Deputy Harte.
Private Members' Business. - Policy on Northern Ireland: Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann formally rejects the use of force as an instrument to secure the unity of Ireland, welcomes the steps so far taken and promised to eliminate discrimination in Northern Ireland, and looks forward to the establishment of full fundamental rights and freedoms for everyone, irrespective of religion or political opinion. —(Deputy Cosgrave.)
May I ask, a Cheann Comhairle, how many minutes I have left?
Twenty-four minutes.
Last week I was dealing with the question of Partition and I was saying that, as a young man, I disagreed with the idea that this country should be partitioned but that this is no longer an argument. It is now an established fact that the country is divided in two and therefore we must start the debate from that point. If we accept that this is a small nation divided into two statelets we must ask ourselves how do we use what Michael Collins called a stepping-stone to reunite this country and also what does a united Ireland mean. Some people see a united Ireland as merely taking away the Border, closing their eyes and hoping that everything will turn out well. Some people see it as a republican victory over unionism. Some people north of the Border see it as a defeat of unionism. Some people see it as a place where we would all live happily ever after.
We know well that the troubles that exist north of the Border will not go away if we close our eyes. They will not disappear overnight. These problems have bedevilled this nation for far too long. I believe that a united Ireland is something more than people realise. If Chichester-Clark arrived tomorrow morning in this capital city of Dublin with all the right-wing elements of the Unionist Party and if they were to say to the Taoiseach: "We now accept the tricolour as being our flag. We accept everything that is republican. We accept the Soldiers' Song as our National Anthem. We want you to take away the Border. We have all been wrong. At the moment we have free trade with Britain and Britain has free trade with us. If you take away the Border we want immediate access to the southern Irish market and you can have access to the northern market", if that were to happen I believe that many people south of the Border would suffer. In fact I would go so far as to say that some people would contemplate suicide.
This country is not ready for reunification, economically speaking. We have the example of what is happening in the car industry at the moment. We know what would happen if the Border were taken away and if the motor assembly plants in Britain were to supply motor vehicles to this country. We know they consider it uneconomic to assemble vehicles in the six north-eastern countries and we know that they would arrive at the same conclusion in relation to the 26 Counties if they had immediate access to our markets. Many more industries would fall. We know what is happening in the textile industry at the moment. We know what is happening the shoe manufacturing companies. To those idealistic republicans who say: "Take away the Border and we will change all this" I say: "Let us change it now before we take away the Border for this is what we should have been doing for the last 50 years".
I have had conversations with many Unionist people whom I know personally north of the Border. I had a conversation with a Protestant businessman in the town of Strabane six or seven months ago. Over a cup of tea in a hotel I expressed my political views and I said that perhaps he would not accept those views. To my amazement he said: "Yes, I do accept them. When I see advancement, when I see that my business can expand by taking away the Border then I will consider taking away the Border." That man was thinking in terms of progress, and also of the people whom he employed whose positions would be consolidated if he were allowed to develop his business.
Here is part of the problem as far as I can see it. We must prepare ourselves economically for a united Ireland. In my humble opinion this country is not ready, economically, for a united Ireland, even if we were to solve all our political differences and all the sidetracks that go with that. Let me sound this note of warning: If we are not ready for a united Ireland we are certainly not ready for entry into the EEC.
The solution to reunification, as I see it, is to be found north of the Border. If we can unite the people there then the reunification of this country will be only a matter of time. To get to that position I believe we must be big enough, politically speaking, to recognise that there are a million people north of the Border who have not yet accepted the idea of a 32-county Ireland separated from Britain. While the generation that set up this Parliament may not have shared these views, the generation before them may have shared them. It was not always Protestants who held the philosophy of unionism. Unionism is a philosophy, and I recognise that people are quite entitled to hold it. I do not share it, but I recognise the fact that Irish people north of the Border see a political philosophy in Unionism, that they want close association with Britain and at the moment they stand to gain financially by that close association. They are just as entitled to hold that philosophy as the southern Irish republicans are entitled to hold a philosophy of Sinn Féin. What has happened north of the Border is that the philosophy of Unionism has got mixed up with the Unionist Party leaders trying to keep themselves in power, trying to perpetuate their own political existence and protect themselves in privileged positions. This has been tied up with the idea, fairly held by the average Protestant man north of the Border, that he wants close association with Britain.
Having said that, I recognise that there are many things north of the Border that are very confusing. It is not easy to grasp what is happening there. Far be it from me to stand here and say: "This is the clear way to reunification." There is no clear way to reunification that any of us can see. We will not get instant solutions. The solutions will only be found by trial and error. We have tried many ways but we have not progressed from where we were when debates took place here some 50 years ago. Thirty-nine years ago Fianna Fáil took control of this country for the first time. Two generations of Irish people have been born since then and two of the things which took Fianna Fáil into office still stand unattended to. They are (1) reunification and (2) restoration of the Irish language.
Last week in the Dáil a question was asked by Deputy Paddy O'Reilly of Cavan. It was a simple question asking the Minister for Education to grant permission to vocational schools, national schools and secondary schools to have the right to decide whether they would teach subjects through Irish or not. The Minister for Education, full of Republican idealism, said that everyone must learn the language and that there is no evidence to show that pupils were retarded in their educational standards by learning it or learning other subjects through it. That view may be held by people on both sides of the Border who come from Nationalist homes. However, there are people on both sides of the Border, who have Sinn Féinism in their subconscious minds and who would love to have a united Ireland, but who question whether it is right to teach other subjects through the medium of Irish. How can a Government ruling 26 counties tell a Unionist parent that, if he comes into a united Ireland, his child must learn Irish and study other subjects through the medium of Irish? I agree. Many Protestant people in the North have learned Irish. I know of two Presbyterian Ministers who have sent their children to schools where they could learn Irish. One cannot be educated in a language that one does not understand.
