Irish government had ‘little in locker’ over cross-border cooperation in 1998, official said

By Jonathan McCambridge, PA

Representatives of the Government had “little in the locker” when it came to ideas about cross-border cooperation just before the Good Friday Agreement was signed, a senior civil servant said.

Declassified files show intensive efforts ongoing behind the scenes to find agreement over north-south bodies while maintaining support from both unionist and nationalist politicians.

The Stormont powersharing Assembly and Executive were established following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and subsequent referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic.

As part of the historic agreement, the North-South Ministerial Council and a number of cross-border implementation bodies were formed.

However, just weeks before the deal was agreed, civil servant David Ferguson from the Central Secretariat sent a number of minutes to other civil servants on March 23rd about efforts to formalise areas of cooperation.

In one he says: “We are now at a stage in the process where for compelling political reasons there is a need to categorise the list, in a way which will be attractive to one side but which will not antagonise the other.”

An accompanying document marked ‘Confidential’ says potential areas included agriculture, education and training, health, industrial and trade matters, marine and waterways, social welfare and energy.

Another memo sent by Mr Ferguson said: “The practical constraints on some of the more advanced forms of North/South interaction will of course be exposed in continuing dialogue between the parties; and the extent to which they can be pushed back will be heavily influenced by the political will on both sides to find solutions.”

In another note he says: “I do understand your point about the sensitivities of using terms like ‘Agencies’ or ‘Boards’.

“But we have referred hitherto only in very general terms to areas of cooperation without there being any real consideration of what scope or form that cooperation might take.

“My own view is that if the requirement on the nationalist side for there to be an initial set of implementation bodies in meaningful areas is to be met we will need to attach labels and specifications sooner rather than later.”

Another memo from Mr Ferguson said he had spent 90 minutes in a meeting with Ray Bassett, a diplomat from the Department of Foreign Affairs, reviewing areas of potential cooperation.

He says: “I had half expected, on the basis of some reporting from Peter Bell last week about activity in Departments in Dublin, that I might be presented with a fresh list of new areas and possibly some specific (and innovative) proposals for implementation bodies.

“In the event, while there clearly has been a round of discussions with Departments, what emerged was relatively small beer.”

He says the Irish officials had asked for inward investment to be dropped from the list, “clearly under pressure from their Industrial Development Agency”.

Mr Ferguson adds: “As to implementation bodies, there seemed to be little in the locker on the Irish side, apart from some vague talk of a single Tourist Board (though not first on any list) and a fairly vague idea of Dermot Gallagher’s that something might be done in the area of environmental protection.”

The file contains a response sent by the Department of Economic Development about inward investment not being an area suitable for cooperation on joint action.

It says: “Unlike tourism, this is an area where there is clear competition between the two parts of the island.

“Success for one area means a loss for the other, so the potential for conflict is far greater than for joint action or cooperation.”