Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That Dáil Éireann reaffirms its confidence in the Government."

—(The Taoiseach).

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

When the debate was adjourned last night I had made the point that, while we all welcome the moderate and relatively reassuring statements of the Taoiseach recently, we welcome and support the line of policy announced by him in relation to the north and to the crisis, but while we do all this we still cannot have confidence in his Government. We regret this. We welcome the composition of that Government. We would like to be able to have confidence in them as a Government who can give sound unswerving leadership at this time of crisis. I spelled out the basic reason why we cannot have such confidence, that is, that there are some five to 17 Deputies on those benches on whom the Government depend for their survival and who cannot be counted on in time of a hot emergency. If the pressure becomes really strong as a result of events in the north these gentlemen cannot be counted on to support the policy announced by the Taoiseach. That is a very serious state of affairs. I was examining, therefore, what kind of policy these gentlemen have, what kind of policy they would be likely to advocate in terms of crisis.

In that connection I was quoting, when the debate was adjourned, from a speech by Deputy Boland made here on the 8th May. I will continue with my reading of that:

While a policy ruling out force is appropriate and almost unanimously accepted as far as I know for this 26 County State-certainly it is unanimously accepted so far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned— there is no doubt that the people in the Six Counties are, in fact, in the same position as the people in the whole country were in before 1916, and they are entitled to make their own decisions.

The Taoiseach is dependent for the survival of his Government, in times of crisis, on the people who applauded the man who said that. Deputy Boland continued:

While we here are both entitled and, I think, very well qualified to give advice on this matter, and the advice we would give would be that there should be no inclination to utilise force to solve the difficulties which exist there

I do not know whether the Ministers listened to Deputy Boland when he was speaking. Perhaps they listened to him so attentively they have no need to hear me recall his words, but other Deputies may be interested in them. He went on:

and to try to secure the acceptance of our approach, it would be presumptuous for us to attempt from the smugness of this 26 County State to dictate to our fellow countrymen who are suffering under British imperialism, because that is what they are suffering under.

It would be unpardonable for us to take any action to frustrate the efforts of our people in the Six Counties to protect their lives and property.

I do not know what Deputy Boland means by "our people" whether that includes Catholics and Protestants or whether it is just Catholics in this context. I suspect it is just Catholics. He continued:

The objection I see to the approach of many Deputies who have been speaking here in this matter is the concern for what is described as the freedom we have achieved, the attitude that the overriding concern must be to retain this State and this Parliament. So far as I am concerned I want to go on record as saying that I reject that attitude, that I do not see a 26 County State as an achievement. I see it as a retrogression. I see it as a situation resulting from the 1922 betrayal. While I recognise it as a situation which exists, and under which we must work, I also recognise that the national objective is to get rid of two States in this country not one.

I interject there to say that if Deputy Boland's policy is followed we shall get rid not only of the States but also of large sections of their population. Deputy Boland in any case goes on to say:

There is here in this part of our country an established situation of a democratically-elected Government operating under a democratically adopted Constitution and no such Government could tolerate the existence of an armed organisation not under the Government's control. No such Government could permit the importation of arms into this country for such an organisation. I am absolutely certain that no one who was a colleague of mine in the Government believes otherwise.

I hope the Taoiseach will say something to us about those remarks of Deputy Boland. It is very important for his credibility and for the credibility of his Government that he should. Deputy Boland goes on to say:

However, while such an crganisation is clearly illegal here the position in the Six Counties is clearly different. The solution imposed on this country by the British, in addition to massive subsidisation by the British taxpayer and to the garrisoning by the British Army, requires the discrimination and oppression that is exercised by the ruling faction. This ruling faction must remam....

In so far as this question of the alleged attempt to import arms is concerned—and I repeat I have no reason to believe there has been any such importation—it is our obvious duty to ensure that any such importation to this part of the country is only carried out by official State agencies. However, we have no function in regard to the Six Counties. It is not our homes or our lives that are in danger. Since we are not in a position to supply protection to these citizens of ours and since the United Nations, to which we subscribe, acts like Pontius Pilate in regard to the situation, we have no right to interfere in any efforts our people in the Six Counties may feel constrained to make to defend themselves from the effects of British imperialism in that part of our country....

As far as I am concerned my position is clear. Arms importation into this part of our country by any agency other than the State is illegal and should not be permitted, but arms importation into the part of the country in which the writ of this Government does not run is not illegal so far as I am concerned. It is our duty to advise against it but it is not our business to interfere and any co-operation with the security forces of the country that continues to occupy six of our counties is, in my opinion, intolerable.

That is a remarkable statement. The Taoiseach does not appear to have understood this remarkable statement. I want to refer now to column 1342 of the Official Report of the 9th May when the Taoiseach commented on this. He expressed in very mild terms his disagreement with a part of that speech by Deputy Boland. He said:

I want again to express my disagreement with my colleague, Deputy Boland, when he says that it is a matter for them to get their guns it they want to from some other source but not from here.

That is not what Deputy Boland said. The Taoiseach went on to say:

It certainly is something that we could and should achieve that they will not get them here but because of my abhorrence of this violence I would feel that guns to any unauthorised source from anywhere are a very serious danger.

What Deputy Boland actually said is:

Arms importation into the part of the country in which the writ of this Government does not run is not illegal so far as I am concerned.

If it is not illegal from the point of view of a member of that Government, therefore, it can lawfully happen on the territory of this State. What Deputy Boland is saying is that guns can and should legally be run from the 26 Counties into the Six where they get into the hands of organisations which, when they work within the Six Counties, Deputy Boland does not regard as illegal.