Politicians in this country must realise that there are two situations in this small island at present. We are happy south of the Border, but the people north of the Border are not so happy. As a stepping stone to reunification, we must reunite those people who live north of the Border. Law and order must be restored in the North but it must be the same law for Catholics and for Protestants. There must be the same type of order for the Unionists and the anti-Unionists. Fair standards must be fairly applied. The Irish people, Catholic and Protestant, who consider themselves moderates must come together in the North to replace the Unionist Party, which has failed so miserably to govern a part of this island. The Unionist Party must be replaced before there can be any semblance of law and order. The Catholics do not want the Unionist Party; and some Protestants suspect it. It has never served any useful purpose and must be replaced. The sooner Protestant people or former Unionist supporters realise that in their own interest, they must come together with former Nationalist supporters to form a party to replace the Unionist Party and to provide a democratic system of government, the better. If we could reach a stage where people could live happily together north of the Border I, for one, would be prepared to give full and absolute recognition to a Stormont Parliament if all those living in that part of the country were prepared to accept it. If that stage could be reached, the reunification of this country would be a mere formality. Many arguments have been put forward as to how this can be done. The polarisation of the Left as against the Right has been suggested by some people. Extreme Left policies will not solve the issue but the ultra conservatives do not have all the answers either. Irish people in general are not particularly interested in this type of politics. They desire a broadly-based political system north of the Border which will provide a Just Society which would serve all sections of the people. If that position is arrived at we will be near reunification.
My choice would be a united Ireland with one Parliament but that is not possible just now. So if we could have a peaceful Ireland with two Parliaments I would be prepared to accept the position. If we were to have a police force which was fair to everybody, and civil servants in close communication with each other, I would see no objection to it. If we could have Partition as a mere county boundary, what is the difference? The reunification of this country may not take place in my life time. Why the rush? There is no instant solution to this problem. There is a thorny road ahead. If we stay on the right road the solution to the problem will be found. There are too many people who wish to be an instant Pádraig Pearse or Michael Collins. Time does not permit me to develop the arguments on this occasion.
There have been discussions recently about the Constitution of the country. The leader of the Fine Gael and the chief whip of the party were right when they said that the Constitution enacted at the foundation of this State was a much more liberal Constitution than the one put forward in 1937 by what we can politely term the ultra-republican party. The Fianna Fáil Party claim that the 1937 Constitution applies to the 32 counties. How can they justly make this claim when Irishmen in six of the counties have not had the privilege of supporting or rejecting it? It does not apply to the 32 counties. We have talked of changing the Constitution. Changing it will not bring us nearer reunification. It is necessary that the Taoiseach should say that if the people north of the Border wish to reunite with us when that particular time comes we will have a Constitution which they will participate in making and they will have a right to decide whether they want it or not. Contraception has been made an issue by some Northern people. My view on contraception is that, if a person of a particular religion is permitted by his religion to practise it, there is no reason why the laws of the land should interfere with him. I hold a similar view on divorce. We fight among ourselves down here as political parties holding certain political views. I, as a Fine Gael Member, believe that the policies of the Fine Gael Party are much better than the policies of the Fianna Fáil Party. I recognise that Members of Fianna Fáil are entitled to their views, but I believe that at a certain stage we must be prepared to divorce ourselves from all political affiliations and stand up as Irishmen and speak as Irishmen. If we are prepared to do that we must also recognise that Protestants north of the Border have the same right to call themselves Irishmen as we have. Therefore, in a pluralist society people should be entitled to take certain decisions and live by certain standards and we should not push our way of life down the throats of a million people who have not yet even indicated that they are interested in uniting with us.
I am disappointed that the Minister for External Affairs has not already taken up with the British authorities the fact that automatic barriers are appearing along the Border. They are only reminding people that there is a barrier and a Border in this country. At this time we should be removing barriers instead of erecting them. The barriers that are being erected are so ridiculous that to put them up is like putting up a glass bottle on a school-yard wall and telling a child: "Do not throw stones." I forecast that as fast as those barriers go up somebody will blast them away. I have no objection to that provided no lives are lost, but this can happen and therefore erecting barriers can cause additional hazards.
One of the most interesting evenings I ever spent as a young Deputy was spent listening to the former Deputies Paddy McGilligan and Seán MacEoin reminiscing about what happened years ago. They told a few Deputies sitting around a table of what Kevin O'Higgins said the day before he was assassinated. There had been a Cabinet meeting and afterwards they were talking. One member present said that it was so long since anybody has lost his life in the country, north or south, that all the killing was over and no more lives would be lost. The conversation went along these lines until Kevin O'Higgins said: "I am inclined to disagree. I disagree because I fear Ireland is like a coral reef." We know how these are formed: the shells fall down on each other until eventually the reef is above high water. Nature then plays its part. Grass grows, palm trees grow and the sea washes up sand to form beaches. Then rich people from other parts of the world go there for a few hours pleasure. The story goes that Kevin O'Higgins said: "Likewise, I fear Ireland has yet to lose more lives before it becomes the island that other people believe it is." Twenty-four hours later he was dead. Now after another 24 years, I ask: How many more Irish lives must be lost before this island becomes the island that other people believe it is?
