Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1971

Vol. 257 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Border Road Cratering.

Question No. 6 of the 25th November, 1971, Deputy Fox.

I raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment because, as the House is probably aware, there exists in Border constituencies at present a very high degree of tension. This tension has been generated mainly by the cratering of Border roads by the British Army. Question No. 6 of Thursday, 25th November asked the Minister what representations he had made and what replies he had received. In reply the Minister stated:

Strong and repeated protests have been made to the British authorities in regard to the cratering of border roads; the policy in this matter and its implementation are, of course, the responsibility of the Government. Every opportunity is taken of pointing out the folly of cratering and blocking border roads and the dangers involved. I do not make representations to the Stormont authorities as they are not, of course, a sovereign Government.

I apologise if I did.

Just to be clear, in the answer I was making it clear that the responsibility of this action was that of the British Government and not the Stormont Government. When the Deputy read out my reply he said, "the responsibility of the Government" he did not leave the word "British" in.

It was not intentional.

I point it out for the record.

I would like to know what reply, if any, the Minister has received from the Stormont Government. I should also like to know if stronger protests could not be made. Without accusing the Minister of being neglectful or irresponsible I doubt very much if he realises the present situation which exists close to the Border.

I should like to take this opportunity to refer to one particular incident with which I have been dealing over the past two days. It involves an incident which occurred on Sunday evening when a regiment of British soldiers came to a crater outside Clones, seized two mechanical diggers, taking one away with them and the other, which they could not start because it had no battery, they damaged. The nature of the damage was, for example, removing the valves from all wheels, removing the bung from the sump, throwing it away and allowing oil to run out, removing the cap and filling the tank with clay, breaking a number of hydraulic iron pipes, removing some others, removing the self-starter and injector pump, breaking windows and the clocks in the dashboard with the butt of a rifle. The owner told the police that as a safeguard against the machine being commandeered he had removed the battery, nevertheless he was kept waiting for one hour by the Northern police force before they handed him back some of the parts. Some of the parts he was given back were so badly broken that they were no longer of any use. This is the sort of situation which prevails along the Border area. The road to which I am referring leads to an area known as Coleman, County Monaghan, in which 13 people own property and 11 people reside. For practically one month those people had no access to their homes, their businesses and their farms except on foot. Admittedly within the last week the British Army have removed two spikes on a road leading into the North and have allowed them to pass by the remaining spikes. But for one month the people who live in this artificial island, which had been created by the cratering of roads, had no means of access other than by foot. If any of those people required the assistance of a doctor or a veterinary surgeon, the doctor or veterinary surgeon would have to park in a dangerous area and walk through a water-filled crater and through a bog in order to reach his patients or clients.

It is for this reason that I am questioning the representations the Minister has made; it is for that reason I am endeavouring to tell the House how serious the problem is at present. I have pointed out the disadvantages which those people are at from a material point of view but in my opinion there is a much more serious disadvantage from this sad episode than inconvenience alone. There are in this area people of different political persuasions and different religious beliefs who have lived in peace and harmony with each other but at present I am sorry to say this relationship is becoming, to put it mildly, slightly strained. The Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister should spare no effort in informing the British Government not only of the hardships but of the consequences which this can create.

In an area known as the Clogher Road on which a small country shop is situated, the owner, Mr. Traynor, has a business on both sides of the Border but at present both businesses are closed because he has no access to either place of business. The situation is so serious in areas such as these that stronger action should be taken than merely a letter to the British Government or a call made by a representative from the Irish Embassy in London. I would have thought the situation along the Border at present is so serious that, perhaps, the Minister could make time to come and see not only the material damage done but the inconvenience that is being caused.

