Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Motion: Northern Ireland Situation. – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Thursday, 3 Feb 1972

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Motion: Northern Ireland Situation.

The Taoiseach

I move: That the Dáil do now adjourn.

On Monday night on television and again on Tuesday in the Dáil I expressed the nation's grief at the happenings in Derry last Sunday. I expressed sympathy with those who were bereaved, those who were injured and with the people of Derry generally. I think it is true to say that grief and sympathy were hardly ever more sincerely felt, nor more widespread in this country, certainly not in my lifetime. I also announced on Monday night that the Government had called for a special day of mourning and I appealed to everybody who could in any way contribute to, or facilitate, that mourning to do so. I should like to express my appreciation of the manner in which those in positions of authority facilitated the day of mourning.

I appeal to everybody to respond to these tragic events with dignity and with discipline. There were demonstrations of sympathy in every part of the country. People in their tens of thousands responded magnificently and they attended church services. Indeed, it is true to say that the entire nation mourned. What was important too, was that the vast majority marked yesterday in peaceful demonstration, a demonstration of their grief, of their sympathy and of their solidarity with the people who were bereaved and with their friends and, in general, demonstrated their sympathy and solidarity with the deprived minority in the North of Ireland. In this way they showed that in these difficult days there is a degree of unanimity and solidarity that was an example to the entire world and which gave encouragement and strength to the people in the North. For all this I commend all our people and congratulate them on the magnificent way they responded. I thank them for their wonderful gesture of solidarity and unanimity.

Regrettably, the situation had its dark spots. In Dublin yesterday many thousands of our people representing the different organisations, the trade unions, State bodies, students and, indeed people from every walk of life showed their sorrow in a most disciplined way. However, a small minority—men who, under the cloak of patriotism, seek to overthrow the institutions of this State—infiltrated what was necessarily a peaceful demonstration, infiltrated essentially peaceful groups and fomented violence. As we know the British Embassy has been destroyed but I want to say that the nation gains no credit from such an action. It was the action of people who are dangerous, who, above all, are a danger to our freedom, our democracy and to our institutions of freedom and democracy.

Unfortunately that incident was not the end of the matter and since then other danger signals have manifested themselves. Groups proclaiming to be members of illegal organisations have gone around intimidating people and seeking to give the impression that these organisations are now to have a free hand here to do what they like by way of intimidation or destruction. At the outset of what I intend saying, I wish to reassure those of our people who, understandably, may be apprehensive or who may have become concerned at some of yesterday's events, that the institutions of this State will be upheld without fear or favour. The laws will continue to be enforced and those who seek to usurp the functions of the Government will meet with no toleration. I reaffirm those fundamental principles here today and I ask every member of the community and every Member of the Dáil to support the Government stand on this. The Government stand is the stand of the elected representatives of our people regardless of on which side of the House they sit and regardless of whether they are in this House or the other. In the days immediately ahead there is no doubt that those to whom I have referred will seek to play on the sympathies and on the emotions of ordinary decent people so as to secure support for their own actions and objectives. Many people in other countries—indeed throughout the world—are watching our reaction to the recent tragic events. The present situation is a test of our maturity as a nation. We must show the world that, with dignity and restraint, we can express our grief and our support for the minority in the North without, at the same time, playing into the hands of those who would destroy our own fundamental institutions. Therefore, I ask all men and women of goodwill and of responsibility and especially those in positions of influence and, perhaps, those who are engaged in the communications media, to be on their guard against the kind of danger to which I have referred.

This debate, perhaps, has been precipitated by the tragic events of last Sunday. Before the Government took action on Monday, we had received reports from sources that we believe to be absolutely reliable and since then we have been able to check these reports against more reports and especially against reports made by people who were eye-witnesses of these events, people who were actually on the spot. In this respect I would like to refer to the claim by the commanding officer of the British Forces in Derry last Sunday that 200 rounds were fired at his troops as well as nail bombs and other missiles. So far as I know and so far has been stated publicly, not one of these troops was injured either by bullets or nail bombs. They may have sustained minor injuries in scuffles but there were no casualties as a result of these alleged shootings and the throwing of bombs. The same officer claimed that shots had come from flats, that there were snipers on the roofs of these flats which, I understand, were high rise flats in the immediate vicinity, but the stark fact remains that all those who were killed or injured were people on the ground and people who were about to attend, and some of whom had already attended, a public meeting which had begun already. Therefore, to that extent, what these people were doing then was not illegal according to the decrees of the Stormont Government. The march was banned. Therefore, one presumes that under their laws it was illegal to take part in the march but it had concluded at the time the paratroopers fired on these people attending the meeting who, at that stage, were about their lawful business and demonstrating in a lawful way even by Stormont's standards.

As I have said, reports that we received were confirmed by other independent sources and I would direct the attention of Members to the statement of an Italian journalist who must be regarded as being completely impartial and who, so far as I know, said that no shot was fired from the crowds that were demonstrating before the British paratroopers opened fire. I would direct the attention of the House also to a statement made by a very prominent journalist of a very prominent British newspaper who said that he was there all the time, that he thought he heard one shot that might have come from the direction of where the meeting was being convened. He wrote in his notebook "sniper" after which he put a question mark. This gentleman has said that that was the only shot he heard before the paratroopers fired and, obviously, by his own admission and by the record in his notebook, he was not convinced that the shot had come from the direction of the demonstration. It was on these facts that the Government took their decision on Monday to withdraw the Ambassador from London, to instruct our diplomats abroad to inform the Governments to which they were accredited of the facts of the situation as we had got them.

I also put forward the three proposals with which the House is familiar. I should like to repeat them because I believe they are essential if any move forward is to be made. First, the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Derry and other areas in the North of Ireland where there is a high concentration of Catholic homes and the cessation of the harassment of the minority population. I believe that it was because of raids and repressive measures by the British troops in these areas that much of the violence that since has come about in the North of Ireland was caused. In speaking about harassment, I intended to cover the cratering of Border roads, which, I am convinced now more than ever I was, have no military effect or benefit whatever. It was done, as a result of repeated statements by a junior Minister in Stormont, to appease him, in the first instance, and to embarrass us in the second. Not only has it done both—it obviously has appeased the one and embarrassed the other—but it has incensed decent people on both sides of the Border against this type of activity, and has not prevented one person who had evil intent from crossing the Border. Therefore, not only was that kind of action undertaken for the reasons I said but it is militarily futile. The other two proposals I made were the end of internment without trial and a declaration of Britain's intention to achieve the final settlement of the Irish question and the convocation of a conference for this purpose.

I recognise that some of these proposals may not be immediately possible. I am certain that the withdrawal of the troops from the areas I mentioned is immediately possible and would be a first step towards the restoration of peace and the elimination of violence in the North. The second, too, the end of internment without trial, obviously will take some time because if those who are interned are brought to trial a suitable tribunal will have to be established. When I mentioned, having spoken to Mr. Harold Wilson on last Monday week, that I thought it might be possible to find a formula to induce the Nationalists and the SDLP Members of Stormont into talks, and that this might be one of the ways. I want to say clearly that I was in no way dictating to these minority leaders as to what their attitude should be.

However, since the events which gave rise to these proposals resulted from a demonstration to establish civil rights, I would add one other proposal which I think would also be very quickly implemented. As Deputies are aware, especially Deputies who are delegates to the Council of Europe, some time ago the Council of Europe Assembly made a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers:

(1) To instruct the Committee of Experts on Human Rights to draft an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which would secure the equal treatment of persons in the enforcement of the law and prohibit discrimination in the exercise of the following rights:

(i) the right to participate with equal voting rights in national and local elections based on the fair delineation of electoral boundaries;

(ii) the right of access to employment, particularly in central and local government services, in State and semi-State companies and public bodies financed wholly or partly out of central or local government funds and in private industries partly financed or sub-sidised by State or local bodies;

(iii) the right to the equitable allocation of dwellings and of resources required to provide dwellings wholly or partly financed out of public funds;

(iv) the right of access to the public service.

The Assembly in their wisdom thought it necessary to add these to the Convention on Human Rights. I would now suggest to the British Government that they could amend their Northern Ireland legislation, which they have authority and power to amend, that is, the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 or the 1949 Act, to include these specific principles, so that, instead of depending on the goodwill, the declaration, or whims, as the case may be of an administration in which people have lost all confidence, these people would legally enjoy those rights, and enforce such rights if they were not accorded to them. This, I suggest, could be done by simple amendment and done very quickly.

May I say in reference to demonstrations that I hope it will be possible to hold next Sunday's demonstration in a way that will not provoke the kind of action that we saw last Sunday in Derry, that it will not provoke the deliberate shooting down of innocent people by paratroopers. It may be that such a demonstration could be held within the law and equally effectively. That is not a matter for me to decide, but it is a consideration I would urge on those who are responsible and who rightly want to demonstrate to achieve those rights. It is known by now that I had a visit from the British Ambassador and this is one of the questions we discussed. It is not for me to say what passed between us. We also discussed the burning of the Embassy and I reiterated the Government's regret and our intention, as is the practice, to provide full compensation. He did not indicate to me whether there was any response so far to the proposals that I put to the British Government last Monday.

I want to refer to the suggestion that the Leaders of the three parties should go to London, which Deputy Cosgrave raised in the House here on Tuesday. I had intended to discuss this matter with Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish, but unfortunately the changed Order of Business and the visit of the British Ambassador precluded me from doing so. However, I hope to discuss it with them later. We, as political parties representing the people here, have publicly stated our unanimity and our solidarity and I would say we have the support of the vast majority of the people in our approach to this question. It may be that such a visit would endorse this solidarity, that as Deputy Cosgrave said, the meeting may do good but not do harm. I should like to consider this very carefully before I would make any comment on such a visit.

Mr. Corish

The Taoiseach will make a decision before the weekend?

The Taoiseach

Not before I discuss the matter with Deputy Corish and Deputy Cosgrave. There is more we can do in this present situation. As I said, we are all solid and united in our approach to this problem. We are committed to a peaceful solution of the Northern Ireland situation. In talking of the future of Ireland, it is impossible not to reflect also on present policies being pursued in the North. Those lie at the heart of any discussions that we may have here amongst ourselves or otherwise.

The attempt to reimpose traditional Unionism, whose vision is narrow and self-defeating, will certainly end in total failure. I have no doubt about this. The political leadership of the non-Unionist community in the North have no doubt about it. Indeed, no objective observer—even though he might be British—European, American, or otherwise, doubts that this cannot happen either. It would be fair to say, in fact, that the published comments of most journalists, and the private views expressed to me and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by most political leaders in other countries, are insistent that the policy of return to monopoly Unionist Government is now impossible.

The State itself was founded for the purpose of ensuring the ascendancy of one community there at the expense of another. I do not know of any other State—until the Eastern European countries were established after the last war—which was deliberately founded on the basis of keeping in power permanently one section of the population. I do not know either of any State which is less representative of the true meaning of Protestantism than the Northern State. The right to freedom of conscience was a fundamental of the Reformation. The practices of Government in Northern Ireland are certainly not in accord with these principles of Protestantism.

I know from many contacts I have that a great many Protestants in Northern Ireland seek peace and justice as much as their Catholic neighbours do. I also know that many of them have come to the belief that, within the limits of the Northern State, it is not possible to find peace with justice and that their minds, therefore, are turning in the direction of Irish unity. I should like to assure these people publicly, as I have done privately, that the unity which we seek is one which will be determined to find room for their talents as well as their sensibilities.

They owe it to themselves as much as they owe it to their neighbours to state how they would wish the institutions of Ireland to be formed. They will be their institutions as much as anyone else's. It is right that they should have a say in how they should be formed. If we are expecting moves or sacrifices from the Unionist majority in the North we, too, will have to face up to some change from our present stance and policy. In turning away from a failed system of government which was unworthy of them, if they do so, they will free themselves to undertake a task which is worthy of them, that of discovering out of the chaos of the present time the way forward to an Ireland which has been theirs for centuries and will be theirs again, as well as ours.

In addressing them publicly in this manner I am asking them to share in and to play an essential part in determining what Ireland should be. I have said harsh things about Unionism in so far as it has manifested itself in misgovernment in the North. It has never been my purpose to show hostility to Unionists, nor have I ever had any such feelings. To me the distinction is a vital one. Unionists are Irishmen who, to my mind, took the wrong course when the Irish nation insisted that Ireland should take charge of her own affairs. A moment of choice has come around again and Unionists can recapture their place in Ireland or continue down a road which will leave them without identity, without influence, and without happiness.

There are movements in Unionist circles which encourage me to believe that the right choice is on the brink of actuality. Certainly many Unionists —perhaps most Unionists—are prepared to support a non-sectarian State in the North. Many have the courage to advocate this despite the pressures exercised on them within their own society. In doing this they represent and speak for people Ireland needs in order to set in train Ireland's fulfilment. I would put a question to them: If the North should become a State capable of embracing the two communities there, in what essential manner could this context not properly be applied to the whole of Ireland?

It may be said in reply that the whole country is incapable of the resolution of problems in a manner satisfactory to the Northern majority for economic, social and other reasons. Laying aside the selfishness involved in a decision to keep a country divided for economic reasons, I consider that it can be truly argued that a united Ireland would not adversely affect the economic well-being of the North. In recent decades our economic development has been substantial, so much so, that far from being afraid of entering into the European Community—which among other things is a vast free trade area—we look forward to it confident of the acceleration of our economic expansion.

So far as social reasons go, Irish unity implies and, indeed, insists on a state of affairs equally satisfactory to the basic beliefs of all sections of the whole community. The North has nothing to lose from that. Therefore I would urge those thinking in the terms I have outlined to take the further step towards agreeing that their intention should be enlarged from trying to find a solution within Northern Ireland to one in which they will acknowledge that the proper goal is to find a solution for Ireland as a whole, agreeable to the Irish people as a whole.

I realise that I am limited to half an hour so I will just conclude. I want to refer again to the march next Sunday in Newry. I said that I hoped it would not provoke the same kind of reaction as the Derry march did. I also want to say that I hope it will not provide any cloak or alleged excuse for the British Army to behave again as they did in Derry last Sunday.

Finally, I want to say again to our own people: let not present emotion, absolutely justified and justifiable, turn them away from what the overwhelming majority of the people know to be the only way towards unity. Above all, let not people who wish to exploit that emotion turn them away from what the great majority of our people seek, that is, the peaceful reunification of our country, the maintenance of our institutions, and the maintenance of our democratic institutions above all, so that all Irishmen, North and South, can enjoy living in economic well-being and happiness in a united Ireland.

Mr. Ryan

Those of us who still enjoy the gift of life carry a very heavy responsibility to ensure that the deaths of 13 Irishmen in Derry last Sunday and the grief of their relatives are not in vain. Those of us who still live must also, as we endeavour to recover from the shock of last Sunday's cruel events, recall that more than 260 people have died as a result of the insane use of force by man against man to achieve political objectives in the North of Ireland in the last three years. Those of us who come from the same national strain, who share the same views as those of the victims of Derry, must not in our sense of anger and frustration forget that there are on this island people who do not share, for the time being, totally in our outlook and we must have some thought for those who live in fear and dread of the threats of revenge and reprisal that were uttered by Irishmen in the last week.

It is difficult to categorise the happenings in Derry as anything but vindictive force criminally and selectively directed against a harassed and infuriated minority. When to that terrible injury which was inflicted you have the appalling and disgraceful untruths, to which the Taoiseach has referred, we feel thoroughly sick that there exists in this island such a deplorable situation. As people understandably vent their anger on the instruments of the wrong decisions which have been taken over the last few years, let us realise that the decisions to have the troops where they are, acting in the way that they are behaving, are the decisions of political persons like ourselves. Let us realise that if we make decisions and if we make literal utterances they may have consequences. Quite clearly, accepting the terrible realisation that all that involves, we must now bend all our energies on the political front so as to bring about a political transformation in the North of Ireland.

As we know the first step towards that political transformation is the next to impossible need to convert Mr. Edward Heath and his Government from the suicidal policies which they are pursuing. At best it can be said in defence of the present British Government that they do not know what they are doing, that they are incapable of understanding the problem, that they are no better and no worse than other British leaders that have gone before them. One would have thought that after centuries of oppression and coercion in Ireland, oppression and coercion which failed, a British Government in the latter half of the 20th century would realise that coercion would not succeed now any more than it did in the past.

Some people are saying that after Derry things can never be the same again. I do not think that is entirely right. Certainly many things will not be the same again. After the terrible events of last week we see no change in the attitude of the British Government, no change in the utterances and attitudes of the British Army who are executing the policy for the British Government, no change in the hearts, minds and dispositions of the die-hard Unionists, who do a gross disservice to the Protestant majority in the North of Ireland because they alone are responsible for the misery which is shared by both communities in the North of Ireland.

We must all have recoiled at the utterances of one Unionist MP whose only remark after Sunday was to utter congratulations to the British Army on their marksmanship. That indicated a dreadful state of mind; that the only good Catholic was a dead one. Nobody who is a Catholic in this country would consider for a moment or lead anybody else to believe that a good Unionist or a good Protestant is a dead one. If the dreadful happenings of last Sunday shatter some of the evil mythology under which our people have lived for so long then some good will come out of the evil.

We agree with the Government that in the face of the seeming intransigence of the present British Government we must resort to international action to win the support of friends of justice everywhere to the need to move in a correct direction to achieve peace and justice in the North of Ireland. We note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is at present in America, having visited the United Nations. We consider that it is proper that he should make these visits but we should also like to see, as a matter of urgency on the Government side, moves to advise our European neighbours of the position in the North of Ireland. It is quite clear that Britain now would dread any worsening of her reputation in Europe. She is most anxious to get into the European Community. She is anxious to maintain friendships there.

Those of us who have had the privilege of recently being representatives of Ireland in the Council of Europe are aware of the immense concern which exists in Europe about the situation in the North of Ireland and we are also deeply conscious of the fact that most Europeans are not at all happy about the manner in which the British Government are dealing with the situation. We need now to bring more pressure to bear on our friends in Europe so that they will take the necessary initiatives to win the British Government away from the course of action which they are pursuing.

We accept and understand that the EEC is primarily a commercial and economic organisation but it is one that has serious and sound legitimate political objectives. It is not an organisation which can accept readily into its midst a country which is pursuing the repressive and deadly actions which the British Government are pursuing in the North of Ireland. Within the European Community you have for instance France, which is well aware of the inevitable evil consequences flowing from repressive measures and from depending on military solutions to achieve very difficult political ends. France has had her Algeria; Belgium has had her Congo. Most of the European nations are former colonial nations who are aware of all the difficulties which face big powers in endeavouring to deal with local difficulties. There is in Europe an immense fund of goodwill and we should certainly endeavour to harness that goodwill in Ireland's interest as quickly as possible.

We are conscious of the fact that both the SDLP and the Nationalists have expressed their unwillingness to accept the proposed judicial inquiry to be established under Lord Chief Justice Widgery. It is not for us to comment on the wisdom or otherwise of their actions, but we must accept that it is quite understandable in these difficult days that a purely British commission of inquiry will not be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of all Irish people. The world has moved forward in the last half century from the time when national governments were presumed to have complete control over affairs within their own borders.

We are fortunate enough to live in a world that accepts that human rights and individual freedoms transcend all domestic sovereignty, all individual loyalties. This being so, we should forthwith bring international machinery to bear to ensure that we have an international inquiry into the occurrences in Derry. What happened in Derry is in clear breach of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights which guarantees the right to life. That right is admittedly qualified within the Article by entitling a Government under law to punish certain offences by depriving a person of life and also entitling a Government to use violence, even though it may cause death, in case of riots or armed rebellions.

These conditions did not exist in Derry last Sunday nor can even the paratroopers succeed in convincing their own Government that they existed in Derry last Sunday. We should not hesitate therefore forthwith to make this plain to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for consideration by the European Commission of Human Rights. It is regrettable that it took the Government from August until November to decide to take a complaint to the European Commission about the undisputed cases of brutality and ill-treatment of prisoners in detention centres in the course of interrogation.

Do not let the same occur again. It is quite clear on the facts, and the Taoiseach accepted this, that there was a clear breach of the European Convention of Human Rights in Derry last Sunday, and the way to get an international inquiry, without further hesitation, into the matter is to make a form of complaint in Strasbourg which will set the necessary machinery in motion.

Speaking on Tuesday, Deputy Cosgrave on behalf of Fine Gael expressed our anxiety to present a united front in the face of this terrible national disaster. He promised the cooperation of Fine Gael in the belief that the best interests of Ireland will be served by showing to the British Government and to the world that we are united in our sense of shock and horror at what occurred, and also in our resolution to ensure that as far as it lies within our power it will not occur again. It would, however, be wrong for the Government to assume that Fine Gael can be depended on not to criticise the Government's actions. Certainly the Government should not assume that we would be satisfied with any gimmicky contrivance at consultation or participation unless we are given some opportunity to influence the decisions which the Government want to make.

As we say these things we do not for one moment detract from the right and authority, and indeed the duty, of the Government to make the necessary decisions and to have the necessary control over our affairs as far as lies in their power, but if there is to be a united front, then there ought to be effective, worthwhile, genuine and sincere consultation. This has not taken place to date, notwithstanding our repeated appeals in the past for consultation. We acknowledge that the Taoiseach spoke to Deputies Cosgrave and Corish this week. In the past two or three years there may have been a measure of consultation immediately following some extraordinarily new development, some new emergency, but that is not adequate in this great national crisis in which the full cooperation of everybody is required.

May I instance two examples of inadequate consultation in the face of serious developments? I believe the Taoiseach saw Deputy Cosgrave and, I think, Deputy Corish on the eve of the day on which he sent off a telegram to Mr. Heath, that rather disastrous telegram which had farreaching consequences because it was a major change of attitude on the part of the Government. When the Taoiseach had some difficulty in accepting that he should support the civil disobedience campaign, he suddenly changed his attitude and, without adequate consultation with the Opposition leaders, he sent off a telegram. Again this week we had the Taoiseach going on radio and again in the House making an announcement of serious import without any consultation with the Opposition as to whether it was the advisable course to adopt and, if it was being adopted, how the nation should go about doing it. I refer to the announcement by the Taoiseach to seek in the near future Dáil approval to provide money for political and peaceful purposes to enable the minority in the North of Ireland to secure freedom from Unionist domination.

That is a proposal which is certainly deserving of serious consideration, but it quite clearly would have been more helpful had such a matter been discussed with the Opposition parties before it was announced publicly. We have had rather unfortunate consequences from the last time that this House voted money. On that occasion it was for the relief of distress in Northern Ireland and the consequences, we know, were unfortunate. The matter is at present being examined by a Committee of this House and therefore I do not want to say anything which might in any way presume to anticipate the report of that inquiry. Suffice it to say that certain things happened which apparently should not have happened, giving cause for grave disquiet.

Similarly, if money is now to be voted for the purpose which the Taoiseach mentioned, which is a deserving cause, it is essential that the necessary machinery to ensure the proper application of that money is agreed on and, to get the necessary agreement, there should be sincere and genuine consultation before any decisions are taken which cannot later be reversed. Particularly the Opposition would want to ensure that there would be effective control over any money voted by this House for use outside its jurisdiction. That control would necessarily have to involve representation on a committee for representatives of all parties in this House as well as representatives of all opinions and interests being assisted outside. It is important that the credibility of recipients of money from this House should not be in question and unless there is that kind of consultation, which we hope the Taoiseach will now give, there is a real danger that greater difficulties may arise in the future.

There is also quite clearly a need to have continuing consultation on the question of internal security. When I speak of internal security I do not wish that any words of mine would be used mischievously by British or Unionist spokesmen to suggest that the cause of the violence and unrest in the North of Ireland is an attack on the North of Ireland based south of the Border. They know that is not so but, as the Taoiseach quite correctly has said, mischievously there have been certain people in the governing Unionist Party and indeed in the British Conservative Party who want to suggest it. It may be of interest to some Members here to know that so poisoned are the minds of some British Conservative MPs that one of them accused the Irish people of being responsible for the throwing of ink at Mr. Heath at the EEC signing ceremony in Brussels. Those words were uttered not in jest but in the serious belief by the man who uttered them that a Swedish girl living in Germany who had some opinion about some property movement in London was inspired by all the rebels in the South of Ireland. It is an interesting incident because it reflects the state of mind of so many members of the British Conservative Party on whom Mr. Heath relies for support.

I saw today a statement by Mr. John Taylor, one of the junior Ministers in the Unionist administration and one of the greatest mischief makers there, that he hoped the South of Ireland would take all security measures necessary to ensure that there would be no movement of the IRA from the South into Newry next Saturday. That sounds rather extraordinary when within the last 24 hours I was in Derry and we found that there were virtually no security measures taken by the British Government, by the armed forces, who could be present in mighty numbers to slaughter people who were unarmed. Even the most rudimentary precautions were not taken by them yesterday and, indeed, as anybody in this House who crosses the Border regularly knows, more often than not they are not taken at all. At the very time when those people who pretend to want to maintain control over security are not taking the steps necessary to secure their own territory they have the audacity to suggest that repressive measures should be taken in the South so that we could have in the South the evil that they, with their own criminal policies, have created in the North.

Let there be no doubt in anybody's mind but that the maintenance of peace and the rule of law in the Republic of Ireland is the greatest single contribution which can be made to the return of peace in the North of Ireland and to the creation of a just solution to the divisions which at present beset our people. Here, Sir, we are unhappy about the Government's action in this field. We feel that the Government have at last woken up to the terrible pit into which they have let the nation slip because of their lack of real discipline in the matter of internal security.

The events of the last 48 hours, where a building of the British Embassy was destroyed, may perhaps have satisfied many of the feelings of frustration and anger and bitterness which were in the hearts of many of our people but we must look at what the lesson really is. The lesson is that anarchists in our midst, those who in their own words are out to destroy the institutions of this State and of all Ireland, those who want to thrive on chaos, now know that if they get a sufficient number of unarmed civilians behind them, physically present, whether they agree with them or not, they can do untold damage. I think it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to have anticipated what might have occurred, to have anticipated it by having the necessary physical barricades there to ensure that these anarchists and evil-doers would not have got within striking distance of the Embassy. That simple precaution was not taken. There was a clear obligation on the Government to take it not only to protect the building but also to protect our gardaí from the kind of attacks to which they were subjected.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan

Those of us who first observed this incident on the earlier television broadcast yesterday were rather distressed that the building could be approached by people apparently in the presence of gardaí who did nothing to stop them but we saw later, of course, that the reason was that the gardaí were hopelessly outnumbered and that indeed had they endeavoured personally to intervene at the point at which developments had reached crisis proportions then there would possibly have been more serious injury to property and certainly most grievous injury, if not death, to persons.