One of the difficulties in contributing to the debate on this motion is that one must distinguish very sharply between the historic role of the use of revolutionary armed force and the resort today in Northern Ireland to the use of armed force in present political and social circumstances. Force was used to secure the partial political and economic independence we enjoy in the Republic today and, indeed, were it not for the fact that a very small and revolutionary group of quite unknown men in August, 1914, planned and plotted, organised, inspired and executed revolutionary change in the history of Ireland, we would not be talking in an Irish Parliament tonight. Deputy Cosgrave is to be commended on bringing the motion before the House. The kernel of the debate is whether force should be used today as an instrument to secure Irish unity. Indeed, this was the kernel of the debate at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, with all its undertones and all the wrangling and argument that went on.
I submit that, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland today and in the political evolution of Northern Ireland as seen in 1971, this motion should be formally adopted by the House, rejecting the use of force as an instrument to secure unity. It is true that past policies of the Northern Ireland Government and many of their current policies have contributed to the present situation. Likewise, the British Government share historical and current responsibility for this situation also. The actions of British troops and military authorities—some of their troops—in relation to recent events particularly, in regard to selective searches for arms and by certain concentrations in minority areas in Northern Ireland have done very little to heal the wounds that have been reopened. This brings us to the point that we, as Members of the House, must make our views known on whether or not the people of Northern Ireland, any given section of them, should or should not respond to the provocations of agitators in their midst whose views on the history of this country and on the future of the country give no hope whatever of peace or brotherhood among Irish people north and south. Certainly, the attitude of those who favour the exclusive use of force as an instrument to secure unity seems to exclude, by and large, the promotion of any normal friendship between the people of north and south or the growth of goodwill in its best and truest sense, or the growth of co-operation and understanding so that mental barriers between the peoples of this island are broken down and the more powerful and more obvious physical barriers removed in the years ahead.
A great deal of the superficial arguments used in favour of force in Northern Ireland today have been based on a great degree of ignorance in regard to the situation in the north. That level of ignorance is not confined to Northern Ireland. It is as prevalent in the Fianna Fáil Party as in any other group in the Republic today. Therefore, this House must go on record as saying that senseless violence and destruction are the surest way of ensuring, whether in the short term or in the long, that the unity of Ireland will not be achieved. The House must clearly place its views on record in that regard. All Irishmen, irrespective of their place of residence and of the political outlook or creed they hold, tonight must stand appalled by the pernicious development of Irishmen today and yesterday and in recent months seeking one another out deliberately as Irishmen, as Republicans, and killing one another on the streets of Belfast.
Those who indulge in this so-called political activity are playing into the hands of those who would be opposed to a united Ireland in the years ahead. It is therefore appropriate that we in this House should make a direct appeal to the Irish Republican Army factions in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, to stop their senseless actions, to stop pitting one Belfast republican against another in the spurious hope that by that process they will achieve a united Ireland. The situation has now deteriorated into mindless violence which in the short term and in the long term will be completely counter-productive in relation to national unity.
It is tragic to see that whatever policies the republican movement may have had in relation to civil rights in Northern Ireland, violence and the use of the gun have destroyed that movement and have left it with nothing more than young men who happen to possess guns and who are not quite sure what they might do with them. We have seen in recent months a complicated pattern of reprisals and counter reprisals emerging from those who profess, very superficially I believe, to protect the lives, the property and the civil liberties of the minority in Northern Ireland. We have also seen a hardening of attitudes among republican factions in Northern Ireland who claim jurisdiction, on an almost tribal, ritualistic basis, over particular streets and areas. In such a dispute last night Charles Hughes, who lived with his widowed mother in Serbia Street, was sub-machine gunned to death by republicans and at least three others were seriously wounded; another was beaten unconscious; and club premises were fired and destroyed. A milk roundsman from the Upper Falls area, a trade unionst, a father of seven children, a man reputed to be a republican—of what shade I am not quite sure—was machine gunned by three young men as he delivered milk from his van this morning in the streets of Belfast.
Is it not time that we in this House implored those who are responsible for the internal IRA battles to stop killing their fellow-Irishmen, their fellow-republicans? We are entitled to make this plea to our fellow-Irishmen because if we fail to do so it would indeed be indicating that there are men in Ireland who lack elementary respect for the opinions of other men, for the families of other men and for their own families and for the future of this country. It is equally appropriate that those in the south who claim to be republicans, that peculiar amalgam of associated individuals who profess loyalty to republicanism and so on, should be asked to bring their influence to bear on their fellow-republicans in Northern Ireland to stop this senseless killing of one another. I am quite sure that men of such intelligence and abilities will appreciate the futility of setting young Irishmen with guns against one another. It is perhaps relevant to record in this House the attitude of a British Army officer last evening as Charles Hughes was shot or about to be shot by fellow-republicans: "They are only killing one another and no shots are being fired at us or by us." Surely the relevance of that should not be lost on Irishmen in Northern Ireland?
In view of the undertones of violence which certain Members of this House have always had in their speeches and in view of the fact that these indiscreet speeches have given rise to hopes in Northern Ireland which have not been and can never be fulfilled, let us assert once and for all that a gun in the hands of a young man does very little to increase the safety or the security of any section of the population in Northern Ireland; in fact we know it immeasurably increases the dangers to the whole community there and ultimately to the whole of the people of this island.