Now, it is natural in any governing party that there should be differences of opinion, there should be a certain span of opinion, there should be certain differences of emphasis. That is commonplace and we all experience it but that there should be such a span that a member of that party, who is applauded by his own party, should affirm this doctrine of the legality of arms importation into Northern Ireland and that the Taoiseach should differ from a proposition that Deputy Boland did not enunciate, and fail to refer to the policy which he did enunciate—then there is a very ominous crack in those benches over there, and even a tap let alone such a hard blow as it could possibly receive, would split that party, bring down that Government and do that at the very worst time—a time of national crisis. That is what we are faced with and I hope the Taoiseach will reply explicity to that difficulty. In seeking for our confidence, as the Taoiseach has done, a confidence we should like to extend to him in national emergency, I do not think we should find ourselves engaged in a squabble or passionate interchange at such a time. I should like to see all parties being able to work together on this issue and I think we are very near that point. We are very near but at the same time we are dangerously far away because the gentlemen on the extreme right of that party—the extreme right is where they are—differ fundamentally from the rest of the Dáil on that matter. On their fundamental dissent, on that crazy foundation this Government now rests.

All this means, this speech by Deputy Boland and I think Deputy Blaney, although he is not so explicit he is in agreement with him, is that the State forces here should turn a blind eye to the activities of the underground armed organisations in the north in maintaining supply lines across the Border from the 26 Counties. That presumably is the policy at which those gentlemen were conniving when they were in office. It is well known that a sympathiser of theirs occupied the post of Minister for Justice, and on the Minister for Defence, the other key Ministry in this matter, a shade of suspicion also falls as a result of the declarations of Captain Kelly, which have not been contradicted where they ought to be contradicted, in a court of law.

This statement by Deputy Boland also means that an IRA rising, of some sort or other, whether it is called IRA or not or whether it is called provisional or whatever it is now, in the Six Counties, is as justifiable as was the 1916 Rising. He says the situation in the north now is exactly the same as the situation in the whole country before 1916. When he makes that somewhat crazed utterance I cannot see that we can draw any other inference from it than that a rising of the 1916 type now in one of the cities of Northern Ireland is justifiable in the opinion of a key supporter of the Government, without whose support the Government would fall.

It is an unmistakable corollary of this, though unspoken by Deputy Boland, that our Government should go to the help of the brave men whom they would have encouraged by their collusion to start such a rising. I think that it does follow. There is nothing illogical about it but if there is, perhaps, the Deputies opposite may wish to explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of Deputy Boland, if they are in a position to do that.

If that is not a corollary—the idea that we should go to the help of potential rebels in the North—then the policy is as contemptible as it is insane. As we were called on to speak charitably the other day I shall make the charitable assumption that the policy announced by Deputy Boland is just insane. I know there are Members opposite who agree with me. I am sorry they are not in a position to say this clearly; the fact that they must be very delicate and gingerly in their handling of Deputy Boland's terrible utterance is the most ominous of the many ominous features in this debate.

Deputy Boland's policy, which is inbuilt in the Fianna Fáil Party, is a recipe for civil war. Let nobody deceive themselves that this will be just civil war in the north because it cannot be confined to that area in the present circumstances. Civil war, including the actions of British troops, could spread to this whole island and the effect of Deputy Boland's utterances on the young men to whom it is obliquely directed is helping to set in motion a train of events which could bring civil war to us all. It is a recipe for the deaths of many innocent Irish men, women and children—whether Catholic or Protestant is immaterial—and for the destruction of our State whose institutions and security have already been undermined by Deputy Boland and his friends.

This does not matter very much to Deputy Boland because he does not think much of the State of which he has been a Minister and which his party have governed for so long. He does not regard it as an achievement to have such a State and he would like both States to be swept out of existence. He has a dashing attitude towards the situation here and he does not hesitate to play with lives. If it were just Deputy Boland it would not matter too much but we have a Government that depends for survival in time of crisis on Deputy Boland and his friends. However, it is not just a question that the withdrawal of those five, ten or 15 men who applauded the sentiments expressed by Deputy Boland, could bring the Government down. There is also involved what I would call their latent authority. To use a slang phrase these people are "big wheels" in their party although in the eyes of the country they may not be as powerful as the Taoiseach who is personally esteemed above any of these four gentlemen, both individually and collectively. I do not think this is necessarily the case among Fianna Fáil Deputies in this House.

I do not know much about that party and I have to infer their inward travails from what appears from the party's outward comportment. Deputy Cosgrave spoke of the tip of the iceberg and this proved an apt metaphor. I was struck, as some other Deputies were, by a curious passage in the Taoiseach's concluding statement on 9th May. At columns 1336 and 1337 of the Official Report dated 8/9th May, 1970, the Taoiseach stated in regard to his feelings when he carried out the purge of his Cabinet:

Certainly, it was for me a sad day when our Ministerial paths had to part.

I quite appreciate the personal feelings involved here and will not trespass on them. However, that is not the point I am making. The Taoiseach goes on to say:

All three of them had long family traditions—as we have heard. I think they are entitled to proclaim that service to the country and towards the fight for freedom. Through their families, they have given service and endured considerable suffering. It made the task all the less easy that I realised that my family had not the same traditions of service or of membership of the Fianna Fáil Party and that I was asking these two men to resign and that Deputy Kevin Boland resigned because he objected to my handling of the affair, obviously.

Psychologically, that is very curious and its psychology has important and dangerous political implications. Phrases such as "my family has not the same traditions as yours" are not frequently adopted or heard in this House. Some Deputies have commented on this with some puzzlement and I was very puzzled myself. As a student of international affairs and a former diplomat, I have been interested in what is called "conflict resolution" which means the techniques adopted by people when they wish to avoid a collision. This is important in studies of peacemaking and so on. People who study these "conflict resolution" methods of ending a quarrel without an actual fight have become increasingly interested in what might be called "zoological analogies". I may appear to be wandering far from the point but I am really close to something I believe to be important.

In the animal kingdom there are devices for ending a quarrel. There is a technique called "presentation"; this is analogous to the presenting of arms in the military code. In the animal world if a pair of dogs or wolves are on the verge of a fight one will expose his jugular to the other animal. Then, the fight is over, one has submitted, a hierarchy is established between them and they proceed as a united pack. Something similar holds good among cranes; in this case the back of the head is presented. The same also applies to baboons who present another part of their anatomy but I shall not trouble the House about this at the present time.

