chun leasa gach duine ar an oileán seo. Ar fud phróiseas na síochána, thug Sinn Féin tacaíocht i dtólamh do chur chuige uile-oileáin do réimsí tabhachtacha polasaí, lena n-áirítear an eacnamaíocht, an tsláinte, an t-oideachas, an fhostaíocht, an talmhaíocht agus turasóireacht.

Gabh mo leithscéal.

Irish unification would greatly benefit all the people on the island of Ireland. Throughout the peace process, Sinn Féin has consistently urged an island-wide approach in key policy areas such as the economy, health, education, employment, agriculture and tourism.

Sinn Féin has given practical expression to that through the work of its Ministers in the Executive, the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and the Assembly, and its representation in Leinster House and the European Parliament. Sinn Féin representatives have continuously pressed the need to sustain and develop the all-Ireland approach enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement.

Since partition, social and economic development has been characterised by a back-to-back approach, which has resulted in poor service delivery and economic underdevelopment, particularly in places in the border counties and west of the Bann where the artificial border has impacted on normal socio-economic development. A common development plan is required for Ireland and, considering that the new National Development Plan is set to run until 2013, it is vital that the plan approaches expansion and growth on an all-island basis.

In order to achieve an all-Ireland economy, we must work towards tax harmonisation. A single VAT system and the abolishment of excise would greatly simplify businesses trading on the island and bring about taxes that are fairer to workers. We should be encouraging small-business and worker development. Relatively simple measures, such as standardising bank holidays, would address an anomaly that has a negative impact on those who live, work, or go to school on both sides of the border. Without a single currency and tax regime and with the lack of joined-up infrastructure, we are left with the same old uncompetitive banking and retail sectors. The banking sector, North and South, is under investigation for its lack of genuine competition.

There is also the need for the establishment of an all-Ireland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and an all-island electricity network, which must be nuclear free and committed to renewable energy, as was agreed by the all-party Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the previous Assembly.

Sinn Féin has been to the fore in lobbying the Irish and British Governments to ensure that people in the border region have access to health services at the nearest geographical location, regardless of which side of the border they live. That is why substantial funding is required for an upgrade of, among others, Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry city, and the issue of the out-of-hours services on both sides of the border must be resolved. Sinn Féin welcomes the two pilot projects; however, they must be extended.

One of Sinn Féin’s key goals is to build a strong, stable, all-Ireland economy in which everyone will have a dignified and productive working life, a fair income and a good quality of life — an economy characterised by the positive redistribution of its resources to eradicate poverty and social exclusion. A small island with a population of just over five million people cannot develop successful economic strategies on the basis of economic division.

The devastating economic consequences of partition are most obvious in border counties, but the impact is broader because the North has been excluded from the economic advances of the Twenty-six Counties. The only way to truly transform the economy in the North of Ireland is to set it in the context of an island-wide strategy for development and regeneration. To succeed, any economic development strategy must, at a minimum, remove the barriers to North/South business develop­ment and trade and to cross-border working mobility. Equality and human rights must be at the heart of that.

Sinn Féin is committed to the elimination of poverty and deprivation on the island of Ireland, and we feel that a meaningful approach to eliminating poverty will have to adopt a human rights approach and draw all sectors of Irish society closer together. Had the whole island been able to benefit from the extremely high growth rates experienced in the Twenty-six Counties during the period of the Celtic tiger economy, all-Ireland economic growth and development would have far exceeded current levels of gross national product (GNP) in the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties.

Sinn Féin has been arguing for some time that our best interests would be served in putting forward a united, all-Ireland voice in Europe, particularly on fishing and agriculture. I have spoken to fishing industry personnel in places such as Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I know that those industries in the North of Ireland have been damaged because they have been tied to British fishing and agriculture.

The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and the Irish Farmers’ Union (IFU) have recognised the potential of working together to challenge the way in which the EU nitrates directive is being implemented, and Sinn Féin has consistently argued that getting the best out of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform is dependent on developing a coherent single approach on the island of Ireland. If we are to ensure better and more effective representation for our fishing and agriculture industries, all of the political parties — including the DUP — should challenge their own politically motivated short-sightedness and begin to examine the potential of creating a single united agenda for our fishing and agriculture communities.

I wish to welcome last week’s historic announcement of a National Development Plan by the Irish Government, which is expected to provide €1 billion for strategic projects in the North as well as cross-border links. This is the first time that the national plan has included the Six Counties, and the spending of €1 billion is part of the peace dividend. We hope only a small part.

Of course, it is equally important that we have in place a new power-sharing Executive to administer this funding, which is badly needed to improve road infrastructure throughout the North of Ireland and, indeed, in my own constituency of South Down.

Part of the package is to be spent on improving links between south Down and north Louth. Sinn Féin has been to the fore in lobbying for a link bridge to be built at Narrow Water, near Warrenpoint.

When the project was dead in the water, parties like the SDLP were divided on whether to support it or not and John Fee came out against it, Sinn Féin was united behind the need for a bridge. Sinn Féin kept its eye on the prize. Arthur Morgan TD raised it in Leinster House, Sinn Féin co-ordinated meetings between Louth County Council and Newry and Mourne District Council, Sinn Féin organised meetings with INTERREG, the European Union’s Programme —

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

No, I will not. I will continue, because I have very little time.

