First British-Irish conference in NI for almost 20 years under way
A meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIGC) is under way in Northern Ireland for the first time in almost two decades.
The BIIGC was set up under the Good Friday Agreement and meets twice a year.
It last met in Dublin in December, just after the Irish general election was held.
Secretary of State Hilary Benn is hosting Tánaiste (Irish Deputy Prime Minister) Simon Harris and Ireland's Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan.
The BIIGC has not taken place in Northern Ireland since 2006.
Ministers have arrived and are expected to discuss a range of issues including legacy, given the ongoing move by Labour to repeal the NI legacy act.
The purpose of the BIIGC is "to bring together the British and Irish governments to promote cooperation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both governments".
A joint release from both governments issued ahead of Thursday's meeting stated that the meeting would involve discussion about "ongoing efforts to find a way forward regarding the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland".
The conference will also cover political stability, security, and other areas of bilateral cooperation.
It follows the UK-Ireland summit last month, where the two governments pledged to work closely to deliver security, investment and growth.
Mr Benn said: "This will be an important meeting in developing the strong and close relationship between the UK and the Irish governments as we continue to work together on a range of issues."
Mr Harris added that he was looking forward to the "significant" meeting of the BIIGC and "continuing the intensive discussions with the secretary of state for Northern Ireland on the challenging but essential work of dealing with the legacy of the past".
The last BIIGC meeting, which was held in Dublin in December 2024, was overshadowed by the Irish general election.
During the meeting, British and Irish government ministers discussed a range of issues including the Troubles Legacy Act, the Omagh Bombing Inquiry and protecting the Common Travel Area.
It was the first BIIGC attended by Mr Benn since he became Northern Ireland secretary in July, after Labour won the UK general election.
It was designed to replace the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council (AIIC) and the Intergovernmental Conference, which was established under the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The BIIGC aims to promote bilateral co-operation on matters of mutual interest between the British and Irish Governments, including issues in relation to Northern Ireland.
The last time the meeting was held in Northern Ireland was at Hillsborough Castle in 2006, before another was held in Dundalk, County Louth, 2007.
No meetings of the BIIGC took place between 2008 and 2017, but it reconvened in 2018 following pressure on the then-Conservative government by Sinn Féin and the Irish government.
Since then, the meeting has alternated between London and Dublin.
Election overshadows British-Irish meeting
Criticism of Courts' decision to allow Legacy Act appeal
No row over UK asylum seeker policy, says Martin
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs?
After the general election last July, The Guardian ran a column written by an anonymous Whitehall employee. Its headline was: 'After years of being gaslit by government, we civil servants can breathe again under Labour'. And, underneath, its author revealed that many of his or her colleagues were overjoyed about the Tories' defeat. One unnamed civil servant was quoted as saying: 'I've never been so glad to see the back of a government.' Another gurgled: 'I feel professionally revitalised knowing that the adults are in charge.' Less than a year on, however, it seems that the mood in Whitehall isn't quite so euphoric. Some mandarins are finding that 'the adults' aren't to their taste, either. Or so I infer from the following story about the Foreign Office. Last month, more than 300 civil servants signed a letter to David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary. It questioned the continued sale of arms to Israel, accused the Government of contributing to 'the erosion of global norms', and complained about what its signatories saw as a 'stark… disregard for international law'. Now they've received a reply. But it probably isn't the one they were hoping for. Because Sir Oliver Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, has written them a letter of his own – calmly explaining that, if they don't like the Government's policy on this or any other issue, they know where the door is. 'If your disagreement with any aspect of Government policy or action is profound,' he writes, 'your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service'. This is an admirably courteous way of putting it. Because he could very easily have gone for: 'Who the hell do you jumped-up busybodies think you are? You're civil servants, for crying out loud. Obeying the Government's orders is your literal job, whether you like it or not. The Government was elected. You weren't. So if you want to hang on to that gold-plated pension, you'll do what you're told and shut up.' Personally, I wish he had put it as bluntly as that. It's not often that I feel compelled to defend Sir Keir and co. But, like any administration, they deserve to know that Whitehall is there to serve them, not undermine them with letters of sanctimonious complaint. Which is why I feel we're entitled to ask: when will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs? At any rate, Labour party members must be in a panic. They'll be thinking: 'It was bad enough when we lost the support of the working class. But if we've lost the support of the lanyard class, we really are toast.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GAA should 'change' Casement plans, says DUP minister