This device of "presentation" is effective in ending a quarrel, in instituting a new hierarchy and this happens in a wide variety of forms in diplomatic and political behaviour. It is detailed in an excellent book of my own which Deputies will find in the library should they not wish to purchase it in a bookshop. Therefore, I was interested in this matter because it seemed to me that what was happening here when the Taoiseach made this reference to his family not having had the same traditions of service as did the families of Deputies Boland, Haughey, Blaney and, perhaps, Ó Móráin that he was "presenting," he was appeasing. This is very odd because formally what he was doing was humiliating them, pushing them out. They should have been presenting their jugular vein or the backs of their heads or any appropriate part of their anatomy. But no, it was the other way round. I hope Deputies will not think I have dealt with this facetiously, but I think these comparisons are valid. The real point is that he was acknowledging their continuing authority within the Fianna Fáil Party, and they do have such authority, and, considering the views they have, such authority is extremely dangerous. The fact that they have that authority makes the Fianna Fáil Party in its present condition extremely dangerous, and there are Deputies over there on that front bench who know that as well as or perhaps much better than I do. By their numbers these people exert pressure on the Government; by their Fianna Fáil hierarchical authority and command among local organisations, they exert more pressure.

That is dangerous enough, but there is another danger involved here, that is, that pressure is being exerted on them. They have played a part, I do not know with what sincerity; probably with a mixture of sincerity, bravado and calculation. In any case they have played the part of the heroic, intransigent republican. Others may betray the republic, let it down or joggle it now and then, but not they. They will stand by the tradition. They are, in fact, the keepers of the tradition in the eyes of their followers, and they have a personal following.

How therefore will they behave in a crisis? Will they not be disposed in a crisis to demonstrate to their followers, to display to their followers: "Do not worry. We are indeed the intransigent republicans" in terms of Deputy Boland's speech? What could that mean? Will the Government not have to dissolve or do something to appease those people, and surely to do anything to appease the kind of policy which Deputy Boland announced in his speech would be madness?

A government depending on such support is a national menace—I am not speaking idly or rhetorically, I hope—and the more confidence they command, the more reassurance they can raise, the more of a menace it is. At this moment it can be compared to an infernal machine ticking away inside the bland, familiar toby jug of the Taoiseach's public image.

I have spoken, and I would wish that we would concentrate mainly, in relation to the strains that may be coming. In that well worn image, we should be getting the ship of State in condition to resist the storms that are blowing up and may blow very hard upon us, because it is probable that a general election in the United Kingdom is now imminent, and that fans further the flames that are beginning to burn there. We are not dealing with some remote situation but with something that may come upon us at any moment and which may overtake us in a dangerous and unprepared condition if that Government, meritorious though its own membership is, is in command of our destinies at that time.

Already much damage has been done in the north. It might be described as a policy of frightening Protestants and fooling Catholics and speeding on sectarianism—fooling Catholics with the dreams of military rescue, with the old green rhetoric, with all that which in these circumstances can only be poison. Damage has also been done to our institutions. Deputy Boland has told us, in effect, that a blind eye should be turned to arms smuggling to the north. Deputy Boland's colleague, who was, he tells us, fired, though the Taoiseach tells us he resigned on health grounds, was Minister for Justice. The portfolio of Justice was for all this time in the hands of the friend of Deputy Boland, a friend of a man who professes these ideas. I am afraid all that must mean that the police were encouraged to turn a blind eye to any such activities going on here, and that surely must have grave consequences for any proper police force.

Similarly, under the Minister for Defence, on whom this shadow still rests, the Army were involved in all these rather seedy operations about which we still know so little and feel so much disquiet. A number of Army officers have been named as having been engaged in clandestine activities in the north. We do not know whether the Taoiseach was aware of such activities. We do not know whether they have been abandoned. We have not been told anything very clear about that. However, that work in those circumstances meant contact with an illegal organisation up there whose policies are not necessarily the same as that Government's, and it involved of course contacts with members of this Government of different shades. We have found out that they were not then a united Government, as they still are not a united party, on this range of issues. Therefore these Army officers, all, as far as I can understand, of the middle rank, were thrown into all this heady whirl of politics, politics enveloped in this green haze of rhetoric which surrounds everything these gentlemen do.

It is very wrong that Army officers should be drawn into that situation. I speak here with great respect of the officers and men of our Army. I have seen them in combat conditions in the Congo less than ten years ago. I have great respect for their discipline, their loyalty and their spirit. I do not like to see those virtues being drawn into and tarnished by this kind of dangerous operation. When you draw the Army into this you draw all sorts of possible conflicts and strains into the situation. If officers are brought into this they are set on a course which they may see as a dashing, patriotic course. Army officers will be inclined, of their nature, to think of the more dashing course as the more patriotic. That is a part of military virtue and we should expect it, especially among younger officers. If they are told by Deputy Blaney or Deputy Boland: "Go and do this" and then they are later told by the Taoiseach: "Cool it. Stop it. Lay off", may not some of them be inclined to think the patriotic Deputy Blaney or Deputy Boland was the man who had the rights of it? That is the beginning of the way in which Army officers and the Army may be drawn into the politics of this State. Surely that is the most dangerous course in relation to internal politics in the Twenty-six Counties that any government could enter into? That is the full measure of the Government's irresponsibility on that matter.

Others—one could continue the list almost ad nauseam—have been drawn into it, too. For example, the information agencies have been drawn into it.

I asked the Taoiseach a question yesterday about Voice of the North: I asked him had it received any Government subvention or encouragement. He said no—just a single word, “no”; Voice of the North had received no encouragement from that Government over there. Then he said it had received no encouragement from Fianna Fáil as an organisation. Then he dropped the qualifier: he said it had received no encouragement from Fianna Fáil——

The Taoiseach

Only because the Deputy had interpreted the words "as an organisation" as a qualification.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Grammatically they seem to me to be a qualification. I think most grammarians would accept that. The Taoiseach told us that neither the Government nor Fianna Fáil gave any encouragement to Voice of the North. Now, I believe that statement of the Taoiseach: I believe it in exactly the same sense as I believe the statement which he made in reply to Deputy Cosgrave when he said he did not understand what Deputy Cosgrave was talking about when Deputy Cosgrave referred to possible resignations which the Taoiseach later told the House he had already asked for.