Sinn Féin worked with the Roads Services on both sides of the border. This type of flagship development is essential if we are to develop a co-operative approach to both trade and tourism.

Danny Kennedy (UUP)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin)

No. I said that I would not.

A bridge would open up tourism from Newgrange to the Mournes. We need to capitalise on the visitors who are visiting Newgrange and ensure that their visit to Ireland includes a visit to Counties Down and Armagh as well. If this were any other country in the world, there would be a bridge there now. There is a need to continue to fight for this project.

Investment in Warrenpoint harbour has the potential to create jobs and ensure that the town’s docks are one of the main gateways for trade in and out of the northern half of the country. Its expansion should be a key consideration and part of any development plan.

Funding is also needed to develop agriculture and fishery in the Carlingford Lough area, as it is vital that opportunities are in place so that the hard-pressed fishing industry has an opportunity to diversify.

A ring road is needed around Newry city. The good roads should not stop at the border as they do at the moment. I welcome the proposed development of the Belfast to Dublin line and argue that an integrated rail network that is able to serve the other areas of the northern half of the country must accompany this.

Daisy Hill Hospital is ideally placed to serve the cross-border community, and its services, if expanded and enhanced, would ensure greater access to services for a significant population in Down, Armagh and Louth.

The National Development Plan has the potential to act as a catalyst for economic regeneration and is yet another good reason why it is important that we have a fully functioning, power-sharing Executive in place after the 7 March elections.

Enhanced North/South co-operation must be seen as a prerequisite for all-Ireland strategic development plans in health and social services, education and training, public transport, the environment, agriculture and fisheries, road safety, the arts and culture, tourism and the Irish language.

Maurice Morrow needs to learn that suspicions do not build economies. Hard work and strategic thinking do. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

There is no question that recent economic progress in the Republic and political progress in Northern Ireland have allowed more meaningful cross-border co-operation than ever before. Long may that continue.

The Alliance Party has a proud record on cross-border issues. We have frequently been the only non-nationalist party to participate in forums, consultations and boards that promote co-operation for mutual benefit — from promotion of an all-island energy market to participation in the proposals to reform the Seanad Éireann.

There is also little question that cross-border initiatives can, and should, go beyond the issues dealt with by cross-border bodies. Energy, tourism and aspects of transport bring with them a natural cross-border dimension. We must find better ways to co-operate in those areas.

However, Members should be cautious on two counts. The system by which the Northern Ireland Assembly dealt with cross-border matters was cumbersome, to say the least. It stalled moves towards beneficial co-operation. Like so much else, political cross-border co-operation was limited by the institutionalised sectarianism under which the Assembly operated.

Northern Ireland was represented in the North/South Ministerial Council by two Ministers who spent much of the time arguing with each other, rather than in providing a united front to secure the best outcome for Northern Ireland and for the island as a whole.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

Seán, you are having difficulty with others. I will give way. Let us hear what you have to say.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I will reply to what Mr McCarthy has just said, since I was the Minister responsible, and I attended almost 60 meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, some in the company of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Sir Reg Empey. I cannot recall a single meeting that we spent arguing with each other. If we argued at all, we argued together against our Southern counterparts.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

That is not the information that I have received. I can only accept what the Member says as a former Minister.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way again?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

I will, Carmel. Do you want to take over?

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

In my short time as a Minister, I too attended some of those meetings, and I cannot recall any contention at them.

Lord Morrow (DUP)

Will the Member give way again?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

All right, Maurice.

Lord Morrow (DUP)

I can also say, as a former Minister, that I never had any arguments at all, because I was never there.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

You did not attend the North/South Ministerial Council. May I be allowed to continue?

Rarely has Northern Ireland had Ministers who are able to think and feel for the whole community, and able to do what is best for the whole of Northern Ireland without reference to which camp they belong. Only when that is overcome will efficient cross-border co-operation become a reality.

My second note of concern is that cross-border issues are pursued at the expense of projects more beneficial to Northern Ireland. For example, expenditure on a road bridge across Carlingford Lough could hardly be considered good value for money, given that many other areas in Northern Ireland — and no doubt in the Republic too — could derive greater benefit from such expenditure. I would like to see a vast programme of road improvement carried out in my constituency of Strangford, for instance in the Ards Peninsula, which would bring comparatively greater benefit to residents.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Does the Member agree that provision of a bridge at Narrow Water would enhance tourism facilities in the Strangford constituency? Would it not be to the benefit of his constituents?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

That might well be so, but I suggest that it is not good value for money. However, I welcome anything that promotes the Strangford constituency.

There is also a need for caution with respect to an Act of Parliament on the Irish language, desired by some parties, which would be specific to Northern Ireland and would divide language policy, rather than link it with policy in the Republic. Such issues are best dealt with on an all-island basis. The Assembly should not pursue objectives that seem to serve — but that will divide — people on either side of the border or on different sides of the community in Northern Ireland.

Recent progress has led to more cross-border co-operation, and more such co-operation is possible. That which exists could be made still more mutually beneficial. Not for the first time, however, maximum benefit will come about only when we have overcome our sectarian divisions and have abolished a political system that serves only to reinforce them.

I shall comment on one further aspect of cross-border co-operation. Free travel will, I hope, come into effect in April 2007 and will benefit senior citizens, aged over 65, throughout the island. People from Fair Head in Antrim to Mizen Head in Cork will be able to avail of that service. My only regret is that the measure contains age discrimination against women. Although they are senior citizens from the age of 60, they must wait until they are 65 to benefit from free travel.