Perhaps the saddest feature of all is that the braver the young man in Belfast, the more sincerely patriotic he is, the greater danger he represents to his fellow-Irishmen in Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. It is tragic that there are people in Northern Ireland who believe that all that is required is to fire an anti-tank gun against a British armoured personnel carrier and hey presto a united Ireland is around the corner. It must be realised that there is a great gulf of understanding between the Irish people North and South. Let us appreciate that those in Northern Ireland who resort to violence as a solution to the problem are, by virtue of their actions, not capable of doing anything to lessen the realities of Partition and the social and economic consequences of Partition and are in no way lessening the all-pervasive power of the Unionist Party and the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. On the contrary, every killing, every republican who crucifies a fellow-republican in Northern Ireland, every widow in Northern Ireland arising out of such use of direct physical violence, every orphan in Northern Ireland who emerges from that situation, in fact only presents comfort, cold comfort admittedly, to the extremists in the Unionist Party, in the Orange Order, to persons like the Reverend Ian Paisley and to ultra-extremists like Craig.
Surely it does not require hundreds of years of history and the years 1969 to 1971 to prove what is so self-evident in Northern Ireland? It is perhaps inevitable that what is now happening in the North should happen. It makes it all the more tragic that the placing of guns in the hands of such young men should have now produced the rather bloody by-product of that situation.
I have no wish to lay particular charges at the door of any Member of this House in relation to such developments, but let it at least be recorded in no uncertain manner in this House— indeed let it be said from the rooftop of Dáil Éireann—that Twenty-six County republicans, be they Sinn Féin, official or unofficial, provisional or unprovisional, be they Fianna Fáil, official or unofficial, who obtained and ferried guns to Northern Ireland in the recent past, as we then knew, as we now know, as they now know, have a very grievous responsibility of their own creation which they cannot escape from in this life and which they certainly shall not escape from in the next—if we are sure such a position exists.
Therefore, to those in the south who advocate violence, those of the Government party—we have none in the Opposition and this is a matter of pride in 1970-71—we say that they should go north and that they should stand before the audience in Northern Ireland now, in the Falls Road preferably, and that they should explain to those men who are fed on an exclusive diet of revolutionary armed insurrection, what they now suggest should be done. Some of the snide Deputies of the Government party once threw across the floor of this House, "Six divisions, six days, six counties". Let them go north tonight and speak to the family of the father of seven children who was shot tonight by virtue of that kind of peculiar perversion of the resolution of the problem of national unity.
I do not propose to say much more in relation to that aspect but I should like to say that no real republican and particularly no real socialist republican can afford to become involved in sectarian armed militant confrontation or polarisation during the current situation in that part of our island. Certainly it should be regarded as anathema by any progressive republican in Northern Ireland. We have got to explain from the south to Protestant and Catholic workers that they have got to be brought to see they have an awful lot more in common with one another than they have with the Government who rule them now. Most certainly this is the message that should go out from here by way of the second part of the motion before the House. We will have an extremely difficult problem in getting across to our people in the south that we have on our hands, whether we like it or not, essentially the old religious and social conflicts based on outdated allegations about the Pope and the Papacy, about king and about the monarchy, and we have a kind of morbid legacy of ritualistic religious hate practices which are a throw-back to a period when we as a people were pawns in the spiritual wars fought in Europe.
It is difficult to get this across to our people. Our educational system has never explained it properly to our children growing up and in the background of religious and political paranoia now existing in the north. We have a long haul, decades ahead perhaps, before we manage to get through to that subculture in Northern Ireland in which there is such an extreme rigidity of class and religion and such deep conservatism on the political side. We have a long way to go before we can get through the political sickness in Northern Ireland and explain to our people that physical force is by no means a solution to the problems of that part of the island.
I do not propose to speak any further. I had intended to deal at length with civil rights and other aspects. This motion is appropriate. It is timely, with current disenchantment, disillusionment and cynicism of a great many people towards the role of Parliament in the Republic, that at least from the position of the limited political independence we have in the Republic Dáil Éireann should be used at this critical time to refute, to reject and to place clearly on record that as far as we are concerned we do not hold out any olive branch, any Mickey Mouse proposition, in relation to contraception and divorce and so on. They are important in their own right. They are important in relation to citizens of the Republic, but they will not solve the problem of Partition and I do not think this kind of confusion should be brought into the problem at this point of time. Therefore, I have pleasure in commending Deputy Cosgrave for moving the motion and I endorse his view that force should not be used as an instrument to secure the future unity of this country.
In case there may be any misinterpretation about the Minister for Foreign Affairs speaking to this motion, the Taoiseach asked me to take it on his behalf because he is occupied otherwise. I do not know whether it is necessary to point out that Dáil Éireann has never, at any time, contemplated the use of force as an instrument to secure the unity of Ireland. Indeed all parties represented in the Dáil must have exhausted every possible way of saying that the unity of the country should be sought by peaceful means only. If Members of the Dáil consider it of any value formally to reject the use of force, Fianna Fáil will not oppose that in the hope that the people of Northern Ireland will be able to hear more clearly our unanimous voice in that matter.
On behalf of the Government party, the Taoiseach has repeatedly said we have no aggressive attitude or intention towards the north. If the passing of this motion should help to reassure anyone who doubts us, then I am sure I speak for all members of the Government party in supporting its passage. It gives us an opportunity, perhaps, to comment on the situation at the present time. We have listened attentively to recent statements of the British Home Secretary, Mr. Maudling, during his visit to Belfast, statements concerning the elimination of discrimination and the application of proper principles of government to the North.