I do not believe the statement in the ordinary sense in which we use words to convey thought. I can accept that in some sense, of which part is hidden from us, it may be true and that the truth has now surfaced. Voice of the North comes out today, or its most recent number is quoted in the daily press today. It comes out with a strong defence of the dismissed Ministers and I think it reveals its connection because it proclaims them to be the pure patriots, it contrasts them explicitly with the left, with characters attributable to the left like Miss Devlin, and implicitly with the Taoiseach. However, Deputies Boland and Haughey are the true patriots. It becomes apparent now that that which was got going under encouragement from the Dublin Government was a Blaneyite organ now festering in the north.

That is another dangerous achievement but it is not the most dangerous aspect of that. The most dangerous aspect is that whatever mental reservations the Taoiseach may have about what he said about Voice of the North, nobody will believe what he says— neither Sinn Féin nor nationalist, neither unionist nor anyone else. Nobody will believe him. They believe this is in an organ which Fianna Fáil started and which has been taken over by Deputy Blaney and I think I must say they are right.

However, Voice of the North is not all that important. What is important is that the Taoiseach—whether in the north or in the south at any moment any section approves or does not approve of anything he does—should be a man whose utterances command credence, a man worthy of trust. There are in the north the adverse stereotypes which each community tends to cherish. There are the stereotyped opinions which the bigoted Protestants have about Catholics—that they cannot entirely trust their words, that they cannot be quite taken on trust, that there may be mental reservations and so on.

I do not need to go into all this. It is unfortunate that these impressions exist, but the most unfortunate thing is what must be said in relation to the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Cosgrave— that he has reinforced this image both of the majority in this island and of himself. This means that he will not be able to assert the ordinary authority or command the trust that the leader of this Government should command at the present time. I am very sorry to say that. I am really sorry, and I am not using it as a political phrase.

All this affects what I might call the vacuum of the rest of Fianna Fáil thought on this matter. I refer to the fact that while the extreme right on this might have a position—it has a certain horrible attraction—the moderates do not have anything clear to say. I shall refer to what Deputy Hillery, the Minister for External Affairs, said on the radio. I do not have the transcript of what he said. The Minister was asked to take part in a debate with a spokesman of this Party and a spokesman of Fine Gael. He was not able to attend but he was able to comment afterwards on a recorded version of what we had said. That is a rather easy way to have a discussion.

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy may have been given a false impression. My entitlement to speak rather than anything else was in question.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I entirely accept that. The interviewer questioned the Minister about the British and he replied: "I think the British should be ashamed of themselves"—this is from the Irish Press report of the interview —“Britain was at fault at the beginning and it is Britain who must play a major part to get the people in the north to understand each other, to find a formula for living together”. The Minister said the British must help. The poor British do not understand this situation themselves. They do not understand the Protestants or the Catholics. Both lots give them a headache and they are not in a position to explain one lot to the other lot. The Minister should have been trying to explain things to them, to get over a clear message to the people there, but neither he nor the Government have ever tried to do that.

I put down a question on what the Government have been doing. I asked if they have been doing anything which they can avow, which they can tell us. I do not think so. They have been addressing messages urbi et orbi about the general situation in the north but they have not been talking to the people, and the ultimate abdication was that of the Minister for External Affairs. What he said to the British was: “Please educate the Protestants in the north in Fianna Fáil principles”.

Dr. Hillery

The Deputy will agree that they would listen to England before they would listen to us.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It is an interesting idea.

I suppose we can envisage British Army education officers proceeding down the Shankill Road armed with speeches made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs and releases from the Government Information Bureau and leaving them in the various letterboxes along there as long as they survive in the area. The fact is that these people will not listen to the British any more than they will listen to us on such a matter. They have their own ideas. We should try to address them, and this is not an impossible thing to do. People say as one Minister said here yesterday when this issue was raised, that "We cannot go up there. We would only start trouble". It was then pointed out that a spokesman from the Fine Gael Party and a spokesman from the Labour Party had gone up there and talked on television with Mr. Paisley. I can appreciate the difficulties if members of the Government were to go up there and talk but there is nothing stopping them from talking to the north from down here. The BBC in the north and Ulster Television would both welcome members of this Government speaking on television particularly in times of crises. During the crisis of last summer a team from Ulster Television came down here but they could not get the Taoiseach or any member of the Government to talk to the people whom we are supposed to be trying to persuade.

We have renounced the use of force in dealing with these people and we welcome that but what else is left except persuasion? So what does the Government do, does it persuade, no, it aims its remarks in a totally different direction. It follows a totally different policy which by its hollowness, by the vacuum it creates, by the basic insincerity in its approach which it silently proclaims it invites the activity of the far right. As these people are shown no policy which could compete with their own they go on their doomed way. When the Taoiseach is replying, I should like him to tell us just what he is doing to reach the people of the north, to reach them not by these terrible, depressing, seedy underground channels that his Ministers have been working in but in the open language of free men not in incitement but in rational dialogue. There are many things which can be done but what is the Taoiseach doing?

I should like at this moment to say something about what might be called the violent cycle because just as the Government are not reaching the people of the north or attempting to reach them, either Protestant or Catholic or both together, so they are not really adequately or clearly answering the kind of questions put by the uneasy, tormented people of this part of the country, who are distressed in their consciences and traditions by what they see happening now and by what happened last August. Their confusions are not being cleared up. On the contrary, they are being increased by the two voices with which this Government speaks. I have been astonished by the statements which have been made to me in recent days when going round my own constituency by ordinary people in the streets and in the shops. The statements I am going to quote are sympathetic to the departed Ministers, but I should point out that not all the statements I have heard are sympathetic to the departed Ministers—most of the people of the country are not sympathetic to them, certainly in my own area they do not appear to be—but those who do sympathise with them said one or two things or quite often they said both of these things together. The first statement is, "We cannot stand aside and let the Catholics of the north be massacred". The second statement is; "This will be solved only by the gun". People are saying these things but the Government are not doing anything to reach these people. It will be no good complaining later about the angry, wild things confused people do if the Government have not done something or done enough to dissipate their confusion.

