Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 Feb 1972

Vol. 258 No. 8

Adjournment Motion: Northern Ireland Situation.

I move: That the Dáil do now adjourn.

Deputy Tunney has 15 minutes to conclude.

Last night I endeavoured to show how erroneous and unreasonable it was for anyone to expect an Irishman to accept that his freedom or his destiny was to be found in the laws of any other country. That is fundamental to the problem which exists in our country today. I also tried to search for the reaction of the British people to a situation where the many people who planted England would have refused to be assimilated into the Irish way of life and would today be contending that, irrespective of the fact that they lived in England, they should be permitted to look for the rules of authority governing them in another country. Many people from this country were forced to reside in England. What would the English reaction be if Irish people living in England today were to insist that they should be ruled not from Westminster but from Dublin? I do not think it would be accepted by the English people and I would not expect them to accept it.

In talking on matters of this kind we are invariably told we should avoid emotion. Here we are dealing with a human problem. Human beings are emotional. Here we are dealing with the memory of Irish people trying to continue the struggle initiated by people who lived many centuries before us. You cannot treat emotional matters, matters of the spirit, in a cold, calculated way. This morning on Radio Éireann there was a report that Mr. Maudling had said that matters in the North of Ireland concerned England, that English law was in question; in short, he was trying to propound that Ireland was England. I am not saying that in the present situation in the North of Ireland the British must proceed to pull out immediately. There are certain considerations to be taken into account, but they should no longer attempt to continue the lie that any part of Ireland is England. The simple fact is that it is not and never will be.

There is always the danger that, having visited a graveyard, people will be emotional. People who would expect me not to express the thoughts which ran through my mind while I was in the graveyard in Derry would expect me to disregard what Padraig Pearse said at the grave of O'Donovan-Rossa or what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg. I cannot help being moved by such situations, and anyone who stood there and watched the coflins containing the remains of those young Irishmen whose only offence was to attempt to walk on Irish soil would find it difficult to contain himself. That was their only offence. Apparently I am expected now to answer the call from Mr. Heath—the first time he ever made an appeal to Ireland—and to be associated with the request that Irish people should not walk next Sunday. He is asking me, in short, to vindicate him and his Government in their action last Sunday. He is asking me to accept that the people who were shot last Sunday for walking were wrong and that the military men he sent in there to butcher these people were right.

I will not suggest that I am the man to tell the people who are organising this march what they should do. What I am saying is that I am refusing to accept from Mr. Heath that I, or any other Irishman, lay or cleric, should accept that fellow Irishmen have not the right to walk the length and breadth of Ireland. If the walk takes place, I hope advantage will not be taken of it by people who are not genuinely interested in the freedom of Ireland, people who will capitalise on and exploit any occasion either to advance their own position in power or to satisfy some vanity within themselves so that they can say: "We knew this would happen", people who will avail of an occasion such as this, as they did in the past, as they did in 1916, to break a shop window to steal a pair of shoes or a suit of clothes. If elements such as these dare to distort the real reason why this parade is being held, I hope they will be dealt with very effectively by the properly motivated people who are organising the march.

I did not intend to say anything about the British Embassy. Nevertheless as Jim Tunney, the Irishman, I must say that I did not lose any sleep thinking about it. Having said that, I want to reprimand as strongly as possible people who would avail of that opportunity to discredit the name of Ireland. Weighing that episode in the balance as against what happened elsewhere, and weighing it against the only feeling that motivates me in politics, a feeling for human beings, I say that embassies and buildings can be restored but human beings cannot.

I want to try to put something of a positive nature to the House, something which was not mentioned in my hearing by any other speaker. While I would strongly criticise the situation that exists, I fully accept the position of Protestant, Dissenter and Presbyterian, and of every man and woman who lives on this Island. I am prepared to give them every consideration possible. I would be happier in conceding such consideration to them if initially they would agree with me that they are Irish.

On the matter of the financial assistance which is being given to what is called the minority group, last year I said at a function that, having regard to the material side of the situation and to the subsidies and moneys which are given to the Government who claim to be in authority in the North, if I were asking them to take out their authority and take out their military men, I would not at the same time ask them to leave their money. If I do not want their authority, if I do not want their soldiers, I do not want their shilling. Anybody else who does is welcome to it.

Let this be proof of the sincerity of our feelings. Here I see an opportunity for every person in Ireland to make a sacrifice. Instead of suggesting that only our soldiers should go up and be shot, or exhorting other people to go up and have themselves shot for the realisation of our ideal, if we want our ideal realised we should all be prepared to pay for it. Is it too much to suggest that that sacrifice should be financial. Vis-á-vis the sacrifices other people have made, if this were to contribute towards a solution we would be getting very good value.

It will be an indication of our sincerity to people in the North of all denominations and all persuasions if we can show them that we are prepared, as the Dublinman would say, to put our money and our sacrifices where our mouths are, and act in a truly Christian and truly republican fashion by denying ourselves something and not hoping to batten on it at the expense of other people.

This is a very sad morning in Leinster House. A few minutes ago I was on the telephone to Belfast speaking to a well-informed newspaper correspondent who told me that, in his judgment—and he is never very far wrong—the Unionist Party have united and the Catholics have opted out. In his words, the stage is set for civil war. This is a terrible thought because, in such a situation there is no opting out. When the chips are down we all take our sides. Two years ago I warned this Assembly that such a situation could develop if we allowed people to harden lines and to draw battle lines.

There are sections in our community on our side—and it is terrible to have to say "on our side" because it means that there is another side—who can forcibly draw up battle lines, people whose actions we reject totally but who can create a situation in which there will be reaction from the opposite side and counter-reaction from our side until such time as we are all drawn in, as happened in Derry last Sunday.

I know no Deputy wishes to use a situation to inflame an already bad situation. People will be activated by revenge by trying to inflame passions. I do not know what way you can argue against a situation in which a battalion of the British Army comes into the Bogside and brutally murders 13 innocent people. I say that in the full knowledge that I have never yet in any speech made in this House or outside it on this particular subject tried to come in combat with any other people who disagreed with my point of view. It is well known that Deputy Blaney and I come from the same constituency and it is well known that we disagree vitally on our approach to this problem, but I have never yet publicly accused him of doing something wrong or speaking out of place. I have done so privately. Deputy Blaney is entitled to his opinion. The only thing I say to him is that when he makes his opinion public he should defend it.

I am entitled to my opinion. When I make it public I also have to defend it. I want to say to Deputy Blaney and to other people who share the type of revenge he seeks that as Christian-minded people we either believe in the Ten Commandments or we do not. If we believe in the Ten Commandments we have to obey them. I am quite capable, if given the opportunity, of breaking the Fifth Commandment the same as many other people have done. This does not vindicate my action because it is still a breach of the Fifth Commandment. Therefore, we as Christians and less as politicians must look on the northern scene and see how we can help those people rather than seek revenge.

I know the fears of the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. I know what it is as an ordinary unknown individual to walk down Fountain Street in Derry and to see people looking over half-doors and behind windows wondering who the stranger is who is walking down their street. I know the fear of wondering who is looking over my shoulder while I walk down that street. I know I am quite safe and the people of Fountain Street know that I am quite safe but I fear that someone will stab me in the back or someone will shoot me. This same fear is in the minds of the Protestants in Northern Ireland who go into the Bogside or who go down the Falls Road in Belfast.

I am sorry to say while this terrible position exists in Northern Ireland there are some politicians this side of the Border, not alone Deputy Blaney, who make speeches and the only thing they ask themselves is how many votes they will get or how many votes they will lose by making such a speech. They are not all in the Fianna Fáil Party or the Labour Party. Unfortunately there are a few of them in the Fine Gael Party.

I might be a bit harsh in saying this but since September, 1969, I have made appeals to individuals, both colleagues and opponents, to refrain from being inflamed by what is happening, to refrain from saying anything publicly that would misguide young people. When the chips are down there are only two teams in the field and you cheer your own team. We heard Deputy Blaney yesterday talking about bringing the Army up to north of the Border. I had this appeal made to me in Derry on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday evenings and also at the funerals on Wednesday. I know these people and I know their fears. I know what they want and it is very hard to tell them that it is wrong to send the military up to defend them. It is very hard to explain to the people of Derry that if we send the Irish troops up there this is civil war. As Deputy Tom O'Higgins said yesterday, too many people want civil war, to fight it to the last drop of the other person's blood. I do not want my wife or any of my children killed in a civil war and I am quite sure they do not want me killed in a civil war.

This is what civil war means and none of us has done anything to stop it. I have come out publicly on two occasions in complete support of the Taoiseach when other members of his party had not the guts to do it. I asked for public support for him because he was the democratic leader elected and appointed to speak on behalf of the country. In fairness to the Taoiseach, while I subscribe to 95 per cent of his views he has failed me and has failed other people in not leading this country and in not conditioning public opinion. Perhaps if I was in the Taoiseach's place I would react in the same way or indeed I might be more miserable in my approach. Perhaps I would fail the Irish people more than he has done.

At the moment we are lacking in leadership, both north and south of the Border. We had a great display of Brian Faulkner this week being an excellent leader of the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. He aspires to be, as I see it, the Protestant Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, leader of the Unionist Party. After the atrocities in the city of Derry on Sunday any Christian, no matter what the side issues were, could have nothing but charity in his heart for the bereaved families. What did Brian Faulkner tell us? He said that any person who disobeyed the law must accept the consequences. How can he tolerate a situation where 13 people are butchered for walking the streets of their native city? There is argument about whether they broke the law or not but without going into that, if the procession was wrong, the laws of the land could have been applied.

It is very hard not to become emotional in this matter. The situation which exists in our island today is one we cannot tolerate. I have made predictions to politicians and I do not look with any great pride on the things I have predicted because I always hoped I would be wrong. The cruel thing is that I have been right. History has a habit of repeating itself and we are going through a phase in Irish history which many other Irishmen before us have gone through. I now predict that unless the British forces in the North or the British Government change their attitude they are driving the two communities in this island into total and absolute sectarian civil war. What appears at the moment to be a battle between the provisional IRA and the British Army is only a stage-setting for sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Let nobody say that this is an alarmist statement because I can see this situation developing stage by stage.