He said among other things worth noting, that the reform programme is designed to remove claims of discrimination within the economy and the society. Discrimination came in many shapes, forms and sizes in the north. Even at this short distance in time from August, 1969, it is difficult to understand the sheer folly of Unionist administrations in their determination to leave nothing to the minority that could be taken away from them. But I do not wish to dwell too much on the past. We are concerned in the terms of the motion before us with the present and the future. Apart from corrections of defects in civil rights as such it is clear that Mr. Maudling has now understood the need to redress the balance in favour of the minority in economic terms. Just to mention one matter, the provision of jobs in high unemployment areas, nearly all of which are non-Unionist areas, must be a high priority in development plans in the north.
When the Taoiseach made suggestions recently about regional economic development in Border areas he was thinking of this priority. He said last week in this House that the Ministers and senior officials concerned in such matters are available for consultation with their opposite numbers at Stormont. We were glad to note that all three Fermanagh MPs welcomed the Taoiseach's suggestion. Major Chichester Clark also expressed a conditional interest. Perhaps the passage of this motion by Dáil Eireann will help to convince him that the Taoiseach's suggestions were made in good faith.
The Taoiseach also referred to the knowledge we have built up here on EEC matters and offered to make it available to the north. We are moving into an economic community which will bring problems and disadvantages as well as advantages to the whole country. In so far as we can be helpful to the north, because of our direct contact with Brussels, and the similarity of our problems, the offer is made as a matter of general self-interest, as co-operation between north and south should be helpful to both of us.
In the Downing Street Declaration of 19th August, 1969, the London and Belfast Governments guaranteed equality of treatment for all persons irrespective of political views or religion. This guarantee has not been withdrawn. It is one to which the minority can always appeal, demanding that it be honoured in practice as well as in the law. It seems highly doubtful that two Governments would have issued such a declaration merely because they felt that some seeming deficiencies in the north should be seen to be corrected. In any event Lord Cameron's report put an end to any illusions anyone might have had that there did not exist in the north a policy of discrimination against one-third of the community based mainly on religious affiliation.
I mention this tonight in passing with regret because of some remarks apparently made last night in London by one of the participants at the Downing Street meeting. He is reported to have said that the Taoiseach refers to the north in sectarian terms as "his people" or "our people". The Taoiseach, in fact, never uses such expressions. No one has more consistently attempted to explain and to reaffirm that the Irish nation includes all the people of Ireland. To accuse the Taoiseach of doing otherwise by attributing to him phraseology which he neither uses nor contemplates is appallingly bad faith. Indeed, I might note that in Major Chichester Clark's statement at Stormont on the 24th February he did not attribute any such sentiments to the Taoiseach.
The speaker in question, having misrepresented the Taoiseach, then goes on to say that in this way the Taoiseach "encourages the rule of force" and fosters the notion that the north is in the grip of a sectarian struggle. Few men have done more than the Taoiseach not merely to condemn the use of force but to demonstrate the folly of it and to show how totally contrary violence is to the concept of peace in Ireland and among Irish people north and south.
On the 24th February Major Chichester Clark said in Stormont that it is the policy of his Government that there shall be no second-class citizenship for anyone in Northern Ireland. He accepted that this meant something more than mere fairness. I quote him:
It means a chance to participate in every level of society and in every aspect of our institutions.
Mr. Maudling last Thursday said that he saw no alternative to co-existence save co-destruction. Here he implicitly recognises two communities and the need for each community in the north to pay attention to the needs of the other so that they could co-exist peacefully together. The greater onus for initiative in this respect rests with the majority for obvious reasons. But I am sure the minority in the north will welcome this recognition by Mr. Maulding of their rights as a community as well as of their rights as individuals.
The best thing to do at this time of continuing tension, including further injury and deaths, which we all deplore, is to set about the process of obtaining implementation of those rights through political and peaceful channels. Before leaving Belfast on Saturday Mr. Maudling said that he supported Major Chichester Clark's statement on participation and mentioned the "need to establish a harmonious society in which all feel they have their full opportunity to share in and contribute to the life of the province".
It is fully in accord with the terms of the motion before us to welcome this recognition by Mr. Maudling and Major Chichester Clark of the duality of Northern Ireland. The political and cultural aspirations of two communities within a single jurisdiction can best be regulated by admitting the existence of their differences and finding common ground to a degree and at a level acceptable to both communities. Sovereign countries—Belgium for example— have deemed it to be in their national interest to make the necessary accommodations in this respect. I am sure that moderate opinion among both communities in the north would heartily welcome the introduction of an institutional framework which would leave the whole community at no risk from extremism from whatever quarter.
From time to time, and in this House, voices have been raised suggesting that we should recognise the "Ulster Constitution". I would like to make a few remarks on this. As everyone knows the so-called "Ulster Constitution" is in fact the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as amended subsequently. It was stated to be "an Act to provide for the better government of Ireland"—not, be it remarked, an Act to provide a Constitution for Northern Ireland. The Act has served another purpose than the one originally intended. It originally included a Council of Ireland, drawn equally from north and south with an independently chosen President, to which powers were to be transferred gradually from both Belfast and Dublin.