This must not be allowed happen again. The Government, if they want to remain in government, must show they are a Government and they must govern in accordance with the wish of the people and that is that persons and property in this State be protected effectively. That requires sensible anticipation on the part of the Government. If they have not got the funds necessary or the personnel necessary to do it let them come into this House and they will get it from the representatives of the people because the greatest contribution we can make to the return of sanity to this island is to keep this part over which we have control peaceful. It is only by showing an example to the rest of Ireland, to Britain and to the world, that we can get the necessary support here and abroad for the sensible policy which we would want to see this country pursue. I did say in the natural reaction to the appalling tragedies of last week we have perhaps given insufficient thought to the views of 1,000,000 people in the North of Ireland who until now have been labelled as being opposed to Irish unity or not wishing to work with us. I agree with the Taoiseach when he says that there are now larger numbers than ever in the North of Ireland who want to see an end to the system which brings this evil upon them time and time again and which they realise will inevitably bring similar tragedies upon them unless something is done to change the system. This is not an occasion to propose anything in any specific detail because ultimately the mode of the Government of the North of Ireland, or of all Ireland, will have to be decided with the voice of the people of the North of Ireland clearly heard and clearly understood. I have suggested on other occasions and I again repeat —I think the events of last weekend underline the common sense of what I am saying—that the tragedies in the North arise out of the fact that you have there nearly 60 per cent of the people who profess loyalty to Britain although the loyalty of some of them is indeed very shallow because they have indicated from time to time that they are prepared to kick the British Crown into the Boyne rather than submit to direct rule from the sovereignty which they profess to respect. Nearly 40 per cent of the people, however, feel no attachment to the British sovereignty but do to the sovereignty of a Republic of Ireland. Are these two desires incompatible? I think they are not. A way out can only be found in a solution which recognises the two loyalties, the two outlooks of these two communities, and such could be found in a condominium in which the sovereignty over the North of Ireland would be shared by both Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Such would be an interim step which might restore peace then and at least would allow our people to begin to think about how they could live with one another.

That, Sir, is what we must do and our emphasis now must be on the way to live with our fellow Irish men and women. We must, as we have already in this House, say that arms are no answer and the message from the tragedy of last weekend is that the moral force of the unarmed mass is greater and more enduring than death inflicted by man upon man.

Mr. Tully

I should like to join in offering sympathy to the relatives of not alone the 13 who were killed in Derry last Sunday but the 260 odd who have lost their lives since this tragic affair started at Burntollet over two years ago. The tragedy is a great one. When we remember that already this year 28 people have lost their lives needlessly in Northern Ireland it brings the matter home to us how desperately important it is to get a solution to the whole matter.

One of the things which has rather surprised me in the two speeches we have heard this afternoon is that there did not seem to be that sense of urgency which I feel should be in what they were saying. While I could not disagree with what they did say unfortunately I felt that it was just as if the matter has to be dealt with some time. I believe it has got to be done now. I believe the initiative must be taken and that tomorrow is too late. Right from the time the tragedy was brought to a head on Sunday afternoon it became obvious to everybody that we could never go back, that we would never again have the situation which we had at that time. While I agree that the Government have taken certain steps. I believe they are not doing enough. Having said that, let me point out that, as far as we, in the Labour Party, are concerned, we are giving one hundred per cent support to anything the Government do. There are three major parties here who differ in certain matters of policy, but in this there is no difference. This is the old battle of Ireland v. England and we will give every support we can to the Government, to Fine Gael and to anybody else inside or outside this House who wants to bring a peaceful solution to this problem.

The unfortunate part of it all is that up until this week the Government were doing a "soft line" act with Britain. I sometimes feel a little bit ashamed when I hear some of the comments made by Government spokesmen and learn of some of the approaches made to Britain. Britain reciprocates as she always did with the old cliché of "Croppy, lie down"; this country, the poor relation, does not count; we are small people and we should not have the temerity to stand up, look Britain in the eye and tell her what we want. Britain forgets, apparently, and will continue to forget until we bring it home to her, that this is our country, all 32 counties of it. This is not some place out in Africa or in South America where there is a difference over borders. This is an island, 32 counties of Irish soil, and we are entitled to every square inch of it.

When the Treaty was signed, nobody, not even those in favour of it, suggested for one moment that it was a final solution. In fact, the British admitted it was a temporary solution, a stage, and from thence onwards we were eventually to have a 32-county country. But Britain took every opportunity to get out of that subsequently and it is now our job to see to it that she is brought back to square one. In my opinion we are not alone back to the 1921 situation but to the 1916 situation and, whether we like it or not, Britain considers herself at war with this country. I do not think we are exactly prepared to accept that situation or to allow it to continue any longer.

It is only right at this stage that some fairly well-known facts, though they are not repeated often enough, should be put on the record. The tragedy in Derry last Sunday was caused by a promise given by Mr. Faulkner, the Prime Minister of the puppet Six County State, to the Orange Order that, under no circumstances, would the march be allowed. Following on that, instructions were given to the Army that, under no circumstances, was the parade to be allowed. The difficulty appears to have arisen because when the parade was stopped, as it was stopped, and the marchers succeeded in persuading the 20,000 odd who were on this march that they should go back to Free Derry corner and have a meeting, as they were entitled to have a meeting even under the law in Northern Ireland, nobody told the British Army that it was not a parade and the gentlemen who were waiting in the background and who were to fire on the parade were apparently brought along and fired on the meeting. It is as simple as that. These facts cannot be stated too often and Mr. Faulkner, who likes to smile on the television screen and tell the people how serious the situation is, should never be let forget that responsibility for the deaths of the 13 people in Derry and the injuries to the others rests on his shoulders first, last and all the time; he was responsible and he must carry the responsibility.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

We did not have to get into the Cabinet and spend other people's money to become rebels. We were always rebels. My people before me suffered for Ireland and I do not want any snide remarks now from anybody on the Fianna Fáil benches or anywhere else.

The position about the shooting in Derry last Sunday is that there is incontrovertible evidence that that shooting not alone took place by the hired assassins who went in there to fire at a peaceful meeting but it took place, in fact, at short range and people were fired at not just once but several times. Even children were picked out and shot. If what occurred in Derry last Sunday occurred in any English city, in Glasgow, or Liverpool, or London, or Swansea, what would have been the result? We know quite well that Mr. Heath would be on his way to the Palace to hand in his resignation within two hours of the facts becoming known. Not alone did this carnage happen in Derry but they are now, in fact, prepared to say that it was done in the interest of peace-keeping. The peace-keeping these people were there to do was not in fact carried out and those who committed these murders must be brought to justice. There is no point in saying they were acting under orders. These assassins are in the very same position as the Black-and-Tans were because they were selected and brought to the Six Counties from Britain to commit this act. In the last day or so I have seen a report that more of their kind will be coming in. If they do then the situation will be very, very bad indeed.

The Taoiseach referred to the day of mourning yesterday. It was indeed heartening to see the way people all over the country went to church services and paraded to show their solidarity with the people in the beleaguered North. It was heartening to see the thousands who marched and did exactly what they were supposed to do, demonstrate their solidarity with dignity. It is regrettable, very regrettable, that a small section, a section who will march at any time and for anything and who are, apparently, well used to this sort of thing, should have taken it on themselves to blacken the good name of this country by their actions. I am not talking about the destruction of the British Embassy. As far as that is concerned it may not do Mr. Heath one bit of harm to give him a kick in the pants and show him we do not have that much respect for his Government here. But it was unpardonable that public and private property should be damaged. Worst of all, was the attacking of the gardaí, whose job it is to protect people and property, and that applies even to those guilty of this blackguardism. I would like to pay a tribute to the gardaí. They do an excellent job. It is too bad they should have been subjected to all the abuse they got over the last few nights. I would appeal to the hundreds of thousands who went out to protest peacefully to show that they were not involved and do not want to be involved in this sort of thing. It is too bad that the "odd-bod" should spoil the dignity of the silent parades. I hope that, so long as there is need to parade over injustices, there will never again be a repetition of this sort of thing by people who are in the parades but are never of them.

With regard to the leaders of the three major parties here travelling to the United Nations, to the Council of Europe or to visit Mr. Heath—whether or not that would be any use I do not know—it is a good thing to have discussions. As a trade union official it has been my experience that, no matter how bitter the dispute, it is eventually settled sitting around a table. Even when it appeared two sides would not meet eventually they did meet and reached agreement no matter how bitter the discussion was beforehand. Nothing can be lost by having the facts put to all the important people to whom they can be put inside and outside the country. It is important to remember that if the Taoiseach takes a leaf out of Mr. Mintoff's book he might possibly wake up Britain to the fact that she is not the only pebble on the beach. I am sick and tired of people preaching, particularly in regard to the Common Market, that we must do what Britain does because she is our best customer. This morning one of the British newspapers suggested Britain should take the strong action open to her to deal with Ireland. Is it not fair to point out that we are Britain's best customer also and that we buy much more from her than she buys from us? So, two can play at that game. If Britain realised that there was somebody to replace her if she wished to try out an isolationist policy on this country she would perhaps be much easier to talk to. I am glad of the sterner line the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are taking with Britain. This is the only way in which Ireland will get justice from Britain.

The Newry march question has been mentioned. I wonder if the incident we are now discussing will not be repeated again. I am aware that Mr. Heath has appealed to Cardinal Conway and Cardinal Heenan to use their influence to have the march called off. He says it would be an excuse for hooligans and would damage relations. The Stormont Security Office says the march will be stopped and the Northern Civil Rights Association say the march will go on. The one person who can stop the march is Mr. Heath.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tully

All he has to do is to say that he is prepared to give concessions, that he is prepared to talk at top level and in a meaningful way about the problem. If he does, the march will not be necessary; but I believe the citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to march or demonstrate and if the death sentence is to be imposed on them again then I think the world will show Britain that she cannot carry on in this way. After all it is 1972 and not the time when Britain with her big empire was able to slaughter what she called the natives in other countries to prove she was the strongest power and that what she said had to be obeyed.

The Taoiseach mentioned the Italian journalist or photographer who gave evidence about what happened in Derry on Sunday. I suppose all of us have met people who were in Derry on Sunday and had their own version of what happened. It is extraordinary that with the exception of the British Army representatives all the stories seem to be the same. It is extraordinary that hundreds of people who have never met could have the same story of how it happened and that a small number of the British Army have a different story. A few questions asked particularly of the major of the paratroops showed that the man was feebly lying. The story he told was not acceptable even to a BBC interviewer who spoke to him on Sunday evening after the tragedy, when he said that in fact only three shots had been fired.

In the old time movies there was a character called Gabby Hayes who was always able to talk of all the Indians he killed with one arrow. The paratroopers apparently with three shots killed 13 and injured 16 or 17 more. Even more extraordinary, they were firing up at the flats where the snipers were alleged to be but shot people on the ground. They should be taken back to Britain and given a course on the range. If they are such bad shots I do not know what they will do if they ever come up against the real thing. They were shooting, and they knew it, at unarmed people. When I hear some people talk about defending the Nationalist minority in the North with arms I feel it was rather a pity that a few of those defenders did not happen to be around at that time and perhaps the paratroopers would not have found such easy meat.

There has been a suggestion that there should be an inquiry and Britain has again produced the rabbit out of the hat. Last year at the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Paris I made a speech, which was not very popular with some people and I believe with some members of the Government party, in which I said that the Commission then being set up consisting of three Englishmen would not be accepted by anybody in Ireland. It has never been accepted that we can take from Britain evidence collected by three Englishmen as being the truth. When the report was made it turned out that we were right and that the British report was, as usual, a concocted affair. At that time there were three men involved; we now have one and, as was pointed out by John Hume early this morning, surely they do not expect us to believe that that one man who was a former high officer in the British Army will bring in a report saying the British Army were in the wrong.

There should be an international commission set up to find out, as the Taoiseach said, whether human rights have been violated and if so the British Government and particularly Mr. Heath should stand trial. He is responsible for anything that has been done in the Six Counties.

There has been talk about the necessity to prove to our Protestant neighbours in the North that they will be safe and will get the freedom they require in the Republic when a united Ireland comes, and I say when it comes deliberately because it must come. We must all admit that there are some matters in our Constitution which need changing and arrangements must be made to have them changed but they are not so vital that they can hold up unification. The story that all the Northern Protestants are afraid to come into the Republic in case they would not get fair play is a lot of hooey. The Protestants who are living in the Republic are living evidence that it is hooey.

Many of these people say, and I think Mr. Paisley is the one who repeats it most often, that it is because of their loyalty to the Crown that they do not want to come in with us. The only Crown to which these people had any loyalty is one which has now gone out of existence, the one they jingled in their pockets. The only reason they want Britain to remain is that they want British money. They have absolutely no loyalty to anybody except LSD. Now that that has changed perhaps they could also change. The time has come when we must attempt to get the Protestants in the North to realise that we have given them living proof in the Republic that there is equal freedom there for Protestants. The Tánaiste now sitting in the Front Bench is one man who can give living proof of this as also can the Fine Gael Deputy from his constituency. In a constituency like Monaghan we have two Protestant representatives out of three. Yet they tell us: "We would not get fair play if we went into the Republic."

No greater evidence can be produced to prove to them that the freedom which they say they want is here already. It is my belief that we are getting quite close to a solution to this problem. I do not say that because of reaction to what has happened in Derry but during the past six months in particular there has been an expression on the part of ordinary British people that the time has come for a change. They are sick and tired of what is going on. I think that if the matter were put to the British public now, there would be a very substantial majority in favour of freedom for all of Ireland. This is the basis on which we must work. It is very wrong for certain people to vent their spleen about events in Northern Ireland, against individual British people either here or elsewhere. They must remember that the majority of the ordinary British people are in favour of the reunification of our country. Those who take action against British people or British interests here who have been carrying on a fair trading relationship with this country for many years seem to forget the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who are working in Britain. If they could encourage the Irish people working in Britain to use their not inconsiderable influence in persuading everybody they can contact in Britain of the justice of our case for a united Ireland, they would be doing a lot towards solving the problem. This petty hooliganism that has been carried out by a small number of people should be and must be stopped. If we set ourselves towards doing that, there is a hope that we will reach a peaceful solution to the problem.

I should like to refer, too, to something that has happened during the past few days. The events of Derry seem to have wiped away everything else from the minds of the people and, in particular, from the minds of those in this House. I refer to the incident which occurred at Narrow Water outside Dundalk when the British troops shelled a house in the Republic. This was sheer audacity. Imagine the British Army having the temerity to shell a house in what they call "another country". Imagine them being allowed by their officers to attack and burn property on this side of the Border. The British Government were not so quick to notify the Irish Government that they would accept responsibility for the damage done as were our Government who did not wait until this morning but who last night assured the British Government that they were prepared to pay for any damage done to the British Embassy. I suppose the niceties of inter-Government play ensure that the Government had to make that assurance but they could have waited until today to do so. Indeed, as they were doing so, they should have pointed out that property on this side of the Border was damaged by British mortar fire and that regardless of whether the condition of the house concerned was good or bad, our Government should have demanded compensation for it.

Concerning the events in Derry, many of us are inclined to believe that the incident there was something that just happened because somebody became excited. I believe that the British paratroopers who are trained for such work and who have many people in their particular trade who are paid to kill thirsted after blood and that once they started shooting they could not be stopped. There was a report that before they opened fire, 200 rounds had been fired but it is evident now that no shots were fired at them until after they had killed the 13 people. For some peculiar reason all arms in the area that were held by the other people seem to have been withdrawn for the purpose of allowing a peaceful parade to go through. With that in mind we must remember that if the British Army had not intervened at all and had stayed out of sight as they did on previous occasions, the Derry march and meeting could have passed without incident. Remembering this, we must make an appeal that the British Army be kept out of Newry on Sunday. Unless Mr. Heath can offer something that will solve the problem and unless he will say that he is prepared for talks in settling the problem, the march will take place. Like the portion of Derry where the event occurred last Sunday, the town of Newry is, in the main, a nationalist or, if you like, Catholic area and any effort made there by the British troops to inflict the same sort of punishment on people who believe they have a God-given right to protest may not be dealt with in the same way as it was on the previous Sunday by the recipients of their missiles. Therefore, I would conclude by saying that no matter what happens, people in this part of the country must keep their heads. We are all grateful for the combined efforts in making a dignified protest yesterday. We are glad that steps are now being taken by the Government to ensure that a stronger line will be taken with Britain rather than the one we had been taking so far of asking them whether they would consider this, that or the other.

Although we are a small nation, our country is respected throughout the world and we should be able to enlist the help of those people who are important in world affairs. We should prove to Britain that they cannot over-ride us simply because of the fact that they are Britain and that in the past they were great. The British Empire is almost gone. Britain has given freedom to areas all over the world which were held in thrall for centuries. It is about time that she granted the same freedom to the portion of Northern Ireland that she holds still. The British Army is welcome no longer in this country and they should get out. Their going would bring a certain amount of peace in the area. In addition. Britain must make available the money that will be necessary to repair the damage she has done to this country during the past number of years. That, also, is her moral responsibility. When Deputy Corish is replying to the debate he will cover a number of other items with which I did not have time to deal.

Mr. Moore

The sympathy of the entire country has gone out to the people of Derry who suffered such grievous injustice on Sunday last and the sympathy of the Government and of the other parties in the House has been conveyed personally to these people. However, sympathy in itself is not enough. The relatives of those who were murdered need our help and we have a duty to help them in every way possible. I refer to the help that we can give very effectively by ensuring that no person in Derry who is in need of help will be refused that help.

There are many ways in which we can help. First of all, the people of Derry need money, because in the much-vaunted British welfare State there are families in Derry who, as a result of the punitive action taken against them by the Six County regime, are living on as little as £3 a week because they will not bend to the whims of the Unionists and be good little citizens according to the Unionist rules.

The people who protest here in the streets have a right to protest, but the protest should take the form of some definite help for the people in Derry, Belfast and the rest of the Six County area. It is all very well to demonstrate in Merrion Square or to shout in other parts of the city, but the most effective protest against British injustice is to give help to the victims of that injustice until such time as we can end that injustice effectively.

The Taoiseach and Deputy Tully referred to acts of blackguardism in the city last night. I support their condemnation of the small minority who smashed windows not of British firms but of an Irish firm a quarter of a mile from this House whose founder played a big part in the fight for freedom. That was the thanks he got from some of these people last night.

The people of all classes and all creeds in this country are starting to question whether their approach to this problem has been right. I speak as a moderate, as a person who does not like violence, but we have seen the violence in Derry yesterday and last Sunday. There is continuing violence, and it may not always be shooting; there is the violence of denying basic rights to the minority in the North. We have tried to impress on the people of the world the terrible injustice. People may say that very little progress has been made in achieving peace and that things are getting worse.

When one sees that 13 people were shot in Derry last Sunday for holding a march, that there are two or three concentration camps full of men, all because they exercise the right of free men to choose the form of democratic government they desire, one almost despairs of the British Government ever listening to reason, and one asks what can we do here in this House to end this state of affairs. We cannot go to war. The use of force is so futile eventually, having regard to the fact that for the past 300 years, since the Plantation of Ulster, force has been used against the people in that part of the country and, indeed, in the whole country. Yet the people of Derry or Belfast or any other part of the country are not beaten. If the British Government have done one thing it is to show that force is not a solution to this problem. We have impressed on the British Government again and again the need for some political initiative, and at times one sees a hope that in Britain they are thinking along these lines. But the British Premier seems to be in the hands of the old die-hard Tories who will not give one inch to this country. I suppose we are very lucky that we have not got dark skins or they would really go to town altogether. In the eyes of Britain it is wrong that the people in the North, who like ourselves, have not got dark skins, should have the hope of establishing a nation and a society to conform with their beliefs and their ideals, and in the eyes of Britain this is wrong and must be smashed.

I have never accepted the suggestion that the situation in the North of Ireland was a matter of Catholic versus Protestant. I have always seen it as a battle of the haves and the have nots. We see the Unionist junta in the North wanting to hold on to the spoils of office. They want to give out the jobs and the rewards to their camp followers. It must be remembered that the Protestant worker in the Shankill Road or Ballymacarrat or Fountain Street in Derry has no place in the Unionist aristocratic scheme of things, but they use them in a very cunning way in order to bolster up their own regime. The Protestant worker in the North has been so brainwashed by the Unionist that he has gone on supporting and voting for Unionist candidates. However, the Protestant worker is starting to think more for himself and I believe that soon we shall see the Protestant backlash, not the one to which Northern speakers refer but one that will come against the Unionist regime in the North who for many, many years have used these men in the Queen's Island Shipyard and the linen mills and told them that should they ever dare to vote against a Unionist candidate or to enter a united Ireland, they would pay for it by being denied basic rights in the South, or in a united Ireland.

I wonder what rights have the Stormont Government ever given to the unemployed in the Six Counties or to the workers in general. They have always had an unemployment rate of almost 7 per cent. Some time ago the Rev. Paisley spoke about housing in the North and showed us how bad matters are there. Of course the Faulkners and people like that do not live in these houses. They are reserved for the people in the working areas, in the Shankill and other areas in Belfast and in areas in Derry. It may be said that we are also short of houses, which is very true, and that we have got unemployment here, which is very true.

On those very points we have an affinity with the Protestant workers in the North and a basis for building a society in which there will be no place for the Faulkners or the Unionist regime, a society in which each man, irrespective of his religion or his political beliefs, will have a place in the scheme of things. We should direct our efforts not to speaking to Mr. Heath or Mr. Faulkner but to the ordinary people in the North. We should show them what we have in common with them and we should assure them that, when they come in here, they will be treated as equals, not because they are Protestants or Catholics or anything else, but because they are Irishmen and this nation is for the Irish.

When one goes to the North one feels very resentful at being stopped and searched in one's own country by British soldiers. Of course the British soldiers are merely cogs in the British machine. I am convinced that those soldiers who murdered 13 people last Sunday did not do so by accident. I watched these men in the Bogside before. When a march or a meeting took place the British Army came as far as Rossville Street or William Street and stayed there. The people went into the Bogside. There might have been cheering and shouting and perhaps some stones thrown, but there were no killings. Why was the pattern changed last Sunday? On whose instructions was the order given to fire on these people? The British Army said they were fired on first but that has been denied by many impartial people.

On a BBC programme last Sunday an interviewer questioned the officer in command. It was plain that the interviewer was a man with some human feelings. He asked the officer how many shots the Army had fired and, when the officer said three, the interviewer said: "I saw at least three bodies". The point I am making is that I believe there are still millions of decent people in Britain who feel like the rest of us that each man should have his rights and should be guaranteed his rights. Our task is to try to get the British people to bring some sanity into the actions of their own Government.

We must get help for the people in the North. Our people down here who are living in comparative comfort do not appreciate what the people of Derry are suffering. You may think that the barricades across the streets are ugly. You may think that the barricades are made up of somebody's property. Then you speak to the people and you realise that, if the barricades were not there, nobody would live in the Bogside or Creggan because the British soldiers, acting on the instructions of the British Government, would be in there night, noon and morning to persecute and, indeed, to kill the people living there.

I know there are differences of opinion in this House on our approach to the North, but we all share the basic belief that something very definite must be done. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has gone to the United States to enlist whatever support he can get there. Let me state this. We expect something from the Americans, and especially the Irish Americans, in this dire hour in our history. I want the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, to be our guarantor until democracy is restored in the Six Counties, until each man, irrespective of his beliefs or his creed, is as free as any American, and until a Bill of Rights like the American Bill of Rights applies in the Six Counties.

While this festering sore continues in existence we cannot start to build a new Europe. We cannot start to build a new Europe until justice and freedom are available to all people in the older Europe. I heard Deputy Ryan, Deputy Aiken and the Minister for Justice speaking in Strasbourg last week. They pointed out to the Council of Europe a few salient points about the situation here and in the North, particularly in the North. I am glad to say that, when the three speakers had finished, we found that 90 per cent of the Council of Europe were very appreciative of the points made, and had a better understanding of the whole question.

In the attacks made on us both publicly and privately by the British Tories we were made aware of their hatred of this country. This was a revelation to me because never before had I seen a British Tory in such a state of anger. It did not frighten me but I had hoped that that type of thing had disappeared with the old British Tory Party. That feeling is still there against this country. It reminded me of a very old bully who is dying. In his death throes he can be vicious and cause damage. I hope that I am witnessing the end of British imperialism. We have often been given the credit for having started the fight against British imperialism. It may be that we will have to wait for a few months or a year until we see the end of British imperialism. Then the people in the North, Protestant and Catholic, will be able to unite and build the new Ireland which we seek.

I want to stress that in the meantime the people of Derry are suffering grievously. To anyone who did not appreciate that, yesterday showed how deeply they are suffering. Our freely elected Government must be in the vanguard in creating the new order in the North. In the country there are many divisions on what we should do. In this very grievous hour for the country, North and South, we must look for and expect the support of all our people. Pearse, Connolly, Clarke and MacDiarmada called for the support of all our people, which they eventually received, when they set out in 1916 to throw off the British yoke. We have a duty to the people in the North both Catholic and Protestant. Our duty to the Catholic is to provide immediate help so that they will suffer less the torment and the persecution of the British. Our second duty is to the Protestant from the Lagan to the Bann, to set out on a crusade to show these people that the Faulkner regime is just as much their enemy as it is ours, that Stormont must go before we can go on the onward march.

We must convince the less well-off people of the Protestant community in the North that our only desire for a united Ireland is so that we can guarantee to each citizen of that new Ireland full rights and no persecution, that we will create a society in which we can guarantee employment, housing and an opportunity to the boys and girls who come from Protestant schools or Catholic schools the same opportunities here to better the society they live in and that they will have their rights guaranteed to them.