Two months ago I prepared a speech. I did not deliver the speech for some unexplained reason. It was an appeal to politicians south of the Border to stop making inflammatory speeches, to stop taking sides. It is far too easy to take sides and if you want to take sides then go into the North of Ireland and do the things there you are inciting other people to do. In that speech I said that what politicians south of the Border did not realise was that we were one short step away from total and absolute civil war, that as soon as the Protestant population came on the street and retaliated we were in total civil war. The British Army would then become irrelevant.

The British Army last Sunday in one hour of brutality in Derry succeeded in doing something that Ian Paisley failed to do in ten years of open bigotry. They succeeded in having the Catholic population opting completely out, and what is more, putting them on the offensive or defensive, depending on the way you look at it—that if they cannot get revenge, if they cannot get shooting at British soldiers, they will shoot at RUC men, they will shoot at RUC families. If they cannot get at the RUC or the British Army they will get at their property and if they cannot get at their property—this is the cruel thing but I might as well say it because it has happened before—if they cannot get at the British establishment in Northern Ireland or at something they believe to be the British establishment, there will be a warning of reprisals on British subjects in the Twenty-six Counties.

At that point we will be in civil war. What have we done about it? Deputy Blaney yesterday told a story of a young child in St. Mary's Church in the Creggan. I heard that child. I also saw the scene on Tuesday evening when three young brothers failed to carry their youngest brother to the altar. I heard the story from the mother of young Gilmore who gave her 50p for her birthday and who 15 minutes later was shot dead in front of her eyes. I heard the story of the boy who saw his pal shot dead like a rat, who had tried to get away from the soldiers, who escaped two bullets but who was killed by the third. I heard the story, and we have seen the photographs in the newspapers, of a father carrying his youngest child to the grave. We have heard of the UDR man being shot in his sittingroom in front of his family.

Is this the type of Ireland Deputy Blaney wants? This is the type of Ireland anybody who seeks revenge wants. Has any of us had the experience of carrying his child to the grave, of carrying his kid brother up the chapel aisle? Have any of our mothers suffered the anguish of seeing their sons shot dead in the streets? Do we want these things? If we do not, what are we doing about them? I do not address these remarks to Deputy Blaney alone or to others who support his point of view. I address them also to Brian Faulkner and to his bigots in the North of Ireland who refuse to budge an inch.

In a telephone conversation I had from Derry with the Leader of the Fine Gael Party on Sunday evening I made an urgent appeal to him which he accepted. I know the same appeal has been made to the Taoiseach. It is that he should get the Leaders of the Opposition to go to London without an invitation and tell Mr. Heath that they had gone across to tell him something. Unless we get off these kid gloves of diplomatic niceties and realise that we are gambling with the lives of innocent Irishmen in the North of Ireland, unless we approach it in a firm way, in a fair way but a frank way, more people will lose their lives.

I am disappointed that the Taoiseach thought diplomatic niceties were necessary. When you are putting out a fire you do not give a damn whether the water is dirty or clean and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to put out a fire and the Protestant people in the North should realise this. That is what the efforts amount to of the people who have been seeking reconciliation, who have been seeking common ground, who have been trying to build an island in mid-stream, who have been trying for open dialogue with the Protestant people in the North, who have been saying: "We appreciate you do not want to join us at this time but we aspire in the long term to a united Ireland. We want to build an Ireland that is for Protestants and Catholics, Nationalists and Unionists. It is our job to make conditions acceptable to Unionists and to Catholics North and South of the Border. This is our island, Catholic and Protestant, not just Catholic and not just Republican, not just Protestant and not just Unionist, but Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Republican. We want to make it an island fit to live in and not a place to be killed in." If the people in the North do not realise that the efforts which we are trying to make are not being reciprocated by the Unionist leaders of Northern Ireland, that the policy of not an inch will have to go, if they do not realise it is in their interest to get rid of people like Brian Faulkner—I do not wish to be unchristian to that man but I want to be frank and honest and fair with him— there are people in our society who will get rid of him for them.

Another terrible thought is that there are politicians in the North of Ireland who believe they have a God-given right to reserve part of this island for themselves. Some of them believe that that part of Ireland is Unionist and only Unionist. There are others who believe they have reason to fear a united Ireland. Deputy Blaney yesterday and on other occasions said that the Unionists in the North have nothing to fear in a united Republic of Ireland. I know this. The Labour Party and Fianna Fáil know it, most people south of the Border know it, but does anybody realise for a second that the type of speech which Deputy Blaney made yesterday, contrasted with the way he projected himself on the BBC programme—

Hear, hear.

Does Deputy Blaney think that the Protestant people in Belfast who do not see the situation as we see it will be encouraged into a united Ireland by such speeches? When the Unionist people in the North looked at the `7 Days" programme from RTE on the evening before Deputy Blaney appeared on the BBC "Panorama" programme they heard him being asked by Ted Nealon how he would help and he said he would provide every equipment necessary. When he was asked what he meant he said: "I mean exactly what I said". To me that only means total support, guns, ammunition and bombs. If anyone thinks it is patriotic to give an Irishman a gun with which to shoot another Irishman he is sadly mistaken. To me that is not patriotism. If the Taoiseach called the natives of this island to arms to defend the island against an invader I would consider it an honour to lay my life down in defence of my native land, as would other people. That is not a boast on my own behalf alone. But I cannot see how Irishmen can collect millions on foreign soil and buy guns from Communist people to come back to this island to shoot fellow countrymen.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It does not make sense and there is no point in saying that it is a solution. I do not know how a Catholic can only shoot a Protestant and I do not know how a Protestant can only shoot a Catholic, and what is the difference? We have had statements by different politicians. We have had calls for a phased withdrawal of British military, for withdrawal of financial support. What do we mean by "phased withdrawal of British forces from Northern Ireland" and "withdrawal of financial support"? Does anybody suggest for a second that I am against getting the British military out of the North of Ireland or does anybody think that I think that there is a Deputy in this House who does not want to see the British military out of Northern Ireland? I want to see them out as fast as may be but when we talk about phased withdrawal it sounds nice to the person reading the paper in Cork, Kerry, Tipperary or indeed in Dublin. It sounds good politics to the person who is listening to it on television. But can anybody answer this question? If Ted Heath agreed to the withdrawal of British forces and, let us say, that happened three months ago and there was a backlash from Protestants when you had 2,000 military there, what do you do? Do you continue to take them out or do you bring them back in or do you stop for a period?

The phased withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland means absolutely nothing until such time as we can get the Catholics and Protestants, the Nationalists and the Unionists, to live together, until we find a political solution. That does not mean that I am in favour of the British troops being there. I am neither in favour nor against phased withdrawal because it is just nonsense to be talking about it. What I am in favour of is a political solution. There is no going back to pre-1969 Stormont. The Catholic population have opted out and until there is a political solution found there will be trouble and we are going to find reasons for criticising the British Army and the British Government are going to find reasons for keeping them there and Brian Faulkner is going to make his Unionist speeches and politicians on this side of the Border are going to continue making their Republican speeches and we are going to be attending more funerals.

When I said on Tuesday evening in Derry that it was too easy to take sides I was asked: "Are you not now taking sides when you are in Derry?" I had to admit that I suppose I was. I do not have to declare what side I am on. A Republican IRA man came into my office one morning this week and reminded me that he was proud to be an IRA man and a Republican, as much as to say that I despised him for it. I told him that I was more proud to be an Irishman. And this is the type of Ireland that I want. It is much too easy to put a ticket on a person. We either believe in the Ten Commandments or we do not. If we do not then let us face up and let us get back to primitive living. If we believe in them you cannot make the shooting of two RUC officers a killing and the shooting of 13 innocent people murder. In my judgement they are both murder.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The answer is not the the bullet and the bomb. We cannot win with the bullet and the bomb. God knows when I looked at the British Army on Sunday evening in Derry and people asking for guns to defend themselves I had to admit it silently to myself without saying it publicly, but now I feel I am compelled to do so. The British Army if they got rough would not alone annihilate the citizens of Derry but they could take on the Irish Army with their hands tied behind their backs. We have not got it in our power to combat them with the bullet and the gun and, even if we had, we would be gambling with civil war.

People may argue on what type of united Ireland we want. We can point to acts of discrimination, to acts of gerrymandering, we can say with plenty of evidence that there has been 50 years of bigoted misrule in the North of Ireland, not because the Unionist Party were pro-Protestant or anti-Catholic or pro-British, though these things appear to be the case, but because the Unionist politicians wanted power and for no other reason——

Hear, hear.

——and because they could successfully play the sectarian card and shout: "We are the only party that can maintain Partition" and all the Protestants voted for them. What had we here? We had politicians shouting: "We are the only party that can end Partition." To me, the ending of Partition is a very simple act. In my judgement Partition is not the problem and never was the problem, although it appeared to be and is a very emotional thing. In the setting up of the Six County state Partition seemed to be the issue, but in this Assembly during the discussions on the Treaty Partition was mentioned by only two Deputies. The issue involved was whether we should swear allegiance to the British king or not. In my humble judgment the trouble was not Partition; it was the setting up of Stormont. If at that time the British Government had said: "The Twenty-six Counties can have independence, the other Six will be controlled directly from Westminster like Scotland and Wales" there would not have been 50 years of misrule in Northern Ireland.

A Cheann Comhairle, I am coming towards the end of my time. There are other things I appeal to you to allow me to say. The situation in the North demands absolute political initiative. The initiative is first of all with Ted Heath to realise that this is our island and that we must make conditions available for Catholic and Protestant to live in it. It then rests with Brian Faulkner to agree that in the long term a united Ireland is inevitable and that his function now is to negotiate with the Southern Irish the conditions best suited to the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. And the initiative rests with us here to ensure that whatever action we take will be based on Christian charity. We can justly point out that there have been injustices in Northern Ireland and we can put these forward as arguments for the ending of Partition. We can argue that there are certain steps we can take. But the reason why the Northern Ireland state did not function was not because the Catholics were not getting the jobs or the houses, it was not because the Unionist Party was in power, but because the Catholic population never gave their consent to be governed by Stormont.