We have made progress in cross-border co-operation. There is further progress to be made, and I hope it continues.

I wish to pass comment on one particular aspect of cross-border co-operation that will come into effect later this year and which will be of benefit to all senior citizens aged over 65 throughout the island — the free travel arrangements. From April 2007, people from Fair Head in Antrim to Mizen Head in Cork will be able to avail of free travel. The only regret is the age discrimination aspect for women. Despite being regarded as senior citizens at the age of 60, women will have to wait a further five years to benefit from free travel. In the meantime there is progress that can be made in cross-border co-operation.

William Hay (DUP)

I support the amendments in the names of Lord Morrow and David McClarty. When Members talk about North/South co-operation, it can mean different things to different people. Some believe that it is bringing them closer to an all-Ireland economy or a united Ireland. Others raise the issue only for political reasons.

Listening to Seán Farren this morning, one would have to ask if he was raising the issue for good economic or for political reasons? It is difficult to find out what the SDLP and Sinn Féin really mean when they talk about North/South co-operation? On many occasions, when nationalist representatives raise the all-Ireland economy or North/South co-operation they get to a point where they have to get the tricolour so wrapped around some of the issues that is difficult for unionists to agree to them, especially when it comes to economic development and inward investment in the South of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I have often said that good cross-border co-operation should not threaten anyone in the House provided it is done only for good economic and business reasons. I know many businesspeople in my own city of London­derry who co-operate across the border on a daily basis. On the naming of Londonderry, I was glad to welcome the decision of the High Court, which I hope will put the issue of the city’s name to rest once and for all.

Returning to the main theme of the discussion, most business leaders and people in the business community co-operate with the South of Ireland for good economic and business reasons. Many of them do not bring politics into the equation at all, and that is the way it should be. I disagree with Southern Ministers trotting across the border, standing up and announcing economic packages that other public representatives, including myself, have not been consulted about.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

If the Member had listened carefully to what I said and to what the Ministers who came to make announcements about the National Development Plan 2007-2013 said, the word “agreement” and the phrase “to mutual benefit” were repeated throughout their remarks on any of the proposed projects. Does the Member accept that it will be up to the restored institutions to enter into negotiations and to agree the projects before anything can happen? That is given. We should honestly acknowledge and accept the integrity of those who put forward plans on that basis.

William Hay (DUP)

I have no problem with Ministers from the South of Ireland coming across the border and doing what they have to do. However, there must be protocol. There was an announcement of £800 million for several projects in Northern Ireland, including roads infrastructure, education, health and many others, affecting the lives those who live in the border regions. I know of no unionist representative who was either consulted or told about that package; however, I know of other public representatives who had a heads-up on it, and that is where the system is wrong. If we are to have good co-operation on both sides of the border there must be proper protocol, and that does not exist at the minute.

I welcome the £14 million investment in the City of Derry Airport. That investment is even more important as the whole east Donegal region gets £11 million a year into its economy as a result. It is only right and proper that the Southern Government should invest in the airport. I represent the Foyle constituency, and I welcome the proposal to extend the airport.

It is important for unionists to say that there must be total control over cross-border co-operation. However, there cannot be total control on only one side of the border; there must be mutual control in equal measure on both sides. Lord Morrow’s amendment makes it absolutely clear that all future cross-border bodies and institutions should be accountable to the Assembly and a future Executive. That must be our starting point. However — and I keep saying it — unionists cannot accept that, for many years, Ministers from the South have trotted in and out of Northern Ireland, almost giving the impression that they were also Ministers in the North. That must be brought to a halt.

Good co-operation is vitally important for the business community, the vast majority of which operates purely for economic reasons, whether inward investment, job creation or whatever. David McClarty said that on many issues the businessmen in the South are our competitors. That is good for healthy debate on co-operation between Northern Ireland and the South. I hope that nationalist representatives and parties will learn that when they raise the issue of co-operation they drive fear into the unionist community and fear into the business community.

There is sometimes mistrust when nationalist repre­sentatives raise the issue of North/South co-operation.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

William Hay (DUP)

I will not give way; I am almost finished. We can have good co-operation between North and South, but it can only work on a sound economic and business basis.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wish to speak in favour of the motion. There is no doubt that much good work exists on several issues on an island-wide basis, nor that increased harmonisation and North/South co-operation is the way to ensure increased practical benefits in the future for all who live on this island.

Strand two of the Good Friday Agreement details the structures and functions of the North/South Ministerial Council, and describes the implementation bodies and areas of co-operation for the delivery of North/South co-operation. I welcome the motion and support its call for an intensification of that co-operation.

As other Members have already said, the Irish Govern­ment passed a historic milestone in the commitments that they made in their national development plan. Chapter 5 of the plan shows that it is beginning to take on a truly national character, setting out as it does to strengthen all-island projects across the delivery of public services and a wide range of policy areas. Who here could argue, for example, that the inclusion in the plan of the Dublin to Derry and Letterkenny route as a key strategic border route to be developed is not going to be of huge benefit to the citizens of the west and north-west of Ireland?