Deputy Tully mentioned that there is a demand for changes in the Constitution. Perhaps there are changes needed but I do not think that they are at the moment any barrier to unity. I believe that things are so dire in the Six Counties at the moment that even a Protestant in Belfast or Ballymena is not worried about our Constitution. He may be worried about getting a job or a house or he may wonder what future there is for his children in a country like ours at the moment. It may well be that he would point to us and say that we have made mistakes. I am sure we have but they were only mistakes. We did not set up any deliberate policy to persecute anybody. We did not try to set the Protestants against the Protestants. The mistake which we very often make is that we equate Protestantism with Unionism but there is little affinity between them. There is only the fact that the Unionist leaders who have had the benefits of wealth can get the message across much better than the lower-paid workers can.

When we go to the North and talk to those people, although they are not madly rushing into a united Ireland, we find that the business element and the middle-class people are those who are beginning to realise that the British promises may help them for a while, may ensure that the higher rank Unionist has a good job and a fair share of wealth but there is no guarantee for the future. The Protestant workingman in the North who up to recently would never think of a united Ireland is beginning to think that way. I suppose this is quite natural because I am sure there are many of them in the Shankill and other such places who are asking themselves what could be worse than what they have at the moment.

When Britain accuse this Government of not controlling the Border, which they put there, we realise how ineffective their Army in the North is. It can be very effective if it is attacking unarmed people. However, Derry last Sunday has shaken quite a number of people who up to this could see no good coming out of the Bogside. I feel we should make more demands on Britain. They cannot give back life to the people who were murdered last Sunday or to over 200 people who were previously murdered. Surely Britain with their huge army and police force could have prevented a public-house being blown up and killing over a dozen people in the heart of Belfast. The British are in no position to point to the shortcomings of the Government or of the people here.

I hope we may get a leader in Britain of the same calibre as the late General de Gaulle who may see the wisdom of effecting a settlement with this country as de Gaulle did in relation to the settlement between Algeria and France. There is a very broad analogy there and we should begin our preparation for the new Ireland. One of the first things we should do is to total the amount of compensation which Britain must in all fairness pay us for both North and South. Let Britain pay compensation and we can guarantee that the Northern people will enjoy, if that is the word, the same social services as they do at the moment until such time as we have a united 32-county Ireland and then we will draft our own social order in a democratic way which will provide employment, housing and the right to pursue their own happiness for all our people.

Mr. Blaney

It has been said earlier today that this debate has been precipitated by Sunday's happenings. Perhaps to a degree this is so but I would remind the House—I do not do so merely to say that I was right—that I sought and asked for a debate here on the first day the House resumed after the Christmas recess. The reason I did this was not to sound off but rather to warn the Government and through them we hoped to warn Britain that her new initiative in opening a further internment camp, a further concentration camp, which it properly should be described, at Magilligan in sight of County Donegal was not only wrong but was provocative. This plea was not only not heard but was totally and completely ignored.

Perhaps had we had such a discussion, perhaps had we taken some action as a result of such discussion we might not have had the Derry episode, the massacre and the murders that we have experienced only last week. I say to the Government and I say to every Member of each of the parties in this House that if they think by what they have been saying in this House in the last few days about their new-found unity they are representing this House, then they can count me out and they can count hundreds of thousands of the people of this country out as well, because this new-found unity of purpose, this getting together of the three party hacks to do nothing about the situation, except by mutual consent to protect themselves in their own inactivity, is not representative of the people of this country.

I will not let them get away from this. I will express exactly what I feel on this occasion in the very short time available to me. I will not be overcritical but I cannot help but say that there is no unity of minds in this House as expressed by the Leaders of the three parties here last Tuesday when we adjourned the House as a mark of respect for the deaths in Derry. When I say that, I am saying it on behalf of the people throughout this land who are not represented by those views no matter how well held and how well believed they are by the Leaders of the three parties.

At this late stage can I appeal to the Leaders in this House to come alive and to come awake to the real situation that has been so evident to some of us for so long and about which I have given warnings time and time again since 1968, before there were any heads cracked, before there were any people shot and killed. I want to remind the House of the facts now. Instead of cognisance being taken of what I was then reading into the situation, I was misrepresented to say the least of it; I was condemned and I was branded as a violent man because I was trying as best I could to read the circumstances, to read what was coming, to warn this House and our people of what was coming in order that we might take action to prevent it.

In 1968 I indicated that the civil rights movement then emerging strongly, seeking reforms of the laws and the institutions of the Six Counties, was not enough, that the true civil rights was unity of this country and nothing short of it. I was blackguarded in the House for saying it. Twice in 1969 I was condemned roundly in this House; I was rapped over the knuckles time and again by my own Leader and the Leaders of the other parties, merely because I was reading the signs and conveying to this House what those signs indicated. All my predictions have, unfortunately, come true.

We have heard about the reforms. We have been given a list of the reforms. We had the B Specials stood down shortly to be replaced by the UDR which is the same wolf in another sheep's clothing. The UDR were formed to take up the slack when the B Specials left off. We had the British Army being welcomed in place of the B Specials and today we have them abhorred, properly so, by the whole minority population of the Six Counties.

We have the IRA being condemned by many of the people who wished them into existence when there was nothing to stand between the minority and the hordes of the B Specials and the Orange mobs who were backing them up except the IRA. The IRA have gained in numbers as the British Army have lost the respect they had when they arrived there first. They have lost respect not because of anything that we do not know about but because of the fact that they became a partisan force very shortly after arriving, as any such force of the British Army must do because the brass who came in with them have Unionists as their associates and Orangemen of the junta that is acting as the Government in Stormont. Therefore they must become flavoured, they must become coloured. This is the only contract they have. They did become coloured; they became the tools and the weapons of Mr. Brian Faulkner and his regime in the Six Counties.

Where are the searches that were to be carried out to uproot and to weed out the arms that are held in their hundreds of thousands in the Six Counties by the Orangemen and by the extreme Unionists? Where is Mr. Taylor, this warmonger if there ever was one? I seldom criticise individuals in the Six Counties, whether in the Government or in Opposition, but this supreme warmonger of the Six County Government, where is he and what is he doing in his new-found office, with his 102,000 licensed arms in the Six Counties held mainly by his own supporters, by the so-called gun clubs which have sprung up like mushrooms in the past two years? Where was Mr. Taylor when among those 102,000 licensed arms we know there are at least two and half score of heavy calibre machineguns which Mr. Taylor has licensed to civilians? The reasons given for those licences is to protect the salmon fisheries by shooting otters. Are the otters all Catholics, are they all Nationalists? Is this the purpose of these heavy calibre machineguns? Let Mr. Taylor go and clean up his own nest before he starts telling us here what to do. Mr. Taylor is a warmonger of the first order.

There are those who condemn Paisley and Craig and such people. Those men are men of conviction, whether you agree with them or not, and one of these days they are the people, and those whom they represent, whom we will have to deal with, but at least when dealing with men of conviction you know where you start and where you finish and you know that if you reach agreement you have an agreement. But if you are dealing with fiddlers on the roof, such as Faulkner, Taylor and others, politicians in the lowest sense, merely holding on to the graft, holding on to the influence, holding on to the jobbery in order to perpetuate themselves, they are not people you can deal with because even having done a deal, as somebody said, having done a deal an honest man is alone, when he is bought he stays bought, but those boys do not stay bought. They would have the same respect for us as they would for the British Government, and the same loyalty too. Their loyalty is worth as much as the money they are getting from the British taxpayers, worth as much as the protection they get for their own nefarious deeds from the British Army. They are the people we must beware of. They are the people we should tell to clean up their own nest before they start talking about what we are doing or not doing. Let Taylor call in his 102,000 licensed arms, his heavy calibre machineguns for shooting otter, and then let him come back and start talking about what is being done here.

Let us leave that for the moment and go back to some of the other warnings I gave to the House and to the country. Let us recall the efforts I made by public speeches to try to get the three Governments of the Six Counties, Dublin and Westminister to sit down as far back as 1969 in order that the holocaust now being visited on the Six Counties could be avoided and that we would begin to find a way towards a solution and towards the unity of the country and ultimately of our people. Let us recall those. I will not do so because they are there on record and the comments on them are on record and I hope those who are now convinced of the truth of what I then said will at least continue to recognise that truth and to do something about it, to get down to the brass tacks of the situation today and not to confuse themselves and the country further by talking about a peaceful solution when the violence is being prepetrated by the British Army on behalf of the British Government and the Six County Government here and now.

How can we have peaceful solutions unless we are advocating the complete clearance of every Nationalist and every Catholic from the Six Counties? Is that what we mean by peaceful means in these dire circumstances of extreme violence being perpetrated upon us? Or are we to do what any red-blooded people would do, stand up and tell Mr. Heath and his Government that we seriously represent the voice of our people and that we are getting our Army put on full stand-to? We want our entire reserves to be called and we want the FCA, all 20,000 of them, called into full service. We want the Army on the Border and we want Mr. Heath to be told by this House without question that we are not having any more of the Derry episodes of last Sunday.

Surely to God it must come into the minds of the people here that we are only fiddling at the whole problem, that we are only trying to get ourselves out of our dilemma by talking about it and not acting seriously? People will throw their hands up and say "This would be war". There is war in the Six Counties. Mr. Maudling said it last August. We who are associated closely with it know that there has been war there for the past two years, that there is war today and there will be war tomorrow and there will be more marchers and there will be more deaths. That is why this debate was urgently needed today, not next week, in order that there might still be the opportunity of bringing home to the British Government, to Mr. Maudling, to Mr. Heath, that there will be more marches, that so long as there are nationalist-minded people in the Six Counties who have seen what has gone on over these last generations, who have tolerated and suffered under what they have endured in these past few years, that they will march while there are any of them left to stand and that their laws prohibiting those marches are not going to be allowed to stick, that protest is not going to be allowed to be wiped out even by the bullet shooting down innocent people.

Premeditated murder was the action of the British Army last Sunday and let there be no doubt about it. Let them have their inquiry, let them have it international or all British, whatever way they like. It does not matter a damn. It was murder, murder in the first degree, premeditated, arranged, with their troops deployed, these boyos with the wine-coloured berets, these trained killers, these shock troops were brought in and deployed around the city from as early as 11 o'clock. They took over parts of the city, parts they were never in before. They departed at half past three, did their dirty work and returned to the same points of deployment and stayed for a further two hours, from half past five to half past seven. What doing? Playing record players, playing their radios and singing bawdy songs. They are the boyos who went out and butchered the people of Derry last Sunday. We are asked then to have dignity, to have discipline, to have no emotions. We have got to be emotional certainly if there is any feeling in us. There is nothing wrong with being emotional. Without emotion in a time like this we cannot reach the proper conclusions because these conclusions may be too terrifying for us to take in cold logic as we are advised to do. Emotion plays a big part in matters such as these. I am sorry, indeed, that all the Members of this House and many thousands more should not have been in Derry yesterday or the day before during their days of grief and mourning, to go and see and witness for themselves on the spot. It is all very well from down here to talk about what should be done logically, what should be done unemotionally, what should be done disregarding what has already happened. When you see those coffins laid out side by side, when you see the very men who have fought with bare hands carrying their own comrades out, to see those men yesterday with tears streaming down their cheeks, to see the bereaved widow, to hear her, to find her trying to get into the grave beside her dead husband, to see the young widow following, hanging on to the coffin of her dead husband, and to hear above all the six year old in the church as the coffin of his father was being removed, calling for his daddy, and then we talk about no emotions.

Surely we here as an Irish Government, not that long established, but with the proud tradition of being established on the memories and the blood of our dead patriots, surely we in this House after 50 years of control of our own destiny on this side of the Border, are not going to stand by and see more of the butchery and the murder done by these troops or any other troops to our people while we have any means at our disposal to deter such continuance and such happenings. This is what you are being asked for today. This is what your people whom you represent want you to do. They want you to stand now, even if you did not stand before, to do what we said we would do in 1969, not to stand idly by. Let us remember 1969, at the beginning of this terrible time our people have gone through. Let us recall it. Let us recall how our Taoiseach then truly was representing the vast majority of the people of this country when he made his now famous speech in those dark days of August, 1969 and if we have strayed since then from that declared intention which I have no doubt was right then, has been right since and is truly right now, surely even though we have strayed we must at least learn from our experience, from our mistakes and have some regard for the real dilemma in which the British Government must find itself. There is Mr. Brian Faulkner and, despite what I have said of him before, I will say this for him: he is playing the Unionist game as well and as good and as truly as ever a Unionist in the Six Counties did in his position.

Mr. Gogan

That is not true.

Mr. Blaney

We are not countering the game he is playing and he is being heard in London. He is being believed. They are acting in London on his advice because we seem to have been agreeing with him instead of countering him in every item and every iota everything he has been carrying to them. If the British Government are to blame, as I believe they are to blame, completely for Sunday's massacre because that was what it was, murder premeditated by the forces of the Crown, then that Government can point a finger at this Government and say we are to blame considerably because we did not make them aware or combat Brian Faulkner's propaganda to the degree that we should in order to give them an opportunity of realising that there were two sides to this story and not just one. Let us consider that not in any vindictiveness or spitefulness but rather as a hard reality.

Time and again I have said it outside—I am saying it again today—will we be at least fair to those people in Britain who do not know and do not care what happens to us here, who never have cared unless when they could use us to their own advantage? Let us at least try to get through to them by acting as any people should and would act in our circumstances by putting all we have got on the slate in the morning and saying, as I have said to Mr. Heath: "You cannot do it again, you must not do it again and you must take your army out of this land of ours once and for all." That we owe to the people of the Six Counties; that we owe to those who have died that we might freely talk here today. Let us consider that and try to act on it even yet. It is not too late despite the fact that the number is now creeping towards 300 dead since this whole business started three years ago. Let us also ask that the paratroops should be taken out now and that the appalling information that has been circulating last night that instead of this battalion going there is a hold-up in Hollywood Barracks and they are being joined by a second battalion of these Red Caps. Let us try to get to Mr. Heath before this madness is further perpetrated and he doubles the number of these murdering blackguards that have come in his name to this land of ours before it is too late. Let us ask that they be taken out even as a token immediately, before the week-end, before the next Civil Rights march that is going to take place without any doubt and that is going to have among its numbers as many from the South as from the North.

Mr. Sherwin

Hear, hear.

Mr. Blaney

Do not forget that our veneer has now been broken and if the British Embassy has been burned let me say that I shed no tears for it. Let me say this, and I do not say it in viciousness or bitterness to the British people or their Government, the Gardaí or the forces of peace in this country behaved in a manner that was exemplary in the circumstances when these places were being burned. Because, what the hell could we do with 25,000 of our people screaming for some manner of ventilating their own frustration that we have been the cause of building up for the past two years? Would it not have been madness, would not our hospitals be full today, not only of our people but of our fine Garda force as well? I do not know what was the motivation. They are being accused of doing nothing. By their action or inaction, I regard their behaviour the other night as the best example of wisdom that any Garda force has ever displayed in this or any other country in the circumstances that were facing them. The cost of the embassy building being destroyed is a small price to pay as against what might have happened if there had been madness enough at the top of our police force to say, "Go in and wall up those people". It just cannot be done.

The people in this country have, as I say, broken through the veneer, prompted by the murder and the bloodshed in Derry and there is no force in this land that could have stopped them. Let there be no doubt about that. Let us not run off conveying our sympathy to the British, although we may express our diplomatic regret. Let us be realists in this matter, if on no other. This is something that, in fact, ended cheaply for us in the burning of the British Embassy.

Let me say also that in so far as our Government's action is concerned in the past few days, it is a beginning but it is a very puny, insignificant beginning. Withdraw our Ambassador; take him home. What do they care whether we take him home or not? What difference does it make? We still continue to operate over there and I am not advocating that we should not. What is a gesture? Whom are we trying to impress? Certainly, if it is the British Government, who are the people in the key role here and the only people who can begin to bring an end to the trouble in this country, then, withdrawing our Ambassador for some weeks or some months will not make the slightest difference to them. They only understand the obvious and that is what we have got to put on the line. We should say to them that we are having no more of this and at the same time we should ask every person in the service of the Crown in the Six Counties who has any Irish blood in him to resign, and withdraw in protest immediately. We should ask them to get out of the RUC, the UDR, the British Army, we should ask the titled people not only in the Six Counties but particularly in the South to renounce their titles. Let us have away with their titles, decorations and medals much though they may be prized and much though they may have been merited by those who now wear them. I say, "If you are Irish, let it be seen at this time that you are Irish and do not wear the regalia of the Crown or of the Queen whose forces are butchering your own people in your own land at a time such as this in 1972." Let us have from those people on this side of the Border a renunciation of their titles, a returning of their decorations and medals. If they do not want to send them back, I would be quite happy to receive them and to do with them what should be done. The same as the flag was symbolically burned the other night, we can burn those too.

Let us get after the EEC countries whom we are about to join. Do they mean anything? Does that association mean anything? Will it mean anything in the future? Now is an excellent time to find out. Now that we are on the threshold of opting to go in, by the wishes of our own people, let us ask the help of the Six—and there are friends there; remember their protest yesterday as far away as Germany. One of their citizens was killed when they were demonstrating against what is being done in Derry. Then we down here are cavilling and half-crawling and apologising because of the fact that our people are beginning to show the spirit that left us the freedom we are enjoying here at this very moment. Let us ask the people on the Continent to use their very decided influence on Britain today. Britain is also going into the Common Market. She believes she must get in in order to survive. Let the Six tell her that she has got to settle up and get out and take her baggage with her out of the Six Counties now. If they do that, it will be more effective than all the other spiels we may give, no matter from what corner of the globe.

We have sent our Minister for Foreign Affairs abroad to seek, as he said last night, help from anywhere he can get it. That is a very laudable thing to do and a proper thing to do. We did it in 1969 but got very little return and will get less return now unless we are prepared to help ourselves. We must help ourselves by displaying to the world that we are prepared to risk what we have got here for the sake of our people in the Six Counties and that we are not afraid to risk it and that we are not concerning ourselves with holding on, to our own benefit and to the exclusion of the other citizens of this land who are divided from us by an unnatural boundary. Let us put it on the line. Let the world see that we are serious. Let Mr. Heath see that we are serious. It is my firm belief that we will then get action to begin to dismantle this Border that is the problem and the trouble and will continue to be so long as there are people up there and down here with any red Irish blood flowing in their veins.

Negotiations are now being called for. I have been calling for them for years. I am glad that there is the suggestion that negotiations should be set on foot immediately. I am also glad that the amendment of the Ireland Act is being mentioned in this House because this Act is not relevant. It is not relevant in my book because we are not going back in this country, either North or South, to where we have been for the last 50 years. There is no going back. Let us be quite clear about that and let us be clear that if our House here does not give the leadership the people are now demanding, then, unfortunately, there will be twenties of thousands in many parts of the country who, instead of being led by this House, will lead the House or change it to their way of thinking. Do not let us think that we have any particular right to be here other than to represent the people from whom we come. We are not representing them and have not been representing them up to now. Despite any manner in which we have tried to prevent them from seeing what is going on in this land, they are now seeing for themselves, thinking for themselves, and we had better get out in front and lead them instead of being pushed from behind and finally overwhelmed. That is the one danger that is now evident to me on this side of the Border, that because of our own reluctance as a Government to lead, we will be led and we may be led in directions that none of us wants to go. Let us remember that and try to do something about it.

Above all, may I make a final plea, release the Republican prisoners on this side of the Border as a gesture to their dead comrades in the Six Counties. Let us have no more collaboration —and I say no more collaboration— with the police forces of the Six Counties or M15 or the legal system in London or elsewhere when any of these people are being charged. We have no obligation in any way to collaborate with those people in these matters at this time. Let us ask again immediately for the withdrawal of the paratroops as a gesture, as a beginning. Let us ask our own Army to go to the Border, to be there in time of need and tell Mr. Heath why they are there. Let there be no equivocation about it. Let us call for the end of internment as a further gesture. Let us, above all, make up our minds that we cannot wish this sad, unfortunate thing away, as we have been trying to do. Much as we may try for, and much as we would all like a peaceful solution—much as I am non-violent, despite what I say— I ask this House in their wisdom to realise and recognise what is in front of them, that they must lead or be overwhelmed. If they give the right leadership, the Six Counties is ours now for the taking and the bringing back into the fold of all Irishmen, whether Protestant, Dissenter or Catholic does not matter to me. As I have said elsewhere, I have more regard for my Protestant neighbours in the North than I have for many of my Catholic friends in the South.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is exceeding his time.

Mr. Cooney

This debate has been precipitated by the tragedy in Derry last Sunday. The whole nation was rightly shocked and deeply grieved by the enormity of that tragedy and by the savagery displayed by the British Army and the purpose of this debate now must be to examine what this nation can do towards ensuring that what led to that tragedy and to those savage incidents will never again recur in any part of Ireland.

I listened with attention, indeed, rapt attention, to Deputy Blaney. His speech, because of its emotionalism, its conviction and its fire, deserves earnest and careful attention. I listened to him, knowing that he represents a point of view which he claims himself has been badly misrepresented in the past. I listened carefully to find out what his answer is to the problem of Northern Ireland and to the tragedy that occurred last Sunday.

Mr. Desmond

He is a warmonger.

Mr. Cooney

A warmonger he called a politician from Northern Ireland. I was appalled that the earlier part of his speech should be directed to inciting this country to a state of war, a war in which fellow-Irishmen will be killed, a civil war. That solution by Deputy Blaney deserves to be condemned and condemned roundly. The only problem that faces us, north and south, and faces Britain is how to effect a reconciliation between different types of Irishmen.

Mr. Desmond

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooney

This is the kernel of the problem. One will not effect reconciliation by sending an army to the Border and making threatening noises. Surely Deputy Blaney is sufficiently realistic as a politician to know that we have not got the armed might to do the things he implies our Army should do. Reconciliation is what we must aim at and I deprecate speeches that put the day of reconciliation further away.

We have then to consider how reconciliation can be effected. While many of us have feelings of anger and frustration against Britain, and never so much as in the past few days, we have, nevertheless, in accordance with the tradition on which we pride ourselves and which is so often trotted out of being a Christian people, to ensure that the philosophy we practise as a nation will not be a pagan philosophy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a death for a death, a father for a father and a brother for a brother. We must use moral persuasion. The strength of our moral case at the moment is immense. We must use it as a united nation to impress on the rulers of Britain that their policies up to now have failed and, if they are pursued, they will continue to fail and will lead only to a greater bitterness and more deaths.

It is disappointing, when considering the history of the troubles in the North, to think that the representations of this nation have carried so little weight in Westminister. It is disappointing but it is not surprising because the status of the man making the representations has been diminished by the actions of erstwhile members of his Government, who have destroyed his strength as Taoiseach and who have left to represent us a man known in Britain to be the Leader of a party full of dissidents and to be hanging on to office in contravention of every code of constitutional conduct. It is no wonder that the response from Westminister has been negative. We can only hope that the welcome development in the past few days of a united Dáil sending the leaders of the Opposition and of the Government to London to impress on this intransigent Tory who heads the Westminister Government the urgent need for a change of direction in his policies will bear fruit, to impress on him that we here are willing to be reconciled with our brothers in the North, to impress on him that, in order to effect that reconciliation, he must, and he has the power to do it, indicate to the Unionist regime in Stormont that the policy of internment and repression must end and end instantly. Above all, he must cease the deliberately provocative policy of cratering Border roads. The British Army cannot be such fools as to imagine that that policy will be effective in stopping terrorists crossing, if they have a mind to do so; neither can one imagine that the wishes of John Taylor carry such influence in Westminister as to enable such a crazy policy to be continued. I see that policy as deliberately implemented in order to provoke confrontations between the British Army on one side and the illegal armies on the other in such a glare of publicity and with such frequency that the Government here will be forced to take certain actions, actions they have been loath to take. I believe this is the real and dangerous reason underlying the British policy of cratering Border roads. I would hope that the message will get across to the corridors of power in Westminister that that policy is both crazy and dangerous.

There is one other way in which we can put pressure on Westminister and, to my mind, Westminister is the key to the solution. It is one of the parts of Deputy Blaney's speech with which I agree. We should use all avenues open to us through our impending membership of the European Economic Community. It is ironic to think that the British Prime Minister only last week received a prize for his European statesmanship, a man who has two European nations at loggerheads with each other, a man who can send armed soldiers of his army to fire on citizens of his country. If this ridiculous situation were highlighted in the European capitals and if Europeans were made fully and urgently aware of the danger to Europe of a continuance of the situation in Ireland, they would be able to exert pressure successfully which when added to pressure from a united Ireland, might achieve results. I have no doubt it would hit at the vanity of that man, the Prime Minister of Britain, if he had to go to Europe as the man who led Britain into Europe and find himself taxed on all sides with his conduct of affairs in Ireland. That would be effective. Such a policy should be pursued urgently through all channels available to us in Europe. At last I think the message is getting out from this country of the intense anger and frustration which is growing among the people here at British policy in the North and that on the other hand there is a danger that if the anger and frustration are not relieved by a solution to the Northern problem they may grow to a dangerous extent.

It is our duty in this House not to say or do anything which might fan those flames of anger and frustration. My experience, moving among the ordinary people as Deputy Blaney has moved, is that there is no wish for physical revenge. The Taoiseach's statement that while we cannot forget what happened in Derry we will, out of charity forgive it, is a statement that has impressed many people and I think represents the feeling of the vast majority of the Irish people.

To achieve reconciliation there must be some positive signs and gestures by the parties to that reconciliation. What signs and gestures we can seek or expect from Belfast are a matter for the regime there to show us. It was disheartening, and there is no point in not mentioning it, that in Stormont, following the massacre in Derry, even liberal Unionists displayed a regrettable intransigence. That was a regrettable development. It should highlight for us the fact that those people are afraid and were frightened by the massive reaction to the Derry tragedy. It should highlight the need for us to do something to reassure them so as to diminish or remove their fears. From my contact with what I may call Protestant people though non-Unionists up there, I am satisfied that while the idea of unity is not altogether anathema it is some distance from being accepted by them.

They have lived as a separate community for 50 years and in this age of fast development and rapid evolution half a century is the equivalent of, perhaps, a couple of centuries some hundreds of years ago. One cannot dismantle overnight the sense of community, the sense of separateness they have gained for themselves over 50 years and which has been compounded by the attitude down here in that we have failed to engage in cross-Border activities with these people. We have allowed the two parts of the country to drift apart and it should be no surprise to us to have to acknowledge that there is another community up there and one to which I hope we could say: "You may continue to be a distinct community but please no longer be a separate community as we all live in one small island."