I must now call the next speaker.

If the Catholic population continue to refuse to give their consent that State will never work again. To the people who believe that we can unite this country without the consent of the Unionists I say the same thing will happen and for the same reason a united Ireland will not work.

I must now call the next speaker, Deputy.

I have just two things to say.

The House has agreed on half hour speeches and we cannot extend it for any Deputy. The Deputy is now taking up the time of other Deputies who wish to speak. I am very sorry, Deputy.

But the last occasion you allowed Deputy Blaney ten minutes extra and all I want is three seconds.

That was Deputy Blaney.

If that is the case——

That is the case I am making.

Does Deputy Cluskey wish to say something?

No. I want to speak next.

I should like to make this a public statement. There is a young man called William Whoriskey of Philip Street Derry who has not been seen since Sunday morning's march. There is some mystery as to his whereabouts. There is also a boy called Doherty from Strabane. I would appeal to the Taoiseach to get in contact with London and direct the Northern authorities to make known publicly where these two individuals are.

This debate took place because of the persistence of Deputy Neil Blaney and others on these benches in having the whole matter of the Six Counties discussed. Were it not for their persistence possibly we would now be discussing the Estimate for Fisheries. Were it not for the fact that Deputy Blaney spoke early on in this debate, those who are loud in their criticism of him would be left with nothing to say. I want to say quite openly that Deputy FitzGerald condemned, word for word, what Deputy Blaney had said but Deputy FitzGerald contributed nothing to the debate as far as the Northern Ireland situation is concerned. Deputy FitzGerald's contribution was similar to speeches we have heard from his predecessors, from a type of individual who would promote British propaganda and British Imperialism in this country. This is what we are against. This is the type of attitude that we are trying to eradicate.

Deputy Blaney in his speech indicated to the ordinary citizens of the country that whatever disrepute this House has been brought into in the past or within the last few days by speeches of people like Deputy FitzGerald, there is at least one living soul who has the interest of the people of Northern Ireland at heart, and that is Deputy Blaney.

I stand by Deputy Neil Blaney because, at least, he is a man. He came out and said what needed to be said. He expressed the opinions of the people who demonstrated in Merrion Square. Thank Heavens there are such opinions still held by the Irish nation. On Monday last these people, in their demonstration, displayed exactly how the Irish nation feels with regard to the treachery and the murders by the British soldiers in Derry last Sunday.

The action of these British soldiers has actually been excused here by some of the Fine Gael Deputies who suggested that they cannot be blamed, that they are taking orders from superiors, from people who are ruthless, from people in whose estimation the only good Irishman is a dead Irishman. The British soldiers are to be excused for shooting people at point-blank range, for taking an individual off the street, putting him in an armoured car, moving him up an alley way, shooting him and then alleging that he was shot in crossfire. It is a miracle that there were not 100 persons killed in Derry last Sunday by the British soldiers. Had events come about in the way they had prescribed, more Irish people would have died and the greater would have been the joy of the MPs of the Unionist Party, who had nothing to say but that their British boys displayed splendid accuracy and good marksmanship in picking-off the IRA, whom they alleged they had shot. We went to the funeral in Derry. It was not a military funeral of the type that we have seen at IRA funerals. Those who died included men who left families behind them and young men who left mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. The interments took place in the ordinary manner. The sympathy of the nation and of the world was expressed.

That sympathy has been washed away here in the last few days. At first, every one of us felt a considerable amount of anger and emotion against the British soldiers. As I said on that day, in three days time the deaths in Derry will have been forgotten and we will be still standing idly by, without taking positive action to protect the minority in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Blaney advocated that the people in Northern Ireland should be protected. He said that the first-line reserves should be brought up, that the FCA should be mobilised and put on the Border. Deputy Blaney did not advocate something that he has not said before. I want to remind Deputy FitzGerald that having regard to the fact that Deputy Blaney said these things before, he had every right to come into this House and say: "We told you so". No one has been more persistent than he in his attitude and no one has warned the people on this side of the Border more than Deputy Neil Blaney has with regard to future happenings in the North. What happened on Sunday last in Derry will happen again if we do not take some positive action against the British soldiers and against the imperialism which has been imposed upon us by the British Government.

It has been quite obvious that the negotiations with Britain have been fruitless and worthless. We have got nowhere with them. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the laughing hyena, Heath, is prepared to treat the people of Ireland as gillies, to treat them as the British have treated them for the last 800 years. The people in this part of Ireland should be prepared to stand up and say that we have no faith in negotiating with Mr. Heath. He gave us "the bum's rush" last Sunday night. The Leaders of the Opposition parties and the Taoiseach should get together and go over to Heath and demand that he do something about British terrorists in the North.

It has been suggested here also that the real terrorists in Northern Ireland are the IRA. That can be contradicted. The real terrorists in Northern Ireland are the British soldiers, and nobody else. The British soldiers have got themselves this name, not through the courtesy with which they came into the country, not through British justice in which everyone of us believed and staked his life on. The Taoiseach said that we could trust the British. I have no trust in them. The people of this country have no trust in them. The majority of Deputies here have no trust in the British soldiers. No treaty entered into with Britain with regard to the future of this country was ever kept. They have always found it convenient to break every agreement entered into with them. That has been the system operated by Britain with regard to Ireland. The same system will be carried on if we are not prepared to stand up and say that British soldiers will have to leave Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland will have to sit down with the Taoiseach and with other Members of this Parliament to negotiate a settlement that will bring about the unity of the country. Negotiations cannot take place as long as British murderers are still enforcing their rule on the people of Northern Ireland, against their wishes.

With regard to the Fine Gael position and the secret thoughts they have, it would be much better if these thoughts had been brought out in the open before this debate and if the people could know exactly what type of people exist within that party.

The Taoiseach has said that there is complete unity among all parties with regard to Northern Ireland. He said this, I am sure, on the basis that he hoped he would get unity with regard to the situation, which is a very critical situation. I cannot see, having listened to the speeches here from the Fine Gael Party, in particular, how in Heaven's name any member of our Fianna Fáil Party could say that he agrees with the type of persistent pro-British propaganda perpetrated here by the Fine Gael Party. I cannot believe any Fianna Fáil Deputy subscribes to that propaganda. I will not believe it. I believe there are men of character still over there who do not agree with the pro-British propaganda enunciated here.

The people in the North deserve our protection and we have failed them. If we want to admit we have failed them, we can do that and be forgiven; but this Parliament has allowed itself to fall into disrepute because we have failed miserably to protect the minority group in the North, a group which has been under severe strain from both the British and the Stormont regimes. These people now have reason to say that this is the last opportunity we will have to redeem ourselves, the last opportunity this Parliament will have to redeem itself by demonstrating to the people up there that they have somewhere to which they can look for protection. This Parliament is now given the last opportunity to do that and, for Heaven's sake, let us not neglect them on this occasion as we have on so many occasions in the past.

Criticism has been voiced about the burning of the British Embassy. I do not have to say—and I hope it is well known—that I cry no salt tears for the British Embassy. I think it was a good job, a damn good job, that it was there to be burned because if, had it not been there, Heaven knows where these people would have turned in their frustration. They might have been just as relevant remembering performances here in the past. The protest was made in good faith. The people who burned the Embassy were protesting in good faith. They wanted to proclaim to the world their opinion and their allegiance. Who can blame them? We are all Irishmen. There was no differentiation between Protestant and Catholic when they were burning the British Embassy. War has been declared on us by Mr. Maudling and the British soldiers and they are the people we are fighting. There is no such thing as Catholic fighting Protestant, as has been argued here. The Irish problem could be solved and would be solved if Britain got out of the North. They have a golden opportunity now to redeem themselves. Let them get out and let us solve our own problems and, Heaven knows, there are enough statesmen around to set the right pattern.

The protest by the people last Sunday was an expression of opinion. I appeal to them, when the time comes again in Newry next Sunday, to express their opinions in a dignified way, a way that will command respect. When the SDLP and the Civil Rights Association march again in Newry next Sunday it will be yet another protest against British tyranny. The people are not prepared to accept Deputy FitzGerald's pro-British attitude. These protests are laudable and those who protest should be protected. I hope that the Taoiseach's appeal is listened to. If it is not, then we shall have another "Derry" next Sunday. If we have another "Derry", and another 13 are killed up there, maybe we will then appreciate fully the situation in the North where the people have been literally under siege for the last two and a half years. Deputy Blaney and others have been telling us what would happen. He is there living close to this puppet State. He and others know what is going on. They know the tyranny the people in the Bogside and Creggan are suffering. If they cannot voice their opinions freely, then we are not living in the same democracy that we think we are. No one knows the position better than Neil Blaney. No one could have a better insight into the type of tyranny carried on by British soldiers than Neil Blaney.

Long Kesh and Magilligan have been mentioned. We have not yet properly awakened here to the situation. Deputy Lenihan, Minister for Transport and Power, an ex-colleague of mine, said that as far as he was concerned the facts had been laid before the House for the first time ever. In other words, the fact that Magilligan had been opened is ignored. We ignore the fact that 27 of these unfortunate men in Long Kesh will never make love to their wives again because of torture by British soldiers. These are the circumstances in which we appeal to the British Government, once again on our bended knees, to have consideration for us. We cannot take up arms against the British. We cannot stop them inflicting their laws on the people in the North. Fine Gael says we should turn the other cheek. If we turn another check we will have to stand on our heads to find one. This situation should never have arisen. We should never have allowed ourselves to react to British pressure. We should show the people in the North that we are interested in them, that we consider them to be part of this island, that the Protestants and Catholics there have nothing whatever to fear in our democracy.