As regards the first statement the distinction has been made in the debate but the Government has not made clear the distinction between what the position was before and after British troops were deployed to protect one section against another, which they did with reasonable effectiveness under difficult conditions. At a time last August it did look as if we might be about to assist at a massacre by a sectarian mob, which included the police, of a section of the people there, that section being closely allied to the people of this part of the country. I can well understand the feelings of the people who at that time said: “We cannot stand idly by”. If it had gone on I can even imagine that our Army might have had to go in for the protection of those people in that Border area. I think that decision could only have been taken by any Government with the heaviest of hearts knowing that it would mean temporary protection, perhaps, for these people, then widespread destruction and death for many people in the ghetto area of Belfast city which is completely beyond the reach of any efforts our forces could make. I can see that such an effort dictated by the anguish of all our hearts at that time might have been made and might be regarded in the perspective of history as legitimate. But after the British forces were deployed and after they did give protection to those lives then no such justification stood.

I know Members opposite agree with me. I know that to those sitting on the front bench I am stating the obvious but since their Party speaks with two voices and since even the utterances of their most moderate spokesmen are constrained by deference to their own extremists we must spell this out from here. Any military intervention by us could only precipitate death on a great scale, death of our own armed forces facing the British, death of British soldiers who were sent there to protect lives. I hope we want to see all lives there protected. We would be placing in great jeopardy the lives of all the people we wanted to protect. There is no doubt about that, but if military intervention of our regular forces is completely to be repudiated so also, and even to a greater extent, must this traffic with illegal organisations there be repudiated. They cannot protect; they can only provoke. I do not even believe that they have been getting many arms from the quarter of the gentlemen who are posturing as their friends and patrons. I think Deputy Blaney is more fertile in dark hints than he is in arms and ammunition— that at least is the report I have heard from up there. To put guns in the hands of an illegal organisation in such conditions would be suicidal to the people concerned because to some of these people, whose policies change very rapidly, these guns could easily be used for attacks from out of the Catholic ghettoes upon British troops with all the cycle that that represents. To put guns into such irresponsible hands is not a policy of protecting the people concerned, it is a policy of insanity. Again, I do not think that needs to be greatly emphasised but something must be said about it. It would be a policy of destroying the Catholics of the north in the guise of protecting them.

Then the gun idea—the gun idea which is so much in the background of Fianna Fáil philosophy although repudiated at other times; the idea which Deputy Boland hinted at, of a sacrificial 1916. The situation, he and his friends tell us, is exactly the same as that in 1916 and, therefore, the same policy would be justified. Of course, if there were such an attempt in the north now and the executions followed, and they would follow, they would not unite the people of the North of Ireland as the people of the Twenty-six Counties were united by 1916; they would only increase the divisions between them because the feelings would spread, and we must face the facts, to the Catholic population and not spread to the rest of the population. We would be left only with an increased legacy of hate and only further increase the spread of a holy civil war.

Before I say something about our own position in regard to this I find it necessary to say something about our position as it has been depicted by that party there. This also is an issue relevant to the degree of no confidence that we must have in them. We have been depicted as a party which would impose Cuban socialism, and so on, on this country. We have been painted as a party of violent revolution, most dangerous to the people. It is, therefore, necessary for me to say a word about this. We are all of us, a party completely committed to the democratic principles. We are committed to attaining socialism by democratic means and by democratic means only. We proclaim this in our policy. We also proclaim it in all our actions and in our words. A statement of mine that it might be preferable for us to have diplomatic relations with Cuba instead of Portugal was twisted by very able hands over there—I am not complaining about that, it is part of the game—into the doctrine that Cuban socialism should be imposed here. This in turn was spread to suggest the idea that we were violent revolutionaries, potential gunmen and so on, masquerading only for the moment as democrats.

Well, two Deputies opposite have appealed for charity. It is rather strange that members of a governing political party should appeal for charity. Charity is a most splendid thing and that it should inform all our debates both in this House and on the hustings would be most admirable and would set us apart from and above most other nations. If these appeals represented a step on that path they would be very welcome. Unfortunately these appeals for charity are just directed at us, they do not represent charitable practice in deed. Deputy Burke, for example, appealed for charity. What was he doing when his colleagues were calumniating us, when they were saying what they knew was not true, that we were communists and so on; when they were spreading their other rumours around the countryside last June, these very charitable gentlemen? What was Deputy Burke doing? He himself may not have said that we were communists but while this campaign of false witness was going on he at least did no more than go by on the other side, no doubt with dignity, not to say unction.

We have been represented as alien, exotic and dangerous products. We have been represented as that by the gentlemen opposite who proclaim themselves of the purest patriotic descent. Let me for one moment, speaking for myself, say one quick word about my family. I can claim—I do not know whether in these days it should be a proud claim but it is a claim I can make with truth—that my own family played a notable and significant part in the intellectual and spiritual pre-history of Fianna Fáil. My granduncle, Father Eugene Sheehy, of Bruree, who was in jail with Parnell in 1881, taught the rudiments of Irish patriotism to the boy Eamon de Valera, 70 or 80 years ago. When I told this story to a colleague on those benches he said that if my granduncle had taught patriotism to Eamon de Valera he had a lot to atone for. I do not agree with that sentiment; I have the deepest personal respect for the President. I mention this fact to show that, as I suppose I am regarded perhaps as the most exotic figure on these benches, we are not exotic at all. We spring from the same stock even if these branches in our generation have so widely diverged.

The principles which should be pursued in relation to this matter are fairly clear and widely shared but the important thing about these principles is that they should be practised and practised consistently and there should not be two forms of language used about them. Of these principles I would say the first in order at present, as far as the north is concerned, is to leave law and order to the British and admit that that is what we are doing, admit it in plain language and be not afraid to tell the people what we are doing. The problem here, of course, is that while Deputies opposite are saying that these are the forces which are needed to protect our people—that phrase again—they are at the same time "inadmissible" and "aggressive". This keeps the nation's mind in the state of teetering confusion which will take us to the abyss unless it can be cleared up.