In opening the debate the Taoiseach briefly adverted to the question of change down here so as to assist reconciliation. If we have virtue on our side to the extent we claim we should have a surplus and should be able to give some of our virtue and make a magnanimous gesture to the other side. I do not know what it could be but it is the duty of the Taoiseach as Leader of the nation in consultation with his experts to devise some magnanimous gesture of reconciliation. I have no doubt the House, and through it, the people, would accept that. It is the duty of leadership not just to indicate, as he said, that there should be a change of stance and policy down here, but that is not enough. He must spell out the details of the change.

One small example which came to my notice very forcibly in the last few days of how our stance down here is wrong if we want to achieve unity is this: a townsman of mine who served for over 30 years in the Army was born in Omagh, received primary and some technical education there but never learned Irish. On retiring from the Army he was invited to apply for a Civil Service post. He was found suitable but because he did not know Irish he has been informed that he cannot be recruited as an established officer. Yet, we are saying to the people in the North: "Come in; things will be just as good here as they are with yourselves."

That may be only a small matter but it is one of those things that can lead to powerful propaganda to influence doubting Thomases in the North who are afraid of the Republic. It is one area in which a gesture of reconciliation could be made. It will call for courage on the part of the Taoiseach to make this gesture because he will have at the back of his mind the so-called Republican backlash. But if Republicanism means, as those who profess to practise it so unctuously tell us, uniting all religions under one flag and if his motive is to achieve that end he need not fear the speeches of demagogues.

I look to the Taoiseach as the nation's Leader to make such a gesture or series of gestures as a matter of urgency to show the Northern community that there is a place for them in a united Ireland. It would ease his position in making representations to the British Government to do their part and would ease their task also.

It is tragic that we had to have this debate following such horrifying events in Derry last Sunday. It was proper and right to have a day of mourning yesterday throughout the land. It is proper and right that we should lobby throughout the nations of the world to bring home to them the injustice perpetrated in this country, but above all, we must not take it on ourselves to take revenge. We must be extremely careful not to indulge in a philosophy or a course of action which will put back further the day of reconciliation because the day of reconciliation is the day of real unity. I disagree totally with Deputy Blaney when he says that the task is that of uniting our country and, ultimately, our people.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooney

It could not be done in that order. The ideal is to do it simultaneously but I do not think that is possible. Consequently, the aim must be to unite first our people and, then, a united country will follow. We cannot achieve a united people if, in this part of Ireland, the doctrine being preached is one of revenge and reprisal. We may sorrow and we are entitled to a justifiable anger but we must never allow our emotions to spill over into physical revenge.

It is important that this House should not give way to an emotionalism or to any philosophy that could lead to such a course of action and one would hope that the incidents of the past couple of days which are understandable and explicable will not be repeated. The message must go clearly from this House, as enunciated by Deputy Ryan, that the preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of public order in this part of the country are an essential precondition towards unity. It is important that this House should reject absolutely and unequivocally the use of force. Deputy Blaney, in the course of winding-up his speech, made a further reference to our armed forces along the Border. His words were "to be there in time of need and let there be no equivocation about it". These were equivocable words——

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooney

——in a statement that pleaded for plain speaking. There is no half-way house between peace and war. There is no half-way house between a peaceful settlement and an imposed settlement of the Northern situation. It cannot be said too often that an imposed settlement is no settlement. I am glad that this debate, although emotional at times, is being held because I have no doubt that the message which will go out from the House loud and clear is that in so far as the people of the Republic of Ireland are concerned they only want the unity of Ireland that can be achieved through reconciliation of all Irishmen.

Dr. O'Connell

I was very upset and disturbed by Deputy Blaney's speech. If what he advocated were to be adopted by our people, I would be very much afraid for our country. I hate to have to say this about a colleague in this House but the impression I got was that Deputy Blaney was a warmonger, that he is spreading the seeds of discontent and war. He was preaching the same form of bigotry and hatred that he was condemning in the Northern part of the country. If his policy were to be adopted, it could lead only to total bloodshed and to the slaughter of our people. I was astonished that he should have been applauded for his speech because if this insanity were to spread through the country, the consequences would be very serious.

I would hate to think that last Sunday's happenings would be exploited but Deputy Blaney's display was scandalous. It was a scandalous exploitation of the sad emotions of our people. The real tragedy for the relatives of the victims will manifest itself today when they find themselves alone. We know that the victims were innocent people who were protesting against tyranny. We know of the intransigence of the Westminster Government and of their attempts to bolster up Mr. Faulkner and his regime and it is this that is responsible for the problem. The British Government stand indicted for what they did. It was a cold, calculated act. I would say that the paratroopers had their orders and all the evidence suggests that their action was not defensive. It stands to reason that it could not have been defensive.

I am sad that no political moves have been made. We all talk about the problem and offer various suggestions but nothing concrete is being done. Unfortunately, and regretfully, Britain is determined to proceed with her military solution to the problems of the North. I had discussions on the problem while I was in Britain and I was appalled at the intransigence on the part of the British and of their determination not to have political moves or initiatives under any circumstances that would bring about a solution to the problem. I was upset, too, that they should abide religiously by what Mr. Faulkner says and that they would not look beyond Mr. Faulkner and beyond what he and his crumbling regime offer for Northern Ireland. I am disturbed when they say they cannot be under threat. They cannot afford to talk like this especially when people are being killed. It is up to us to arouse British public opinion as to what is happening and to make them aware of how the problem can be solved.

I said yesterday that reunification was on the horizon. We have reached this irreversible stage; but I would say that if reunification were to be effective tomorrow it would be a disaster for our country. I say this because the Governments of this country during the past 50 years have not prepared for reunification. Not an attempt was made by any of them to prepare for reunification.

Mr. Carter

Of course that is not true.

Dr. FitzGerald

Perhaps when Deputy Carter is making his contribution he will let us know of the steps that have been taken.

Dr. O'Connell

The IRA have carried on a campaign in Northern Ireland, some of them against the British Army, some of them against innocent civilians. I do not think that their way is a democratic one. They could have a democratic role to play. Their aim is a united Ireland, and I agree with them in that, but I think they should pursue their aim along political lines. Their members could be elected to Dáil Éireann or to a new Parliament. I would sincerely ask them to think along those lines and to talk about changing, from within a Constitutional Parliament, our country and the defects they see in it. I do not think they will achieve their objects by an abstentionist policy.

The IRA propose regional parliaments, and I say, yes, regional parliaments by all means if we have a central parliament overriding them. The regional parliaments to which they refer will perhaps solve many of our problems, but they must come as a mandate from the people. The IRA would be well advised to consider this as the only possible and proper way to bring about the changes they want effected. It must be along democratic lines. I would see Dr. Paisley having a lot in common with the IRA, strange as it seems. They both would think in terms of a proper country for the people. I know this, and therefore I would appeal to them to do as I have suggested.

I was appalled, as I said, at Deputy Blaney's speech, especially when I think that he was one of the architects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, when he sought closer and closer union with Britain. I do not think he made a constructive speech. I listened to every word he said. He denounced the three parties here; still the only constructive suggestions he put forward were ones which had been outlined here by the Taoiseach, the leader of the Fine Gael Party, and Deputy Corish of our own party. When Deputy Blaney was in a position of power to bring about the changes he talks about, to bring about reunification, what did he do about it? I do not know of anything positive he did, or perhaps I am too naïve and I do not know what really constructive work was done towards reunification.

As I said, Deputy Blaney is breeding the same bigotry and hatred which he condemns in Northern Ireland. When he talks about the call-up of the Army and the FCA I would say maybe we should give him a gun, because that is exactly the line he is pursuing at the moment. Perhaps I am a little harsh on him. Perhaps he is over-emotional and that because of where he lives it is understandable. However, I would appeal to him not to let emotional nationalism destroy him and destroy the rest of the country. He talked about the days of grief and mourning, but his answers would extend those days of grief and mourning much more. I would appeal to him to exercise restraint because, unfortunately, his voice still carries a lot of weight in this country.

He denounces the Protestants in the North; then he talks in terms of our sitting down and talking with them. How can this be brought about as long as we denounce them as we do? How do we get them to talk if we instil fears in them? We should be allaying their fears. A constructive suggestion was made by Deputy Corish when he said that we should go to Mr. Heath. I would hope that through his speech Deputy Blaney suffered an emotional catharsis. I would hope that this would save the country. He said we should not be afraid to risk what we have here to save the people of Northern Ireland. To me that would spell bloodshed. It would be a tremendous gamble that could only harm the country.

At this moment moral courage is much more important than courage in battle. Moral courage is a rare commodity, a rare quality. It is the courage that may incur the displeasure of your colleagues. It may have you denounced as a radical. It may make you very unpopular because you may be endeavouring to lead public opinion rather than follow it. Unfortunately in this House we have been content too often to follow public opinion. I ask those people with moral courage to stand up and be counted and to see what we can do to bring about the changes that are necessary.

It is not enough just to talk here for the sake of talking. The Taoiseach made a very good speech today. I hope he will keep his word. I hope he will bring about the changes which he said are necessary—the social, the economic, the political and the constitutional changes that are necessary before we can talk about a united Ireland. I hope he will not put them on the long finger and say they will come after the unification. That would be disastrous. It would be a retrograde step. I hope he will have the courage of his convictions.

I saw an advertisement in The Irish Times this morning from Mayo saying that 10,000 people will be marching and that it is expected that 250,000 people will be converging on Newry next Sunday. I would ask the British Government to make a declaration that political initiatives are on the way so that this march may be postponed. This is the only thing that will bring about a postponement of that march: a declaration by Britain today—and I have told them already that this is vital if we are to avoid further bloodshed next Sunday. I fear that the tragedy in Derry will pale into insignificance compared with what may happen next Sunday if 250,000 people march on Newry—that political initiatives are on the way which will bring about talks. It is up to the British to do this. It is necessary for Britain to make that statement if we are to avoid a further tragedy.

There is a danger in what happened yesterday that the dogs of war have been let loose. I was frightened at what happened yesterday. I should hate to see a day of national mourning exploited by elements in our society who are interested only in disorder.

Mr. O'Higgins

Hear, hear.

Dr. O'Connell

I hope the Taoiseach has not done this. He has been vacillating between internment on the one hand and advocating action which is not good for our society.

Mr. Gogan

That is not true.

Dr. O'Connell

He has been a vacillating Taoiseach. I am talking now as a citizen, as an ordinary person who fears for the future. I hope he will realise his responsibility as Taoiseach for what he has done.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

It is excellent that Dáil Éireann has been given a full opportunity in this two-day debate to get down to the fundamental issues involved in the basic national problem that has been with us for 50 years now, wrongly imposed on us, and artificially created in the form of the partition of this natural island of 32 counties, with a population that can work with each other, as we have proved very well over the past 50 years in the type of society which we have evolved here in this part of Ireland, which is almost totally nonsectarian, classless and devoted to the common good and the achievement of justice.

It is my fundamental belief that this can be done equally in a 32-county Ireland. We have built in the proper protective measures both in the statue law and in the Constitution to protect the lives and liberties of people, to ensure their rights before the courts and to ensure that these rights are fully protected by law and by the Constitution. This type of society which we have evolved is one of which we should be proud and one we can certainly evolve in a 32-county Ireland if we are allowed to work out our own salvation. We have not been allowed to work out our own salvation in this respect and our persistent claim to a 32-county Ireland, which has been ignored over these 50 years by the British Government, has now been shown by recent tragic events to be fully justified. It has been shown, thanks to modern communications, to be a right and proper claim before the nations of the world.

The fact is that the unnatural division of our country in recent times begat violence and will beget more violence. This is the lesson of the present situation. This is the lesson of the tragic events that occurred in Derry last Sunday and the other tragic events that have developed and worsened since August, 1969. Any action done to protect and further perpetuate an unnatural division among people is bound to create the type of situation which we have seen developing in the six North-Eastern counties since August, 1969.

Added to that, over the 50 years of Stormont administration there have been the constant injustices, the denial of human rights, the denial of civil rights, the denial of everything that is proper in a fair and open society, to a substantial section of the people in the Six Counties, 40 per cent of the population there. There has been the entrenchment of an establishment in the interests of the members of that establishment and the people who support it, and support it at the polls. That is not a democratic society. Sixty per cent may vote for a Unionist establishment at election time but it cannot be called a democratic society in any sense of the world. It is merely the power of one group over another entrenched through the polls and buttoned down, and pinned down, and fastened down, by injustice and patronage and jobbery of every kind.

This is now out in the open. It is out from under the carpet where successive British Governments swept it conveniently. It is out now fully and openly before the eyes of the world and exposed for all the injustices it contains. The moral and administrative violence, which can be worse than physical violence, of making a people less than they should be, which has been the essence of the Stormont administration over 50 years, has now resulted in the present confrontation situation, a situation in which the British Army has had to be hired, in effect, by the Stormont administration and paid for by the British administration to copperfasten a people to whom basic civil rights were denied.

This is the situation now, starting from the moral and administrative violence of a people exercising their majority control in a wrong way over another community which has now escalated into physical violence of the very worst kind. This is what we have here now, what we must look at and assess in a sane way although it is very hard, as any of us who were in Derry yesterday can aver, to be sane and sensible in view of the horror we saw in the minds, the eyes and the very gestures of the people. We have to assess it as the elected representatives of this part of Ireland and decide what we can do about it in a sane and sensible way and what contribution we can make towards this endeavour.

There are certain basic truths in this matter that we must acknowledge in honesty here ourselves. Because of the size of our population, the facts in regard to what we believe in anyway in the ultimate, we cannot meet the type of violence exercised on us by Britain and the Stormont Administration. We cannot employ violence against that sort of violence. Apart from the morality of the matter, these are the facts of life. Morally it is wrong to escalate a potentially dangerous situation into a civil war situation and actually we do not have the fire power to do it. Let us be honest with ourselves about this. We are not in a position here from any point of view, either moral or practical, to meet violence with greater violence.

This is the situation we are faced with. To be honest, it would be a totally counter-productive attitude on our part here to suggest that in any way we could meet British Army violence with greater violence. Effectively, what can we do? I would suggest—and modern communications, television and radio are a help to a great extent—that we can exercise enormous moral power and pressure in regard to our just case. We cannot be seen to have a just case if we meet injustice with injustice. We can be seen to have a just case if we meet injustice with justice. This is the Government attitude and I think it is the attitude of every right-thinking person in this House and outside it. I believe we should fully exercise every possible pressure short of violence and we must fully back it.

Mr. Harte

Does the Minister not think that after 14 years in Government this is a strange statement to make?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Remarks of that kind do not help. The Government have already taken steps in this respect. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has already gone to North America. He has taken the necessary steps there with the United Nations and with the United States Secretary of State and will be seeing the Canadian Foreign Minister. From there he proposes to go early next week to meet the various European Heads of State and make known the horror of what happened last Sunday, the whole basis of justice behind our case for a Thirty-two County Ireland and all the injustices perpetrated by the Stormont administration. In particular, he will make known the fact that the British Government through its agency, the British Army, so far from helping the case in any way has completely exacerbated the situation to such an extent that the British Government, the British Army, the British administration and the British people, who are not responsible at all, were brought into total disgrace through the events of last Sunday.

Have we not had violence down here?

Mr. B. Lenihan

I am trying to make a serious speech and the Deputy might listen.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister is not doing too badly with it. I will not interrupt him again.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Thank you, Deputy. I appreciate your courtesy. This situation now quite clearly out in the open is a situation we must meet not with violence, not in any counter-productive manner of that kind. This is a situation where injustice has been clearly seen not just in Ireland, not just in Britain, but throughout the world; not just glaringly seen but so obvious that we must proceed straight away to work on this situation as an independent Government, and remember that where the injustice is out in the open, where the excesses on the part of the British and Stormont Governments are out in the open, where the excesses on the part of the British Army are out in the open, it is now a situation in which we should not meet injustice with injustice. It is precisely a situation where if we are to sustain the justice of our case we must meet violence not with violence, injustice not with injustice, but we must meet the whole case with the justice of our case.

This is where I suggest every pressure short of violence must be fully exercised and tapped. It can be done externally by the Government and through the various Government agencies which we propose to utilise to do this. At the moment the Minister for Foreign Affairs is engaged in this matter. We will shortly be taking further steps to intensify this publicity abroad so as to ensure that the justice of our case is seen. It is pretty well acknowledged both in North America and in Europe to a far greater extent than we imagine. We tend sometimes to think that the only foreign Press is the British Press. This is not true. The British Press has been for centuries the arm of the establishment in Britain and the British Press at all levels has been under the thumb of the establishment in Britain and has consistently given us here in Ireland a bad press, with certain honourable exceptions, such as The Sunday Times in recent times.

Beyond and apart from that, in Europe, all parts of it, East and West, in North America, throughout the various emerging countries in Africa and Asia, the justice of our case is recognised. It is up to us as a Government to use every means and every agency to make sure that the facts which we can place on record, the results of British injustice and British violence, are fully put on record by us as a sovereign independent Government. We can thereby meet injustice with justice, with the justice of our case, and have this case fully displayed and put on record before the countries of the world. This is a task in which we must engage and we have now for the first time the brutal, the horrible facts to place before the world of this injustice and we propose to make the fullest use of the facilities which we have as a sovereign independent nation to make sure that these brutal and horrible facts being wrought by British injustice and by Stormont injustice will be brought to the notice of the Governments of the world on the basis of justice on our side meeting injustice on their side.

The only way we can harm that case is by in any way using violence to meet violence, or injustice to meet injustice. I am certain that in this manner we can do the best justice to our case abroad with the governments of the world who are now coming round to our point of view. We can use all the aids of modern telecommunication, telenised vision and radio, to help us in this endeavour.

Dr. Browne

The Minister could try whistling, too.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I had the great pleasure yesterday to meet Fr. Edward Daly who was associated in their last moments with the unfortunate people who died in Derry last Sunday. He has gone to America. He is going on the various American media tonight and tomorrow to tell the story which he told very fully, very clearly and without emotion but with total truth, to the Irish people on the "7 Days" programme last Monday night. We hope to have him relating that factual story of what happened in Derry on all the major American media today and tomorrow. That is a practical example of one of the many steps we can take at all levels of Government activity to ensure that the justice of our case and the injustice of the British case are brought fully to the notice of every country in the world.

The other way in which we can help practically is internally to support those forces in the Six Counties who are concerned about establishing a true and a just Thirty-two County Ireland and who at the same time have repudiated violence. I refer in particular here to the political representatives of the non-Unionist minority, the SDLP and the Nationalist Party and indeed any other party or individuals who are opposed to Unionist violence and Unionist injustice. We propose to devise ways and means to help these people financially.

Mr. Harte

Do they include Bernadette?

Mr. B. Lenihan

My colleague, the Minister for Finance, will be talking tomorrow and spelling out more details in respect of this aspect of the matter. We propose to back those people who are exercising their form of moral pressure in the six North-Eastern counties, an exercise of moral pressure in the face of violence on all sides, violence from Stormont, violence from Britain and encouragement to violence on the part of the small minority of people who oppose Unionism.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is there any financial aid going to the alternative Assembly?

Mr. B. Lenihan

This is part of the operation—the alternative Assembly and the parties opposed to Unionism— in some way to devise some means of channelling financial help to these organs who represent democratic opinion, who are opposed to Unionism and are trying to maintain a responsible stand in the face of the tremendous pressures they are subjected to from time to time—the people who are trying to uphold a situation which we want to see being upheld in a Thirty-two County Ireland.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister seems to make politics of all this. Has he informed the members of the Opposition? He never tells them a thing about it but he looks for their support.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Tully)

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech. Deputy L'Estrange will get an opportunity to make his speech later.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I was going to refer further to the co-operation that is required between all parties in this House.

Mr. Harte

Leadership is what is required, not co-operation.

Acting Chairman

Deputies will appreciate that speeches are limited and that there must therefore not be any interruptions from any side. If Deputies Harte and L'Estrange want to make their speeches later they can do so.

Mr. Dowling

Could I interrupt——?

Acting Chairman

Will Deputy Dowling please not join in.

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is the function of the Government to take the immediate steps that are required to be taken to meet the situation at any given time. It is only with governments that the power and the facilities lie to take immediate steps and immediate action. Where I would see inter-party co-operation having a more fundamental meaning in furthering the talks that have taken place between the Government and the Fine Gael and Labour Parties is, in the long term, to work out the sort of society which we propose to have in a Thirty-two County Ireland, the sort of practical amendments to our Constitution, the sort of social and economic steps that are required to be taken now to ensure that the transition into a Thirty-two County Ireland can be eased, the sort of steps that we have to take in regard to many of our laws. All of these are matters in which I could see a great field of opportunity not just in the immediate future, now or next week, but in the long term, looking ahead to the sort of society in which we want to live as a Thirty-two County Ireland.

It must be emphasised that that type of society must be an open, nonsectarian society and I should like to say categorically that however we deplore the acts of both the British and the Stormont administrations in recent times—we deplore them vehemently for the injustice that has been inherent in their policies in recent years —we must remember one thing here: it is that we have built in this State during the past number of years a society in which there has been no sectarian tinge, in which all classes and creeds have had an equal right to make progress. This can be improved to contain a Thirty-two County Ireland. It can be improved in many ways, by amending our Constitution, our laws, our attitudes and policies.

Fundamentally, we have evolved here a fairly open, a fairly clear nonsectarian society. We have evolved here a society in which we are seeking, even if we have not always achieved it, to have justice written into every aspect of our administration, our laws and our Constitution. This is in direct contrast to the type of situation where injustice has been heaped upon injustice in the six North-Eastern counties. There is that clear distinction between the attitude of minds of the people in the Twenty-six Counties compared to the people of one party who have governed for 50 years in the six North-Eastern counties.

We will have to do more in this direction, and this is where the three parties meeting together can propose practical ways and means of how we can make our society more open, more acceptable in every sense of the word, so that nobody in the six North-Eastern counties can say this is not a society into which we can go.

This, in my view, is a practical, fruitful area of co-operation in which we should engage immediately between the three parties represented here in this Parliament. That is the longer-term aspect. The shorter-term aspect is to take the immediate steps which only a Government can take and which we are taking, both externally, as I spelled out, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and other governmental agencies and internally through our own co-operation with and leadership of the responsible people who are opposed to Unionists in the six North-Eastern counties. It is on these two fronts that we can work and work in the recognition that this is not an easy task. The people who say that we can just drive the British Army and the British administration out of the six North-Eastern counties and can drive one million Unionists into the sea at the drop of the hat are people who are talking dishonestly. Let us have some honest talk here.

The honesty, I believe, lies in working along the immediate lines on which the Government are working and along the more long-term lines in regard to which I believe the three political parties can closely co-operate. We must recognise that ultimately we must get the British Government to a firm declaration—Mr. Harold Wilson has proposed 15 years, but I believe that is too long in the context of what has developed—that in five years or ten years time we will have a definite date by which Partition goes, by which a Thirty-two County Ireland must come about. We must direct the energies of all responsible people in the two islands who believe in democracy, who believe in political parties, in parliament and in laws to protect the individual. All of us in these two islands who believe in these fundamental matters which make for what is called a democratic society must set a timetable, set down an agenda and set down a period of years—five years or ten years—within which period there must be a united Ireland and we must now sit down and devise the ways and means of achieving that. It is only in that way that we will achieve a united Ireland and in the meantime we must exercise every moral pressure, every pressure of every kind short of actual violence, to ensure that the British injustice is brought fully home to every country and every nation and to the peoples of every country and every nation—not just the governments and the administrations but to the peoples—through the media now there. We must exercise all the pressure at our disposal in the meantime and on that level pursue that way of activity externally and at another level pursue a way of activity in regard to helping the responsible people opposed to Unionism in the six North-Eastern counties. On the final level we must sit down in co-operation with other responsible and democratic parties and people in the other island and in the six North-Eastern counties, and start to work out ways and means for creating the fabric for the united 32-county Ireland we want to see operating in five or ten years time.

Mr. Sherwin

The situation in our country which has existed for many years and which has been highlighted by events—and, we must admit, inevitable events—since 1969 is very much in my mind and indeed in the minds of many others who bear the title of Irishmen. Just in case anyone might make the error of thinking that my speech here is an echo of someone else's words, I would like to make it quite clear, especially to correspondents who might think otherwise, that I am expressing my view and opinion on this and other matters.

I would like to indicate to the House that when I stood as a candidate in the by-election for what I thought then was the republican party I was elected by the people of Dublin South-West as a republican member of this House. I remained in Fianna Fáil to the point when I was absolutely convinced that they no longer held the republican traditions on which they were founded. I think that indications that this is so must be taken to be represented by the actions of Kevin Boland and Deputy Neil Blaney and others who dispute what Fianna Fáil are as against what they were.

What we witnessed in part of our country last Sunday is nothing short of a national tragedy. It is a national tragedy that Irishmen should continue to be killed by Her Majesty's forces, but it is equally tragic that we have a so-called republican Government who are only prepared to talk, to act inadequately, to act late and slowly, and, above all, to be seen, or seem to be collaborating with British interests. Last Sunday brought home to every Irishman the realisation that there is a war being waged, and when Mr. Maudling announced that war was in fact being waged in Ireland he was not joking. The logical conclusion, the logical consequence, of that war is that people undoubtedly will be killed. It must be admitted by us that a great number of people in this part of Ireland really felt as if the Six Counties were a thousand miles away, but I think that since last Sunday many of these people who might have made the mistake of believing that they were detached, uninvolved and with no capacity to be involved in that struggle have changed their minds. We have certainly seen evidence of the people's reaction on our streets in Dublin and in different parts of the country.