In such a situation the creation of a parliamentary system for the north may have had, in the minds of the authors of the Act, a justification which was not diminished by the circumstance that Parliament would always have a majority drawn from one section of the northern population. Given the existence of a Council of Ireland, to which Stormont would have had to be responsive, the obvious dangers of a rigid provincial autonomy as they developed in the subsequent 50 years could hardly then have been a consideration.
But we are now dealing with an actuality, an actuality which quite simply is that what remains of the Government of Ireland Act has put the minority in the north into a straitjacket, a straitjacket of which all the strings are pulled by a structure of government in which the minority are not represented. It is a straitjacket from which they have had, up to now anyhow, only a formal and remote appeal to the better instincts of Britain.
Any suggestion that we should recognise, as we have been asked, the "Ulster Constitution" falls down against the hard fact that the said Constitution gives no worthwhile guarantee even of their safety, not to mention their prosperity and happiness, to the Northern minority. Other similar suggestions have been made that we should in some manner recognise the Stormont Government. I have answered a Parliamentary question on this. I do not know what recognition you can give to an administration which has no sovereignty of its own. If it is implied that we should recognise the legitimacy of Unionist control of the North, all I can say is that more than half of the territory of the North has a Nationalist majority and I am not prepared, now or in the future, to deny this as such a denial would be a falsehood.
Surprise and disappointment have been expressed about the Taoiseach's statements in a recent BBC interview. There is nothing in what he said which varies in the least the aspirations of the national majority to the unification of Ireland by peaceful means. I see no reason to apologise for the national aspiration. At the same time, the national majority, through their elected leaders of all political and other persuasions, have made it abundantly clear that they have no aggressive intent in regard to the North. Nothing in the Constitution suggests otherwise.
It was announced in Stormont on the 9th February that a review had been ordered of each individual firearms certificate, the review to be started forthwith and very stringent conditions to be applied to the holding of firearms. It was stated that it was intended to formulate and publish new rules in the matter. I am not aware that this has yet been done. Nor does it help the matter to permit the creation of rifle clubs of ex-B Specials. We have to be realistic about this. Everybody knows that there are far too many guns in the North and the position will not be cured by issuing more gun licences, as has been done in the past few months. The return to peaceful conditions, allied to the conscious implementation of the promise to put an end to second class citizenship, is primarily the responsibility of Government in the North, as legislation in these matters requires action in Stormont. But it is an obvious corollary that the Stormont authorities should not allow the re-arming of one section of the community as this casts obvious doubt on the intentions of some part of the Northern administration.
It is right that we should, as Deputy Desmond has done, condemn the current and recent acts of violence in Belfast. The circumstances of one young man's death last Friday are controversial. But his death is final. It is another in the already too long list of tragedies. Innocent people suffer daily, and while I extend, on behalf of the Taoiseach and the Government, our sympathies to the bereaved I must also ask for a restraint and calm on the part of the whole community. I do not know how far Deputy Desmond's plea will go—a plea to those who seem bent on destruction. What can I say to them—except that they tear wantonly at the heart and honour of Ireland? It is for political leadership to express the people's will. Ireland will not be united by the gun. Irish people will not be governed by the gun.
Deputy Cosgrave in his statement last Wednesday said that we "will have to recognise that the political, cultural and religious traditions of the Protestants of Northern Ireland must be given their full weight in the policies and institutions... of a 32-County Ireland". I agree with that. We should never lose sight of this both in our dealings with the north and in our internal affairs here. Indeed the phrase in the motion under reference, which "looks forward to the establishment of full fundamental rights and freedoms for everyone, irrespective of religion or political opinion" is a standard against which we should consciously measure our policies in relation, eventually, to the country as a whole as well as to our performance in the 26 Counties in the meantime.
It is, of course, acceptable to all of us that the unification of the country should not be attempted to be made by force. In abjuring the use of force we should also remember that the unification of Ireland by peaceful means and its future social harmony will not be obtained by clinging to the notion that fundamental, statutory or other law should express confessional or even paternalistic attitudes. Our personal beliefs guide our private activities, but the good governance of Ireland requires us to legislate for the general good, not for our private satisfaction.
This may make it necessary for us to distinguish between our duties in our capacity as legislators and our personal beliefs about private behaviour. Bearing in mind that individual freedom to decide on matters of private morality does not impose a standard of behaviour on anyone else, the legislature is certainly not bound to express prohibitions in matters on which adult people feel entitled to decide for themselves. To put it bluntly, in a plural society legislators must guard against considering matters solely from the standpoint of their personal religious practices and beliefs. They have no duty to do so. Indeed, it could well become impossible in a plural society to obtain a general agreement to social legislation—and such general agreement is the cement that binds society together—if legislative matters affecting private morality were to be decided only on the basis of the private conscience of the legislators. I speak of general agreement and I think everybody here would agree that general agreement is the cement that binds society together.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to the possibility of establishing some joint authority in order to bridge the widening gap between the two communities in Northern Ireland. There is, of course, the Community Relations Commission, much of whose work up to now, however useful it has been, has been masked by the recurring violence. The creation of the commission, with its enlightened composition, is itself an essential beginning to the easing of community tensions and the gradual creation of community harmony. It would be better to have its role extended and its authority widened rather than attempt to create some new form of joint authority.
With these remarks, Sir, I should like to return to what I said, that Dáil Éireann has never at any time contemplated the use of force as an instrument to secure the unity of Ireland, and, as far as the Government Party are concerned, I recommend that this motion be passed unanimously.