The minister in charge of sport in Northern Ireland has said plans for a new Casement Park stadium in west Belfast may have to be scaled back due to the funding shortfall. Communities Minister Gordon Lyons said the £50m offered on Wednesday by the UK government still left a "significant gap". In a statement to BBC News NI, he put the onus on the GAA to find more money or "change their plans to fit the funding". The price-tag for the planned 34,500-capacity stadium is about £100m more than is currently available. The GAA president, Jarlath Burns, has welcomed the £50m offered by the government but revealed the cost of rebuilding the derelict stadium is now "well over £270m". Mr Burns told Irish state broadcaster RTÉ on Wednesday: "The cost goes up by about £140,000 every month if we don't do anything because of the rising cost of infrastructure and building. "Time literally is money here." The GAA president is looking to the Stormont executive to help plug the funding gap. He said: "The executive now have to meet, and it's between really the two government parties to decide how they are going to make up the deficit that still exists between Casement Park not being built - and Casement Park being built." The statement from Lyons put the focus on the GAA itself. He said: "Additional money coming to Northern Ireland for sport must be allocated on a fair and equitable basis, a principle first agreed as part of the 2011 executive agreement and one I remain firmly committed to in the interests of fairness to all. "It will be up to the GAA to consider what additional contribution they are prepared to make or how they will change their plans to fit the funding that is available. "I look forward to engaging with the representatives of the GAA, football and rugby." Casement Park is expected to be among the topics discussed when ministers from the UK government sit down with their counterparts from the Stormont Executive in Belfast later. Although the stadium is not officially on the agenda of the East-West Council, it is sure to be discussed. This is only the second meeting of the council, a body set up last year to improve links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK after lobbying from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) ahead of the restoration of devolution. The funding currently available for the Casement Park redevelopment includes £15m from the GAA, about £43m from the Irish government and £62.5m from Stormont. Given that the Stormont funding pledge is more than a decade old, there have been calls for inflation to be taken into account which would take the total close to £100m. Mr Burns has asked Stormont to consider an "inflationary uplift". The football authorities in Northern Ireland will be watching closely what happens next. The Irish Football Association has called for at least £50m to be given to the sport in line with the extra UK money pledged for the Casement Park redevelopment. Chief executive Patrick Nelson said that "parity" between major sports is required. The GAA want a modern Casement Park stadium capable of hosting Ulster finals, as well as being the home for Antrim county. Casement to get £50m from government in Spending Review
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass migration isn't Britain's lifeblood. It's an economic disaster
Within hours of stepping up as Reform chairman on Tuesday, David Bull triggered his first media controversy by remarking that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country – it always has been'. As popular as this sentiment is with Britain's politicians, it isn't true today and it certainly wasn't in the past. From 1066 through to the end of the Second World War, the population of Britain has been marked by relative stability. As a crude illustration, as late as 1951 the total non-White population of Great Britain was estimated at about 30,000 people, or about 0.07pc of the population. Today it's roughly 20pc, and on course to pass 50pc by the end of the century. In other words, the population changes induced by migration over the past seven decades are essentially without parallel in 1,000 years of British history. Even within this modern period, however, it's not quite right to say that migration has been Britain's lifeblood. It would be more accurate to say it's been the default policy of a state that keeps repeating its mistakes. A brief summary of the last 70 years might fairly cast British migration policy as a mixture of blunders, unintended consequences, and myopic pursuit of short-term objectives, right from the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948. As other writers have pointed out, while the narrative promoted today is 'you called