That project has been the subject of considerable lobbying by many of my young colleagues for some time. The project is very welcome; nevertheless, its funding should be ring-fenced and a time frame set for its development so that it can be lifted from the pages of the development plan and made a reality. I wish to make the same call for the development of other key strategic cross-border routes mentioned in the plan.

Sinn Féin has always maintained, with substantial justification, that the border in Ireland is an artificial construction, which has acted, and continues to act, as a major impediment to social and economic development on the island. That is particularly true of the border corridor, where life is defined by a low-wage culture, high unemployment, relatively low educational attainment, poor roads, an inadequate transport system and an insufficient energy supply. The duplication of services is an added problem; that is an unnecessary waste, and is totally uneconomic and inefficient.

The motion asks the Assembly to recognise the increasing significance of island-wide co-operation. I support that, and call for a significant increase in North/South co-operation on all the issues of importance to citizens, especially those included in the motion such as agriculture, research and development, tourism, public transport, energy and the environment. My party colleague Caitríona Ruane has already dealt with many of those topics. I shall use the examples of health and education to explain my rationale.

The need for the seamless provision of health services, with disregard for the border, should be obvious to all. Both healthcare systems on this small island are in crisis. Spatial planning of the location of acute hospitals has not taken place on a single-island basis. That is essential if we are to make use of a limited budget. My party supports the cross-border GP out-of-hours scheme, and the Co-operation and Working Together (CAWT) feasibility study, which has led to the setting-up of two pilot schemes, each covering a population of approximately 13,000 along the border. One pilot scheme will allow patients in the North to have access to centres in the Twenty-six Counties; the other will provide patients in the Twenty-six Counties with access to facilities in the Six Counties.

Those schemes are intended to benefit the border areas where 65,000 people live closer to a GP out-of-hours centre in the other state. In particular, patients from Inishowen will be able to obtain a service launched a few weeks ago in Derry. Patients from Keady will soon be able to avail of a service in Castleblayney. Although some professional issues are still to be resolved, my party approves of those pilot schemes and believes that they should be endorsed and supported.

Andy Pollak, in his discussion paper, ‘Educational Co-operation on the Island of Ireland: A Thousand Flowers and a Hundred Heartaches’, writes:

“Education has been a ‘core value’ for Irish people — North and South, Protestant and Catholic, unionist and nationalist”

for at least two centuries.

The 9,000 hedge schools in the 1820s and the 7,000 state-supported national schools that succeeded them were part of a genuine all-island system and involved a great deal of teacher mobility.

Pollak continues:

“And then came partition, and education in Ireland, coming from a common root, sprang apart like a child’s catapult and stayed apart, with an almost 100% ‘back to back’ separation. The distinguished Irish educationalist, John Coolahan, has said that he trained twice a teacher in the Republic of Ireland in the 1960s, and ‘as far as education’”

in the North

“‘was concerned it could have been Timbucktu. There was no reference to it, no mention of it — it was just out of one’s consciousness.’”

Education should become a policy area for establishing an implementation body, not merely an area of co-operation under the Good Friday Agreement. Social disadvantage and low educational attainment recognise no borders. A 2001 report by the Centre for Cross Border Studies showed that about 1·1 million “education poor” adults in Ireland had significant literacy problems.

Having said that, some good work has been done in the field of education. In particular, universities on this island have come together to form the National University of Ireland (NUI). Sinn Féin welcomes other positive North/South educational projects and calls for the acceleration of such co-operation. For example, much work must be done to counter the delay in progress on the planned centre of excellence for autism in County Armagh.

Recently, Sinn Féin held a meeting with the all-Ireland unit co-ordinators at Iveagh House in Dublin. The Irish Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs has a dedicated North/South unit of civil servants. That is a useful advantage in ensuring progress on all-Ireland projects. I call today for the appointment of similar co-ordinators to Departments in the North, and for each Department to follow the good example set in the Twenty-six Counties.

The North/South Ministerial Council has com­missioned a study into obstacles to cross-border mobility, and its report is awaited. More importantly, Sinn Féin awaits progress on removing such obstacles to allow people living and working in the border region to get on with their work productively and conclusively. Intrinsic to that is the problem of having on this island two currencies and tax systems, to which my colleague referred.

Finally, progress on the North/South agenda must be accelerated. To have two systems on one small island, with a population of just over five million, is folly. It is detrimental to progress on both sides of the border. Unionists complain that nationalists and republicans raise the issue of all-Ireland integration for political purposes, only for them then make purely political points in their own speeches. Nationalists and republicans raise such issues out of a genuine desire to make progress.

I also heard unionists make a point about the defeat of the IRA. They should take cognisance of what the Ulster Unionist leader James Molyneaux said on the day on which the IRA called the cessation in 1994. He said that it could be the “most destabilising” act for the Union and the unionist population.

That has more to do with the politics that have come from the other side of the Chamber today and on other occasions. I accept that this has nothing to do with the motion but, like Dr Farren, this is my last speech in the House, so I will allow myself a little leeway —

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

I just point that it is not up to you to allow yourself more leeway, Mr McGuigan. However, if you are brief and return to the motion, I will allow you that leeway.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin)

I was simply making a point about the politics coming from the other side of the Chamber. On North/South co-operation and other subjects, the inability of unionist politicians —

Lord Morrow (DUP)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If a Member declares that what he or she is about to say has nothing to do with the motion, is it in order for that person to continue?