Of course with this attitude of leaving the question of law and order to the British is combined the duty of vigilance to see they discharge this. That involves—the second principle— remaining in touch openly and not clandestinely with the situation and with the British themselves, to keep in open and not clandestine contact with Catholics and Protestants in the north, not to frighten Protestants and not to fool Catholics or speak with two voices, to give no countenance to underground military activities, either here or there. It is most dangerous folly to think you can play with underground military activities up there while keeping them suppressed down here. I do not know how even these gentlemen could have got into such a state of confusion, bordering on insanity, as to think that. Is it not quite apparent that these forces with their supply lines and so on, and under the defeats which they would certainly experience up there, would stagger back over that Border and into our politics and perhaps into the personal lives of people they might feel had betrayed them? The third principle: with the British and with the people of the north, on both sides, to work patiently and candidly in the open for the preservation and extension of civil rights. This means working with the British, really working with them in conditions of trust, not at the same time going around blackguarding them or nagging at them, however popular it may be to blackguard and nag them in this country. It means talking the same language with them as we talk among ourselves.

The British Government, the Government of Mr. Harold Wilson, did not create this situation and we should say nothing or do nothing for the purpose of imputing blame to that particular Government for its creation. Like all of us, they inherited the situation. The British Government has tried to handle the situation, not perfectly because that was not possible after the long years of neglect, a neglect shared by the Government of this country, but they have handled it in time of crisis better than any government in Britain ever handled it before. Deputy Major de Valera nods in acknowledgment. I am glad of that because what I say is true and I am pleased at his acknowledgment.

The British Government have deployed their troops there, at some peril to their lives. These boys from English towns know absolutely nothing about this country, though the Minister for External Affairs, Dr. Hillery, wants them to explain it to the population on both sides. These boys are risking their lives there. They are thoroughly confused. They get stones from the Catholics and bottles from the Protestants and they do not know why. These boys should not be blackguarded. We should all do our best to create conditions in which they may work at their task of protecting lives with reasonable hope of success. But we are not doing that if we keep dragging in aggression and saying that this is British imperialism at work. There are voices on the extreme left who are saying that most vociferously and I wish to record here that I do not agree with these voices. I think we know some like them on the benches opposite.

This situation was created by a British Queen and a British King away back in the 17th Century. I think the British Government today would be very happy to be rid of the whole situation. I think the British Government would be very happy to get rid of Northern Ireland. There was a time when the Tories played internal politics with our lives, but that is not true of the British Government today. I think, therefore, that we should approach them with candour, making sure that, when we gain their trust, we deserve it. We should disinfect our rhetoric, which is high explosive in these times; the traditional rhetoric, which normally does not mean anything very much, is now highly dangerous.

At a meeting the other day when I was advocating basically the same policy as I am advocating now and accepting the basic fact that Catholics and Protestants in the north are not now united—they are divided—and that we must do something to bring them into a better relationship, a voice, thinking it was making a contribution, said: "What about 1798?" The legend, or the myth, of 1798 has gone into our school books. The Minister for Education should have a look at all of this. The legend would almost make 1798 a success. It was nothing of the kind. We must pay honour to the spirit, the character and the gallantry of the United Irishmen, but 1798 was not a success. It was a national disaster. In no respect was it more of a national disaster than in the heritage it left behind between Catholic and Protestant because of the events that took place in the confused course of that revolution. I do not need to go into them now, but this is one of the myths that should be taken out, looked at, dusted off and explained.

There is then, and this is perhaps the most important of all, the rather obvious but unanalysed thought that there is no possibility of progress towards unity without first obtaining better relations between Catholics and Protestants. We should not be mealy mouthed about this. This is about Catholics and Protestants. We should work towards that goal consistently and steadily. We should bear it in mind in our legislation, in our behaviour, in our speeches and in our social conduct.

I have advocated—I think the Council of Labour will support the idea —an assembly of peace at this time, an assembly which would group together people from both communities, irrespective of their political and constitutional assumptions, provided they agree on two things: No. 1, no use of force and, No. 2, no spread of sectarian hate. If the people on this island who agree on that could come together, they could have some very useful dialogue.

The Minister for Education in his speech here yesterday—I thought rather a good speech—put forward the idea of an assembly of unity so that we could see what progress could be made towards unity among the various sections of our people. We must face the fact that no progress towards unity can be made in current conditions. In current conditions the great majority in Northern Ireland do not desire unity and, therefore, do not desire any progress towards unity. An assembly dedicated to unity will fail. The members would not even bother to turn up. They would say they did not want unity, which is what they are saying today. With all due respect to the Minister for Education, such an assembly would be doomed to futility, to say the least of it. On the other hand, an assembly of peace, as I have advocated, would provide common ground. I trust those on the opposite benches will consider this even though it comes from a quarter with which they do not always agree. It is only on the ground of pursuing peace, not evoking hatred, that there is common ground between large sections of Catholics and Protestants at this moment and it is towards that common ground we should aim. We can talk about unity afterwards. There is no possibility of moving towards unity unless we preserve peace now and, unless we are very careful, we are not going to preserve peace. I feel great danger of our not doing it, danger in the explosive elements in those who make up the Government.

Most of what I have said is, I think, common ground on the Opposition benches. It is, perhaps, common ground with a great many of the Fianna Fáil Party too. I am not sure that the Fine Gael Party, or some members of it at least, would agree with everything I have said, especially when I advise that we should bear in mind in all our legislation, our behaviour, our speeches and our social conduct the impact this may have on Protestants in the north. There may be certain divergences there, but that is the long term. The short term is the question of encouragement to the Government. On that vital matter there is agreement on these benches. There is no agreement on the Government benches, no agreement extending to all in unambiguous terms.

The policy I offer has nothing new or extraordinary in it, but we offer it with, behind it, the will and the possibility to pursue it consistently and steadily, even when it becomes unpopular and even when, under the heat of the hour, people may shriek "Traitor" at a man who says "Hold back from civil war". We can maintain that policy in that hour. I do not think those on the Fianna Fáil benches can because I think a concealed veto rests in the wings for them. I think they are running towards split and disaster when the heat comes on.