We must all sincerely sympathise with the relatives and friends of those who were killed in Derry, but what do we do as a Government and as a people? Deputy Blaney spoke here earlier today and asked that we should not be over-confused by the events of last Sunday, and I would like to say that lost in the tragic events of the bloody Sunday of our time is an interview between John Taylor and Bill Craig on our Irish radio on last Sunday between 1 and 2 o'clock. During that interview, compliments and criticism crossed the floor. Bill Craig and John Taylor complimented our Government and our Taoiseach for having done what they asked him to do, that is, he arrested seven men who were found to be in possession of arms on the Twenty-six County side, and although they remarked that this was late and inadequate, because there were so many people they knew to be on the loose or on the run in the South from the North, they still thanked our Government for this co-operation. Just as Deputy Blaney called on the Government for a fundamentally sincere and unequivocal gesture to the people's struggle in the North, I call on the Government to release these men who were arrested, on very technical grounds, by our Government and who are being held back from the defence of their friends and fellow-citizens within the Six-County area.

We must very clearly consider the consequences of our actions here and the logical conclusion which the British and Stormont authorities will take from our actions down here. It is not so long ago since another person was arrested by our Government in the South. That man was John Kelly. He was then the chairman of the Belfast Citizens' Defence Committee. His arrest, not on the streets of Belfast by the Stormont regime but by our Government here, gave the Stormont regime and the British a clear indication of what they could expect in the crunch from the Irish Government. The Irish Government despite what the Taoiseach had said the previous August dismissed members of the Government and arrested John Kelly. Up to that time the British soldier was acting in an impartial manner, he was acting in a peaceful role keeping two sides apart, but the consequences of what happened were seen in the actions of the Army. They became very partial to the authorities in the North and loyal to the British Government's policy in the North.

We must consider then what would be the consequences of the arrest in recent times of seven men who, let us be quite honest, were technically arrested. These men were not fighting against the Government here or the people of Ireland. If they were guilty of anything it was of being overenthusiastic in relation to their activities in the North.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

They will not be either.

Mr. Sherwin

——I want to make it quite clear to Deputy FitzGerald and others that these men are acting on behalf of the people in a damn sight better way than many of us are acting on behalf of our people in here.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

Speak for yourself.

Mr. Sherwin

The Taoiseach mentioned that internment should go. It has taken him six months to say unequivocally that it should go. We have read his description of internment as a terrible thing but it has taken him until now to say that it must go. I wonder did it take 13 deaths to make him make this demand. The Taoiseach spoke of the need to get the British soldiers out of the Catholic ghettos of the Six-County area. Why did he stop there? Why did our Taoiseach, the leader of the supposed Republican Party, not go so far as to say that the British soldiers should be removed completely from the Six Counties of Ireland? I cannot see how he can be excused for confining his remarks to the ghetto areas of Belfast. Does the same thing not apply to areas which have a mixed population? What about the Catholic or the Nationalist Republican on a street in Belfast where his neighbours are Protestants? Is he not perhaps more likely to experience the brutality the soldiers have inflicted on the people in the Catholic areas? I would suggest that these people are more in danger of the discriminatory powers of the British and Stormont regimes.

It is not right or proper that the Taoiseach should be talking about asking the British troops merely to get out of the Catholic areas. Anyone who has travelled up to the Bogside and Creggan knows that Creggan is not a ghetto area. Other parts of the Six Counties where the Catholic population live can be so described. The Creggan estate, to which we went yesterday, is a fine housing estate, very similar to any part of my constituency. In referring to Catholic areas as ghettos the Taoiseach should bear in mind that he is perhaps insulting communities. The people of Ballyfermot, where I live, are very proud of their community. That area got a bad Press heretofore. It is not a nice gesture for our Government to describe the Creggan area as a ghetto but that is a very minor point to make when we are talking about the absolute horror of the situation as it has escalated in the North.

In reference to the Taoiseach's speech on Monday night, when he mentioned the need to get the British soldiers out of areas where Catholics or Nationalists are in the majority, it is fair to say that even Deputy O'Brien, of the Labour Party, demanded, as we have demanded, that the soldiers be completely withdrawn from the Six Counties. Our Republican Government, through their Leader, have not gone as far as that.

Dr. Loughnane

When did Deputy O'Brien say that? Only last week he asked that they should remain. Last week he asked that the British Army be left in the North, in case of a backlash.

Mr. Sherwin

The Minister for Foreign Affairs said yesterday that if the British soldiers' tactics did not change then his Government would dedicate themselves to getting the British out. I should like to refer to the question that I had on the Order Paper today asking the Government to give the people of Ireland information as to the number of statements, tape recordings and other information in the possession of the Government since internment was introduced. There was implicit in that question the question as to how these statements indict the British authorities and the Stormont regime in the North. We are talking here after the event. Thirteen have been killed. It is suggested that this is justification for being tough. Many months ago the Government had even more gruesome details of the tortures the British authorities inflicted on the community in the Six Counties but the Government did not see fit to take action. I wonder why. I suggest again, as I did this morning and on Tuesday, that the Government are proving themselves to be three steps behind the people. But for the fact that the people of Ireland reacted in the way they did and protested as they did sincerely and with true feeling, the Government would not have made the statements they have made over the last couple of days. Of course, the people had not got the information that was entrusted to the Government by persons who were tortured and brutally treated by soldiers in the Six Counties. I put down the question to which I have referred so that some indication would be given of the volume of information that was given to the Government and some explanation as to why they took so long before making any comment or taking any action in regard to it.

In his statement last Monday the Taoiseach referred to the minority and to the need to rid them of Unionist misrule. Surely the Taoiseach appreciates that the minority in this country are the 25 per cent of the total population that Stormont was established to look after and that the minority that he refers to are, in fact, part of the majority of the people? Are the Taoiseach and the Government slightly confused on that matter? They continually refer to the Nationalist population of the Six Counties as the minority or part of the minority. It must be very clear that they are part of the majority of the 32 counties and that the minority in this country are the 25 per cent of the population in the various religious groupings.

I agree with all those who suggested that we should have a Constitution that would protect everybody's interest. It is worthless and a waste of time for Ministers, like the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Lenihan, to speak of amending our Constitution so that it would incorporate the wishes of the people of the Six Counties. In this very advanced stage towards reunification it is trite to talk about anything less than a completely new Constitution.

We have tried over the years to establish the claim to jurisdiction over 32 counties, that our jurisdiction is not confined to 26 counties. It is weakening that claim to talk about the right to exercise jurisdiction over what is commonly and continually referred to as the minority of the Six Counties. They certainly are a minority in the Six Counties but we must remember that when nine counties were offered to the British they realised that the Nationalists and Republicans in those nine counties would very quickly out-number the Protestant or Unionist vote and that therefore the Stormont regime, which is guilty of so many of the atrocities that we have seen over the past number of years, would falter and, consequently, that British influence in Ireland would falter. It is not altogether right to single out the Stormont regime and to blame only them; the British put the Stormont regime there and it is the British who can take them out.

We shall learn later in the debate from the Minister for Finance about the allocation of money which the Taoiseach mentioned was to be made towards the peaceful activities of political groups in the North. It is fair to ask: will there be another inquisition as to the use to which the money will be put, such as we have proceeding at the moment? When the current inquiry is over the cost of the inquiry will probably be in excess of the original allocation. Will the new allocation have the effect of buying over support and of buying off the criticism that has been recently levelled by members of the SDLP?

Through this House I would appeal to the SDLP under no circumstances to allow themselves to be bought over with this money. When we talk about the struggle of the people in the Six Counties against British occupation of their territory we cannot, if we are honest with ourselves, separate the IRA from the rest of the community. If anyone here who visited Derry yesterday took the time to speak to some of the locals instead of getting into their State cars and returning to Dublin they would know, since they would be told very clearly, that every man, youth and boy throughout the length and breadth of the Six Counties is now a member of the IRA. When we talk about the IRA leaving it to the politicians to take over we are talking about a whole community because the IRA are now firmly implanted in the community and firmly established as the defenders of that community and in no circumstances, therefore, is it justifiable to refer to them in a separate way.

I regret, as others have regretted, the violence that took place in Dublin yesterday. I believe, however, that it was necessary that this violence should take place in order that the people could show their real feelings to the British Government. Our Government have never so far done that adequately. It was noted that the greater proportion of the men and women were young people of my own generation and it is, I think, relevant to point out that when people get aged they become very conservative and they slowly but surely miss out on representing the younger generation's point of view.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Conservatism is a failing of youth also.

Mr. Sherwin

I will confine myself to my speech. The Deputy can make his contribution later. He is a member of the generation to which I referred and, if he is not careful, the young people in his constituency will tell him exactly what they think ought to be done.

Mr. Colley

Deputy O'Leary is getting old like the rest of us.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

So is Deputy Sherwin.

Dr. Thornley

This is not a time for light relief.

Mr. Sherwin

In relation to the wanton——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. The time is limited for each speaker.

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy Blaney left me in doubt yesterday as to his sincerity but, even if he is sincere, he is an evil influence. He opened his speech today by congratulating himself at some length on being right, as he thought, and yet, this morning, he told the House unctuously that he wanted a debate, but not in order to show that he was right; he changed his tune as soon as he got on his feet. He told us how right he has been. But how hard has he worked to make his prophecies come true?

Mr. Sherwin

Harder than the Deputy anyhow.

Dr. FitzGerald

Indeed. It was predictable all along that if enough arms and enough explosives could be got into the hands of the IRA and enough British soldiers could be blown up there would be a reaction no matter how good the initial relations might be between the troops and the Catholics. The policy he propounded to this House today was a war policy. Blood he spoke of three times: once about a redblooded people, again about people with red blood coursing through their veins and, later, he told us we should not take cold-blooded decisions. Cold blood or hot blood, it is always blood. He wants the Army out and the FCA to be mobilised. He wants them sent to the Border "for a time of need" and there was to be no equivocation as to what this time of need is but, equivocally, he would not tell the House what the time of need was. He also mentioned the word "war". What he means is civil war. What he means is to send our soldiers so that there would be death and destruction in the North knowing, as he knows perfectly well, that our Army and our fully organised FCA could not reach Belfast and could not do anything to save the 120,000 Catholics in Belfast as a consequence of Deputy Blaney's war policy.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy had his opportunity. Let him take his medicine now.

Mr. Blaney

Let us have a speech about what this is all about.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have two speeches at the one time. Deputy FitzGerald.

Dr. FitzGerald

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has taken action on that point and the Deputy has withdrawn the appellation.

Mr. Colley

In all fairness to Deputy Blaney, I think Deputy FitzGerald did misrepresent what he said on that particular point.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Colley

I agree substantially with a great deal of what Deputy FitzGerald has said but I am concerned with accuracy.

Mr. Harte

The Minister should understand that raising a point of order means that he should keep quiet. Is it in order for the Chair to listen to the type of remark Deputy Blaney made in regard to Deputy FitzGerald?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Blaney withdrew the remark and I am now calling on Deputy FitzGerald to continue.

Mr. Harte

Is the Chair tolerating a situation like that?

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to make this very clear. I called on Deputy Blaney to withdraw the remark which he did.

Mr. Harte

I am not referring to that remark. I am referring to the second remark. If the Chair was minding what he did he would take a note of it.

Mr. Blaney

That is a reflection on the Chair.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have a period of reflection now and allow Deputy FitzGerald to continue.

Dr. FitzGerald

I can appreciate that Deputy Blaney does not like being reminded of the four years when he was the jailer of republican prisoners but he over-reached himself today. Many people in the last few days have been swept by momentary emotions and have cried for something positive to be done—have we not all felt the urge to do something?—but many of those people will be shocked into sober reality by the bitter, bloodthirsty speech here today. Deputy Blaney is right in one thing, in a sense of urgency. The pressures of emotion and unreason are now powerful, fomented by men like Deputy Blaney. Time is desperately short and another massacre like that in Derry on Sunday could bring us to the brink. This message must reach the British Government from this House and from us all, including Deputy Blaney.

Mr. Blaney

Thanks very much, Deputy.

Dr. FitzGerald

The message must reach the British people from whom the truth has been kept by the British Press and communications media who are ever fearful of criticising their own defence forces, a fear which I think the Press and media in every country feel. I am sure that if ever a similar occasion arose here—we know it would not—there would be the same inhibitions. But these inhibitions are dangerous. The British people do not know clearly what has happened in Derry. Even though some of their reporters did report plainly what they saw in honesty, at times the sub-editing left something to be desired and the editorials suggested that the men who wrote them never read the reports of their own journalists.

We must reach the British people in any way we can, through the media, through articles, letters, interviews on radio and television. They cannot suppress them all although they suppress some of them including one that I was in on this very subject. We must reach them also through friendly nations, through the countries with whom we and the British are about to ally ourselves in the EEC, countries which cannot be, and which we know are not happy with the situation created by British policy in Northern Ireland. To me, that seems the most hopeful channel of external pressure on the United Kingdom. I do not think this pressure will come from the United Nations. Britain is a blind spot where the UN is concerned and pressure from that source is likely to be counter-productive, but where Britain is sensitive is in relation at this moment to the European Economic Community. Pressure from France or Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands or Italy and countries like that could have its effect. That is where our Minister for Foreign Affairs should be today rather than performing on television in the United States to an audience friendly to us in any event in that country. I hope the Taoiseach will bring him back and send him with representatives of the Opposition to show a united front in the countries of Europe to persuade these countries to use their influence to bring peace to this country so that a peaceful Ireland may, with Britain, enter the EEC on 1st January next year.

Ultimately, it is to British politicians we must address ourselves. We must get them to see and admit what happened in Derry, to see the folly of their policies of turning a friendly neighbour into an enemy. To get them to see how we feel, we must bridge a gap in understanding. The great problem here is the gulf in understanding that has arisen partly because when emotions are aroused reason disappears and people see things only from their own point of view—I am sure we are guilty of this here today also—and partly because the media are not always good at ensuring that both sides of the case are heard in each country. Some of the media in Britain have been particularly unfortunate in this respect. For these reasons a gap in understanding has arisen. When you talk to fair-minded British people and politicians and to British politicians who are very well-disposed towards this country and towards ultimate Irish unity, one finds at times an inability to understand how we think and feel. At times I think we share this inability. Certainly, when I listen to men like Goodheart on television the other night I find it hard to understand how he thinks and feels, a man like that who in the face of the evidence before him blandly asserted as an absolute fact that the troops behaved perfectly in Derry on Sunday.

It is hard to understand people like that and they find us hard to understand. Anything that is done in this country or in this House that makes understanding more difficult makes it harder for us to understand them or for them to understand us, and any obstacles created to that understanding are obstacles to peace and unity. Does anybody think that burning down the British Embassy will make the ordinary Britisher more likely to see our point of view? Is it not obvious that it will merely hold up the evolution of understanding? They will come to see the truth: they are slow people to learn: they find it hard to understand other people's point of view. We know how long it took us in the years before independence and it is taking a hell of a long time now. But in time, as weeks and months pass, they are coming to see the truth. The tone of their politicians' comments is changing even visibly day by day. There was a different note sounded by Lord Carrington in the House of Lords than that sounded by Mr. Maudling in the House of Commons. Visibly they are coming to realise that within the Northern Ireland area, for the period that it remains separate from our administration, there must be community government, something which they did not see six months ago and which they are now beginning to see clearly.

But the pace of events so far as they are concerned is far too slow. Growth of understanding of our problem is far too slow and the pace of events here and the danger it creates for us here is far too great. It is the disparity between these two that threatens us at this time.

Therefore, we must do whatever we can together because we can work together on this if sufficient confidence can be created between the different sides and I think that can be done. We must make what dramatic gestures we can to get across to them. That is why the other day the Leader of Fine Gael, the Leader of the Opposition, proposed a joint visit to London by the Leaders of the three parties to see Mr. Heath. Of course, he recognised that there are dangers in this. The chances of Mr. Heath suddenly being enlightened by such a visit and changing his policy overnight are pretty slim, judging by his performance over the past 18 months. Yet, it would be an opportunity to make some progress, an opportunity of getting across to the British people through the publicity such a visit would arouse and the impression it must make on them that parties so divided as we are here can unite in putting to the British people the situation as we see it and pleading with them to have sense at last and realise what they are doing to this country, doing to themselves and to relations between the two countries. It is not in the interests of Britain to have an inimical Ireland on their flank. They can be brought to see this, this is where we must apply ourselves rather than in making the kind of gesture of moving troops up to the Border and threatening war.

We can do something at home also —something I have pressed in every speech on this matter that I have made here since 1969, but to no avail so far. There are things about the way we run our part of Ireland that are an obstacle to understanding with the North and which stand between us and the Protestant people of that part of the country. While there is a recognition of this, a recognition that extends to the other side of the House, it has not led yet to any kind of action. The Taoiseach told us today that we must face some change in stance and policy here if there is to be unity, but he said the same thing in much the same words each time he spoke on this subject. What action has there been? Is there any sign of a sense of urgency in this matter? I see none. Six weeks ago it was proposed and shortly afterwards agreed that a committee of the three parties be established for this purpose but nothing further has been heard about it either publicly or privately. No progress has been made but yet the situation worsens as each day passes. How, then, can the Government excuse inaction when, if that committee had been set up at the time it was proposed, it could be reaching the point already of agreeing on some kind of proposals that would show to the Protestant people of Northern Ireland that we are prepared to create in a United Ireland a society of which they would be proud to be members? It is open to us to do that. Nobody is stopping us. It does not need any action on the part of the British for us to sit down and do this job but we have not done it.

This does not suggest any great sense of urgency on the part of the Government and yet they claim that they recognise there is a sense of urgency. Could we have some genuine consultation? We have not had any so far. There is a whole range of issues which this committee will have to consider. Some of these issues were referred to by Deputy O'Connell but there are others and these include the whole Church-State relationship which, of course, is central to the fears of Northern Protestants. This must be on a basis that they find acceptable.

There is the problem of the Irish language which was adverted to by Deputy Cooney. We cannot impose this on Protestants of Northern Ireland and tell them that they can serve in the Civil Service of a federal Irish State only if they have learned Irish. They would regard that as discriminatory as the kind of tactics which they have wielded against the minority in Northern Ireland. When will this matter be tackled? Are we serious about unity or do we, in our hearts, go on believing that it will not happen and that we can continue with our policies down here which in their effects are often sectarian and divisive?

Dr. Loughnane

Surely the Deputy will agree that there are many Protestants who can speak Irish.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Harte

Would Deputy Tunney stand in the way of national unity?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputy Tunney please cease interrupting?

Dr. FitzGerald

Of course there are such. My mother who was a Northern Protestant was the foundress of the Cumann Gaelach in Queen's University. But is anybody going to tell me that a million Protestants from the North of Ireland would look forward to coming into a country where they could not get their school-leaving examination without passing an examination in Irish? We all know that that cannot be imposed on them. Could we not make the gesture now of ceasing to impose this on people down here?

Dr. Loughnane

A little girl from Japan was awarded first prize in Irish a few months ago at Shannon Airport.

Dr. FitzGerald

If that is the level on which this debate is to be conducted, God help Ireland. Protestants in the North are beginning to think again on this issue and if we could show them at this stage that we are genuine it could have an effect at this dramatic moment but they have had no evidence of this in anything that we have done or said during the past couple of years. It is possible now to see the way towards some kind of agreement which, over a period, would lead us to a united Ireland, a united Ireland achieved by consent. This will not be easy and neither will it be quick. Those politicians and those newspapers which suggest that unity can be achieved overnight are rendering no service to the Irish people. We could set ourselves in that direction with success and with a fair expectation of arriving there if we are prepared to make the changes here that would indicate to the people of Northern Ireland who are not of the same religious persuasion as the majority of the people here that they would be acceptable in this part of Ireland.

To sum up, Deputy Blaney during his contribution showed the utter bankruptcy of extremist policy and that such policy has nothing to offer but war. Thank God that that has been exposed clearly here today for the Irish people to see. We, who do not seek to kill other Irish people, must lead the Irish people in unity towards the radical changing of British opinions and decisions. We must help to do this by showing our sincerity in our actions at home, but time is desperately short. We must show that we measure up to this occasion. We must show this by our willingness to drop our differences and to have a genuine unity of approach between those who share the concern for peace.

We have not seen that yet. We have heard talk of consultation but it must be said that it will not be possible to have a united approach if consultation means that in a crisis or every few months the Taoiseach has a hurried consultation in the middle of a Government meeting with Deputy Cosgrave, promises to come back again but makes no further communication for days or maybe weeks. That is not consultation. If we are to act unitedly, the Taoiseach, in replying to this debate, must show that he is prepared to bring the Opposition into his Cabinet in matters of internal security and in matters that concern the development of our Northern policy so that we could all work together towards this end. If he does not measure up to that, if he wants to keep all the cards in his own hands for political reasons—that may be the case; I do not know, but there is no evidence to the contrary—let that be clear so that we will know where we stand. It should be clear to everybody that there is willingness on our part to work with the Government towards this national end if we can have the genuine consultation that will make that possible. That is the message that should go out from this party and from this House today. The message is one of urgency. Above all there is the urgency of getting through to the British, and that is a hard task; but if we cannot get through to them to change their policies quickly, this country faces a disaster towards which it will be led by men, one of whom we have heard speak in this House today.

Mr. O'Leary

I presume we would not be having this debate at this time if it were not for the tragic events that occurred in Derry on Sunday last. To some extent this debate should be taking place, at least in spirit, at the gravesides of the young victims of those events. I would hope that the tribute which the elected representatives of this Assembly could bring to the graves of Derry would consist in an attempt to be constructive, to face up to the tragic, serious crisis before the whole country. The dead of Derry would be better honoured if the living, instead of giving way to emotion would attempt to avert greater tragedy and to protect by their statements and actions the lives of other young people throughout the country. I do not know whether all of us in this Dáil are aware of the serious situation facing us all, of the dread abyss in prospect for the whole country. It is a situation in which one might legitimately give way to despair. The elements are present that give honest reason for despair.

Can civil war be averted? That is the question before us. Earlier this century there was another debate in which another assembly gave way to the pressures of civil war and people left that assembly and took part in that civil war. The coming civil war, casting shadows before it in certain of the speeches heard here today, could be more calamitous both in its size and in its effects. That other civil war took place when the territorial outline of the State was known and concerned the prizes to be won within the confines of that State. The coming civil war is about an ideal on both sides, and nobody can tell how many lives it would claim. Therefore, the question before us is whether we are for or against civil war. Without calling it that name, some people have opted for civil war and they have lined up on that side. On this issue, I do not see it as an indictment of this House, but rather as the duty of Parliament to eschew party politics and unite to give the people a lead at this time of crisis.

Certain Deputies taking part in this debate have the idea that the old politics can continue, that we can continue to make party points on this occasion. I believe the situation is far too serious for that attitude. Emotions are high as a result of the Derry shooting and further events may result in galvanising this whole country in the direction of war. By establishing an all-party committee this Dáil can take a much more purposeful line in dealing with this problem. If it is considered that conditions are not yet perilous enough for the formation of a national Government, we can certainly have unity on this question between all the people elected to this House, because there is a great measure of agreement between us on the direction to be taken in seeking a solution. If the all-party committee suggested already is to be fruitful there must be a certain ceding of sovereignty on the part of the Government in the functions of this committee. The issues before us are larger and more important than the fate of any political party or Government.

Recommendations on unity should be advanced as soon as possible and this Dáil all-party committee should be the agency for contact with Britain and other foreign Governments on this issue and the immediate priorities of achieving political talks. I do not believe the Government can maintain any longer the sole responsibility for this question. There are divisions in their ranks and there are divisions in other parties. There is also a great deal of division of opinion in the country, and people are looking for a clear lead. Above all, we must set our faces against the emotion giving way to the forces that are looking for armed confrontation. We should leave no diplomatic stone unturned. We are very much alone in the world as a result of the foreign policies we have followed, and I would not hesitate to go to the East European camp, to the Soviet Union or any other country in an effort to get the right diplomatic pressure exerted on Britain to grant us the political conditions in which talks can take place, internment can be ended and some settlement achieved that will lead on towards a united country. Short of actual war I am for any initiative that puts pressure on Britain to come to the conference table to negotiate.

There is no use fooling ourselves that the British Government are in a co-operative mood. They are not. To believe that peace can be totally restored and that Irish unity will be on the agenda with the departure of British troops is to be deluded. From the little contact I have had with Northern problems over the years, I believe that the real crux in our struggle for unity is the division in political allegiance between the Unionist and Nationalist elements of the population of this island. There are Deputies here who can pretend that problem does not exist; I wish I could so pretend.

I would have hoped that people would not use this debate as a means to vindicate opinions which they allege they held previously. It requires no great crystal-ball-gazing talent to know that relations between the British Army and the minority have broken down. Any good relations that existed between them broke down more than a year ago, and it required no particular insight to foresee that the army without political initiative by their Government must end in disaster. Any illusions that anybody might have had that the British Army would act in a disciplined fashion at a time of public excitement were dispelled last Sunday by the conduct of the paratroopers in Derry, and we have made a call that those men should be court-martialled for the murders perpetrated.

This, of course, will not bring the dead back to life. The people killed in Derry were ordinary working-class people, and the count down of those killed in the North of Ireland indicates a preponderance of casualties on the civilian side. If this violence extends from Northern Ireland the same preponderance of civilian casualties will apply. I do not think any Deputy here should indulge in the traditional kind of politics that have been indulged in on the Northern issue over the years. I would hope that after Derry we could say goodbye to the practice of using that issue as electoral fodder in the Twenty-six Counties. I do not know one Deputy out of any party present in the House who is not for unity. I do not like the political or economic policies of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, I am critical of his methods, his dilatory approach but I do not question his sincerity on the question of Irish unity, nor do I question the sincerity of any other Deputy on that issue. Therefore, I would hope that we could say goodbye to this super-patriot cult which would suggest that some people in this assembly think more deeply about and long more strongly for Irish unity than other Deputies.

The problem is how to achieve the unity we all desire. It must be admitted that it will require the British Government's co-operation. I think even Deputy Neil Blaney admitted that in the past few weeks. However, the present British administration appears to be locked in total collusion with the rump of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland on security matters and all other vital matters affecting the area. We are up against the enormous problem of how to get through to Mr. Ted Heath. The all-party committee to which I have referred must be the agency for contact with the British Government and any other international institutions. The times are too dangerous for the Government to manage this on their own. All of us should say clearly to our constituents: "There is no division between any of the political parties in Leinster House on the Northern issue. Nobody claims to know all the answers. Nobody can claim to be more zealous than any other party." Quite frankly, not one amongst us knows all the answers.