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

Lord Morrow, I often hear Members saying things that have nothing to do with the motion, but they continue. At least Mr McGuigan declared that he was doing so. I have pointed out to him that I have discretion over what is permitted, but I hope that he will now speak to the motion and conclude his speech.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin)

The Member referred to the political attitude of the Members opposite. I would suggest that, as one of the Irish words for ‘island’ is ‘inis’, a nice new slogan for them would be “Not an inis”.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, Francie. My argument relates to the motion, a Cheann Comhairle. Unionists are unable to deal with the politics of the changing situation in Ireland, which will include continuing North/South co-operation. I am not trying to upset Maurice and his colleagues, but I make no apology in the Chamber that my political activities concern bringing about the day when all of us on this island have full control of our destinies, without interference from any outside party or Government —

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

Please conclude, Mr McGuigan. Thank you.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin)

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I fully support all of the sentiments in the motion.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

I have said in the past that people should remember to speak to the motion. Perhaps we have been over-lenient in letting the Member pass remarks that did not. I do not want Members to think that they can do the same.

Some Members:

That is unfair.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

It is not unfair.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím le tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún.

I support the motion. The comprehensive study on an all-island economy, launched by the Secretary of State and Minister Aherne in October 2006 sets out clearly the rationale for North/South co-operation on a wide range of areas including infrastructure, science, technology, trade, tourism, labour market, skills, enterprise and business, fiscal measures and the north-west. The study sets out the vision for an all-island economy — characterised by a strong, competitive and socially inclusive island economy, with strong island-wide economic clusters, the development of which is not impaired by the existence of a political border.

The aim of the policy should be a world-class, all-island economy, which manifests itself in comparable levels of economic dynamism and performance in both parts of the island. Those principles are reflected in chapter 5 of the recently published National Develop­ment Plan 2007-2013 entitled ‘All-Island Co-Operation’. I welcome those proposals, as well as the Irish Government’s commitment of resources to the plan.

I particularly welcome the commitment to a bridge linking County Louth and County Down, for which my esteemed colleague, P J Bradley, fought long and hard. I hope that such a bridge will facilitate a southern relief road, to benefit Newry city, which suffers from severe traffic congestion.

One idea, which would benefit foreign direct investment (FDI) in border regions, would be to establish enterprise zones along the border. Those would offer tax incentives aimed at attracting more FDI. The border regions have always been under­developed economically, and the concept of enterprise zones is already regarded favourably by the Irish Govern­ment. It deserves the support of both Governments.

One recent major success for the Irish economy was the development of the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) in Dublin. The finance industry is underdeveloped in Northern Ireland, and one way of developing financial services here would be to establish a satellite of the IFSC in Northern Ireland, which has the graduates to staff it.

That would bring huge benefits to our economy. Therefore I propose that the two Governments commission research to explore the possibility of developing a Northern financial services centre, which would be a satellite of the one in Dublin.

I welcome the National Development Plan’s continuing commitment to all-island co-operation. That commitment covers many issues, including: infra­structure; spatial planning; science; trade; tourism; human capital; enterprise; the provision of public services; education; and health. Unlike Lord Morrow, I think that many unionists understand that North/South co-operation threatens no one and benefits everyone.

I support the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

I remind Members, especially the Whips, that the two Members who are listed to speak have not been in the Chamber at all during this debate; indeed, they are still not here. Therefore we will proceed to the winding-up speeches.

Eileen Bell (Speaker)

I am sorry, Mr Dawson; I see that you are in the Chamber.

Despite Mr Dawson’s presence, I point out that two Members are listed to speak, but neither has been in the Chamber for any of today’s proceedings.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I am not sure that we are having a —

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member has already given way.

David McNarry (UUP)

All-Ireland co-operation is distinct from all-island co-operation, yet to hear some Members, you would think that we were debating the former. The emphasis that they put on all-Ireland, as opposed to all-island, co-operation makes unionists quite suspicious of exactly where they stand.

Where this jurisdiction can benefit from or assist its neighbours, the common good should prevail. No one is arguing with that. However, co-operation cannot be presented in the terms in which unionists perceive it to be presented: as a nationalist Government interfering or being selective in its choice of co-operation in an all-island capacity. Political expediency, which I sense is behind much of the import of the debate, is dangerous in this context. Unionists will rightly point out that the National Development Plan has an element of impertinence in announcing within its scope projects for this part of the United Kingdom. Unionists will also point out that the Irish are being selective in that their plan is to help fund predominantly republican and nationalist constituencies.

I do not like to talk about my own constituency, but the beautiful constituency of Strangford —

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

Hear, hear.

David McNarry (UUP)

Thank you, Kieran.

The beautiful constituency of Strangford has not even been looked at, be it a “national” development plan or not. Strangford is typical of a pro-Union, pro-unionist constituency that the Irish do not consider, even in an all-island plan.

I must say to William Hay that he really needs to check with his party colleagues, because discussions took place at the highest level between the DUP and the Irish Government over this plan before it came to fruition and was printed.

I see nothing wrong with that. I understand that discussions took place with Sinn Féin and the SDLP and with my party, and, as I said, I see nothing wrong with that. I just want to inform the Member that that type of conversation has taken place.