We had another episode recently known as the Munnelly Bridge. The British Army had prepared to lay charges about 30 feet across a bridge in the Republic and luckily the National Army were able to arrive in time to prevent this charge being detonated. The first people on the scene, the people to whom credit should be given for holding the fort until the Army arrived, were members of the Garda Síochána from Clones, who had to take the insults as they were hurled at them from British soldiers. They remained there until the Army arrived and were then in a position to take whatever action was necessary. Luckily, the British soldiers withdrew their charges and retreated. The remaining charges on the Republic side were taken by the National Army and that was the end of it, but now the situation is that that bridge is blown up—it has been repaired by locals—and it is creating a considerable amount of flooding because these local people have had no assistance whatever and have had to make a road over a river with a few telephone poles and a couple of lines of girders. I believe that some assistance could have been given to local people to make good roads that were damaged, where they were necessary and in all cases these roads are very necessary.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider this whole problem and to remember that these incidents on the Border are generating a degree of polarisation between different sections of the community which was not there before this sad episode took place. I would ask him to view, if possible, some of these places and see for himself the hardship and damage being imposed on decent people who have no axe to grind and are in no way interfering with anybody. I would ask him to make stronger representations and to make sure that all these representations, in so far as he can, are listened to because I am afraid that, if not, this whole sad episode will have a very poor end.

I thank the Deputy for his contribution to our information about the inconvenience and difficulties caused by this silly policy of the British Government. Deputy Lynch asked a question last week, and before that Deputy Harte, and when we spoke of representations, I had a great deal of information available on the representations. It is not just a letter, there were representations by the Taoiseach and by me, very strong representations, but as I said to Deputy Harte at the time, if a government, as the British Government is, is silly enough to introduce this policy, representations to them can have very little effect but this does not mean that there have not been representations of the strongest kind.

There is a basis in some of what Deputy Fox said of the thinking that representations would end the particular aspect of this policy of the British, if only we would make them. I can assure the Deputy that the strongest and most frequent representations were made at the highest level, and only repeat that this lunatic policy of the British Government is a British Government policy, and in so far as he criticises it that way, I can tell him that the Government are in complete agreement with him, but we must not be trapped into any situation where we take on ourselves or on each other any responsibility for the total intransigence of the British Government in dealing with representations in regard to this lunatic policy.

Could I ask what have been the replies to your representations?

The reply is obvious— the reply is what they do. There is a serious situation between our Government and the British Government now because of their policy and this serious situation does include the inconvenience caused to people, which the Deputy has told us about. It includes more than inconvenience—the serious internment situation, not to speak at all of the treatment of people in internment. It includes a situation in which our Government have repeatedly, not alone made representations, but have told the British Government where they were going; and picking isolated cases of different aspects of what I have called a lunatic policy should not make us forget that it is the whole policy of a Government in Britain who are pushing through this policy, regardless of what we say, regardless, I believe, of the wishes of their own electorate and regardless of the dictates of common sense.

Were the replies——

I wonder if the Deputy really wanted me to talk about this at all. He was not here last week when the question was put down by Deputy Lynch. There were no supplementary questions to me that day. He was not here before, when Deputy Harte was talking.

Now is the chance to give all the information.

Now he does not want me to talk. He got a note down from the back. Does he really want to be serious about this?

The Minister has ten minutes in which to reply.

I regret that inference, because I put this question down because this situation has reached a serious crisis and I regret your reference to my making political capital out of this.

I did not say that, did I? I do not think that is on the record.

No, but it is an inference which I or anybody else would draw. I am not taking notes from anybody.

Would the Deputy allow the Minister to reply?

You did get a note from behind you?

Not about that. The Minister should not add two and two together and make ten.

I am not—I am just asking to be allowed to speak.

One of the first things I asked here——

Would Deputy Fox please resume his seat? He had 20 minutes——

Yes, but the Minister——

Will the Deputy resume his seat or I will adjourn the House.

You can, if you wish.

I do not think the Deputy wants a reply.

He gave the Minister 15 minutes to reply, not ten.

I will give him tomorrow morning if he wishes to reply and I am merely asking him if there was a blank refusal.

The Deputy wishes to keep on talking.

There is a total ignoring of our representations and I want the Deputy and the House to understand that you are now dealing with a British Government pursuing a lunatic policy, ignoring our representations and ignoring common sense and their own people's feelings, I am sure. I cannot speak for them.

Was there any answer?

(Cavan): No, the Minister said.

There are answers in the diplomatic world, but I think what the Deputy means is whether there is any satisfactory answer.

There is no satisfactory answer. There could not. They are continuing with this lunatic policy.

(Cavan): I understood the Minister to say that his representations were ignored.