The Government have in the past clearly displayed the democracy in which we live. We have given the Protestants an equal, if not a better share of the national cake. I hope we will continue to do that. If this is the type of thing which could and should encourage the Protestants in the North to realise that we down here are interested in their coming into a Thirty-Two County Republic, then I say to the Government they are doing a good job. Keep up the good work because there is no doubt we will win through, but only by getting Heath and Faulkner out and the Unionism they have tried to hold on to in Northern Ireland which results in the Catholic minority there being downtrodden. It is the rule of the iron hand. We must impress on the British Government that there is a place for the Six Counties here, that there are people there who would prefer to be in a Thirty-Two County Republic. They have voiced that opinion by demonstrating. They will do it again next Sunday. Will more people have to die before the Unionist Government realise the reign of terror they have wrought on the people of the Six Counties for the last 50 years will have to cease?

Mr. Heath is a Tory to his fingertips. His is a type which does not command respect in this part of our country. His is the type with which all through our history we have been confronted. His is the type who thinks of the Irish as gillies, people who deserve no democratic rights, people who must do whatever the stronger power says we should do.

We have appealed to Britain in numerous speeches saying that we are a weak nation but if we display to Britain and the world that we are a weak nation, what is the sense in sending the Minister for Foreign Affairs abroad to appeal to the United Nations for support in whatever way possible? We are prepared to accept support from wherever it comes and it is a good thing that the Minister should have gone abroad but let us not adopt a mealy-mouthed attitude. We should say that we are what we are and that the feelings expressed by the burning of the British Embassy are the true feelings of the Irish people. We feel we are as strong as any other nation when it comes to a question of independence and unity. If we want to show that, then we should go abroad and tell the people of the European Community that the Irish people will not this time be ground under British jackboots and cowed by the attitude of the Tories and the Heaths. In this final hour, the Irish in the South must decide to stand by the people in the North.

Deputy Blaney has been criticised in the same way as he was criticised in 1968, 1969 and 1970, because he predicts what will happen. His predictions last year came true and he was criticised for them not only in this House but in the Press and by the public at large. Now, they begin to realise that he was the only one speaking the truth, the only one with the courage of his convictions to stand up and say what he knew would happen and which did happen. He does not want any laurels or any credit for it: none of us do, but we are very sorry that what we said in the past has come true and sorry that this had to be to awaken the Irish nation to the realities of 13 deaths in Derry.

We have heard of people being shot but there are many things going on that the British Government are keeping hidden. There were more than 13 people shot last Sunday. People were taken away and shot and are now in the Foyle; no one knows where they will re-appear. People were taken away who have not turned up. Deputy Harte knows that because he knows individuals who were taken away by the British soldiers last Sunday and inquiries are still being made as to their whereabouts. They have not been interned; they were taken away in armoured cars but they have not been taken for questioning by the British in regard to their actions; they have not been found at home. Heaven knows where they are, but everybody can make the assumption that they got the same treatment as the 13 we honoured in Derry. This is the sort of thing of which the British public must be made aware.

I appeal to every Irishman in Britain and I say to him: "You are earning your living there because that suits Britain and it suits Britain to keep you there. You can claim a large responsibility for building up the economy of Britain because the Irish people worked harder than anybody else to build the British economy. Now is your golden opportunity to protest against the treatment by the forces which you assisted the British to finance. That money and those forces are now being used to shoot your fellow Irishmen. Now is the opportunity for Irishmen abroad to show that they object strenuously to what the British have been doing in Ireland and in Derry in particular in the last few days."

In America we got the treatment we expected when we sought support. Yesterday we were shown what the bluff and the blow of the Americans about their love for Ireland amount to, in no uncertain manner. We saw it also in regard to the airlines and on every occasion when Ireland has sought support. I do not regard that attitude as representative of the American attitude but it is the kind of attitude everyone here expects from people who are well-off themselves. The people in the Six Counties are anything but well-off and if we in the Twenty-six Counties are only interested in protecting our society here we should tell the people in the North that we are not interested in them.

I support the call of the Taoiseach for the withdrawal of British troops and I support the call for the mobilisation of the FCA and the first line reserves. Everybody should be in a state of readiness in regard to the protection of the minority in the North. I suggested before that our forces should be withdrawn from Cyprus. Men of our Army have been killed in the Congo and in Cyprus and we were ever ready to honour them in Glasnevin. I have applauded the tribute paid to them because I think every soldier who dies in the service of his country deserves tribute but I regret that some of our soldiers have still been left in Cyprus while we need them here. We know there are soldiers on duty here who have been getting no leave and who have been working around the clock because so many men are abroad. Whatever number are abroad should be recalled immediately.

The views expressed by some of my ex-colleagues in the Fianna Fáil benches were expressed by us on many occasions and because we expressed these very same views we are on these benches today and the people who are voicing those views now can freely do so. All I can say is, thank Heaven the sacrifice we had to make to allow those people to express these opinions has been proved worthwhile. They should keep up the good work because I now realise our views have had some effect. We have heard it expressed here again and again—it cannot be said too often —by Deputy Tunney, Deputy Moore and Deputy Dowling that the British must get out——

The Deputy's time is now up.

If they can now express those views our sacrifice has not been in vain. We must seek a peaceful solution but first let us think of the people in the North who need help, the people who are being tortured by the forces of British tyranny and imperialism and let us not forget them in their hour of need.

Surely there should be rotation of speakers?

The Deputy will appreciate that the previous two speakers were not from the Government side. The balance of speakers so far has been six on the Government side and 14 others. Deputy Cluskey will be called next.

I do not fully accept that Deputy Foley is not from the Government side. He happens to be a member of the Government party. We had Deputy Tunney, Deputy Harte and Deputy Foley and even were I to accept that Deputy Foley was not a member of the Government party— which I do not—I would still be entitled to speak next.

Deputy Cluskey offered at the same time as Deputy Foley.

We have had an official Fianna Fáil speaker in Deputy Tunney.

I consider it most regrettable that you have made this decision.

The appalling events which took place in Derry, the murder of 13 Derrymen, induces violent feelings of protest but at this juncture it would be as well if I did not repeat what has been said before on this subject but rather that I dealt with some of the more fundamental issues at this very grave hour. First, I am sure I will have agreement from everybody in the House when I say that the Civil Rights movement in the North is something that should be considered by us all.

Hear, hear.

The fact that it was possible for the Nationalists to mount a massive protest against discrimination and against the deprivation of 50 years, that it was possible for them to highlight the abuses of power on the part of the Northern Government, that it was possible to resuscitate the Nationalist movement in 1967 and that it was possible for the Civil Rights movement to do this without any intent to physical violence and without espousing the cause of those who sought gun violence was remarkable. For four years the Civil Rights movement—I refer in this to the majority of the Civil Rights people now known as the SDLP—have been awakening the hearts and the minds of the nationalists in the North and they have succeeded in bringing to the attention of the world the situation under which the minority live in the Six Counties. They have put into confusion the Unionist Party in the North in the sense that at last that party began to divide into various groups and there was the awakening of a number of Unionists, perhaps, very small in numbers and in influence, who began to realise that something had to be done about the situation.

The Civil Rights movement have resisted sectarian action. Continually, they have condemned the bombing of Unionist premises in the same way as they have condemned the acts of the British Army in their overkill attitude and in their brutality. During the past year and a half they have resisted what must have been a tremendous temptation to advocate violence. They have warned the people both of the Six Counties and of the Twenty-six Counties of the possible dangers of civil war. When we speak of the situation today in the North, we must commend all those there who have taken this responsible action. When one reads their speeches it is evident that if there is to be any settlement in the North, there must eventually be dialogue and communication between the Unionists and the Nationalists and that no matter what happens and no matter what settlement might be affected, be it on a long-term or on a short-term basis, nothing could be achieved unless the two communities ceased hating each other and began to understand each other and began to communicate with each other. I hope that these people and this group will retain their interest. Sometimes we have great moments of anxiety because the pressure on them, largely as a result of the tactics of the British Army and the British Government, have been very severe and nothing that we say in this House should do anything to diminish their ultimate responsibility and authority.

As usual, the British Government have been dilatory, too late, too unimaginative and have shown no initiative in dealing with the problem of the North. I refer to a brilliant statement made by the journalist and broadcaster, Keith Kyle who, writing in The Listener, said that the greatest enemy of British policy-making in Ireland at every single stage has been self-deception, that nothing that contributes now to self-deception about Ireland can conceivably be in the nationalist interest. The British Government have been indulging in self-deception in regard to the realities of the position in the North and now the dangerous brink of civil war has been reached. The British Government failed to take account of section 3 of the 1920 Act which presaged unity at a later date. They have never taken advantage of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 in which the British parliament continue to have absolute responsibility for all the affairs in the Northern Ireland administration. Their first and most colossal blunder was in relation to the events of 1968 and 1969 and the attacks on the civil rights movement and on the people of the Bogside.

There was a declaration of civil rights and the British Government failed to have the imagination to see that it was not sufficient for the Unionist Government simply to give an intent to carry out the civil rights declaration, that there had to be a complete change of mind and heart towards the minority, that these civil rights declarations had not only to be implemented absolutely—they have not been implemented yet—but that they had to be implemented in a way that would mean the ending of the complete domination of one group in the community by the local majority in the community in Northern Ireland. They failed to realise that it was not sufficient to state the form of civil rights but that what had to be done was to see that the form of administration in the North would be the same as it is in Lancashire or Yorkshire.

Then, in 1970 and 1971 the IRA began to enter the scene. They were never approved by the Civil Rights movement. They were never approved by us in the Dáil. They were subject to disapproval and rejection by more than 80 per cent of the whole of the Irish people. Again, the result of the IRA was extreme pressure by the Stormont administration for overkill and over-reaction by the British troops and for a further delay in the implementation of the Civil Rights and of an examination of the whole position. The British Government seemed impervious to all the influences that were brought to bear on them. They seemed to be impervious to the concept that massive attacks on the nationalist areas would give, inevitably, a political mandate to the IRA which they had not secured up to that time and that it would result inevitably in extreme pressure on all those in the North who were seeking a peaceful solution.