An important point further to that is that the Assembly’s economic issues subgroup, which was given authority by the Committee on the Programme for Government, received — on a strictly confidential basis — evidence from Irish officials. That evidence has been documented and will be included in a report, which I have seen, that shows that the Assembly, through that subgroup, was apprised of the National Development Plan and the Irish Government’s intentions.

Not all of the Irish Government’s intentions were outlined to the subgroup, but enough were, and the unionists on the subgroup used that opportunity to inform the Irish Government of the issues that I have been referring to regarding the unionist position and unionist views. In fact, I understand that the Committee on the Programme for Government is to clear the subgroup’s report today. It will make interesting reading.

The Irish Government indicated to the parties — well, I assume that they indicated the same thing to all parties, but I have no evidence for saying that — that, in the main, their intentions were to address Irish weaknesses and to address areas that, so far, have not benefited from the success of the Celtic tiger economy. That is fair enough, and it is reasonable for them to take that approach. However, we should not be too fooled by their dressing it up in the way that they have, suggesting that their encroachment into another jurisdiction is simply because, so to speak, they want to help both sides. Not only do we have an election coming up, but they have an election in the near future, and the Irish Government want to address certain situations that they have neglected.

Through the offer of a large sum of money, the Irish Government have introduced a reference to Northern Ireland. Members must bear in mind that it is only an offer: there is no money on the table. Following the publication of the economic issues subgroup’s report, it will be for the incoming Minister of Finance and Personnel in the newly restored Executive to consider more carefully.

However, the Irish officials also said that one of the intentions behind the offer was to give a subtle nudge to Her Majesty’s Treasury, with the explanation that this offer was their contribution to the peace process. They intend to tell the Treasury that their offer was their contribution to the peace process, and that from where they were sitting, it seemed as though the Chancellor was dragging his feet, which was an indication for them to throw this large sum of money on the table and seek matching funding from elsewhere. Members know that, in many cases, a nudge is as good as a wink. From where I am standing, the Chancellor needs a shove to initiate the delivery of a better economic package than he has outlined so far.

For Northern Ireland parties to go into an election without having closure on a financial package that has been greatly discussed appears to be the repetition of a past mistake. We must have closure on a financial package for this part of the United Kingdom. Of course, the financial package might, in turn, benefit other parts of the island, and, if so, that is to the good.

Those who have experience of doing business on the island will know that to confine it to an all-Ireland basis is not sustainable for our economy.

That is why the amendment that was moved so ably by my colleague Mr McClarty is worthy of the support of the House.

Gregory Campbell (DUP)

A series of Members have contributed to this wide-ranging debate. I join with other Members who have indicated their congratulations — and, some might say, commiserations — to the Member for North Antrim Dr Seán Farren on his retirement.

David McNarry (UUP)

Will the Member give way?

Gregory Campbell (DUP)

After about five seconds? Yes, OK. [Laughter.]

David McNarry (UUP)

I thank the Member for reminding me that I did not do that. I appreciate the use of five seconds of Mr Campbell’s time to pass on my best wishes to Dr Farren.

Gregory Campbell (DUP)

As long as it is not contagious, I am happy to allow that. Seán Farren will go into retirement in the knowledge that he has a hardworking constituency..." class="glossary">Member of Parliament to go to if he needs any problems solved.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Gregory Campbell (DUP)

I, of course, will always be at the ready for him, as I am for others. Dr Farren referred to what he called “all-Ireland reconciliation initiatives”. I regret that that type of language, in various forms, has permeated the debate on the nationalist side. That highlights the different perspectives of cross-border co-operation that Mr Hay mentioned — one person’s all-Ireland reconciliation is another’s political interference.

Lord Morrow referred to the understandable reticence that many unionists have about cross-border co-operation on security grounds. He spoke at some length and with considerable validity about the example of Tourism Ireland, and he outlined that organisation’s less than perfect performance to date. That matter was also raised by my hon Friend the Member for East Antrim Mr Dawson. I hope that both of the matters that were raised by my colleagues will be taken up with Tourism Ireland and that we will see an improvement in its performance after this debate.

Madam Speaker, you mentioned that several Members were not present in the Chamber when it was their turn to speak. I am happy to confirm that they were not DUP Members.

Over several years, we have resented and complained bitterly about interference by the Republic of Ireland in our affairs. We will continue to do that in the future. By the same token, we would not dream of interfering in the affairs of the Republic of Ireland.

There is one matter that has not been mentioned thus far that the Republic of Ireland could address, and that concerns the President of the Republic of Ireland. She visits Northern Ireland quite frequently, and there are those of us who will ensure that she abides by the proper protocols of a visiting dignitary or head of state. The one matter that ensures that she cannot be regarded as such, in a perfect sense, is her title. That is nothing to do with her, but it is the responsibility of the Govern­ment of the Irish Republic, because she is not the President of Ireland, even though she is styled as such. She is the President of the Republic of Ireland.

It is a matter for the Republic of Ireland to decide what it wishes to call her, but I and my community deeply resent any title that implies that she is our President. Neither she nor any President who follows her will ever be the President of the people of Northern Ireland.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Gregory Campbell (DUP)

That is a matter that could be addressed on a cross-border basis, and I hope that that will happen. If we can arrive at an accommodation on that matter, so much the better.

David McClarty referred to North/South business takeovers and said that many of them were corporate decisions. He is correct in that analysis. He also mentioned the pound versus the euro. Given the increasing appreciation of the pound against the dollar, one can see why the euro would be a distinctly second-best choice, if anyone were pushed into making such a choice.

