HC Deb 14 December 1989 vol 163 cc1152-4
11. Mr. Andrew MacKay

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Brooke

There have been four meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference recently. At the last conference we discussed ways of furthering cross-border co-operation in economic and social fields and set in train a programme of work to develop plans in those areas.

Mr. MacKay

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has replaced megaphone diplomacy, by and large, with informed, low-key discussions between the two Governments on matters of mutual interest and concern? That must surely be in the interests of all who live in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Brooke

During the four months in which I have been involved with the Anglo-Irish Agreement I remember two occasions when megaphones were used—once by me and once by an Irish Minister. On the next occasion, we agreed that it would be more sensible to continue to operate through the conference, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Hume

Has the question of funding Conway Mill been discussed in the Anglo-Irish Conference? Does the Minister recall a reply that he made to me on that question, when he said that they were not funded because of allegations of indirect or direct assistance to paramilitary organisations? Does the Minister accept that in the context of Northern Ireland those are serious and dangerous allegations? Does he recall my telling him that when I put the allegation directly to the organisers, they categorically denied it, and with all my experience of Northern Ireland I believe them. They also told me of their willingness to open the organisation's books to the Government, or to anybody nominated by the Government. In all fairness and justice, should not that offer be taken up?

Mr. Brooke

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion of Conway Mill at any of the four conferences at which I have been present, but I congratulate the hon. Member on his ingenuity in reaching the subject of question No. 18. Policy on that issue—on which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I have already given him an answer—was determined by my predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, and that policy still stands.

Rev. William McCrea

After four years of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Minister tell the people of Northern Ireland and right hon. and hon. Members why the promise made to the people of Northern Ireland has not been kept? The agreement was brought into existence to bring peace, stability and reconciliation to the people of Ulster, yet in the House today the Secretary of State has given us a catalogue of murder, death and destruction.

Mr. Brooke

No one would be better pleased than I if the working of the conference, and the agreement, had produced total peace and stability, but there is no doubt in my mind that the co-operation that we have across the border with the Irish Government makes such a future more likely.

Mr. John D. Taylor

In view of the increasing disillusionment in the House with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the awareness that there must be a way forward to a better alternative, is the Secretary of State aware of the Ulster Unionists' proposals that, during the heavy programme of the Dublin Government's European presidency, there will be an opportunity for a temporary gap in which talks could take place to bring about that alternative? When a reasonable proposal comes from the Ulster Unionists, the time has surely arrived for Dublin and the Secretary of State to do better than just saying no.

Mr. Brooke

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's premise that there is disillusionment, but I can respond, as I responded earlier, to the spirit of the second part of his question. The Government are interested in interpreting and managing the agreement flexibly, with the idea that if there were an uneven gap between meetings of the conference in the first part of 1990, there would be an opening for talks if all parties agreed.

I am mildly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a reasonable suggestion from the Ulster Unionists as though that were unusual. I regard any suggestions that they make as reasonable.

Mr. Leigh

Under the workings of the agreement, has my right hon. Friend discussed the new Anglo-Irish parliamentary body? Does he consider it a good omen for Anglo-Irish relations that the Irish parties have sent such a strong team, including the former Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs Minister? Will he express the hope that Unionist Members will send representatives to work on the parliamentary body as there is nothing to be gained from remaining in the bunker and everything to be gained by talking?

Mr. Brooke

The more the British delegation to the group—the setting up of which I welcome—is fully representative of the House, the more effectively it will discharge its mandate.