Minister for Health (Mr. Childers)

I do not propose to follow Deputy O'Brien because I think the Taoiseach will answer some of the main criticisms he has uttered during his speech. I agree with a great deal of what he said about the need for a policy which will eventually bring about the unity of our country and with virtually everything he said in relation to the use of arms in the north at the present juncture. I want to speak this morning about something which I hope will not be repetitive because so many speeches are inevitably of repetitive character that it is rather difficult to know what to say that is new.

The Taoiseach was criticised yesterday for making what was regarded by some of the press and Opposition Deputies as a totally irrelevant speech in that he went back and gave a history of the Fianna Fáil Party since its inception. In my view his speech was totally relevant because the Fianna Fáil Government is one of the three oldest administrations in the world of stable sovereign democracies.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Does that include the Unionist Party?

Mr. Childers

Sovereign democracies. The unity in the Fianna Fáil Party has not been built up in the last five or ten years. Even though parties' policies change, even though world events inevitably mean change of policy, change of emphasis, a party's strength, so far as I know the parties of Europe, is based partly on history and a great deal on tradition and on being able to prevent the infernal machines referred to by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien from ever affecting the final decisions of the party. That, to me seems very important.

Perhaps it is that I am one of the oldest Members of this House and I have studied history like Deputy O'Brien and you cannot judge what the Fianna Fáil Party is going to do in the next three months simply by present events. They must be judged by their past history and competence in dealing with difficult situations and the situation with which we have had to deal for many years is the fact that we are a republican party that established a republican Constitution with the object, among many objects, of making it possible for all Irish people to subscribe to their Government and follow it regardless of the part they took in the Civil War and because we have an uncompleted objective, the restoration of unity, quite inevitably, there must have been strains and stresses affecting the Fianna Fáil Party during that long period of government. Everybody who examines our history will immediately follow what I mean.

During the whole of that period we showed a supreme capacity to stand up to violent movements, to violent socialist movements and we prevailed, survived and triumphed on every single occasion. The spirit of unity in Fianna Fáil remains with us yet partly because of our success in the past. We were able to deal successfully with illegal armed organisations in the 1934-37 period, organisations on both sides. We were able to deal successfully with illegal armed organisations in our country during the Second World War and again we were able to deal with illegal armed organisations during the period from 1957 to 1961. If we could not entirely suppress them we at least ensured that they would be ineffective.

That is part of our tradition and quite evidently the whole of what has taken place in the last three weeks is naturally a shock to everybody in the country and everybody admits this. It is a fact that so stable has been our Government during a period of 32 years that there have been very few changes made in it and perhaps it would have been better if we had become more accustomed to internal changes in the Fianna Fáil Government. Having said that, I want to make it quite clear to Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and the House that everything that he has said that should be required of the Fianna Fáil Party will be required of them in the next six months in regard to their political obligations, as already stated by the Taoiseach.

Nobody in Fianna Fáil who wishes to remain a member of the party can directly or indirectly, officially as a Fianna Fáil person, or privately in his own personal capacity, encourage the importation of arms into the north have any contact with illegal organisations in the north, go into the north and inspire armed activity or the use of arms by small individual groups there. That has been made absolutely clear by the Taoiseach already and I want to repeat it here today that anybody in Fianna Fáil who does that is no longer a member of our party. We have made that clear beyond all doubt. Nobody can remain a member of Fianna Fáil who is not aware of the reality of the situation in the north as outlined by the Taoiseach. Whether we like it or not the British Army is in control of public order in the north and any military intervention, official or unofficial by armed illegal groups, or by anybody, that does not take account of the official position of the British Army there would be to invite a worse position should rioting break out and would be completely insane, in fact, both from a political and a military point of view or even from the point of view of saving human life.

Those are the realities we face in our party and any person who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party is bound to accept those realities and understand that military intervention of this kind might bring far worse disaster to the minority in the north than they could possible conceive. I hope Deputy O'Brien understands that.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

But the Minister's colleague Deputy Boland has said something different.

Mr. Childers

I hope he understands that there are not 17 or 20 unknown Deputies who have a view that would suggest that at some difficult moment of crisis that may eventuate between now and the end of the year he would suddenly see a defction in the Fianna Fáil Party, or a collapse. I think Deputy O'Brien is going to be grievously disappointed.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I shall not be disappointed.

Mr. Childers

Perhaps it would be wrong of me to say that because I think that as an Irishman Deputy O'Brien would not wish to see disruption in the country as a result of the action of any Government, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Thank you.

Mr. Childers

Suggestions have been made in this debate that there could be an alternative Government, that somehow there could be an alternative Government, that somehow there could be a Coalition Government that would be able to handle the situation if they happened to be elected at this time of stress and strain. We do not believe that. I am perfectly prepared to accept what Deputy O'Brien has said. I have not seen any speech by a member of his party which openly advocates the abandonment of democracy but I am equally aware that members of his party speak with different voices on the subject of the degree of socialism in which they believe, the rate at which it should progress and indeed the very character of their policy.

For example, I absolutely refuse to believe that Deputy M.P. Murphy believes in one-quarter of what is written in the Labour Outline of Policy. I have never heard him speak or advocate a policy that came within miles of the policy expressed in that document. Equally, I have read the speeches of Deputy Keating and since the general election it would seem to me that Deputy Keating has gone furthest with Deputy Dr. Browne towards following the policy in that document. The other Deputies have been far from clear in their declaration as to exactly what their policy was.

Mr. M. O'Leary

What does the Minister think of the Buchanan Report?

Mr. Childers

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, in the course of his speech at the Mansion House, seemed to suggest some kind of coalition movement. When I think of Deputy Dr. Browne's radio broadcast, in which he gave his conditions for a coalition with Fine Gael, I realise again the impossibility of such a coalition being determined and, if it were determined, lasting for more than a few months.