(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

Unfortunately, the Sinn Féin contributions concentrated on overtly political issues. I am not one to lecture, because I am lectured quite often, but I keep hearing references to the “North of Ireland”. If people study a map, they will see that Malin Head is the most northerly part of Ireland. A couple of weeks ago, we heard contributions from some Members about the thousands of empty homes in the “North of Ireland”. I did not know that there were 36,000 empty dwellings in Malin Head — I had no idea that it was that big. I hope that that issue will be addressed. The north of Ireland equals Malin Head. This is Northern Ireland; the Republic of Ireland is the Republic of Ireland; and never the twain shall meet.

Kieran McCarthy made a worthwhile contribution on what I regard as effective co-operation between both countries on this island, which the DUP supports and will continue to support.

I will take Dominic Bradley’s helpful reference to the financial services sector at face value. The Republic of Ireland, and Dublin in particular, has blossomed in that sector. However, I fear that when he refers to Belfast being a financial centre, he means that it would be a satellite of Dublin. Why should Belfast be a satellite of Dublin? We should promote the greater Belfast area in its own right as a financial services centre, and not as a satellite of anywhere.

George Dawson referred to the unfortunate Darby O’Gill attitude to economics in both countries that pervaded much of the debate. He made a telling and relevant point about electricity markets and the un­competitive nature of that market in the Irish Republic.

Cultural and educational issues were not raised during the debate. In that regard, the Republic of Ireland could teach Northern Ireland a lesson, because the orange culture is well treated and well respected there. On the Saturday before the Twelfth of July, there is open advocacy in Rossnowlagh in County Donegal. I wish that that attitude could be reciprocated in Northern Ireland and that people could be welcomed into one another’s villages. Unionists in Kilkeel welcome the Ancient Order of Hibernians into their village, and I would like the people of Dunloy to welcome orange brethren into their village. There is no reciprocity; it is a one-way street.

This has been a healthy debate, but the same issues remain. If, in a few months’ or a few years’ time, we get an Executive up and running, after there has been unequivocal support for the police — seen in practice and tested over a credible period — we will begin to see real, positive co-operation that unionist Ministers can advocate openly and that benefits Northern Ireland as well as the Republic of Ireland.

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The debate has been interesting and healthy. There has been a return to the old principle of moving forward, both from unionism and from the SDLP.

I thank the Members who paid tribute to my colleague Dr Farren, who proposed the motion and who is retiring today. He said that relations between North and South have developed in a mutually harmonious way for the benefit of all the people of this island, whether unionist, nationalist or of no particular affiliation. Indeed, evidence, as highlighted by Dr Farren, shows that work done thus far represents the normalisation of practical co-operation.

As Dr Farren said, there is no longer a question mark over the capacity of North/South co-operation to deliver. Indeed, all-Ireland initiatives should not be a hostage to political difficulties, as Dr Farren and Dominic Bradley pointed out. I make this plea to unionists, whether from the DUP or the Ulster Unionist Party: please embrace North/South co-operation for the mutual benefit that it can bring all of us on this island.

As Dr Farren said, the best way to encapsulate North/South co-operation for mutual benefit is through the National Development Plan, which was published last week. The national development plan builds on the proposals that the SDLP presented in its ‘North South Makes Sense’ document. We should no longer work on a back-to-back approach, as few benefits come from it. We need only note the marginalisation, deprivation and poverty that occurred as a result of partition. It is much better if we can work together. To quote Dr Farren:

“We can do more together in order to get more together”.

There is a lesson for all of us in those words. We need to find common solutions, and our strength will grow the more that we co-operate.

Lord Morrow referred to the bogeyman of North/South co-operation. He said that Tourism Ireland has not worked for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. That is wrong. In my experience, North/South co-operation, as demonstrated by Tourism Ireland, has worked. Indeed, I need only look to my constituency of South Down, where Tourism Ireland has particularly promoted the Mournes and St Patrick’s country.

I welcome David McClarty’s comments that the Ulster Unionists have no problem with North/South co-operation. However, that party has worries when such co-operation is used for party-political purposes. In order to develop North/South co-operation, the political driver of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) is required as part of the restored institutions.

Last year, Dr Farren and I were pleased to attend the all-island infrastructure investment conference in Dundalk. This year’s conference will be held in Newcastle. At the conference in Dundalk, we talked to many businesspeople and investors from Great Britain. Many delegates from the unionist community in Northern Ireland also attended the conference to hear at first-hand not only what was being done in the Republic of Ireland but how they can co-operate for mutual benefit. The delegates believed that there was a need for a political driver. That political driver should be the North/South Ministerial Council, and we should all move together for the benefit of the entire island in order to improve the prospects for future generations.

Ms Ruane gave a partial constituency critique of South Down. I note that she is not in her place. From her contribution, I note that Sinn Féin is seeking a tax-harmonisation system. I thought that that party strongly opposed lowering corporation tax on the island of Ireland.

Assertions were made about the Narrow Water bridge. I wish to relate some of the history of that, as I was born and reared in south Down. The SDLP has been involved in the Narrow Water bridge project since the mid-1970s. It participated in, and contributed to, debates in Newry and Mourne District Council, and above all it participated in the Warrenpoint-Cooley group, which was headed up in the 1970s, and is still headed up, by a local member of the SDLP, Dr Donal O’Tierney. Let no one tell me that the SDLP was divided on the issue or was not involved.