As far as effectiveness is concerned — Deputy Fox wants to know was there any effect, any good answer that they would do anything about it. The answer is "No". You are now dealing with a most serious situation between two Governments and you have to decide which side you are on. If you like, I could read out what the Taoiseach said publicly when this policy started. It covered the Government attitude, apart from private representations, but I would ask the House to treat this as a serious situation between two Governments in which we are taking totally opposing attitudes, and you have to be very clear in your thinking then as to whether you are making representations or whether it is our fault that they do not do what we want. We do not blame ourselves any more if we are dealing with people who are taking such an opposing attitude.

I would quote the Taoiseach on l3th October, when this aggravating business began. The Taoiseach said:

I have protested against the blocking of Border crossings. Such measures are not alone directed at the wrong problem in the wrong place, but they are unlikely to succeed in their overt intention. In my opinion, they will aggravate a deteriorating situation. They will subvert the influence exercised by men of moderation such as the leaders of the non-Unionist community. Public opinion here will be disturbed very substantially. People living in the Border area on both sides will resent the serious inconvenience caused to them and this will increase the risk of incidents along the Border.

The extent to which cross-Border activities contribute to the scale of violence in the North is not significant and we have taken and continue to take, all possible precautions to prevent it. I reject any inference that the contrary is the case. Indeed, Lord Windlesham, Minister for State, British Home Office, admitted recently in the House of Lords that these activities do not play a significant part in the campaign of violence. The stepping-up of military action to create physical barriers between the people of this island is a retrograde step. What is needed now and needed urgently is positive action towards finding a political solution to the problems of the North, action which must take account of the views of the elected representatives of the non-Unionist community. I have taken steps to make my views on this matter known to the British Government at the highest level.

That is what the Taoiseach said and everything he said at that time was accurate. Not alone that, but we can say tonight that everything he forecast has come to pass. The influence of men of moderation in the North, as far as preventing the polarisation of the two communities is concerned, is no longer capable of preventing that polarisation. Internment without trial, not to speak of the treatment of internees, had already ensured that the non-Unionist community in the North would have nothing to do any longer with the Stormont regime. This attempt to divide the island into two by digging holes has only served to increase the reluctance of the non-Unionist public representatives in the North to take any Stormont regime seriously or to acquiesce in their policies.

The Taoiseach said that public opinion would be substantially disturbed and it is. Public opinion here is very disturbed. He said at the time that there would be serious inconvenience at the Border. The Deputy has given us good reasons why people on the Border resent this inconvenience on top of the tension already existing there, as the Deputy says. Worse still, there has been an increase in serious incidents along the Border. I call it a lunatic policy because the whole thing has an air of lunacy about it. Perhaps it is the last lunacy of a British Government that does not know what is going on in the North of Ireland, does not know that 40 per cent of the people there are in revolt against the Unionist Government and that they are satisfied and we are satisfied, I think, that their refusal to be governed by Unionism has already succeeded. I do not know whether it is any good making recommendations or representations to the British Government but perhaps we could recommend that they take full notice of what Mr. Maudling said, rather than dig holes in the roads. Mr. Maudling said:

If, by agreement, the North and South should at some time decide to come together in a United Ireland; if, by agreement, this should be their wish then not only would we not obstruct the solution but I am sure the whole British people would warmly welcome it.

I am sure he is right about the feelings of the British public. I am certain of what the feelings of the majority of the Irish people are and I think it is incumbent on the British Government to respond to the wishes of their own electorate instead of having their Army going around destroying roads and bridges and doing it repeatedly while local people undo their work.

The British Government should, and could now get down to the basic issue of meeting the wishes, not alone of the Irish people but, as they seem to be realising at last, the wishes of the British people.

I do not know what will bring it about. A single act of statesmanship is what is now required on the part of the British Government. This would be a response to the desires of the British people and the Irish people. That is what the situation now requires. What would bring it about? Our representations? I do not know. Their own people's feelings? I am not sure. If common sense would come into the picture, perhaps that would do it. We can make representations; we can give them advice but only God can give them sense.

Time and again matters are raised in this House arising out of the situation in the North. I know the Deputy feels he must make representations here and he is right and he is entitled to do so but I think we must face the fact that this is a policy of the British Government deliberately entered into and that no matter how lunatic it is to us they have decided on it and seem determined to carry it on. We should continue to make our representations and I think the Deputy should continue, with other Deputies in the House, to play his part by raising matters like this but I do not think we should blame each other, for the real responsibility lies with the British Government, not with us and not even in the North of Ireland.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 2nd December, 1971.

Top
Share