The Labour Party are quite entitled to have their differences of opinion on the subject of socialism but, when I hear Deputy Dr. Browne saying that we should join the world of socialist countries—that was one expression he used—I wonder what he meant by that, because there are no socialist countries except those where socialism is 100 per cent—not really 100 per cent any longer but shall we say far advanced—and where there is also no democracy. I do not believe Deputy Dr. Browne wants to have any kind of socialist administration in which there is no democracy and, if he looks at the rest of the civilised world of democracies, he will find first of all that there are very few socialist parties in office and, where they are, they are exactly the same——

Dr. O'Donovan

Come, come. Sweden, Germany, Britain.

Mr. Childers

——as Fianna Fáil. They are not socialist countries. They are countries beliving in private enterprise——

Dr. O'Donovan

It is all a bit abstract.

Mr. Childers

——with government intervention and government supervision and government and State redistribution of the wealth of the country, and Deputy O'Donovan knows that very well. There are no socialist democratic parties heading governments in the civilised world of democracies. Using the word "socialism" in its pure sense, it does not exist, but the memebers of the Labour Party have different versions of what should constitute the degree of socialism to be operated by the government if they got into office.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We accept that the programme of the Sermon on the Mount has never been implemented.

Mr. Childers

It is perfectly evident that there is this disagreement. The same holds good for the Fine Gael party. We have seen no evidence, since the election, that there is not still a difference of view as evinced by Deputy Tom O'Higgins on the formation of the Government——

Dr. O'Donovan

It is like the word "republicanism".

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Childers

——that the Fine Gael party would "go it alone", or as evinced by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald who made it quite clear that he was looking for some kind of coalition arrangement with the Labour Party. It is perfectly clear that there is, as yet, no agreement. Indeed, one can look back to the recent Labour Party Conference where, behind closed doors, this matter was discussed and some sort of resolution was published at the end of the conference suggesting that, before there could be any coalition, there must be an all-Ireland convention in which there should be some unanimous declaration in favour of a coalition and that, quite evidently, many concessions would have to be made by Fine Gael. We would hope, in any event, that if the country faced such a proposition, the policies and the shadow Ministers of both sides would be known in advance. That is far from likely. As I have said, in the face of this, I cannot see that it would be advisable for this country to be governed by a coalition at this time with all the difficulties that are faced in the north and, as has already been stated by the Taoiseach, with the prospect of our negotiating to join the European Economic Community.

There are some people in the Labour Party who talk responsibly about the European Economic Community but there are others—and one can hear their speeches down in the country— who fail to understand the realities of our having to join the EEC, not only to secure a larger market for our produce, but also because this is the beginning, the very slow beginning, of internationalisation, of a federation of Europe. Even if it may take a century to bring it about, it is an inevitable change that must take place. As I have said, there are many members of the Labour Party whom we could not possibly trust to participate in a coalition government when we have to engage in negotiations for the purpose of entering the Community.

Then, I would not trust a coalition government at the present time if we found that we had to deal more severely with inflationary influences. I do not believe a coalition government composed of people with far left socialist tendencies and people with far right tendencies, would be able to deal with inflation if we had to meet it and deal with it firmly. Neither do I believe that it would be so easy to implement the NIEC policy on incomes and prices with a coalition government in office.

As I have said, the coming months will show the strength of Fianna Fáil. I agree with a great many things that have been said by my colleagues in Fianna Fáil and by others about the wrong phrases that have been used in this connection. I hear people talk about "our people in the north" as describing the minority. That is entirely wrong.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers

One of the realities we have to face is that, no matter how much we may dislike the views of the Reverend Mr. Paisley and his group, whatever else they are, they are not English either in temperament or manner or even in the way they speak.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers

We have to live with these people and anybody who knows the north knows perfectly well that, whether people are Unionists or Nationalists, Whatever else they are they are not English in manner, in temperament, or thought or ways of thinking. We have to get away from this kind of thinking and this kind of attitude which I have heard expressed by people of all parties.

I quite agree with Deputy O'Brien when he says that all three political parties failed in the past to consider a long-term policy of getting to know the Unionists in the north, getting to know the moderate Unionists, getting to understand their point of view and getting them to understand our point of view. The co-operation that started in 1957 had a limited success only. We made an effort to co-operate with the Government in the north. We succeeded in the field of tourism and in the field of electricity generation, and we reduced the tariffs on certain products manufactured exclusively in the north. That was just a beginning of what should be further co-operation.

I also agree with Deputy O'Brien when he says that the point at which one would begin such a policy would have to be determined by current events. What we want to ensure now is that the voices of the moderate people in the north prevail, those who are so desperately silent at the present time and who comprise the vast majority of both Unionists and Nationalists in the north. Anyone on any side of this House, in my party or in any other party, who discourages the movement towards moderation, wherever it can be seen, is simply trying to cause a bloodbath to no good purpose. I know this because I represent a constituency which is close to the Border. Whenever I have been to Monaghan, more often than not I have met someone from the neighbouring counties and they all tell me of this great silent expression of opinion.

I wish these people would speak more openly. They are speaking openly in some cases through their clergy, in some cases through local leaders, and in some cases through community organisations. I wish they would speak more openly. One of the ways that will encourage them to speak more openly is if we all agree in this House that armed intervention on our part can only result in these voices becoming more silent, more afraid, more suspicious. If we want to encourage the more moderate voices in the north and people who, even if they disagree politically, wish to live together in a Christian way as neighbours, we must ensure that every single person in this House, regardless of his party, subscribes to the doctrine and the policy so clearly enunciated by the Taoiseach during the past few days.

I should like to repeat again that people in the Fianna Fáil Party are pledged to this policy. Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien must know perfectly well that in the stresses and strains which occur at times like these it is no use taking out of context a single sentence of any Member of this House and trying to hang something on it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I quoted three columns.

Mr. Childers

People may speak emotionally at times of crisis of this kind.

I pin my faith on the history of the Fianna Fáil Party and on their capacity under tremendous strain to resist the overwhelming movements towards violence. We have been able to accomplish this in the past. We were able to accomplish it in the period between 1957 and 1961. I have full confidence that the Fianna Fáil Party will remain united and that, in the overwhelming sense of numbers, Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien will not see his prophesy realised.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 14 May 1970

Confidence in Government: Motion (Resumed).

Acting Chairman

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 May 1970