In 1971 there came what was an inevitable extension of the Civil Rights demand, namely, that there should be a two-stage operation in achieving reunification. The first stage was to be a complete change in the administration of the North with executive responsibility to be shared by the majority and the minority, the end of Unionist domination. It was the opinion of everybody that if Unionist domination ended and there was this form of new administration, the result would be that the Unionists would at least begin to look coherently and objectively at their situation in the course of the next 20 years and would begin to realise that, perhaps, after all they would enjoy a better life and that they would enjoy a fuller society, if they considered reunification as being the ultimate solution to the problem.

If one reads the speeches and statements made by the Taoiseach during that time it will be seen that he cannot be faulted in regard to anything he said and the whole of the diplomatic action taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the publicity effort conducted in Great Britain and in other countries, indicate that the Taoiseach at no time failed to realise what was the immediate impact of events and what had to be said immediately in any given situation. I would say that the Taoiseach's speeches made on July 11th, 1970, and on July 11th, 1971, will stand out in history as speeches which not only received the assent of virtually all the Members of this House but were also truly statesmanlike.

The result has been that, in spite of the woeful events in Derry, there has been some progress in making public opinion abroad aware of the position in the North. We have had for the first time the declarations by two Prime Ministers of Great Britain that they would agree to reunification under terms which they have stated. We have had even Mr. Maudling, with his total lack of imagination and understanding, saying that the British people would welcome reunification. We have had a great number of changes in opinion in responsible media in Great Britain.

Therefore, the work of the civil rights movement, the speeches made in this House by members of all parties and the speeches of the Taoiseach, have at least brought about a change in the climate of public opinion in Great Britain and in other countries. I suppose the best example of that would be a statement made this year in a paper which one could hardly conceive printing it, the Financial Times, which said that the British Government's responsibility to all the people of Northern Ireland would best be met if a new political agreement were reached which, in the British view, provided the most reasonable possible safeguards, there is no such thing as a cast-iron constitutional safeguard, for the Protestant people of the North under an all-Ireland Government.

I suppose the most important statement made by the Taoiseach was an exhortation made to Mr. Heath to exhort the Unionists to consider coherently and objectively the possibilities of reunification, to consider that whatever happens in the North, the Unionists will never regain their former domineering position. If there is a settlement and if the British are wise and accept the Taoiseach's terms, then they have lost their dominating position. If chaos continues, they have equally lost their dominating position.

We recognise that reunification cannot be immediate, but the Unionists should look at the alternatives. If we offer the proper constitutional safeguards they would have about 35 out of 200 seats in an all-Ireland Parliament and unless the political parties change their identity—and political parties are notoriously conservative in maintaining their identity—those 35 members from the North would hold the balance of power, and it is inconceivable that any Act of this Oireachtas would either bring about any disability, civil or otherwise, among the Unionists or that the power of any Government here could be exercised in such a way that it could be said that discrimination was levelled against the Unionists. Indeed, the Unionists in this Parliament would have an influence far exceeding their numbers and they would have this influence until they chose deliberately to take the step, which we would hope they would do, of integrating themselves with the political parties representing the Twenty-six Counties.

This is the long-term message to the Unionists. Everyone knows that is what would happen—if only they would accept the fact that they are never going to maintain their previous position of domination—that, once they got into this House, the least they would do is to see that their rights were protected and that nothing would be done by the Ministers here in charge of economics, industrial or foreign affairs, that could possibly be of a disadvantage to the million Unionists in the North. That is a fact and the Taoiseach and other Members of the House have stated that over and over again.

We must make it clear that we cannot expect the Unionists to consider these changes in an atmosphere of terror and, as Deputy Harte said, there has been appalling terror in the Nationalist areas and also among Unionists in the North, and we have to take account of those facts. If only the British would decide courageously to end internmemnt and to try those whom they believe to have been in breach of the law, and if only they would, as an experiment, withdraw their troops from the minority areas, the position would then be that the Unionists and the Nationalists would have to respect each other's position.

The British cannot destroy the infernal influence of the IRA. They can only, at this stage, remove the grounds for support of the IRA in the Nationalist areas. The British Government cannot succeed by over-kill and over-reaction. They can only accept the statements made by the civil rights movement that, if they will end internment, with all its obvious risks to them, remove the troops from the Catholic areas, and then enter into negotiations with the representatives of the minority in the North with a view to this two-stage operation, first, a change in the local administration and then at least being willing to discuss the possibilities for reunification, the justification for violence by the IRA will cease in the minds of the people who have so sorely suffered from the brutality of British troops, from their method of search, from their over-kill action. That is what the civil rights movement have asked the British to do.

One or two of the general officers commanding the British troops have stated openly that there can be no military solution without a political solution. It is rather unusual to permit officers commanding armies to make quasi-political statements, and it is a remarkable fact that General Tuzo, in spite of his being a professional army man, felt compelled to make this political statement which is in full justification of what those in the civil rights movement have said in regard to their capacity to lead the whole of their people in entirely political action for, first, a short-term settlement followed by discussions on the longer-term settlement of reunification. Indeed, one can say that the IRA and the British Army at this moment seem to be leagued together in widening the gulf between the Unionists and the Nationalists in the North and postponing the inevitability of a settlement. It is appalling to think that two different military movements seem almost to be conspiring together in a devilish fashion to bring about a possible civil war in this country.

As I have said, there has been much publicity abroad, and I want to make this statement to the House from my own personal experience. It just so happens that I have been delegated by the Taoiseach on a great many occasions, and other Deputies have joined me sometimes and on most of the occasions I have spoken by myself, to appear on television and radio in most countries of Europe and in America. I have also been interviewed by innumerable journalists.

I want to make it clear to everyone that since World War Two, a spirit has grown up among the peoples of Northern Europe, and among all responsible lovers of liberty, that they cannot justify the use of military violence to secure any political aim whatever. The actions of the IRA have been a source of embarrassment and difficulty for me in presenting the case for Northern reunification and the case for a change in the Administration in the North. It has been a source of embarrassment to me at all times.

They may condemn internment, and many of them have condemned internment. They may condemn the over-kill attitude of the British Army but they could not, any of them, justify the intervention of the IRA when the intervention of the IRA began. Every conversation with every responsible journalist begins and ends on this note: "We do not believe in the use of the gun to settle political conflicts within the bounds of civilised democracies in Europe." That has been the attitude I have had to face right through the whole of the innumerable interviews I have had with journalists.

I can endorse that from my own experience.

This is one of the things which reduces the value of all the propaganda we want to see emerging from this House, of all the speeches made by the Taoiseach, of all the speeches made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of all diplomatic intervention by our ambassadors abroad.

As I have said, the British Army have been doing their best in the past year to build up the strength of the IRA. For that reason it is very urgently necessary that they should take the advice of the Taoiseach and this House in order to strengthen the support of those in the North who seek a peaceful political solution. I have heard the war-mongers speak in this House. I have no respect for them whatever.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

All of them seem to talk in an atavistic way as though this were 1919, and as though there were any comparison between the use of military force under Government control in 1919 and the position now, when every word said by them could bring civil war nearer in the North.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

As one who suffered in the last civil war I am horrified to think that anyone in the circumstances of the North, which are totally different from what they were in the tragic events of 1922, would say anything in this House for political popularity purposes, or out of resentment, that would bring civil war one second nearer. All of the talk about giving guns to groups to defend themselves in the North is an incitement to civil war and nothing else. The idea that massing the whole of the Irish Army on the Border would not be an immediate incitement to civil war is wrong. Quite evidently the only result would be an incitement to civil war.

If any serious international incident were created, should these gentlemen have their way, we would lose all the sympathy we have built up in the world. We would not only be regarded as grossly politically irresponsible; the world would regard us as mad, and we have enough propaganda by our enemies about the mad Irish not to wish to have it justified by statements that could inevitably lead to civil war.

As we have said, the British must act as a catalyst in matters relating to the North. They must accept their responsibility for having produced Partition, for having initiated it. They must accept responsibility for having created a situation in which they are encouraging their own enemies. One only has to look at the number of those who died in the North in 1971 and the constant increase, the mounting increase, since to see how hopeless their military policy has been in so far as they wish to bring back the situation to where there would only be political agitation and massive political protests.

Naturally all of us feel explosive about the appalling situation in Derry but in the end there must be reconciliation. None of the plans, neither the reunification plan nor the first stage plan, will be possible unless Unionists and Catholics start a dialogue and communicate with each other. We can make speeches in this House and make protests, and cite the whole of the ghastly history of the North, but ultimately there must be communication or we will not succeed in our objectives.

We are having this debate because of the very tragic events in Derry last Sunday. I personally am convinced that the killing of the 13 people in Derry last Sunday was a deliberate and premeditated act by the British Army. I am forced to that conclusion by reading statements which were made by Stormont officials and the security forces in that area on Saturday. I am also convinced that the reason why Ian Paisley called off what he described as a prayer meeting in the Guildhall Square in Derry was that he was assured by the security forces of the Six Counties that, if he called off his demonstration, the British Army would deal with any civil rights demonstrations, and God knows they dealt with them.

There is a penalty under the law in the Six Counties for a breach of the ban on parades. At present it is not illegal in the Six Counties to hold a meeting. It is illegal to parade or march. Apparently the penalty that was prescribed overnight for a breach of the ban on parades was changed from six months. I think, in prison to death without trial. In fact, the 13 people who were shot were not parading at the time they were shot. Even under the law in the Six Counties at that moment they were attending a meeting.