I wish to make a few remarks before the concluding speech. This motion is designed to put on record the absolute abnegation of violence as an instrument of policy within this country. We could have framed this motion in more divisive terms. We could have put forward the particular viewpoint of the Opposition that the reunification of this country could come only by consent. Instead of doing that we chose to put forward a motion which could secure the full consent of everyone in this House. We, on this side of the House, welcome the support of the Minister and his party as, indeed, we welcome the support of the Labour Party for the terms of our motion. I was impressed also by the terms of the Minister's remarks in relation to a plural society and the duties of legislators in such a society. There are thoughts there that all of us can take away usefully from this debate.
However, I must say, with respect, that the overall tone of the Minister's speech does not match the gravity of the situation. Our motion is timely and appropriate but I do not think there is sufficient appreciation on any side of the House of how near things are to disaster in Northern Ireland. Anybody who is in direct or indirect contact with that area must know of the mood of despair which has gripped the people—people of goodwill and moderation. They believe there is no future for them and there is nothing further they can do. They believe that the coming to power of a right-wing government is inevitable in the near future and that it may be impossible to prevent this happening. There is grave fear as to what the consequences may be.
During the next few weeks we may be put through a great test in the whole of this country. We should indicate recognition of this fact. God knows what would be the result if this should happen but the unity that has been shown in this debate and in agreeing to this motion may be a first step towards that kind of unity of purpose which alone can bring us through the trials that may lie immediately ahead. Anarchy is loose in Northern Ireland. It is not only a question of bigoted men of sectarian views killing each other, of Protestant killing Catholic and vice versa. We know of this internal conflict and of the acts of gangsterism on the streets of Belfast. In our own part of the country here we have experienced, within the last 12 months, such phenomena as street brawls, kidnappings, fires, explosions and the murder of a policeman. In this way, the violence of Northern Ireland has spread to us. It is a contagious violence and we cannot keep ourselves away from it. If we do not make our contribution to try to end it in Northern Ireland by putting that above all other considerations, we, too, will suffer the consequences of that failure. If I may make a point of criticism, it has been a mistake, too, for us at this moment to reassert the claim that this part of the country has in the past made of jurisdiction over Northern Ireland even though it is accompanied by an abnegation of violence.
The Minister has, perhaps, put this in different tones this evening and he has tried to take the harm out of it but, nevertheless, it is a pity that it was said at this time. From now on, I hope that from all sides of this House there will be a complete concentration on trying to avoid anything that could be misinterpreted and anything that could be said to be unhelpful or untimely. None of us should speak without thinking first of the consequences in Northern Ireland and, indeed, if at all possible, without consulting people of moderate views in Northern Ireland before expressing any viewpoint that could exacerbate the situation there. Not only is this necessary in so far as the North is concerned but it is necessary also in the interests of this part of the country. Before very long, we may know how necessary this is.
These are the few points I wish to make at this stage. I am glad that the motion has given us the opportunity of making it clear at this critical moment that we abjure violence. I would put it to the Minister that some method must be found in the near future of expressing this unity of purpose in practical form. If we face trials in the weeks immediately ahead, there must be some method, whether it be in the form of consultation either formal or informal between the parties or otherwise, to ensure that the unity is preserved.
The Minister knows, as the Taoiseach knows also, that the Government have the support of the Opposition in standing firm against extreme forces and in doing everything possible to maintain peace.
The Deputy must conclude now.
Let us try to find some mechanism which will enable us to work closely together and to be seen to work closely together in the common interest.
In the long history of Dáil Éireann, I do not think there has ever been an occasion on which we were so overwhelmed with the development of affairs in our island where, within the past 18 months, some 70 of our fellow Irishmen, or people charged, for the time being, with the responsibility of protecting them have died and during which several hundred people have been injured seriously, a time during which property valued at millions of pounds has been seriously and permanently damaged.
As we reject the use of force, so also with equal sincerity we extend to the relatives and friends of all those who have been killed in the political battles of Ireland during the past 18 months our sincerest sympathy in that they should have lost people who were dear to them—that all should have been lost in a futile purpose because force can never achieve the ends which all those who fought and all those who died believed incorrectly they would achieve.
The creation of a separate political entity in Northern Ireland was, of course, a bitter disappointment 50 years ago to those who aspired to an independent Irish State comprising all of this island and its people. The continued existence of that political entity depresses all Irish people who desire to see Irish men and women, whatever may be their origins or their religious or political convictions, living together in an all-Irish State.
For too long the way to peace and understanding between all our peoples has been obstructed by bitter denials by some of us of the rights of others to think differently from us, by moaning about what should have happened 50 years ago or since, instead of facing up to the consequences of what did happen; by the eagerness to relate our thoughts and actions, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs did tonight to a half century ago, instead of taking the initiatives available to us now, difficult as it may be to grasp those initiatives.
I speak as one of a generation who has never known Ireland to be united either under an Irish flag or a foreign flag. Since this State achieved independence as a result of a treaty between Ireland and Britain, the 50th anniversary of which we will celebrate on the 6th December of this year, 3¼ million people have been born as free men and women into this sovereign independent Irish State which is master of its own destinies. For the privilege we are grateful to those who went before us and who made such valiant sacrifices that we might be free. Consideration of our own self interests and the debt we owe to our forefathers confirm us very properly today in the will to remain free. But in Northern Ireland, too, hundreds of thousands—I believe over 1,500,000—have been born since 1920 when that State was first established, the majority of whom are, however, convinced that the obligation they owe to their ancestors, as well as to their own present and future welfare, compels them to live apart from us. But in Northern Ireland there is, too, a very significant minority who desire not a separate life but a life in a unified Irish nation.