and we came', internal government communications show that efforts were made to dissuade Caribbean migration in ways that wouldn't imperil the precarious bonds with Britain's colonies. Shortly after the ship's arrival, Britain adopted a sweeping nationality act that permitted anyone with a passport issued by the British government to enter the country. This act, while 'never intended to sanction a mass migration', combined with policies aimed at attracting workers in specific fields to create a mass inflow. Now, where have we heard that before? Then, as now, policy revolved around the needs of the NHS – newly established in 1948 – which had outstripped training capacity and needed workers. Then, as now, the role of migration in propping up a state approach to healthcare which would otherwise have failed was indispensable. But while important to the health service, the proportion of total migration accounted for by this demand was relatively small. By 1958, 210,000 non-white Commonwealth migrants were living in the UK. In the same year, of 8,272 junior doctors in Great Britain 3,408 had been born elsewhere. Other figures, frustratingly only for 1965, suggest that there were about 5,000 Jamaican nurses and other workers staffing hospitals. Combine these figures, and you get an estimate of about 4pc of the new population working in the NHS. Allow for dependents and missing data, and you might hit 10pc. Either way, to claim that the entirety of mass migration was justified by the NHS was well short of the mark. Similarly, a narrative of labour shortages was constructed that took as granted a nationalised, unionised economy with rife overmanning, built to obtain full employment. Comparisons of vacancy lists to unemployment naturally resulted in the conclusion that labour was needed; the unwillingness of the Government to relax its grip on the economy or exchange rates meant that other routes to adjustment were difficult to follow. In other words, migration in the post-war period was in part essential to the state's ability to carry out its plans, and in other part an unintended consequence of those efforts. By 1962, the Government was taking steps to restrain the inflow, wary of the scale of the political backlash it had triggered. Usually, history doesn't repeat itself. Westminster, however, is gifted with a wonderful form of amnesia, and has managed to do so not once but twice. First we had the New Labour loosening of migration policy in pursuit of ill-defined fiscal goals, alongside an unwillingness to restrict movement for newly joined EU member states. Predictions that 13,000 workers a year would arrive from Eastern Europe turned out to be off by a few thousand percentage points, and eventually popular unrest again led to legal changes, this time in the form of Brexit. Yet almost the moment Boris Johnson took office he set about repeating the mistakes of his predecessors, implementing the greatest liberalisation of Britain's borders in decades. The reasoning is almost painful to read: worries over shortages of workers even as the ranks of the economically inactive swelled, issues with pay in care homes downstream of government cuts to local authority budgets, the need to prop up a university sector which had seen tuition fees frozen, the NHS trotted out as the symbolic argument for migration when just 3pc of the 1.2m inflow in 2022 consisted of doctors and nurses. And again, following vehement expressions of popular dissatisfaction, we find ourselves with a government promising long overdue action, and an opposition seeking to capitalise on this sentiment. There is a limit to how many times a country can repeat a mistake without doing lasting damage. Research from the Office for Budget Responsibility has made perfectly clear that staying on our current course is unaffordable. Without reforms to Indefinite Leave to Remain, the care worker element of migration from 2021 to 2024 could cost the exchequer a lifetime sum of £61bn to £84bn on its own. The sheer size of the failure means that it must be at least partly undone, and Labour has made some noises about doing so. But it would be a mistake to assume that everything before 2020 was good. Previous waves of migration have amply demonstrated how selecting the wrong migrants can lead to costs that linger for generations. Despite large flows of recent migration – which tends to be fiscally positive in the years before workers age – it is still the case that black and Asian households in Britain receive more in state benefits than they pay in taxes, suggesting that previous migrants and their descendants may not have had the economic success we might have hoped for. Similarly, certain groups remain highly dependent on social housing. The grand experiment of the post-war era is over. The results are in. Immigration might be the lifeblood of the British state, but it is hard to argue that it's been an unequivocal success for the British people. The efforts to make it central to our shared understanding of history are less about genuine interest in our island story than they are justifying the mistakes of generations of politicians, the forging of a US-style narrative of a nation of immigrants for a very different country. This isn't a game Reform needs to play. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