I had occasion to visit Westminster on behalf of the Labour Party during the early part of this week. Quite frankly I came back from that visit very downhearted and very disappointed because, so far as I could judge after visiting the House of Commons and speaking to MPs, out of a total of I think 630 MPs, one would have to look very hard to find 25 or 30 MPs who really know or are really concerned about the situation that now exists in our island. I do not want in any way to take from the efforts and the concern of those people who are numbered in that 25 or 30. Some of them have been outstanding and very dedicated to the cause of peace and unity in this island. They deserve our full praise and appreciation for it. The impression I got was that as far as the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons were concerned, and particularly those on the Conservative Benches, they had been through others like this. They had Palestine, Cyprus, Aden and many others and now they have the Six Counties. It just fits into the category of one of those things. This is an unfortunate thing.

We heard during the course of this debate people saying: "I told you so." I did not tell anyone so. I was a member of a deputation for my party who went to Westminster in August, 1969, with a view to having more troops brought into the Six Counties in order to save the minority from attack and possible annihilation by the majority or people who claim to represent the majority. I would not accept they truly represent the majority. The reason I was associated with this request was that Irishmen are Irishmen and I am not concerned about their religion or about their politics. I am only concerned that they should have the right to choose both their religion and their politics if they do not infringe on the rights of others.

During the conversation I had last Monday with the leader of the British Opposition I told him that after Sunday's events the British Army, in my opinion, were just as acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people, both North and South, as the B Specials were in 1969. The British Army as a peace-keeping force have lost whatever little credibility they had before last Sunday and no useful purpose can be served by maintaining British forces in the North.

That leaves us with the problem of one million Irish men and women who do not want to be coerced into a political union they do not agree with and who should not be coerced. I have been critical of the Taoiseach and the present Government on many aspects of their Northern policy but I want to state quite clearly that I subscribe fully to the basic fundamentals of that policy of not using force to achieve our political aims. The impression I got from the British people and some British MPs at the moment is the feeling that they would like to pull out, take their boys home. Make no mistake about it, despite last Sunday, and if there were 20 more Sundays like it, the British public and the British MPs will back their army no matter what atrocities that army may commit. That unfortunately is the situation we are faced with. You will still hear them speak of "our boys" and they will back what they describe as "our boys".

That is the reality we must face. Although there is a growing feeling of "pull the British Army out now" and pressure will come very heavily to pull them out, we must ask ourselves where that leaves us. This House has to consider, if the British Army are now unacceptable and are pulled out, have we got a civil war? Have we got Irishmen shooting one another, burning each other's homes and burning each other's families in those homes? Is that the prospect that faces us? Is that the legacy Britain would leave us with, as she did in Palestine? She exploited Palestine for God knows how long and when it got too hot she just pulled out and left the two communities there at one another's throats. Is that what she intends to do with Ireland? I hope not.

We have been trying for some time now to find a solution and I do not doubt the sincerity of many Members of this House in trying to find a genuine solution. I think there is a responsibility on Britain to pull out the British troops. I hope if that happens that there is not a holocaust here between Protestants and Catholics due mainly, if not entirely, to the activities of the British Government over the years in this island.

I understand that even if Britain pulls out she will still be recognised by international bodies, such as the UN, as exercising jurisdiction over the Six Counties. I also understand that, if she pulled out and declared immediately before doing so that she no longer wished to exercise any control over any part of this island, then the Dublin Government would be recognised as the one which in international terms exercises jurisdiction. I do not think it is any secret that while the British Army are totally unacceptable to the minority in the Six Counties the Irish Army would be equally as unacceptable to the majority in the Six Counties. If a situation such as I have described were to arise we as the lawful Government recognised internationally as exercising legitimate control over all of this island could call in the United Nations to police the Six County area until such time as all Irishmen could arrive at some formula in which we could all live in comparative harmony with each other. I do not know whether this is possible but in the frantic search for some solution that will avoid bloodshed I put it forward.

Much has been said about Deputy Blaney's speech here yesterday. I must say I agree with most of what was said, but one aspect of it was not referred to. To me it was the most dangerous aspect of the whole debate. When he referred to people in the Twenty-six Counties with British connections, British titles, British decorations, and when he stated they should be sent back, to me that meant—I am quite sure it was the impression most Unionists got—that he was calling for a witch hunt of people with any British connections in the Twenty-six Counties. I am totally convinced that Deputy Blaney does not speak for the vast majority of the Irish people if, as I believe, that is what he meant.

Hear, hear.

There seems to me to be one fundamental difference between the opinions on how to solve Partition. The difference is on the definition of unity. Is it territorial unity? If that is all we want to achieve, possibly there is some merit in mobilising the Army, calling back our troops from Cyprus, calling up the FCA. The co-founder of the party to which I belong, James Connolly, said when speaking of Ireland that Ireland without its people meant nothing to him. I do not think Ireland without its people should mean anything to any of us and the people in Northern Ireland, the one million who follow the Protestant faith and who vote Unionist, are Irish, our people.

Hear, hear.

Because they were reared in a different tradition does not make them less so. I was born into a Catholic home in this city and I have most of the prejudices of a Southern Catholic. They have most of the prejudices of Northern Protestants. These are the things we have to reconcile because that is the only worthwhile unity to achieve. All parties in this House have ruled out war or force of arms as a solution. I agree fully with that. But if we rule that out— we have, thank God—we must on the other front that we have opened go for total war. I am talking about the diplomatic front. On the instructions of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has gone to the UN, to the American Government and, I understand, to what have been described vaguely as friendly nations in Europe. I saw Deputy Hillery on television and I want to say frankly that I was not very impressed.

I was not impressed and the people whom he was supposed to be impressing, the diplomats of America and Europe, were far less impressed. Ranting and raving on television might be very good for home consumption but I seriously doubt its beneficial effects in international circles from the point of view of getting us understanding and sympathy in our present plight. I read in this morning's newspapers that the American Secretary of State said that as far as America is concerned they prefer to remain neutral in the Six County situation.

Why? They have their own Six Counties in Vietnam and the price of their silence, their neutrality, on our Six Counties is British silence on their atrocities in Vietnam.

And our silence, too.

When we get into international diplomacy we had better face the reality that we will get only what we pay for and that payment is usually in kind. All we are worth as far as America is concerned is an odd sentimental son, Paddy the Irishman. If we are serious about thinking along the lines of international pressure on the British Government to resolve the situation, let us act seriously. Let us go where we will get something, not because they love us but possibly because they can use us in exchange. That is what the whole thing is about. The Americans, in my opinion, have it in their minds so firmly that we are a friendly, harmless little island that they can afford to come out and tell us they will remain neutral on the Six County issue. It pays them to do it. Britain will remain silent on Vietnam; the Americans will remain quiet on the Six Counties. That is the way the game is played.

But I wonder how Nixon and Heath would react in regard to NATO if we did a Mintoff act, if we brought a few Russian naval officers to Donegal, to our side of the Border, within sight of the Magilligan concentration camp, with the object of setting up a Russian naval base. Ireland might then start to become uppermost in the American minds and in the minds of NATO. Unfortunately, that is the way it is. If we are of no use to them they will give us nothing but if we are a threat to them, or if we appear as if we could be of advantage to somebody they do not like, then they will listen to us.

As I have said, if we have rejected force we must play the other card to the ultimate. That is the diplomatic front. I do not say that anyone will have a bleeding heart for poor little Catholic Ireland. They did not have it for Catholic Belgium in 1914. Our situation at the moment is that we are on the brink of being totally out of control. We have seen the reaction to the 13 dead, the 13 murdered, in Derry last Sunday. Can anyone without feelings of intense horror contemplate what the reaction next week will be if there is a repetition in Newry? The minority in the North have made it quite clear that until they get justice there will be Derrys and Newrys every weekend at other venues. There is a grave responsibility on this House and it is important for us to appreciate that the sense of urgency we feel in my opinion is not shared by the Westminster Government.

I should like to begin by re-echoing the words of the last speaker. We meet here today at a most grave period in our history. It can be agreed by all that we are at a crossroads. Unless each and every one of us in this House is careful, because we have a grave responsibility, we may take the wrong road which can lead to chaos and disaster for our country, North and South, and for all our people, Catholic, Protestant and dissenter.

Last Sunday the British Army brutally murdered 13 innocent people in Derry. The question throughout the length and breadth of Ireland and throughout the whole world is why. Nobody seems to know. It was utterly inexcusable violence on defenceless people, members of the Civil Rights organisation who were marching in perhaps a technical breach of the law but people who have been downtrodden for so long and who were demanding their rights and justice for themselves and for their families. They had no guns. They were unarmed. I should like to put on the record of this House what an Italian journalist, Fulvio Grimaldi, stated. I quote from Hibernia of 4th February, 1972:

I have travelled in many countries. I have seen many civil wars and revolutions and wars. I have never seen such a cold-blooded murder, organised, disciplined murder, planned murder.

We wonder what was the reason for this. It is a sad day for Ireland, but we must be careful because the stage may be set here for civil war and those of us who are in this House should not try to inflame an already dangerous situation. We do not want to turn the other cheek but we must banish revenge from our hearts and work for a political solution which I believe men of goodwill, working together, can yet attain.

I sympathise with the relatives of those 13 people and also with the relatives of all who have lost their lives in the tragic events in the North during the past three years. More harm has been done to the Irish nation in the past three years than an invader would have dared to do. We are all, I suppose, prisoners of our past but why should we allow ourselves to continue to be ruled from the grave? Much of what has happened need never have happened. We should all resolve here and now that we will do our part to raise all our people from the depths into which we have been plunged by violence which is generating, almost uncontrollably, the emotions of distrust, hatred and fear.

Many people, especially the young, have been misled by IRA propaganda. I do not want to blame them for that because many politicians give the impression of standing idly by. I think it only right to say that the Civil Rights organisation did more in two years than the politicians and the gunmen did for the past 50 years because their cause is a just cause. We must not today be misled by false emotionalism, spurious, narrow or fanatical nationalism, such as we have heard from some of the speakers here today. To those young people who believe in the gun, who believe in violence, I would say that they should read and ponder on the words of Senator Mullins in the Seanad on Wednesday, 26th January, 1972, when he stated at column 296, Vol. 72, No. 4, of the Official Report:

It is no harm to recall that in 1921 the Republican Government took a decision that they would secure the reunification of Ireland by peaceful and by negotiated means. They thereby set their faces definitely and resolutely against the use of force to coerce any section of the people in the north-eastern counties into the Irish Republic.