These are the facts which govern our attitudes today, not what was written by some well-meaning but many evilly-bent Westminster politicians in 1920. We have an immense burden of responsibility today, those of us who hold the authority of the Irish people, a responsibility which we have to both present and future generations. We will fail them miserably, and deserve to be condemned by history, if we dwell too much on the issues which divide the inhabitants of this island. We will be forgiven even less if we dwell upon the divisions which divided them in the past and if, in fits of pique or bouts of propaganda, we assert legalistic claims or infer that injustice can justify death, wounding and destruction, then we will have failed the nation entirely.
The present troubles in Northern Ireland are a re-emergence of bitter religious bigotries and illogical fears, the results of the crystallisation of prejudice; but the greatest fear of all is, of course, the illogical fear because you can never reason your way out of such a fear. But do not let us be smug in this part of Ireland, which asserts its right to operate independently of any other nation, and consider ourselves free from prejudice. It is wise to remember that one man's convictions appear as prejudices to others. The decisions which these sad times in which we live force us to take are whether or not to find common ground for all Irishmen or to damage the present and future generations by preserving the bitterness which we have inherited for posterity.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to a statute passed in 1920. A great Irishman, whose memory we commemorate in the principal street of this city, has inscribed on the obelisk erected to him that no man has a right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation and no man has the right to say to a nation "Thus far shall you go and no further" and Acts of Parliament, of our own Parliament or of any other Parliament of 1920, purporting to affect this country do not necessarily and should not limit the strategy which we develop and apply in 1971. Is long possession nine or any points of the law? It is considered by most reasonable men as a sensible approach to disputed property, even if the letter of the law subsequently proves that the tenth point is legalistically more tenable than the first. But can dialogue, much less negotiation, take place between people, one of whom denies the right of the other to have a conflicting view? I think not. Negotiations never start between parties if both restate the very principles which first divided them and have ever since kept them apart. In overlooking this invariable experience of mankind, the Taoiseach was in error in his BBC interview last week in placing emphasis on territorial claims and the Minister for Foreign Affairs was in error tonight in using the 1920 Act as an anchor for the 1971 ship of State, as if different currents had not developed in the meantime. If you answer positively that all Irishmen are equal you must accept that our relations with the North should be based upon the principle of absolute equality, each side setting aside, or certainly not throwing at the other, its own deeply held convictions in order to understand the other's viewpoint, without necessarily sharing it.
For half a century Northern Ireland has existed as a separate entity, for longer, indeed, than this State has existed, for Northern Ireland was set up in June of 1920, long before the Treaty between this State and Britain. Even in the history of nations that is a considerable time. It is a fact that it was born out of the perversity of a few, but it has become consolidated with the support of the many. Our principal task now should be to examine whether any actions in this State, or by its people, have contributed to the fears which many Northern Irishmen have about living with us.
Let us not be smug about our own magnanimity by claiming that we do not have sectarian problems. Those who believe in the unity of Ireland must accept that the divisions in the north east of this island are our problems. These are Irish problems and all our words and actions must be directed towards the people of the north east just as much as they are to the constituents in each Deputy's own constituency.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Force used or force justified in Belfast or Derry is force used or force justified in Dublin or in Cork. It is force used against ourselves. Lack of trust amongst Irishmen is, perhaps, the greatest obstable to unity, a much greater hindrance than the stupidity or meanness or ignorance of Westminster politicians legislating for a problem they never understood and, if one is to judge by the words of Mr. Maudling, still do not fully understand. It may take years yet to measure the harm that was done by the folly of certain politicians and Members of this Parliament in being involved in some way or other in efforts to pass guns into the North of Ireland. Fortunately some of the consequential damage which has flowed from this folly may have been lessened by the fact that the Taoiseach had before him an Opposition in Fine Gael and Labour that was totally against the use of force for the purpose of settling any outstanding Irish political disputes.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The purpose of this resolution, which was tabled by Fine Gael in the autumn of 1969, before any action was taken on foot of this move to import arms through Dublin for use in the North, is to obtain from Dáil Éireann a formally binding renunciation of the use of force, a declaration of appreciation of reforms already implemented or promised, and an expression of hope for further reforms. If there be in Dáil Éireann anybody who cannot subscribe to this resolution let him speak out now or forever hold his tongue and his hand from violence, intrigue or subterfuge.
We welcome the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Government and the Government party that all members of the Government party support the passage of this resolution. The corollary to this resolution is that all our efforts should concentrate on what we have in common with the overwhelming mass of Northern Irish men and women, a desire for our children and for ourselves for peace without fear, decent living standards without injustice, freedom of conscience without intimidation of oneself, or the domination of others. We must develop what we have tended to ignore, a positive approach in our relations with Northern Ireland. We need to develop an informed, consistent policy of friendship with Northern Ireland based upon mutual respect and understanding, free of all temptation to score off one another and impose one's belief or culture to the exclusion or detriment of others. These are the clear objectives behind the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, the son of the man who was the Leader of this State for ten years, that Dáil Éireann now for the first time in its history formally rejects the use of force as an instrument to secure the unity of Ireland, welcomes the steps so far taken and promised to eliminate discrimination in Northern Ireland, and looks forward, most earnestly, to the establishment of full fundamental rights and freedom for everyone, irrespective of religion or political opinion, may I add, in any part of Ireland.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Question put and agreed to.