Plainly, the British Army must go. What comes in its place? I have no clear answer. It is clear to me, however, that our problems do not disappear with the departure of the British Army. We must get some form of security force in the area. I believe that it will not be possible to avert civil war unless we can get some political shortterm settlement which, for a period, will create a sharing of power between Unionists and anti-Unionists in the North of Ireland on an equal basis, so that they may learn in a preparatory period what it would be like to live together in a united Ireland. We will not wake up one Monday morning and find ourselves in a united Ireland, which has happened without an intermediate stage of the most intense political effort. If a civil war takes place I do not believe that a united Ireland will be possible in this century or in the next. Not a great deal would be achieved by a civil war. We would have hundreds of dead and political boundaries altered minutely, perhaps, but substantially the problem of division would remain the same. But there would be many more Derry funerals.

I get the impression that many of our people are like children who are afraid of the dark, when looking at this problem: "We want our war with Britain but we want our totally dependent trading relationship with Britain to be retained intact. We want a war by resolution and manifesto, but not a war by bullet and bomb." Apparently the mental picture of some people is that the British Army departs, the subsidies are withdrawn, and unity is then ours—as Deputy Blaney said, we can take them over. I do not believe we can. I admit to the limitations of my view. I cannot fool myself. I cannot believe that this would be so. If ever we reach the stage where that happens and where those people come in with us without any trouble, I will have been totally wrong and I will admit it. I make the following admission: I am convinced of the present intransigence of the Unionists towards coming into a united Ireland. I do not believe they will be deserted by the British Tories in their intransigence and in their opposition to a united Ireland.

I agree with the Taoiseach that Border incidents can be very dangerous indeed. I believe we could find British tanks reach nearer to Lucan than we think if these Border incidents developed. I believe this about British Tory thinking. I do not think British Tories would greatly care about intervention and penetration deep into the territory of the Republic. The question I put to the House is: to whom would we appeal in that eventuality? Where are our friends in the world to whom we should appeal on the head of British invasion or British penetration of our territory? What would be our stance internationally if the British penetrated 50 miles into our territory and then withdrew, just to let us know exactly the kind of wogs they thought we were? What would be our reaction?

I get the impression that, in thinking about this situation, many of us have the idea that some miracle will take place, or that there will be some flash of recognition and all that was troublesome before will be rendered smooth. I do not believe that. I wish I could. I may be wrong, but I think the times are too serious for any of us to begin to criticise one another on the basis that some are less sincere than others about our desire for unity. We in this Assembly should come together and pool our resources, our contacts and our opinions. This all-party committee should be serviced by a full-time secretariat. It should not just be a casual weekly meeting of politicians of different parties smoking their pipes and talking about the weather. It should demonstrate to the people that it is the unified focal action of the Dáil parties on the whole issue of unity, the living expression of the agreement of Dáil Éireann on how the matter should be dealt with.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is this danger in the period immediately ahead of us, and I have referred to this danger before, the possible destruction of free institutions of democracy. So far we have shown a determination to resist any tendency in this direction. One consequence of the continuing impasse in the North, an impasse created by the British Tory Government with the continuation of internment without trial and the impossibility therefore of seeing the SDLP taking part in talks—a determination we support—one consequence of this continued confrontation between the streets and the British Army, must be a growing movement away from Parliament and free institutions in this part of the country. There is a very serious danger that this could happen down here.

In such a situation we will have to consider something like a national government. That time has not yet arrived, thank God, but it may not be very far away. I see no service to the cause of a united Ireland if democracy fails and free institutions wither away here. This could happen very rapidly. The people who would be responsible for the withering away of democracy on this side of the Border would be the elected representatives in this Assembly if they were unable to sink the party differences that belong to more peaceful, normal times. They would be responsible for burying democracy. They would be accessories to the burial of democracy. It would be no fitting tribute to the dead of Derry to see democracy fail in the rest of Ireland.

These are testing times for all of us. We must all do our best to avert what could be a disastrous turn of events in our history. We must bury party differences and come together to provide a unified approach to this whole question. There may be some unforeseen intervention which could avert what I fear; there may be a change of Government in Britain but that looks doubtful at present. The question remains whether the Taoiseach and the Government really appreciate the gravity of the situation we are now in, the furnace which the future may hold for us all. I wonder whether the journalists, the media generally, know what the future may hold for them and the freedom of expression which they have at present to comment on public affairs. Quite obviously if democracy goes, if there is an end to free institutions, the limitation on freedom will not simply apply to this assembly. It will apply to every institution, to newspapers and free expressions of opinion in the Twenty-six Counties.

My despair is this: I do not think the Tory Government give two hoots what happens to democracy in the rest of Ireland. We owe it to the Derry dead not to despair, to keep control of our emotions. What the people of Derry want from us is a constructive contribution. Our tribute to their sacrifice should be to discover how we construct the peace, how we get a unified people on the basis of that peace? If I am right in thinking that the crux of our problem is a division in political allegiance between Unionist and anti-Unionist on this island, who but a madman could suggest that war would settle our problems? Who but a madman would suggest that 3,000,000 people have the digestive tract to swallow 1,000,000 people? Because that is what we will be asked to do. Forged with blood what kind of unity would result? It would be the unity of the abbatoir.

The last funeral in Derry which evoked such interest was the funeral of Cusack and Beattie in the summer. Now we have had the funeral of 13 people. No man should be rash enough to say: "I have been proved right by this event or that event in the North." Let us grow accustomed to one thing. If the present course of violence continues, there will be many more deaths to mourn and many more gravesides to prove who was right and who was wrong. We are an emotional people. If the elected representatives at this time are not seen to have regard to the gravity of the situation, to the kind of sacrifice it demands, then other agents will act, other agents answerable to no creed or principle will take over. The legitimacy of democratic institutions will be overthrown here and any possibility of a peaceful solution will be totally eliminated. There is no doubt that these violent agents will not be so scrupulous, will not be too worried about means and will not be too worried about results, because finally I am not unconvinced that many of the people calling for change in the North are, in fact, even more interested in political change in the South. In many of the most revolutionary slogans we find lurking an ambition to run the old State, the Twenty-Six County State, rather than trying to do what others of us are trying to do: facing up to the problems that must be faced if we are to create a united Irish political state linking Unionist and anti-Unionist.

I did not intend to speak this long because there is nothing original in what I have to say except that I believe that this Dáil must have a far more purposeful role to play in giving leadership at this time. I believe we should sink political differences. If we cannot have a national Government, if conditions do not call for it at this time, I believe we can have a national Government in effect on the most important question before us, that of the North. I believe the minority in the North would welcome this. We would be giving an effective answer to the forces of anarchy and disorder, who in fact, if they win through, will bring no real unity to the Irish people, nothing but death, destruction and graveyard slogans.

I welcome the Taoiseach's decision to give financial aid to the alternative assembly in Dungiven. It is the very least we can do. It is a democratic forum in that area. It is a democratic assembly and, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stand or fall with the elected representatives of the minority of the Six County region, with the SDLP and the other elected representatives.

I began by saying I hoped, if our debate does not shine for oratory this time, that we will make up for it and we will be paying fitting tribute to all the young people, all the civilians, both Catholic and Protestant, who have died in this terrible conflict in the North over the last three years. We will be showing that our Parliament here is not worthless or a vain enterprise if we show our people that we are serious and ready to make any sacrifices necessary in defence of the future unity of our country.

Mr. Carter

I have listened to all the speeches so far, some of them highly intemperate and more of them cool, calm and collected. We on this side of the House have always expressed the view that war was not a solution to the reunification of our country. There is no doubt but that we have a ginger group and if this ginger group had its way it would land us in the position where we should find ourselves faced with solving this problem without weapons. It has long been held that force is not a solution for our difficulties but this does not deny the fact that we need a Defence Force here. We need to strengthen the arms of State and we need to recruit extra men for the Department of Defence. We need extra gardaí as well.

A good plea has been made by Deputy O'Leary on behalf of the institutions of State. Most Members of the House, no matter how they differ otherwise, will subscribe to this view. There has been a good deal of criticism in this debate today about lack of initiative on the part of the Government, not merely in this period but in the past. I would point out to those who make those assertions that many times during the last 30 years the Government made overtures to the North but regrettably the extreme left wing movement made up of the IRA and others stepped in to spoil any movement towards unity. All members of the House are well aware of this and it is, therefore, untrue to say that the various Governments here did not make the most of whatever opportunity presented itself to try to promote a better relationship with the North.

It is regrettable also that when the Labour Government in England left power and the Conservatives came into power the hardliners in the North seemed to sense that they had acquired a new lease of life. I went to the House of Commons to hear the former Home Secretary introduce the legislation necessary to send troops to Northern Ireland on 13th October, 1969. I cannot help but contrast the attitude of the present Home Secretary, Mr. Maudling, with that of the then Home Secretary, Mr. James Callaghan. In his speech he gave a summary of the fears of the Northern Protestants and he referred to the recommendations of the Cameron Report, which brought about the move at that time to police the North in a more favourable way, as it was then thought, by sending in the British Army. The British Army came and regrettably, when Mr. Maulding came in, the first night he appeared on TV he said that the British Army were sent in to defeat the IRA.

In our long history and in our dealings with various British Governments, we had a good deal of duplicity; we went through periods of high propaganda, periods when British politicians spoke in the House of Commons with one tongue and outside with another. This time we had the British Home Secretary suggesting that he was sending the British Army into Northern Ireland to defeat the IRA. It was the height of folly. He did it for one of two motives, either as a Conservative Home Secretary seeking justification for the presence of the British Army in Northern Ireland, or deliberately to strengthen the hands of the IRA so that the militants among us would be seen to react. It is not always possible in this House or elsewhere to profess peace, to profess unity through peaceful means, and I have my doubts of the genuineness of the British Home Secretary when he went deliberately before a large audience and stated that the British Army were being sent in to defeat the IRA. The IRA at that stage were a very small unit and I am charging the Home Secretary with malice aforethought. He said his purpose was to bring the IRA under control and I charge him with being an accessory to the addition of thousands of recruits to the IRA. This was often done in the past by British Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries. We should all regret that it should be repeated in 1971. I suppose it was to be expected from an introvert Englishman who had never looked outside his own shores except, possibly, to deal with some remote colony or another. He made a terrible mistake in that statement.

All of us regret the dreadful incidents of last week. In general, most people fear many more such incidents in the future but we cannot get away from the point that in a time of crisis we have to stand on our own as the people did in 1918 when another serious challenge faced the country. I am glad to see all Members of the House, with the exception of a tiny minority, subscribing to this point of view. We should not allow extreme militants to make the pace for us. In this context the Government have been criticised on the grounds of inactivity in so far as making representations on our position abroad is concerned. This is part of the usual desire to blame the Government for events over which we have very little control.

If a Government purport to be a Government they cannot delegate responsibility to any committee of the House. No doubt they may work in unison with the Leaders of the major parties in the House but I suggest to the House that it is not possible for any Government worthy of the name to divide responsibility for decision-making. If the country so wills, the Government can be put out of power. That is another story, but so long as the Government retain power they have to act accordingly. In this context a good number of people seem to think the Government are not in power and, perhaps, this was responsible for the enormous parade, the enormous show of strength through the streets of Dublin yesterday.

Be this as it may, I suggest we should not allow the extreme militants among us to make the pace at this stage. Therefore, I was pleased during the past fortnight when the announcement was made that the strength of the Garda was to be increased and that the Army also were to be strengthened, because in times of national stress one has to preserve the law. The institutions of State must be upheld at any cost and those who would try to pull them down must be put under.

On many occasions in the past, in 1798, 1801, 1916 and subsequently, we had those among us who could be termed splitters. We have them today. Splitters are splitters no matter how one looks at them. They split for a purpose. We have them in abundance today. This is why I was glad to see the Opposition in general coming to stand behind the Government at this time. I must pay a tribute to the senior members of the Opposition for their stand at this time. I also command all members of the Opposition as well as the actions of all others who have the real interests of the country at heart. One does not start off by knocking down the house one builds. There is no place at this stage for burners, looters or robbers. We will have to make this very clear in the coming period, that if we are to help the minority in Northern Ireland, we can only help them through the institutions of the State, not surreptitiously by unofficial means, not by violence and certainly not by acts of aggression as suggested by certain members of the community and a few Members of this House.

If I gathered right from my visits to the House of Commons at that stage, Mr. Callaghan felt, when he was sending in the troops, that he was sending them in to separate the communities in the no-go areas, as he called them, but he did not bargain for the fact that there would be a change of Government and that the hard-line Unionists would get the upper hand and regrettably we have hard-line Unionists. It is a regrettable fact that while we have intermingled and crossed the Border to and fro now and again even to various social functions, for upwards of 48 years, we had the people who purported to be the leaders in the North, people who were educated at public schools, some of them at Oxford and other higher centres of education——

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

We have some of them here, unfortunately.

Mr. Carter

And we have some of them here, people who, at the same time, marched behind the big drum and gave the ordinary worker in Northern Ireland the impression that if the Catholic population outgrew the Protestants, that was the end for them.

Mr. Callaghan on that day summarised the position very well. He dealt with those fears but he dealt also with the fears of the minority and the fears of the minority far outpaced the fears of the majority. The general fear of the majority was, and is today, that if they lose power, if the Unionists lose power in Northern Ireland, that is the end. They should be aware of the fact —I presume they are and so are their leaders—that the minority here are treated in the same way as the majority. This is why I never cease to wonder—if Deputy Thornley wishes to comment on that, we have had a mandate for it time and again and he will get a chance of going before the electorate and putting his views; if he gets that mandate, all right——

Dr. Thornley

I shall certainly comment upon it.

Mr. Carter

I hope so. It is these men who, as I said, acted up in a comic opera atmosphere—going out to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne, walking with the Apprentice Boys and so on—whom I blame for the debacle we are faced with at this stage after 50 years, and I also blame the ultra-patriots, who time and again when we tried to make overtures across the Border shot down our efforts. It is not today or yesterday that we had these extremists amongst us, these pseudo-patriots, these true-blue republicans, setting out to climb the heights and secure the ultimate freedom, but what have they done? They have provided a vehicle for the British Government to send their paratroopers into the no-go areas, as Mr. Callaghan said, and have provided a vehicle, in my opinion, for the murders which took place in Derry last week. We cannot have it both ways. We either subscribe to the democratic institutions of the State or we do not, and we cannot go about preaching pacificism with a book in one hand and a revolver in the other, and the sooner all of us get this clear the better. This should not prevent us from adopting what this House and the Government deem to be the proper measures to deal with the present menace, the present position in the North. This will not prevent us from helping our fellow-citizens there; this will not prevent us from sending all the aid we can to them; and this will not prevent us from providing shelter and refuge for them, if necessary.

At this point we cannot subscribe to the view that we can shoot our way into unity. The Taoiseach time and again, and especially since 1968, has made it crystal clear that Unionists or Protestants have nothing to fear from the Government here, or any Government established here. He made it quite clear that there were equal rights and equal opportunities, but despite that, the teachings of those, who, as I say, should know better, down the years apparently are going to prevail and this fear of the dominance of the Catholic population is the root cause of this whole matter. It is too bad then that the Unionists are going to insist that ultimately the whole of Northern Ireland will be a no-go area; it is too bad if the mounting deathroll is to go on; it is too bad if the British Government do not see the end of the road in regard to violence; it is too bad if the British Government do not see that they are feared and hated from the Continent of India, round about Africa and right down by the Bay of Biscay; and it is too bad that a dense Government in 1972 present that picture because I do not think this is the general aim of the ordinary British citizen. But at this time this is the image which is being presented by the British Government.

I remember 1940 when we were assembling an Army. We did not have much of an Army before that but it did not take us long to assemble a fairly good Army and to equip it. We also assembled a local defence force. I think we can do it again; I think we should do it, not with any ulterior motive but for the purpose of providing for law and order at home and ensuring that the elected Government, whatever Government that may be, carry the assent of the electorate, and will carry the assent of those who are violent among us and who believe that by bomb and bullet we can solve our difficulty. What we did before we can do again and we should do it as rapidly as we can.

We should not be too critical of a Government who have faced very difficult problems in the last three to four years, not merely problems abroad but problems at home. When we refer to the under-strength of the Army or Garda it is my submission that we had priorities and we could not divide the money we had in such a way as to build up the forces. If we did we would have neglected some other arm of our economy.

Mr. O'Higgins

On the subject of the North of Ireland, the division of our country and the hope for unity of our country, there is no side in this House, no Deputy in this House and no party in this House who can with justification deal with the subject confident that he or they have always been right. The division of our country and the problems arising from it have, unfortunately, found nothing but a sort of studied interest in this House in years gone by. It has been an area of considerable neglect for many decades in relation to the functioning of this House and in relation to the administration of different Governments. In this debate when I hear any Deputy saying: "Our point of view has always been correct" or "I foretold this" or "I said something was going to happen and I am entitled to a pat on the back for that" I suspect such an approach because we have to bring to the problem of the division of our country a great deal of humility and I hope a great deal of dedication and sincerity. It is a problem which has grown by reason of neglect over many years past and it is a problem which is today much more acute and much more difficult of solution than it might have been some time in the recent past.

We have this debate today because of the shock everybody felt at the events that took place in Derry last Sunday where by reason of the inevitable logic of an unjust situation defenceless people were shot down, murdered—and I do not think we should be the slightest bit reluctant to use that word "murdered"—by British forces, by soldiers of the Queen, acting presumably on orders, firing directly at defenceless people and having done the damage, having killed 13 people, then proceeding, through their officer, to create a web of deceit, trying to suggest that events had occurred which had not occurred and trying to prevaricate and set up the usual kind of excuse for those who have done wrong, that it was not their fault.

We are having this debate because of that, because from the dreadful events of the last two years or three years, there is now a situation in part of our country where violence and killing are so common that people scarcely are concerned or surprised or shocked at events of this kind. This is dreadful. It has come about because in the last three years those who ought to have listened to the voice of reason did not pay heed in time. Many opportunities have been missed. Much could have been done in 1968, much could have been done in 1969, in 1970 and 1971, but what might have been is now just so much more added on to the problem that we have to face.

I suppose there is no point in this House in trying to get the ear of the British Government, or trying to speak out from here to those in charge in Westminster, but let us at least state here and have it to say that we were able to say it, the sands of time are running out very fast in so far as the North of Ireland is concerned. There has been lip-service to the desirability of a political initiative, of breaking the deadlock situation, of some new political intervention. People say that. When is it going to take place? The facts are known. Internment was wrong. It has been declared by the elected representatives of the minority that as long as internment is there they will not talk or meet or discuss the common problem with others. That is a fact and, if words mean anything, presumably that is a fact that everybody has to live with. It is no good wishing that their attitude might be otherwise. It is no good saying that perhaps if they put it in a different way a whole lot of other things might be possible. The plain fact is that they have put it on the line that as long as internment remains they will not be in a position to talk or to discuss what is a common problem facing all of us. Does that mean that things are to end in that situation and that with internment continuing there will be no talk but just a continuance of a deteriorating situation in which one incident follows another and there is the cumulative effect of a whole lot of incidents into a situation of almost complete civil war?

I do not want to make any suggestions from here but it appears to me that this is a situation in which farseeing and big-minded intervention is required from the British Government. I do not think anyone now regards the Stormont situation, the Stormont Government, as important. The tide has receded from that position. I do not think anyone could imagine the possibility of the restoration of the Stormont situation as it was three or four years ago. It just is not on; it cannot happen. Whatever is going to take place in the future, everybody realises that there is going to be a very drastic and profound change. In that situation, if we are not to foresee more bloodshed, more killings, more funerals, more distress, this is the time if ever there was one, when the Prime Minister of England should take this matter entirely into his own hand and initiate a new movement on the political stage which may bring some prospect of success.

The British troops are there. We will not go back over the circumstances in which they arrived in 1969 or the climate in which they arrived or the way in which they were greeted by the people at that time, but it is perfectly clear now that the British troops in the North of Ireland are regarded with hatred by the people in the minority there. It is clear that if there is to be any stage set for fruitful discussion, some decision must be taken to change the troop situation in the North. A phased withdrawal has been mentioned. Whatever it may be, they are now a source of provocation, of fear and a source of division and polarisation in the North.

I know there are difficulties about a United Nations force. It may be that it is possible for some other international police force to be made available in the North. I can appreciate that you could not, at least, in my view you should not, withdraw British troops without providing some other force in their place but, if confidence is to be restored in this part of our country, some form of police force or security force must be there to give a feeling of protection and security to both the majority and the minority. I should like to see some steps taken in that direction and I believe that can only be done by the personal intervention of the Prime Minister of England.

Many of us were there in Derry on Tuesday. As other Deputies have mentioned, I think anyone who was in Derry, in the church, at the funerals, will always carry with him the memory of the poignancy, the dreadful sorrow, the awful calamity and the tragedies that had afflicted the people of Derry and the unfortunate families concerned. As I was there, I could only wish that in that church on that occasion at that funeral there might have been some representative of the British Government or, indeed, of the Stormont Government, somebody there to see what had happened, this tragedy that had beset a community and 13 different families. Anyone who was there and saw it must feel a responsibility to do something to avert a repetition of a tragedy of that kind. Unfortunately, there was no one there to see from those Governments and one can only hope that public opinion can convey the message to the British Government and to the Government in Stormont of the immensity of that tragedy.

We declared a day of mourning. The purpose in doing that was to emphasise the shock felt by, it is fair to say, everybody on this island, in relation to what happened last Sunday. It was a national day of mourning on which our people mourned with the relatives of the 13 persons killed in Derry. That day of mourning and the fact that it was held and that these deaths were marked in that way must have some effect on public opinion outside this country, outside this island. Is it too much to hope that the message in some way may get home to the Government in Britain and to those who have present responsibility in relation to the North of Ireland? A nation does not go into mourning for nothing and this nation went into mourning because a tragedy had occurred, something dreadful had happened and we marked it in that way because that was the only way in which a small country can ask for justice from a more powerful neighbour.

The cry for justice that went out from the national day of mourning yesterday was a cry that can, I think, be fairly said to come from the 13 graves of these 13 victims. It was a cry for justice from the future government of this country, a cry which, I hope, will be listened to by those who have responsibility. That day of mourning was, of course, used by others here in this part of the country for their own fell purposes. They were not concerned with the division of our country, with Partition, or with the eventual reunification of our country, North and South, and they used this opportunity to turn an honourable, decent expression of sympathy and sorrow into an occasion for rioting and destruction. I should like to join the Taoiseach in condemning those who used the occasion for the purpose of destroying the building occupied by the British Embassy here.

In his speech today the Taoiseach recognised, belatedly perhaps, that this State is threatened by forces, groups and movements which operate under the cloak of patriotism but which are concerned only with the destruction of democracy. I share the views expressed by Deputy M. O'Leary who referred to this a short while ago. We have got to be very certain where we are going. The division of our country and the deprivation of citizens of Ireland of normal civil rights are things about which we know and things about which we feel. These are things with which we are concerned. We would like to be able to solve these problems. Unfortunately there are those who use the frustration we feel in order to try to destroy this institution of parliament and the democracy we have here in this part of our country. They are people willing to use the North as a sounding board for all sorts of destructive views and aims.

They are those who want to establish here a kind of military dictatorship in which no view will obtain except that laid down by the small clique who will control the state. Deputies have a certain responsibility. I hope that we will hear from Deputy Haughey in this debate. I hope that we will find out exactly where every man stands. Deputy Blaney, Deputy Sherwin, Deputy Haughey, these are the Deputies who have talked about republicanism as if it were some special gift that descends on certain Deputies in this House.

Mr. Haughey

I came in here to hear the Deputy. I paid him the courtesy of coming in to listen to what he has to say.

This is a debate in which it is impossible to speak with any pleasure. I think we would all agree about that. I should start by congratulating Deputy Blaney on something and while I hold no brief for Deputy Blanev, I think Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy O'Higgins descended from their normal impeccable standards of Parliamentary debate by implying that Deputy Blaney was advocating war here. I do not think he was—as will be seen if his words are analysed when the Official Report comes out—nor do I think that Deputy Haughey, who as a very senior and important Member of this House waited here to listen to the debate, should promptly have been made a cockshot by Deputy O'Higgins. I think we should congratulate Deputy Blaney on one thing and that is that it would have been absolutely disgraceful on the part of the Government if this debate had not taken place. It must be recognised that we came in here to conclude the Defence Estimate and take up the Estimate for Fisheries. We owe it principally to Deputy Blaney and Deputy Sherwin, with all their faults—I am no particular ally of theirs—and to this party that this debate is taking place at all. But for them it would not be, and we would now be within some hours of concluding Fisheries, presumably. Let us at least put that on record.

Like everybody else, I feel this is no time for point-scoring or "I-told-you-so's," no time for hawkishness for the sake of hawkishness, no time—I agree with Deputy O'Higgins—for republican, holier-than-thou breast-beating. I promise the House I do not intend to indulge in that. At the same time, one must recognise the national mood at this moment and make allowance for it even if at times one thinks it is wrong. Deputy O'Higgins referred to a mood of euphoria; I do not think that is the right word. I think it is more a mood of horror and, above all else, frustration.

I was not in Derry on Wednesday; perhaps I should have been. I was one of those in the crowd outside the Embassy. I certainly was not a petrol-bomb thrower nor do I believe in petrol-bombing, either throwing petrol bombs at animate targets, which I regard as murder, or at inanimate targets, which I regard as rather pointless but, in the mood which prevailed in the city of Dublin that day, I could not find it in my heart to condemn those who threw bombs into the British Embassy. I am glad we did not apologise for that action. We had to accept the expense consequent upon it. I suppose this is a diplomatic necessity but I am sorry in a way that we did not say to the British Government that while we regret the destruction of their property, so long as they continue to send uniformed assassins to murder Irish people they must realise that by preserving an embassy in the city of Dublin they are running something of a risk. It is no more than a statement of fact to say that yesterday the temper of people was so great that it would have required more than the army of police possessed by Mayor Daly in Chicago to turn aside the sense of horror and outrage expressed by the people.