The youth of today have the same ideas and ideals as the young people of 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 but they are misled and they should listen to people like Senator Tom Mullins who have seen both sides of it.

We should be careful because emotions may run riot in our country. From yesterday's papers and those of the day before we can see that we have a wave of petrol bombing, burnings and lootings in Dublin, Cork and other cities. We can perhaps understand the violent reactions to Derry's Bloody Sunday, the killing of those 13 civilians by the British Army. Perhaps the people are entitled to justifiable anger but not to revenge, not an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. We are entitled to ask what good this will do? There is a danger here and I do not want to use these words, because I have used them too often in the past and for two years the Taoiseach sneered and jeered back at me when I spoke about the drift to anarchy in this country. I did not notice it from him in the last four or five months. There is serious fear among people of a drift to anarchy today.

I was in Merrion Square the day the British Embassy was burned. It is a pity our gardaí were not being given the full protection of the State. Those in a responsible position should have known what would happen there. There were no barricades, barbed-wire entanglements or anything to keep back the people. The gardaí were defenceless. They did their best. I moved among the people and I would say that 70 to 75 per cent of those who were there were there as onlookers and there was only a small minority bent on destruction. They are the anarchists in our midst who are anxious to use any and every opportunity to harm their own country. Remember they are only doing harm. I stand for only one Garda force and one Army. They are there to protect property and to protect each and every one of us. They are our brothers and sisters. The time has come for the Taoiseach to go on television and on radio and to say, as he did in the case of the farmers at one time, that he is prepared to use the full might of this State to put down anarchists in our country. The time is now right. Tomorrow may be too late.

At this moment a grave responsibility rests on each and every one of us to mould public opinion and to channel the emotions of our people in the proper direction. The position, North and South, is serious. Old embers of suspicion, mistrust and hatred which were thought, at least in the South, to be dying and dead have been fanned to flames. Men's emotions and passions have been roused and now misunderstanding, malice, aggression, destruction, cruelty and death stalk the land. Almost 200 people have been killed in the last two years. Even here, friends are parting, tourists are avoiding our shores, children's minds are being poisoned, law and order are breaking down. Gunmen struck the streets of some of our towns with impunity. Very little action has been taken.

The time has come to call a halt to the madness, if it is not already too late. This will require the co-operation of all responsible people and a major creative reconciliation effort that will herald a message of peace for our country. Hatred must be replaced by love, bigotry by tolerance, prejudice by understanding and revenge by forgiveness, charity and good neighbourliness. We must remember when people are making the type of inflammatory speeches that were made here today that there are 1,300,000 Irish people living and earning their living in England. War-mongering speeches put those people in a very difficult and embarrassing position. Indeed, they are being lashed daily by the prejudice and the distortions of the popular British press which substitutes near-hysteria for rational comment. They are torn between heart and head, as all Irishmen are, by the horrors of violence and the justice of the minority cause, more intimately known to them than to their British fellow-workers and employers. There have been a few instances of antagonism shown to the Irish on buses and in pubs by ill-informed people who fail to read behind the headlines. Speeches such as were made here today will do further harm and we should be careful that they are not made throughout the country in the coming weeks.

As far as I am concerned, I abhor violence, whether that be the violence of Stormont of 50 years of mal-administration, of administrative violence by a party that denied the basic human civil rights of 40 per cent of the people. I abhor the violence of the RUC, a sectarian force for far too long and a force that turned the blind eye on the law-breaking activities of certain sections of the Orange Order. I abhor the violence of the B-Specials. I abhor the violence of the IRA, the violence of those who place bombs in ESB and other buildings, who shoot fellow-Irishmen, because, whether we disagree with them in religion or anything else, they are our brothers and sisters, these people in the North of Ireland. I abhor the violence of men who go out and shoot a busman for being prepared to do his duty. I abhor also the violence of the British Army and the brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners, and the violence of the British paratroopers who behave only as the Black and Tans behaved in Ireland in the past.

I abhor all violence and want to express my horror and revulsion for the acts of extreme violence and cruelty and inhumanity which have taken place in Northern Ireland in the past few years but I do think the time has come in this country to stand up and be counted. Moral courage is needed at the present time and it is the duty of all of us in public life at this late hour in the history of our State and it is the duty of parents, priests, teachers and all those who can help to mould public opinion, to speak out fearlessly and courageously against brutality and violence, no matter from what quarter they may come. People in high places in this country have been silent for too long, have not condemned violence and now we have it in our midst.

Those, unfortunately, in this country —indeed, a lead was given in this House today—who preach violence have now been gaining ground on both sides. Their gospel is being preached daily in our newspapers in sermons of blood. The euphemisms for war give their actions a veneer of respectability. Their convictions command the respect of their followers. The bravery of some of these has not been lost sight of. Some of them are brave young men but they are misguided. Our schools and teachers have a lot to answer for. In the past, hatred has been preached and has been engendered in children. Children have been taught to glorify those who stood for violence in the past and to vilify those who stood for a peaceful solution, for unity through peaceful means.

I do not like condemning papers. I hit out and say what I have to say. They also have a right to say what they please. But I do think the leading articles in The Irish Press are doing grave disservice to this country, especially to the youth of this country. You see Joe Cahill stated to be the greatest Irishman since Michael Collins. After Ballyshannon and the riots in Ballyshannon, responsible organs of opinion should be calling on the people of the country to obey our civic guards. When you see subversive elements put on the same standing as our civic guards, then it is time to question the motives of some of the leader writers in this particular organ.

I stand for what the Civil Rights Association of John Hume, Gerry Fitt and the SDLP stand for in Northern Ireland—for political reform, for reconciliation and for reunification. We need to build bridges. Let it be remembered that we cannot shoot or bomb 1,000,000 Protestants into a united Ireland. We must break down the fears, the hatred and the prejudices which have genuinely existed and which, unfortunately, exist now more than at any time in the last 50 years. I blame the subversive elements in the North for that because the Civil Rights Association did more in two years than our politicians and our gunmen did in 50 years.

I am for peace, for justice. I do not want to see another civil war in this country. What happened on last Sunday in Derry will fade into insignificance in Northern Ireland or in the Republic if there is a civil war. I do not want to see civil war here. One civil war was enough. The hatred and the bitterness engendered then lasted for half a century. I do not want to see Irish boys and girls lying dead in the gutter here in this city or in any other town in Ireland. To those anarchists and those subversive elements who want to challenge or bring down the institutions of this State, I say it is better to build on the institutions that are already there. They may not be perfect. Politicians may, perhaps, have let the people down. But it is much better to build on what we have than to destroy all and to have all our people crawling in the gutter.

The institutions that we have today have been built up through the blood, the sweat and the tears of past generations. For this little country of ours it would be better for all if we had more people prepared to work for Ireland and fewer people talking about liberating the Six Counties from the luxury of their ill-gotten goods. We have far too many people who are prepared to lead from behind. We do know that statesmanship and leadership and political initiatives are needed at once from the British Government.

I agree with those who said that the paratroopers must be taken out of the Catholic areas in the North and a United Nations peacekeeping force brought in. The British Army must be taken out at once but I do not want to see that army taken out and a civil war ensuing. I want to have someone there from the United Nations to keep the peace because I believe it will be necessary to keep the peace between the people in the North who, unfortunately, as a result of the tragedies of the last two years have now become polarised in their different groups. All of us here must realise our responsibility. We must explore all peaceful avenues open to us. Let us forget revenge and remember the dangers of a civil war, remember what might happen to our people.

We should organise a news agency to bring the injustice of Partition before the world. It has never been brought home properly to the Protestants and Unionists of Northern Ireland that they will have nothing to fear in a united Ireland. Away back in 1921 there were fears and prejudices but the minority down here now admit that they have been fairly treated by successive Irish Governments. We should also appeal to the EEC countries to get Britain to put her house in order. There are small and friendly countries in Europe which would be prepared to help us in this direction. We must call on Britain to cease the lunatic policy of cratering roads. That only helps to get recruits for the IRA. Many people have called for an end to internment, have asked that those guilty of crimes should be brought to justice and the innocent, and there are many innocent, should be released.

Let us hit Britain in her pocket. We are her third best customer. Let us now start a "Buy Irish" campaign and show our solidarity. Let our workers stand together to maintain jobs for our own brothers and sisters. We have too many here who are not prepared to put their money where their mouths are. Indeed, I had an argument recently in Waterford with a millionaire who was talking about going up to the North to fight. I told him there were too many like him. I asked him why not go up with his ill-gotten gains. He was dressed in a £100 London-made mohair suit. These are the people who talk about Irish nationality. It would be much better if some of these would give a lead instead of just talking. I would appeal to all our people, in the words of the distinguished churchmen, to stop now before the country is plunged into disaster and to show restraint because the eyes of the world are on us.

Lastly, I would appeal to all engaged in violence in Northern Ireland—the British Government, the Stormont Government and the IRA—to call a truce and let talks start immediately today; tomorrow may be too late. Further holocausts must be avoided. Eventual unification is the only cure for our problems but some form of transitional government will be needed in the interim in the North. If Mr. Heath and others of goodwill sit around a table that could be agreed on immediately.

We are a small nation. I would not ask one to do what I am not prepared to do myself—that is, to take up arms against either the Northern Government or the British Government. We should not ask anyone to do that. We should not try to plunge our nation into civil war. Our cause is a just cause and we should and I believe we can get support for it. What can a small nation do? If the cause is just, I believe that even a small nation can do a "helluva" lot.

I would conclude by quoting from the late President Kennedy's speech here to the combined Houses of the Oireachtas:

It is that quality of the Irish, the remarkable combination of hope, confidence and imagination that is needed more than ever today. The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by sceptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were, and ask why not. It matters not how small a nation is that seeks world peace and freedom, for, to paraphrase a citizen of my country: "The humblest nation of all the world, when clad in the armour of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error."