The constituency..." class="glossary">Member of Parliament for South Down, Eddie McGrady, has made significant representations over many years, along with my constituency colleague P J Bradley. Further to that, I am sure that many in the House will agree that terrorism hindered the development of the bridge at Narrow Water. In fact, I well remember a bomb there that killed many soldiers on the August bank holiday in 1979. That put back the cause of North/South co-operation, and of economic co-operation and the political drivers, for many years. I hope that those days will never return to this island. Our children deserve better.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member include in her remarks the fact that we received a multimillion pound cross-border investment in City of Derry Airport, and that it was welcomed by all parties in the council?

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the Member for her comments. I am well aware that all parties on Derry City Council welcomed the financial commitment from the Irish Government. Assertions have been made in the Chamber, but we in the community have contrary information. It is important that that point be made.

Kieran McCarthy referred to the very welcome all-Ireland free travel scheme, which will be implemented in April 2007 and will be of mutual benefit to all senior citizens on this island. Perhaps we will see Members from the Benches opposite travelling on the Enterprise train. On that subject, there must be increased frequency of departure times, better rolling stock and increased investment in the rail infrastructure.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

Will the Member give way?

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I have only a few minutes left, so, if the Member does not mind, I will not give way.

I note that unionists, particularly the DUP, are annoyed by peripatetic Ministers, even though those Ministers come with money. William Hay was quite happy to take the money. Philip McGuigan mentioned the need for spatial planning for health and hospital services. George Dawson made considerable reference to the all-island energy market. However, I am sure that he will agree with Members on this side of the House that it has brought benefit to producers in the North. He also made a critique of Tourism Ireland. It would be better if the DUP were to join with the rest of us in participating in those institutions in order to bring benefit to all the people.

Gregory Campbell referred to all-Ireland reconciliation initiatives without political interference — I have no problem with such initiatives. Then he mentioned the President of Ireland visiting Northern Ireland. I recall that unionists were not shy about going to Áras an Uachtaráin or having their photographs taken with the President or participating in the Council of State. Perhaps he needs to consult some of his colleagues.

This has been a very interesting debate, which has clarified some issues. However, in order to maximise the benefits of North/South co-operation, there must be a move towards much more integrated planning and delivery of projects. The SDLP believes that the National Development Plan provides the opportunity for that to happen. Discussions between the Treasury in London and the Department of Finance in Dublin can facilitate progress, which will require the third element to make it work: the restoration of all the political institutions on the island.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

AYES

Paul Berry, Thomas Buchanan, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, George Dawson, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, Alex Easton, Arlene Foster, Paul Girvan, William Hay, Lord Morrow, Stephen Moutray, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, George Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Simpson, Mervyn Storey, Peter Weir.

Tellers for the Ayes: Arlene Foster and Paul Girvan.

NOES

Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, Dominic Bradley, Mary Bradley, Francis Brolly, Thomas Burns, Willie Clarke, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, Michael Ferguson, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Dolores Kelly, Gerry Kelly, Alban Maginness, Fra McCann, Kieran McCarthy, Raymond McCartney, Patsy McGlone, Philip McGuigan, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Sean Neeson, John O’Dowd, Tom O’Reilly, Sue Ramsey, Margaret Ritchie, Caitriona Ruane, Kathy Stanton.

Tellers for the Noes: Thomas Burns and John Dallat.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made.

Ayes

Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Michael Copeland, Robert Coulter, Reg Empey, Samuel Gardiner, Norman Hillis, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, David McNarry, Ken Robinson, Jim Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Billy Armstrong and Norman Hillis.

Noes

Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, Dominic Bradley, Mary Bradley, Francis Brolly, Thomas Burns, Willie Clarke, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, Michael Ferguson, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Dolores Kelly, Gerry Kelly, Alban Maginness, Fra McCann, Kieran McCarthy, Raymond McCartney, Alasdair McDonnell, Patsy McGlone, Philip McGuigan, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Sean Neeson, John O’Dowd, Tom O’Reilly, Sue Ramsey, Margaret Ritchie, Caitriona Ruane, Kathy Stanton.

Tellers for the Noes: Thomas Burns and John Dallat.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put.

Ayes

Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, Dominic Bradley, Mary Bradley, Francis Brolly, Thomas Burns, Willie Clarke, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, Michael Ferguson, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Dolores Kelly, Gerry Kelly, Alban Maginness, Fra McCann, Kieran McCarthy, Raymond McCartney, Alasdair McDonnell, Patsy McGlone, Philip McGuigan, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Sean Neeson, John O’Dowd, Tom O’Reilly, Sue Ramsey, Margaret Ritchie, Caitriona Ruane, Kathy Stanton.

Tellers for the Ayes: Thomas Burns and Margaret Ritchie.

Noes

Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Thomas Buchanan, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Michael Copeland, Robert Coulter, George Dawson, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, Alex Easton, Reg Empey, Arlene Foster, Samuel Gardiner, Paul Girvan, William Hay, Norman Hillis, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, David McNarry, Lord Morrow, Stephen Moutray, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, George Robinson, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Simpson, Mervyn Storey, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Billy Armstrong and Arlene Foster.

Main Question accordingly negatived.