If anything sums up this debate for me and sums up yesterday's experiences it is that one word "frustration" rather than "euphoria". To me this is what the people were doing outside the British Embassy: expressing above all else the sentiment that there was nothing they could do, that they were irrelevant, that each of the parties here was, in a sense, irrelevant, that each of the parties here had failed in a sense to provide the leadership for them which they sought. They could not, even if they morally so willed, march upon the North and destroy 17,000 British soldiers and dragoon one million Protestants into the South. In effect, they could do nothing. That explains the petrol bombs, the bricks and the cheers and shouts of "More, more". Frustration explains that more than any sinister infiltration by armed groups. It was a natural, incoherent, spontaneous reaction.

Deputy FitzGerald said there must be an end to deaths. This is true but what power do we possess to end deaths? We cannot will an end to deaths by asserting in this House that we are opposed to them. I have made this point again and again and I have been accused of being sympathetic to violence by making it. Condemnations of violence in themselves do not stop violence; constructive solutions must be found. It is not sufficient for us in this House to say we are ready to help the Government to do precisely what I am not clear; that we are ready to form an all-party committee to do precisely what I am not clear either. We must recognise that to those tens of thousands who thronged the streets of Dublin yesterday we have become a largely irrelevant institution and expressions of solidarity among us— and I do not wish to rock the boat of amity as it swims around this semicircular Chamber—do very little to palliate or relieve either the grief of the people of Derry or the frustration of the people of Dublin. They serve only to remind us that perhaps the kindest thing that can be said of some of my colleagues is that the mahogany has entered into their souls.

This poses the frightful dilemma of the moderate at this time when the shots are being called literally by violent men. Does one accept this as a fact and embark on a process led by violent men with whose political, social and military principles most, indeed all of us, including myself, have nothing in common? Or, does one, on the other hand, ignore the outrage and frustration of the people and allow oneself to be washed away in the tide of history like Dillon and Redmond were in Ireland and Kerensky was in Russia? I am not saying these are the only two polarities but they are the two frightful polarities facing not merely us but also unfortunate people like Hume, Cooper, Devlin and others in the North. They have a similar problem. Do you join them or do you sit back and let them beat you?

In between there is constructive leadership, a demonstration to them of our total involvement in their problems. Where do we find this? Have we yet found it in this House? I am not sure we have. I assert again the pointlessness of simply condemning violence. When I said this before in this House in the context of the killing of an elderly man in the North I was accused of being a "Provisional" or an "Official" or something like that. Now the mood of the House has changed. Why? Basically, let us face it, because it is our lot who are getting it this time and not their lot.

Violence can always be condemned particularly when it is provocative. If evil men had shot from that crowd in Derry at the British Army I would have been the first to condemn them but in this instance no provocative violence was used. Calculated, mass-murder, naked and unashamed, was revealed on television films and in the reports of those present, not merely Irishmen and women who are suffering the violence of the British Army, but people as detached, objective and removed from this conflict as an Italian journalist with no axe to grind, whose reports are striking in their starkness and honesty. I suggest that a point which has not been made too often in this House is that we face a new and still more horrible situation because of the nakedness of the violence which took place on Sunday and because of the source from which it emanates, to wit, direct, as we can all accept it to be, and deliberate use of violence by the British military forces in that area. I shall return briefly to that point. I do not want to go into it at any greater length at this stage in case I appear to be in any way sustaining violence, which I do not.

What do we do? That is the constructive question. We take initiatives. Some of the initiatives taken by the Government have been good. It is good that we should demand direct rule. The Taoiseach is right to have sent the Minister for Foreign Affairs Deputy Hillery to New York and he is right to contemplate that Deputy Hillery should visit the EEC countries. It is also correct that the last remaining vestige of our forces in Cyprus should be withdrawn. No man of goodwill could fail to commend these exercises and hope that they worked but which, without wishing to make party political points which I am not doing, they must see in the present national atmosphere and in this crisis situation which we face to be both too little and too late. I called for the withdrawal of troops from Cyprus last August. I was not supported on this even in my own party. As far as I recall, Deputy Haughey also called for this withdrawal at that time. Done then, it might have been more effective as an international gesture rather than now.

I thought Deputy Sherwin made a very good point which I did not expect him to make and which I had down to make myself. That was when he deplored the Taoiseach's suggestion that the troops should be withdrawn from—I quote—"the predominantly Catholic areas". This is a line of argument which I find personally intensely distasteful. As far as I am concerned, the troops should be withdrawn. The public admission by our Prime Minister that there are things called predominantly Catholic areas, which should be treated in some way different from other unspoken things which presumably are predominantly Protestant areas, is not a chain of reasoning which is acceptable to me. The troops should be totally withdrawn, and not just the paratroops, and should be replaced by a United Nation peace-keeping force. I realise all the attendant difficulties of this and I cannot go into these difficulties in what remains of my half hour but I consider these exercises to be absolutely necessary.

I disagree totally with Deputy Blaney in one respect. I cannot quote him precisely, although I was listening intently to his words. He seemed to imply that this issue, this turmoil in our country was one which ultimately must be settled locally. I would put seriously to Deputies the complete opposite, that is, that the key to this whole question is on the level of international politics. The British are concerned deeply with their foreign image, but not where it affects us. It is no great secret that on the telephone on the night of the murders Mr. Heath told the Taoiseach more or less what he could do with himself with regard to the complaints about the horrific events of that day. When I say that the matter should be dealt with internationally I do not think it can be dealt with by negotiations with Britain. The time for cups of tea with British leaders, whether they be Tory or Labour, has passed. I am glad Deputy Dr. Hillery has gone to the United Nations. I would say that he should address the General Assembly and that he should do more than that. He should, with straightforward determination, demonstrate our independence of Britain—an independence which for a considerable time was demonstrated in the foreign policy of our former Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Aiken. He should reassert that independence by appearing suddenly in Moscow to proclaim that we might indeed have friends in parts of the world other than those that we would seem to have. In our home and foreign policy we have tied ourselves so closely to the British in respect of international and European affairs, with specific reference to the Common Market, that now when we find ourselves in conflict with the United Kingdom of which we have been, speaking effectively, a client State for so many years, we are at a loss to understand how to deal with the situation. I suggest that this is because we have never understood the role of British imperialism in this country. I suggest that the Minister should go to Moscow and elsewhere.

There are examples both of the effectiveness of such action and of precedents for it. As an example of the effectiveness of it one has only to think of what the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr. Mintoff, succeeded in securing from the British and the Americans by threatening them not merely with the mighty presence of the Russians but with the rather less significant presence of the Libyans. Also, there is an historical precedent for this. Almost 51 years ago, when our nation was suffering similar stresses, the bones of a treaty were laid down by our present President and Dr. McCartan on the one side and the representative of the Bolsheviks on the other, a treaty guaranteeing reciprocal assistance on the basis of Bolshevik support for the recognition of the Republic of Ireland as an independent State. Therefore, anyone who wishes to throw the accusation of Communism at me for making this suggestion had better check back on the history books and on the conduct in those days of our present President.

We should hammer at the doors of the headquarters of the European Economic Community, although I fear that this would be a fruitless exercise because we would be speaking as an insignificant nation, as a nation which has expressed so much enthusiasm for the EEC that now its detachment from Britain will not be effective. These things should be tried. Perhaps some of us do not realise how much the implications of this turmoil are being discussed around the world and to what extent they are being understood. One of my students, who is a German, was able to tell me this morning that she stayed up late to listen to German news bulletins last night in which the implications of Irish affairs were discussed. We are not utilising these measures sufficiently.

I know I may be accused of militism in what I say now. I agree with Deputy Blaney on one point. Not merely should we recall our troops from Cyprus but we should call up the reserve and put the FCA on a stand-by basis. I know that I will be told at once that the fighting strength of these forces is almost minimal. I will probably be asked: "Are you really urging that we should march on Newry? Are you suggesting that we could take on the might of the British Empire?" Of course I am not. At the same time, let me repeat the point that this battle is being fought on an international level and unless we can alert the attention not merely of the British, who are largely disinterested in our problems, but of the whole of international public opinion, we will not succeed because we are too small.

Furthermore, the situation has now been reached that before the demonstration in Newry takes place on Sunday—and I do not know whether it will—the Taoiseach should issue a solemn warning that, if Newry on Sunday produces another Derry or another Sharpeville, we will not treat this lightly, that we will regard it as the creation of a major international incident. I know this is dangerous. I know there are evil men in the illegal armies who could provoke an incident which, in turn, would bring about the doomsday situation that we all fear. If the Taoiseach is to stand over seriously his role as second guarantor of the rights of the beleaguered minority in the North, he must issue this stern warning. What faces us now is a situation none of us expected. Deputies on every side of the House fear the horrific prospect of a doomsday situation provoked by the IRA either sincerely or wilfully on their part, the hoisting of the tricolour in Newry. This is what we feared in 1970 and 1971.

We are faced now with a different situation. The history of the question "who provoked who first" is now academic. Was it the IRA or was it the British during the past two years? The excellent research carried out by The Sunday Times, of all people, would suggest it was the British Army which first changed from the role of impartial arbitrator to the role of aggressor. However, the historians can discuss that after the contemporary citizens are dead, but we are now in a situation where the British Army have not merely assumed the role of aggressor but where they may provoke a doomsday situation. This is a horrific thought and something we must consider.

It may sound strange but we know the British military mind. We know that professional soldiers, particularly of the type of commandos, marines and paratroopers, are taught and trained to kill and that no man who has acquired a skill likes to allow it become rusty but enjoys the opportunity to practise it. We saw that in Derry on Sunday last. We must accept the consequences of this. We must accept that one of the consequences of this is that the heroes in the Creggan, the Falls, Ballymurphy or Ardoyne are not us; by now they are not even the official IRA; they are the Provisionals. This is a horrific thought, a thought which leads me to the conclusion that these people, who in some cases are sincere and honest men but who in many cases are mindless exponents of fascist violence, enemies of democratic institutions both North and South, may yet some day so capture the public imagination in this island that all of us can carry our reverence for democracy into the dictating of our memoirs in the manner that Redmond and Dillon did in the early twenties of this century or that Kerensky did for 50 years in Russia. Let no one say I welcome that prospect. It is perhaps something that our own inertia here has brought about as much as anything else. I detest it but I am trying to bring home to the House that it is something we face.

I have spoken of the military mind of the British. What about the ordinary British people? These are the ones we must reach. This has been said by many people during this debate, including Deputy FitzGerald. I know the ordinary British people better perhaps than anyone else in this House. I was born in England. I was brought up amongst them for 15 years; individually they are a likeable, decent, rather humourless race; collectively they have the longest record of mindless imperialism of any country in the western world. Ireland, as far as they are concerned, is a remote, rather pleasant place of whose exact location they are not quite sure. Its troubles derive from the peculiar whimsicality of the Irish and it is in no sense the job of the English working-class man to try and penetrate what those troubles are.

However, this is changing and this is one of the few hopeful signs. That very British Press which all of us have correctly condemned for its biased reporting of the events in Ireland is slowly changing, and more important the British popular press. It is no good if we have The Sunday Times or The Guardian on our side, but today's Daily Mirror, a mass circulation newspaper, can bring out a five point plan calling for the withdrawal of British troops, a UN force, the end of internment, talks on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland and the appointment of a special Cabinet Minister to deal with the North. When you get that into a paper that is bought by virtually every man who follows horses and soccer—and these are the English we have to deal with —then you are making progress, and I hope that we in the Labour Party will contribute with our links with the unions in making progress here to make the British realise that what is happening in the North is not “our brave boys being shot down by masked murderers” which undoubtedly is the impression that they have largely been allowed to acquire over the last six months.

Let us finally be self-critical in the very few minutes remaining to me. I hope I have been reasonably constructive here, and I hope I have left no one with the impression that I in any way endorse or approve of violence. I simply perceive it as a phenomenon which is a hateful fact of life today in Ireland and which is daily winning more support. The most unpleasant thing you can say about the horror of Derry on Sunday is that it was the greatest recruiting episode in the history of the Provisional IRA.

Let us then be self-critical. What have we done to justify demanding that the Unionists come in? "British out" is an easy slogan. It sounds good chanted on a march. In some cases here today we have been as two-faced as we have been over the last 50 years. We live in a socially unjust and denominationally unitary State. The Protestants of the North have genuine fears of the constitutional and other biases we have here against them. Dr. Paisley, with whom somebody rightly said in this debate we shall have some day to deal, has expressed these fears repeatedly. Deputy Carter, in one of his lovely solecisms, said that in this House the minority was treated exactly as the majority. That is the point, they are; they are treated as if they were Catholics, expected in the main to have Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals, a Catholic Constitution, Catholic laws. What have we done about this?

Whenever we speak here of the repeal of Article 44 or the Article on divorce, or the laws on contraception and censorship then the other side of our sincerity is seen. Can we really be receptive towards Northern Protestants and still take this double-faced attitude? Much is made of the necessity for a declaration of intent by the British that they will do certain things —for example, get out of the North over a period of 15 years. How about a declaration of intent from the Taoiseach that he will set up a representative commission to remove all traces of discrimination in our laws and institutions? We talk here about an all-party committee. How about an all-party declaration of intent that we will do that? Let us open a book and see how many of the 144 Deputies here will sign to that. At least Griffith and Collins, to do them justice, faced with not a dissimilar situation, took into their closest and most intimate confidence the Protestant leaders of the day, the Glenavys, the Andrew Jamesons, before they set up the Constitution of their time, and not merely the Constitution but the whole complexion of the State.

Let us show our goodwill to the North by calling in to Dr. Buchanan and saying: "What do you think would be the correct way to run community schools?" Let us change the complexion of our State education. Let us cease to have a situation in which the hospitals are virtually in the hands, with a few exceptions, of a single group. Let us raise our social services to a level where we can look on our industrious Northern brethren and ask them to join us.

I have spoken very rapidly and intensely, not so much that I wanted to sound vehement but that I wanted to get a lot in in half an hour. In the main, my feeling would be two-fold: first, if this conflagration is to be averted, then all the issues leading up to it must be transferred to a massive campaign the like we have never seen before. We can no longer talk of civil rights simply. Many of us would wish for the situation of 1969 when civil rights were the issue, but you cannot propound the solutions of 1969, 1970 and 1971 in 1972. Even Harold Wilson has shown that the unity of our country is now on the agenda of one of the two great political parties, which it has not been since 1893.

We must face up to our obligations, and we shall not face up to them either, on the one hand, by the empty green republicanism of associating ourselves with the dead who cannot speak for themselves and claiming their virtues as our virtues, as some of us tend to do; nor, on the other hand, by asserting the historic unity of this island as if it was an absolute statement to be accepted by the Unionists on any terms. We must marry the two together and show that, while we cling to the historic determination that our island is one and indivisible, at the same time we accept that there are faults and flaws in our system, and we must make declarations of intent such as will allay the fears of the Unionists of the North, some of which are provoked artificially by British imperialism but some of which have been provoked by our own sloth and cowardice in this House.

Mr. Dowling

There has been an appeal to the Members here to speak without emotion. Having been born in January, 1922, I am one of the first free-born generation of Irishmen. Conscious of the efforts that have been made down through the years and the lives that have been given in order to achieve freedom, many of us will have some ideas that are generally accepted but also other ideas which are broadly different. We were horrified to see this tragedy in Derry last Sunday. How different has the tragedy of Derry been from the previous tragedies in Irish history. The road to freedom and to basic human rights has been paved with the bodies of countless thousands of Irish men and women, added to by the 13 young men who died in Derry last Sunday. This road to freedom is a difficult one. We have not yet attained the ultimate freedom and nothing less than that will satisfy the great bulk of our people. We shall achieve that ultimate freedom. The methods that have been suggested are acceptable to me. I do not believe in mob-law. I believe that every effort should be made to ensure that there will be no further bloodshed, that Irishmen whether Catholic or Protestant, will not meet the end which those unfortunate people met in Derry last Sunday. This bloody massacre in Derry by the British soldiers in this never to be forgotten bloodbath will certainly inspire many people in future generations to be conscious of the efforts made by people in the past, and of the attitude of British soldiers and British politicians to Irish men and women.

These foul assassins have been applauded by the British Government and by the puppets in the North. They have been publicly applauded for their efforts in peacekeeping last Sunday. This solution was adopted by the British and put into operation 50 years ago and it now takes regiments of the British Army, regiments of paratroopers, to be pumped into the North to maintain peace. This shows clearly the failure of the settlement that was foisted upon us by Britain in the not-too-distant past.

There is nothing new in the type of brutality meted out by uniformed butchers last Sunday. It is difficult to speak with restraint on an occasion like this, particularly when one feels for the unfortunate, innocent people who were shot down in cold blood. This human suffering and human misery we witnessed in Derry yesterday is a repetition of the tragedies of the past. Deputy Sherwin said that every person up there is now a member of the IRA. The mothers and families of the young men who were brutally shot down last Sunday repudiated that and said their sons were not a party to gun fights in any shape or form. To suggest now that everyone there is a member of the IRA is to give licence to the British to shoot down innocent people at random. I hope Deputy Sherwin will correct this.

The relatives of the innocent people who were done to death last Sunday, and the people close to them, have repudiated that suggestion. The funerals yesterday were a clear indication that they took no part in gun battles and that they were not members of organ-isations. To suggest that everyone there is a member of the IRA is to give licence to the British Army to shoot again at unfortunate innocent people. There are many people there who believe in peaceful means and who believe that they have a right to make a peaceful protest in their own country, and this they have. They have a right to march in Newry next Sunday if they so desire. It is their country and our country and impostors from outside have no right to tell us when or where we can march.

We had the explanation given last Sunday by Major General "Three-Shot" Ford. After the event he indicated that his troops fired three rounds at snipers on the roofs but shot 13 unfortunate people and injured 16 others on the ground. This is the type of justification we get from British Army majors and this is the type of justification that has been given in the past. We are well aware of the type of individuals who have been sent to this country both now and in the past. We had Major "Pitchcap" Sirr, for example. Yesterday I was told in Derry that many people believe that these people who shot down in cold blood the unfortunate victims last Sunday were high on drugs at that time. It could be an explanation that these members of the British Army were high on drugs. Major Ford and Major Tugwell and thugs of this type who made erroneous statements which have been repudiated time and again since are the type of people who are sent in to do the dirty work of Health and his companions. I do not trust British politicians either in or out of office, no matter to which party they belong. In the past they have not shown any great consideration for us. I am quite certain they will not show any in the future.

We are aware of the atrocities that took place during the arrest of personnel and later on in the confines of the internment camps. We also know of the other types of individuals, the lords and the ladies, who have spoken out in the past few days. We in this country have had our quota of lords and ladies, like Lord "Cut-throat" Castlereagh who imposed the Act of Union on this country. It was said at that time that the Irish people had to pay for the very knife with which he cut his throat, just as they will have to pay for the burned out shell of the British Embassy. I hope he got a good one on that occasion. I have no regrets about any action taken by frustrated people if they take it in an orderly fashion. I can well understand the utter confusion in the minds of the people who attempted to protest in this way. I do not condone it but I can understand it.

We also remember another General, the "Butcher" Maxwell who in the not-too-distant past dug his limepits up at Arbour Hill and was fairly free with the distribution of ammunition, and the Black-and-Tans and other people who were sent here to crucify this nation over the years. Last Sunday was a repetition of this type of foul and dirty deed. On this occasion it was an unforgivable offence that unfortunate innocent children were gunned down at a range of one or two yards. The attitude of soldiers in gunning down people at a range which was indicated by priests and others whose word I accept was the attitude of a savage or a cannibal.

Those are the types of individuals who were sent here as a peacekeeping force. They are not a peacekeeping force; they are an occupation force, occupying this country and buttressing the wall of partition. I hope that the day is not too far distant when they will be gone completely from the country. We should tell Heath to get his murderers out of this country. It is our country and we do not want them. I am quite certain that in their own way the people in the North could do a far better job than the gang that was foisted upon us, the paratroopers and others.

To further indicate the attitude to these murders, Mr. Heath and his advisers have indicated that they have further plans to send in more paratroopers and to pump into this country a greater number of troops to proceed on this foul trail of destruction against innocent people. Too many people have lost their lives in this country down through the years by the assassin's bullet or in some cases at the hands of the British hangmen. The British were never any friends of ours. They are not concerned about us today.

I heard many stories yesterday. When the paratroopers entered the Bogside many people who were close to them believe that they were high on drugs. If people were playing "Mauser music" on the top of the flats, I am quite certain that a number of the paratroopers would not be around today. Heath should be told to get these people out. I am quite certain that the puppet Government in the North, bad as they are, could do a better job than the paratroopers and possibly do it in a more humane way.

I do not condone mob law. The institutions of this State should be upheld and we should do everything to ensure that they are upheld. The word has gone out and should go out from each and every politician here that we stand behind the lawfully elected Government, that we will ensure that the people will have the freedom and the protection necessary, that we will not tolerate other forces taking the law into their own hands, that we will suppress them in every way possible, and that we will do the job we were sent here to do in an effective way.

The brutality of last Sunday has meant that the true story of the occupation of this country has penetrated deep into the hearts of many people. Many men served this nation honourably in arms, Old IRA men and others, and played their part effectively down through the years to get for me and for many others the freedom we have today. We want to see the young men of Derry and Belfast and the young men of the occupied counties enjoying the same freedom as we have. They are entitled to that freedom. I want to say to the Taoiseach that I hope this Government will go forward now knowing that we are united here, except for one or two Members of the House. Unity of purpose is what we require. We must show the country, Britain and the world that we are united in this matter.

I was glad to hear some of the speeches from the Fine Gael and Labour Members today endorsing the actions of the Government and the speech of Dr. Hillery. His appearance on television cleared the way for many people who had doubts whether the action taken was decisive enough. We are well aware that decisive action will be taken in order to ensure so far as we can that we will work towards the unity of this nation. I hope this House will be completely united in their thinking. I hope some of the erroneous statements that have been made by some of the speakers will be erased from the record and that they will be repudiated so that no unfortunate innocent people will be the victims of further gunfire because they have been branded in the way they have been here today.

We require a strong and united effort because divided we are weak. We must show on this occasion that we are strong, that we are united and that we will follow the policy laid down here today. If this policy does not succeed then we must sit down and think out another one. This policy must be given a fair trial in order to ensure that the people in the six occupied counties will have the same freedom that we have. There may be some defects in the set-up here, as Deputy Thornley stated. I do not agree that contraceptives will entice people into this part of the country. I believe it is an insult to indicate that this is one of the factors. There are many other major factors but that is not one of them.

From this House a call should go to Irishmen serving in the British Army to throw off their uniforms and so show that they are not a party to this brutal murder which took place and that they will not endorse those tactics on fellow Irishmen. If there are people in the British Army who are prepared to do this and to protest against this type of brutality we should find a place for them here. We should ensure that they will be at no financial loss even if it means absorbing them into our own force here. There is a recruitment campaign going on at the moment and I am quite sure if men are honourable enough to throw off their British uniforms and say that they do not endorse the butchery which took place in Derry last Sunday then we must ensure that we will find a place for them in our Army here, that they will be at no financial loss and that their service will be properly compensated.

I would appeal to the House to be completely united in our approach to show the world at large that we are united in relation to this matter, that we will ensure if a tragedy such as Derry takes place again we will have to rethink the situation and think out another means of dealing with a desperate situation such as that we witnessed last Sunday.

Mr. Sherwin

On a point of order, may I say in relation to what Deputy Dowling said, so that he will not go home tonight believing what he said was what I said, that in speaking to people from the Creggan they informed me that their menfolk were members of the IRA. It was not I who said it. It was the people from the Creggan.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): This emergency debate is being held here today because 13 unarmed civilians were indiscriminately shot by members of the British forces in Derry city last Sunday while holding a protest meeting to protest against internment without trial in Northern Ireland. The slaughter of those 13 men has shocked the people of this country. Indeed, it has shocked the people of the world. The publicity which it has received over the world and the world reaction to it demonstrates forcibly the enormity of what happened.

One can understand the feeling of Deputy Dowling but I do not think that his contribution to this debate or the manner in which he delivered it can be calculated to bring the troubles in Ireland to an end, particularly when it came from a Member of the Government party. I want to say that in my opinion responsibility for the present state of affairs in Northern Ireland and the terrible happenings on last Sunday must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the British Government and the British people because the British Government represent them. I say that because the evil of Partition was created by the British Government over 50 years ago and having created that evil they tolerated a system of Government in Northern Ireland for the last 50 years under which discrimination against the minority there was tolerated, under which the minority there were treated as second-class citizens.

It was inevitable that the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland would sooner or later rise up and refuse to continue to be treated as they have been treated. They did that in 1968 in a peaceful way through the Civil Rights Movement with John Hume, Ivan Cooper and the others. The violence in the North was not started in 1968 or 1969 by the minority. It was the people who had oppressed them for over 50 years who started the violence. One would have thought at that time that the British Government would have come in and seen the folly of their ways, have seen the evil of their own creation and that they would have brought about effective reforms at once which would have for the time being and as a temporary measure enabled the people residing in the Six County area to live in comparative harmony.

The British Army were invited in there because certain sections of the minority were in real danger of being annihilated and the British Army were welcomed when they came because, as I said, they were supposed to come to protect the minority who were living in real danger. I regret to have to say, and I think no reasonable person can contradict me, that when the British Government sent in their army, as a peace-keeping force supposedly, they bungled their way from one mistake to another. In the short time they have been there it cannot be denied that the British Army have rendered themselves totally unacceptable to the minority in Northern Ireland whom they came there to protect and that as from last Sunday never again will the British Army be acceptable in Northern Ireland, never again will there be any confidence in them. On the contrary, there will be hatred for them, and they have only themselves to blame.

The first major blunder that was made was internment without trial. I believe internment without trial was introduced as a package deal. It was introduced in order that the Apprentice Boys' march in Derry might be suppressed and with internment came allegations of brutality against the British forces and the police in Northern Ireland who enforced internment. I have heard people denounce the Compton Report as not being impartial. As far as I am concerned the British Forces stand condemned on the findings of that report and I do not mind whether the findings are related in terms of excessive force or excessive brutality. I do not mind what one calls it, but I believe the findings of the report, of men being made to stand against walls, of being subjected to excessive noise, amounts to brutality. I was shocked to look at a television programme in which responsible people in Britain seemed to stand over the findings of the Compton Report and to say that what was done was necessary.

The next stupid thing that was done —it was referred to by the Taoiseach —was the cratering of Border roads. That was a senseless operation calculated to do no good but every harm. It was a senseless operation that could not possibly prevent people passing from North to South. My native parish was divided by the cratering of roads: the road from one part of my parish to another was cratered. That started up a lot of anxiety on both sides of the Border. It was another example of British Government bungling. It is no use blaming the British Army. They are a body of paid men operating under the British Government and it is that Government which must take responsibility for these things. Many of the people in the British Army are young fellows earning their money in that way and following orders.

Finally, there was the catastrophe of Sunday last. I believe extreme force was used last Sunday as part and parcel of another deal. That package deal was that in the predominantly Catholic city of Derry there was to be this march and there were to be speeches against internment. Then militant Unionists decided they would have a march and that there would be a confrontation, and the Unionist march was held off by an undertaking that such force as was necessary would be used to put down the other demonstration. One might say that that force was used with a vengeance.

They are three examples of the complete mishandling of the Northern Ireland situation by the British Tory Government. I might be asked what solutions I have. Of course, the long term one is the reunification of the country. That will come, in my opinion, quicker than most of us think, notwithstanding recent happenings. I believe our entry to Europe will speed that up because once the economic border goes, as it will, the political border will be meaningless and will disappear. However, until that happy day comes about, when the country is united by the general consent of the people of the country, steps will have to be taken to create a state of affairs in which all the people of the North can live without fear of intimidation and in comparative harmony.

I believe the first thing that must be done is to withdraw the British forces. I have given the reasons why that must be done. The British forces have lost all respect and I am surely making an understatement when I say that. It is too much to expect that they could be accepted by any of the minority in the North. I do not say for a moment that the British forces can be withdrawn leaving the people of Northern Ireland to work out their own salvation because if that were done I believe there would be prolonged civil war in which this part of the country would be involved, but a case can be made for bringing in a United Nations peace-keeping force and I think that if a case were made properly to the UN they would send in such a force. I appreciate that an argument could be put up that the UN will not interfere in the domestic affairs of a country and that England is putting up that case within the UN. Northern Ireland never was a part of Great Britain, is not now a part of Great Britain and never will be.

An argument can be put forward that a peculiar and exceptional set of conditions exists here, in the sense that the Six Counties are not really a part of the United Kingdom, that there has been this resentment of 40 per cent of the people of that area at being treated as part of the United Kingdom, that none of the people of Ireland ever agreed by their votes to the establishment of the Six County area. Therefore I believe that immediately the British Army should be withdrawn and should be replaced by a United Nations peace-keeping force. Circumstances have changed since that proposal was made before, have changed substantially and in such a way as to make an unanswerable argument for bringing them in now. I believe, too, that the government of Northern Ireland should be shared on equitable terms between the majority and the minority there. Indeed, I believe that even the Northern Ireland Government, if one may call them such, accept that. The Prime Minister there is on record as having said not so very long ago that a Government in power for 50 years is bound to create problems. He is also on record as making statements which would suggest to me that he concedes that government and power in Northern Ireland must be shared and shared immediately.

Therefore my proposals are that a United Nations force should be brought in, and we should not accept that a case cannot be made for bringing them in, and that power should be shared and shared immediately. I also believe that the British Government should interfere immediately to have reforms on the question of housing and to put these reforms into operation; to have reforms on the question of jobs and employment and see that they are put into force immediately. We are living here and we are very concerned for the minority in Northern Ireland. We are very concerned to see that all the people in Northern Ireland should be able to live together. That was demonstrated this week by the spontaneous reaction of the people of Ireland to the happenings of Sunday last, the demonstrations we have had during the week, and I am very pleased to be able to say that in my own town of Cavan, there was a very gratifying demonstration from all sides and all creeds and all classes. There was a Requiem Mass in the Cathedral at 11 o'clock and there was a Service for peace in our country in the Church of Ireland church at 11.30. This is as it should be; this is the sort of relations we have between the different communities in this part of the country, and long may it remain.

As spokesman for the Fine Gael Party on Justice, I would be failing in my duty if I did not refer to one major incident and some smaller incidents in this city of Dublin which marred the generally peaceful protests which were conducted yesterday. I refer to the burning of the British Embassy, and I do not care whether it was the British Embassy or whether it was a factory, whether it was a private house or any other building that was burned. I say that I was absolutely appalled to see on the television screen that private individuals were acting as prosecutors, judge, jury and executioners, in complete and absolute defiance of the law. The Embassy was burned to the ground, but that is not the only case. We know that windows were broken in other houses and that people were threatened and we have to ask ourselves at this stage: Is democracy to prevail here? Is this country to be ruled from the streets of Dublin by people who represent nobody, people who have not gone through the ballot boxes and obtained authority to rule? It would be a sorry state of affairs if the Government of this country were to renounce and renege their rights in favour of mob law.

I do not accuse the Garda Síochána for standing by yesterday and the day before. As a matter of fact, they have my sympathy. They were left there without any protection, in the pouring rain, for 48 hours. There was nothing they could do, but I think that what happened—I have not spoken in a political fashion—and what we saw happening on the screens yesterday and the day before is the inevitable result of a drift in the Government of this country over the last two or three years. We have a weak Government, presided over by a weak Taoiseach. During the first few years of his office, he allowed things to drift within his own party and within the Cabinet, with the result we all know. He has been allowing things to drift within the country. I know that the position and the happenings in Northern Ireland have created a delicate situation, but delicate situation or no delicate situation, the events of the other day should have been anticipated. I know that the happenings in Northern Ireland and the injustices which have been perpetrated on the minority there make it difficult—more difficult than in normal circumstances—for the Government here to rule, but I say that the Government have to decide as of now, at this point in time, whether they are going to rule, whether they are going to rule this country pursuant to the mandate they received from the people on 18th June, 1969, or whether they are not.

I do not believe that the burning of the British Embassy or violence of that sort in this city is doing any good to our kith and kin in Northern Ireland. I believe, on the contrary, that it is doing a lot of harm. I believe that the burning of the British Embassy took the heat off the British Army in so far as public opinion was concerned in Northern Ireland. I looked at the BBC television news yesterday evening. First of all, we had the burning of the Embassy given a very considerable period of time. It was highlighted. The fact that the security forces stood by was flogged to death. And then came the funerals in Derry. If the foolish people who burned the Embassy had not done that the British public on their television screens would have got the funerals in Derry. As food for thought they would have had the 13 people who were done to death but instead of that their attention was distracted from the killings of last Sunday and the burials yesterday by the people who, even if they were well-intentioned, thought fit to burn the Embassy and distract British public opinion from the cause of the whole thing.

We have been talking about spending money here for the relief of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that we have not yet got across to the British public or to the European public the causes of the troubles in Northern Ireland, the injustices that were there. I for one will stand over the spending of very considerable amounts of money on propaganda, on bringing before the people of England, the people of Europe and the people of the world, the injustices that have been inflicted on the minority in the North and which have brought about the calamities about which we have been speaking in this debate.

I wish to conclude by repeating that my solution is the withdrawal of British forces, their replacement by a United Nations force, the sharing of Government in Northern Ireland on an equitable basis between Protestants and Catholics and the immediate implementation of reforms there. I again appeal to the people in this part of the country, to this small minority who have no mandate, to refrain from these acts of violence here because they will do no good to the cause of the re-unification of this country; they will do no good to the minority in the North but, on the contrary, they will take the heat off Northern Ireland and will project us as a people who are not governed here, who are living in an unsettled society, people who, as the British love to say and used to say, are not fit to govern ourselves.

Mr. Keating

Coming in at this stage there is no need for me to dwell on the demonstration of unity yesterday, the demonstration of the feeling of grief and of outrage through a very large part of the country. There is one aspect I should like to mention, the fact that under trade union auspices —I am particularly proud of that—in Belfast, Catholics and Presbyterians prayed together, with each other, and not at each other as is so frequently the case.

The sense of shock and outrage has been amply described by speakers from all parties but we could usefully pause a little to look at the situation that is unfolding as a result of what happened on Sunday in Derry. We must ask ourselves whether it was a bunch of berserk soldiers getting out of hand or an act of deliberate policy. It is not possible at this time to be certain but I think the balance of evidence indicates that it was an act of deliberate policy, whether it emanated from a decision of Mr. Heath's or not. We cannot know whether he actually decided to let off a whiff of grapeshot, that to shoot down some of the natives was the way to carry out his policy, but the deaths of those 13 people at the hands of his paratroopers I think is an extension of British policy as expressed by Heath, the British Prime Minister.

One expects, if one has the sort of outlook about the British Army that I have, senior officers to lie about what happens. That is not new, it is not shocking. They have been lying solidly, in my view, since the British reinforcements went into Northern Ireland in August, 1969. But then they have been lying pretty solidly about what they were doing all over the remnants of the British colonial empire since the end of the second world war. It is not surprising or shocking, it is in character. It is a little more shocking to see the front page of Monday's Daily Telegraph where the situation, contrary to what journalists had to say, was presented as a confrontation between the IRA and the army, a battle with shots fired by both sides, started by the IRA. But again one expects the organs of British imperialism, if one has my outlook, not to tell lies every day, only to tell lies like that at moments of crisis, at moments of difficulty. One expects them to be completely loyal voices of the British Government at moments like that and the Daily Telegraph and some other British newspapers were that on Monday.

One expects commissions, not just in Britain but in Ireland and in other countries, particularly judicial commissions, to peddle whatever version of the truth their Government want. The mechanism of selection of judges in many countries is such that one does not expect them to take a position hostile to their Government. They would not have got there if they were the sort of people who could take that position anyway. You cannot try the devil if the court sits in hell so nothing that any British commission will say will carry any validity with any people anywhere in the world except for British home consumption where it will be very valuable.

All this indicates a tactic. The British Prime Minister has shown himself to be a 19th century Tory in many ways since he came to power in his economic policy, in his willingness to see, quite ruthlessly, quite calmly, a million people out of work and I think he has decided that it is possible to get back to the status quo as it was before 1968 when the civil rights campaign started and the way to do this is the same technique which consolidated the statelet in the early 1920s, which is to kill some hundreds of people and then the rest of them are frightened and they acquiesce for a while, maybe for ten or 20 years. If they start to raise their heads again kill a few more of them. This is not new. Hundreds of people were killed in the 'twenties, we were preoccupied and we have forgotten it, and not so many were killed in the 'thirties. I think that Heath and the Ministers around him, the 19th century Tories—I would not even blame that attitude on contemporary Toryism which has evolved a little—but, the Selsdon men feel that if you kill a few hundred the rest will be frightened and you can go back to the status quo and that you need not reform Stormont and you need not bring in any of these inadequate and tiny little reforms that started getting under way at the end of 1969. That is where we are at with Heath's policy. That is what is revealed.

Wednesday, indeed, Monday and Tuesday, but Wednesday particularly, in this part of the country, I thought was very revealing but I feel that, perhaps, I am reading the situation differently from any other people in the House because what came over to me talking to people, listening to people, going about, was the sense of impotence down here, the sense that we could do nothing, the sense of fury that we were powerless to do anything serious, apart from uttering angry words, to help or to defend the people of Derry. That was very widespread through the country. The burning of the British Embassy and the looting of some shops in Dublin and the rest of it is not an indication of strength but an indication of profound weakness and hopelessness.

Deputy Blaney used a phrase where he said people were searching for some manner of ventilating their frustration that had been building up for two years. Yes, they were but I think that Mr. Heath when he sees the sacking of the British Embassy in Dublin will laugh all the way to his yacht. I do not think it moves him a little bit. I think it does indicate to him that we will use lighting conductors for our emotions, that we will go through the forms of protest, even to burning a building and looting some shops, but that having done that we feel we have made our protest and can go back to the situation as it is. I think that it is an action of despair, an action of weakness.

The tragedy about despair and weakness is that then you get the glamour of the reality which says: "There is a gun. At least that is real". That is the equaliser, in the language of the detective stories. So, you take a gun in your hands and you feel strong and you feel big and you kill somebody and the only person you kill is either somebody like yourself in income and outlook, of a different religion, in your own country, or else he is a poor, half-educated, ignorant, unemployed young man, often a decent, lost young man, from another neighbouring country. That is who actually gets killed and, again, I think Mr. Heath is laughing all the way to his yacht because that solves nothing at all.

I think that often the people are ahead of the politicians in their understanding of a real situation. Perhaps, we understand the situation, too, and we do not dare to say it. There has been great posturing and threatening in this House and elsewhere in the recent past which to me is pretty hollow, pretty unconvincing. I do not think that within the present framework of policies that we possess, there is very much we can do because I think the British have the most ferocious leverage over us, that we have permitted them to have over the last half century. For example, our official external balances are held in London in sterling and the private balances, vastly greater—the total together of public and private is getting to the order of £1,000,000.000— are in Britain, in sterling, capable of being sequestered, of various things being done to them. That is a most enormous leverage that we have chosen to leave in British hands for the past half century. A great deal of the ownership of our industry, on which the jobs of the ordinary people of Ireland depend, is in British hands. Our banks are very largely British. Two-thirds of all our export trade is with Britain. So that the industries here that are not actually owned by the British are depending on British trade. We have left all these different national hands in the mouth of the British dog all these years. We have taken away these freedoms from ourselves. We have failed to establish these freedoms. So, indeed, we are very weak and the joke to me is this: I think the realist is the Taoiseach. I think that he has been taking what one might call a low profile over the last year or so, realistically. That has been the profile he could take.

I do not like being sharp about somebody in his absence so I am sorry that Deputy Blaney is not here but to me, today, the most ridiculous and most unreal speech was the speech of Deputy Blaney, well delivered, full of sincere passion but coming from a man who had been the organisational mainstay of a party that with two little breaks have been in power all my life and the party which had never asserted the economic or financial or commercial independence that would give us the right to take an independent posture, his position is a profoundly weak one. The weakness of it was indicated by the two things— when you boil it down—that his speech contained. I admire the passion and the rhetoric but when you boil it down he said two things: first, mobilise the Army and the Local Defence Force and send the Army to the Border. If you do that, you enter the possibility of having a war. That is the reality. If you want to put the Army on the border, then the reality is that there may be a war with Britain. We leave aside for the moment the question of who would win where the Irish and British armies met up with each other. We might have an opinion about who would win. That is to leave aside the question of what would happen to the Catholics in the ghettos of Belfast and other cities. O.K., you might just blow the bridge at Derry and capture Derry; with luck, you might get Newry at the same time, but there is not any realistic hope of getting anywhere near Belfast.

Deputy Blaney was eloquent about the number of arms there were in Unionist hands through gun clubs and other bogus methods of arming people and the number of heavy machine guns up there. Does he not know that he is delivering the Catholic population of the ghettos of Belfast and other cities into the hands of these people? If you want the Irish Army to fight the British Army at the Border, that is the formula for civil war.

Dr. Loughnane

Deputy Blaney did not say anything about crossing the Border.

Mr. Keating

Indeed, he did not. To be fair to him, of course he did not. But, there is no point in posturing unless you are prepared to follow the posture with reality. There is no point in putting the Army at the Border unless the sequel is that if you get an event like the mortaring of a house inside the Republic or an event like the events in Derry last Sunday, you are prepared to use the Army. If you are not prepared for the reality of confrontation, then you should not take the steps that lead to that confrontation.

Dr. Loughnane

What did you think of his suggestion of contacting the EEC?

Mr. Keating

We will come to those points in due course. The full weakness was then revealed by the suggestion that the other important thing to do was to burn the medals and to give up the titles. I despise titles of any description, in common with Bernard Shaw. I think they are rather silly. People merit respect through what they are and they have personal names and family names. That seems enough to me. I do not admire titles but I do not think it is a significant contribution on a dramatic day in an important speech on a profound problem to suggest that they should send the medals to him and that he will burn them, and that they should give up the titles. That is a measure, in fact, of the irrelevance and of the extent to which Deputy Blaney is a prisoner of the same problem.

The Taoiseach is a dove; Deputy Blaney is a hawk today, both of them from an equally impossible position, a position of weakness, because we do not have the economic independence that would give us the power to take significant action against Britain. We are in pawn to Britain in the ways I have mentioned and which I will not elaborate. Obviously, it would be easy to spend a lot of time elaborating.

On the question of the EEC, again one sees the anomaly of the position of the Minister for Labour. He could not say he is against it. Presumably he is not against it. Yet, joining the EEC will abolish any sort of sovereignty we possess at this moment. Any opposition to Britain in EEC circumstances is utterly impossible. There is a great deal of empty rhetoric.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy was talking about the impossibility of economic independence.

Mr. Keating

Yes, and I intend to return to it.

Mr. J. Brennan

In the wider context of the EEC, could the Deputy not find something useful?

Dr. O'Donovan

There will certainly not be any independence.

Mr. Keating

The EEC abolishes any possibility of it. What political independence we have now will be gone.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy referred to our complete dependence on Britain at the moment.

Mr. Keating

We do not have to have that and we should not have it after the 50 odd years of so-called independence. The question arises then as to whom our opponents are. I remember the Taoiseach saying this was a matter between the Irish and the Irish would settle it between themselves. I think the Taoiseach still adheres to that view. Certainly I do. We may mean slightly different things when we talk about imperialism.

I was pleased by the human, decent and civilised reference made by the Taoiseach today, at a time of great emotion, to the Orange, or the Protestant, or the Unionist groups—many different names for overlapping sections of this island. It took some political courage to do what he did and I welcome it. I would, however, make an addendum. Deputy Fitzpatrick said he thought Mr. Faulkner was willing to let the Catholics into government. Mr. Faulkner has said repeatedly that he will let in only those people who promise they will not try to change the constitution. The great impetus which is still giving a certain vitality to Orangeism is precisely the same impetus which achieved in the glorious revolution in England the greatest change in the constitution that Britain has ever known or, indeed, that the world has ever known, the overthrow of feudalism and the establishment of bourgeois monarchy. The heroes were the Orangemen who gave their lives then to change the constitution and they might now usefully look at their own past for valuable and real lessons. The enemy is not the British people. It is not the people of Northern Ireland— above all, not the working people— whatever their religious or political conception. We have some political independence, but the division of Ireland was designed the better to rule both parts from Britain in the name of British imperialism. This is the enemy. This is where one directs one's opposition. One does not have to degrade oneself by hating any person. Those who do that are desperately in need of pity. The British officers telling these thin lies are, in fact, pathetic and miserable people. We have a need to hate oppression and institutions and a need to be charitable towards persons in all circumstances.

Is there anything that we can do? We have heard a list of things from these benches. We have read the five points in today's Daily Mirror. Wholly admirable. No problem. But will it happen? Can we make it happen? Is there anything we can do to bring about the situation? I believe that the something real we can do is to structure the sustaining of civil disobedience. We must not be frightened off because certain people will use it to engender a different type of violence. For example, the people of Dublin were not deterred from demonstrating yesterday because certain people smashed a few windows. Valid protest must not be put off because a few undesirables abuse the protest.

We should use the resources of the State to sustain and help the civil disobedience campaign designed to make Stormont unworkable. At this moment, more than ever, we have to put out the hand of friendship and trust and, dare one use the word, love towards ordinary Unionists in Northern Ireland who hate us and despise us and who believe that we have nothing to give them except forcing them into a state in which the rule of the church, which they reject and fear, will prevail. There are two ways we can do this. One is by the constitutional changes mentioned by many speakers. Deputy Dowling in this regard said that contraception was not important. It may not be important to him. It is not important to a great many people, but it is important to others. We know it is important to many of the people with whom we want to talk. It is their belief in its importance that makes it a real issue and not our personal assessment. That applies also to divorce and to Article 44 and a great many other things. Because certain people believe these things are important they are important. I hope I have time to deliver myself of something that is to some extent a new thought.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has five minutes.

Mr. Keating

It may not be worthy of consideration, but I think it is. One of the reasons for the desperate sharpness of the situation in the North is the chronic unemployment, a situation which has been made worse by the actions of Mr. Heath. Industries based on the British economy fold up and people lose their employment. We have a policy of spending money on Irish firms. We have always understood that these firms were Twenty-six County firms. I think we could usefully put the revenues of this State towards increasing the level of employment and the economic viability of undertakings in Northern Ireland. It could be argued that many of these are British companies. So are the companies down here. There is precious little to choose from. We should at this moment be putting out the hand of friendship in the most practicable way to the workers in the North, using our resources and the economic power of the State, slender as it is, to protect and expand employment in Northern Ireland. This would be a gesture of goodwill of the most concrete kind. It is a gesture that is possible and it is more necessary now than it ever was. We spend hundreds of millions every year. If we want ships built, then go to Cork by all means first but, if Cork cannot cope, then go to Belfast; the people there are our people.

We make claims of sovereignty in regard to them which, personally, I think are ill-judged because I do not think it helps unity, but that will be debated another day. Those claims bring responsibility to help economically and this is a time of desperate need for that sort of help, gestures of friendship, of trust, of love. At the same time—and this is very difficult— we can use our economic power if we will it, to coerce Britain a little. In my view we can use it by systematically taking into public ownership British assets in Ireland. I am perfectly well aware of the threat of disruption of the jobs of Irish workers in doing that but nonetheless it is possible and from the taken-over British assets we could build a national development corporation like IRI in Italy. We would get the nucleus of a publicly-owned sector of the economy. I think Britain would heed that. I do not think she will heed burning Embassies or the three party Leaders going to Mr. Heath. I do not think Mr. Heath is amenable to that sort of reasoning but I think British business is amenable to coercion—and I use the word explicitly—by the planned taking into public ownership of British assets in Ireland in such a way that jobs will not be lost here.

If we go on and use our political sovereignty to get real sovereignty by taking over sections of the economy, and the sort of economic sovereignty I have indicated, we would have some power to improve our social services. We would have some power to help the Northern economy. We have always had power to change our Constitution so as to make it acceptable. We could therefore extend a hand of friendship, which is important, and we could therefore put real pressure on the British Government which we are not doing now. In that way we might conceivably build some unity here. At least we are united in wanting that. Having established political sovereignty, which we did nearly 50 years ago, we can go on from there to establish economic sovereignty with a considerable content of socialism. We need a strong public sector. We can either do that which would give us the power, the muscle and the genuine independence to take action vis-á-vis Britain that will influence the North, or else we can go back to an EEC, a common market and, indeed, to an old UK position in which we were originally part of the United Kingdom and we shall get into a bigger economic United Kingdom in which we shall have no power to influence anybody.

The dignified and impressive thing would be to stop whining, stop blustering, which does not impress anybody, and accept that we have no option but to be a tiny, non-sovereign, nonindependent cog in a much larger machine. It might conceivably make us better off economically and it would mean that we squarely face the abandonment of dearly held aspirations towards unity and sovereignty which lie at the root of the conflict in the North at the moment.

Mr. Tunney

Tá sé deacair ar ócáid den saghas seo aon rud nua a rá nó aon rud a rá nach bhfuil ráite agus athráite míle uair b'fhéidir. Ag an am gcéanna, tá sé feiliúnach go mbeadh focal amháin Gaeilge ar a laghadh le cloisint sa dhíospóireacht seo. Luadh gur dochar a dhéanfadh sé. Táim cinnte go raibh dul amú ar an Teachta FitzGerald agus tá súil agam go gcuirfidh sé in iúl dúinn amach anseo nach é sin a bhí i gceist aige. Admhaím go mb'fhéidir go bhféadfaimis feabhas a chur ar an bpolasaí a bhí againn maidir le foghlaim na Gaeilge.

It is difficult on occasions like this to marshal and express one's thoughts so that they may be useful and it is very difficult to make them appear original. It is difficult to say anything that has not been said already in connection with the agonising and tragic farce that masquerades in an area of our country as democracy. However, I avail of the opportunity to re-state the position as I see it.

It is fundamental to any discussion of this matter that nobody here can accept—certainly I do not—that the terms and regulations which govern the freedom of any Irishman in this country should be found in the statute book of an alien power. That is fundamental in this discussion and bears repetition. When we discuss how the Army might have behaved better in this way or that way, the mistakes that have been made in the recent past, and the possibilities in regard to how the farce should be continued, we should be very careful not to depart from the fundamental principle that is shared by this country and every other country, that no power, however mighty, has the right, no matter what they claim, to decide where the destiny of any man born in another country lies. The sooner that the English Government—and here I distinguish between the English Government and the English people—recognise the fact that this is the problem here, the better. No solution, military or political, can be attained here so long as they hold that they have any right here. I am prepared to accept that we accord them certain tolerance until such time as the sins they have committed have been repented but what is fundamental here is that which is accepted as being fundamental by the British people. At mention of this question we are taken back invariably along the road of history and we are told how the problem came about. While that may be factual I am not bound to accept it.

I often wonder what the reaction of the British Government and people would be today if any of those groups of people, such as Germans, Scandinavians and French, who were planted in England in the past, set themselves up in different parts of England attempting to make the case that, notwithstanding that they and their forebears have lived for many years in England, they were entitled to reject English authority over them, if they attempted to establish that the terms and the conditions which govern their freedom were to be found in the statute books of France, Germany or any other country. I do not think the British people, in their sense of justice, could accept that what they would not tolerate at home from these other people is something which we here should tolerate from the erstwhile English or Scottish. As other speakers have said, it is easy to be critical of the situation but not easy to offer a solution. No human problems are amenable to easy solutions. I am prepared to accept as Irishmen and women those people who came to reside on our island but I will not accept those who, while wishing to claim any advantages there might be and claiming that they are Irishmen and women, criticise the shortcomings which, in their opinion, exist in this part of the country but who will not allow others the right to be critical of them. As I see it, much more of the blame and of the guilt lies with them than with us.

While I do not consider contraception to be a major issue I would endorse what Deputy Dowling said in this regard. If I could go from this House tonight in the knowledge that there was nothing between me and Irish unification except the matter of contraception, I would be very happy.

Dr. FitzGerald

Has anybody suggested that?

Mr. Moore

Deputy FitzGerald has.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has pointed out repeatedly that each Deputy has only a limited time on which to speak.

Mr. Tunney

Where there are two opposing sides and where the question is of finding a balance, it is naïve of people to make the case that what is happening in the North, the tyranny, the butchery and the misgovernment in that part of the country, is justified because the only impediment to a united Ireland, so far as Church of Ireland people are concerned, is that we state in our Constitution that contraceptives may not be imported and advertised publicly.

The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 4th February, 1972.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 3 Feb 1972