This little nation may be humble but, today, she is clad in the armour of a righteous cause, and, if our case is put properly before the world, we can, and will, succeed.

In the aftermath of the tragic events that took place in Derry last Sunday, the most striking development, so far as we are concerned, has been the tremendous unity of purpose displayed by all our people in giving expression to their sympathy for the victims of these events and their solidarity with the bereaved citizens of Derry. The Government have been greatly heartened by this manifestation of unity. It will, I believe, be a source of strength to all of us in our efforts to bring about a solution of the Northern problem based on justice and peace. I hope it will promote goodwill and be the basis of reconciliation for all our people, North and South.

As Minister for Justice, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the magnificent work of the Garda Síochána in the face of the great difficulties with which they had to contend in recent days. In particular, I have in mind those members of the force who had to contend with events at the British Embassy. The patience, restraint and discipline with which they discharged their very onerous duties have put the whole community in their debt and I know I am speaking for all our people when I offer them our sincere thanks for what they did. Regrettably, quite a large number of gardaí received injuries and some are still in hospital. I am, however, happy to say that none was really badly injured. To all of them I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I should like now to answer what I regard as a particularly vicious misrepresentation disseminated by some of the cross-channel news media, namely, that the gardaí on duty at the British Embassy stood by and allowed certain elements in the crowd to set fire to and destroy the Embassy. This is a travesty of the truth and a libel on the force. All Members of this House will, I am sure, join with me in protesting against this sordid and ill-founded allegation. The fact of the matter is that at the height of the troubles outside the Embassy there were at least 20,000 people assembled there. The control of a crowd of these proportions presented the gravest difficulty for the gardaí. Not alone had they to concern themselves with the protection of the Embassy but they also had to have regard to the safety of the people present, the overwhelming majority of whom were gathered to demonstrate peacefully against the events of last Sunday. The very size of the crowd made it impossible for the gardaí to deal effectively with the small element that engaged in criminal acts of arson and violence. In the particular circumstances the gardaí were virtually powerless to prevent the throwing of petrol bombs at the premises and the gaining of access to the premises by a number of people who proceeded to complete the work of destruction.

Again, when the fire brigade arrived on the scene to deal with the fire, the presence of so large a crowd hampered the gardaí to such an extent that they were unable to prevent some of those present from deliberately interfering with the fire brigade units in their attempts to get to grips with the fire. Those who engaged in this work brought discredit on themselves and on all of us. This building as well as being an embassy was an integral part of a beautiful square. It would be interesting to speculate on how many of these criminals and arsonists have on other occasions demonstrated about the destruction of Georgian buildings. They destroyed a fine building and they landed the taxpayer with a huge bill.

It has been alleged by a number of commentators that these events should have been anticipated and that fairly simple precautions, if they had been taken in time, could have prevented the destruction of the Embassy. Yesterday Deputy Ryan talked about the erection of barricades to keep the crowd back from the vicinity of the building and today Deputy L'Estrange spoke on the same lines, of the necessity for barbed wire barricades and similar obstructions between the gardaí and the people of Dublin. I should like to record, for the benefit of Deputies and others who have made these statements, that the Garda Síochána had considered all the problems that might arise and had carefully assessed what measures were necessary and what measures were desirable. The measures that were taken by them were the measures which, in their professional judgment, were demanded by the overall situation. One of the obvious factors they had to consider, as they have to consider in relation to any other building which might call for protection, is that they cannot and should not concentrate all their resources on that one building. To do so would be clearly to invite destruction elsewhere.

I can tell the House that one of the measures considered by the Garda Síochána was the erection of barricades of various types. They, the Garda Síochána, decided against it. Another measure which the Garda had to consider was the possibility of enlisting the assistance of the Army. Here, again, the Garda took the deliberate decision not to enlist this support as they believed that in the particular circumstances it could make little or no contribution but would, undoubtedly, exacerbate the kind of situation likely to arise, and while this judgment, this decision, was made entirely as a result of the professional judgment of the Garda Síochána, I may say as a layman that I fully subscribe to the decisions they took in this respect and in other respects regarding the protection of the building.

One of the absurdities one finds in all this criticism, or in these suggestions now made after the fact, is that when something happens which ought not to happen in an area in which the Garda Síochána are in some way involved, a number of people are quick to rush in to blame me and the Government for, as they put it, not anticipating events and not making proper plans or not taking what these critics regard as suitable preventive action. On other occasions mostly these very same critics and their friends keep on alleging in the Dáil and in newspaper publicity that I and my Department are interfering in the making of what are properly and solely matters for the professional judgment of the police. The fact is that neither I nor my Department interfere in the making of decisions of this kind. The decisions that had to be taken in relation to the protection of the British Embassy were matters for the professional judgment of the police and for them alone and it was they and they alone who made the decisions. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the decisions they took were reasonable in the light of all the facts and of all their responsibilities. Certainly, the British Embassy is gone, but it could have been saved only at great risk to innocent human life and this Government and their security forces have more respect for innocent human life than another Government in this part of the world.

Turning now to another aspect of the situation, I want to refer back to what the Taoiseach has said about the danger signals that have made their appearance in recent days. Indeed, not only the Taoiseach but the Leader of the main Opposition Party and other Opposition spokesmen have shown that they, too, recognise the danger. As Minister for Justice, it is my special duty to direct attention to this danger. It is a fact that known habitual criminals were prominent among those concerned in the violent scenes witnessed in Dublin over the past few days. People of this kind will always take advantage of any such situation to do destruction, but I am not too worried about them. What I am worried about is the participation of certain others and the leading role played by them particularly when considered against the background of a number of incidents of intimidation that have occurred over the past few months, involving persons known to be associated with illegal organisations.

The incidents I am referring to, although known to a fair number of people, have not in all cases been publicised and I myself am inhibited to a great degree from referring to them more specifically, as there is a possibility of the Garda being able to take proceedings against the persons concerned. I say "a possibility" because the indications are that witnesses have been threatened with reprisals if they make statements to the Garda or if, having made statements, they give evidence in court. We cannot allow a situation to develop in which our citizens could be made so afraid of such groups that intimidation of this kind would have to be tolerated. Threats have also been made in recent times to British-owned or British-controlled businesses here. Bomb threats were made on Wednesday to several Government offices; private buildings have been attacked by anarchist thugs. This is a sorry situation that has grown up over the past few days, fomented out of the genuine sorrow of the Irish people for the events of last Sunday.

Side by side with this, we already have people—some of them speaking out of genuine sympathy for the people of Derry—who are calling for the release of certain prisoners and for a policy of the blind eye towards illegal organisations. There can be no question of any such policy being adopted. The fundamental fact is that we have here a freely-elected Parliament and a freely-elected Government. No private group have any right under any pretence whatsoever to disregard the law as enacted by this Parliament. To claim such a right is a challenge not just to the Government in office at the moment but to the basic institutions of the State. There is in this matter no room for ambivalence. A public speaker, a writer, a commentator in the Press, on radio or television, be he lay or cleric, who in present circumstances seeks to excuse or explain away the actions of illegal bodies here or who tries to go a bit of the road with everybody bears grave responsibility. So too does the person who, invoking the principle of free discussion, provides either in newspapers or otherwise a public platform for views which, if put into action, would destroy our institutions. It is a grave responsibility at any time, but it is particularly so now. So far as the Government are concerned, I want to assure this House again that we accept as one of our most fundamental duties a duty to protect the institutions of the State and to see that the authority of Parliament is not flouted particularly in the areas of life and death and peace and war. This duty we will discharge.

Deputy Paudge Brennan.

May I ask if Deputy Brennan and Deputy Blaney are being regarded as Government speakers, or have they developed a particular calling right of their own?

In the circumstances I am correct in calling on Deputy Brennan, who I understand will take up very little time.

Yes, except that I think a precedent is being created.

I did not intend to speak in this debate because I appreciated that time was limited and that a number of Deputies would be anxious to speak. Now that I am speaking I do not intend to speak for very long. I am glad common sense prevailed yesterday morning and that an opportunity was given to discuss the problems of the Six Counties. I was worried because it appeared none of the leaders of the other two parties would have sought this debate and were it not for the fact that Deputy Blaney had indicated here on Tuesday that he wished to have a debate and that he was here yesterday morning to make a claim for it, I doubt very much if we would have had any such debate and, as Deputy Foley said, we would probably have adjourned yesterday evening and would now be at home.

There have been quite a number of interesting contributions and it would have been a pity if the opportunity had not been given. It is hard to understand why Deputy Cosgrave or Deputy Corish did not think it worth while to come in yesterday morning or during the discussion with the Whips on yesterday's business and try to get time for a debate rather than leave the matter to Deputy Blaney. The debate has been interesting because we have had some extraordinary conversions. I compliment Deputy Tully, the first speaker from the Labour Party, on his contribution because I thought we had here a definite change of heart in the Labour Party and in their thinking in regard to the Northern situation.

Since the fatalities in Derry the point has been made that we must have a united front here and that we now seem to have it in the sense that the Taoiseach has already had a meeting with the leaders of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. I do not think this is anything new. The tragedy of the past two or three years is that we have had this united front all the time and if we had the present type of approach we might not have had the tragedy of Derry last Sunday. To make this point I must go back to 1969, but I shall try to be as brief as possible. The Taoiseach spoke in August, 1969, and made an historic speech which was accepted as one of the greatest from any statesman here in the previous 25 years. The only parallel that I remember was when Mr. de Valera replied to Churchill in the war years. The speech I mean has been referred to so often as the "not-stand-idly-by" speech. Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish applauded the Taoiseach and said they were 100 per cent behind him when he made it. He began to back-pedal immediately and the extraordinary thing was that it appeared to me that Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish back-pedalled with him and back-pedalled to the stage where, if a Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party at that time even mentioned the Six Counties inside or outside the House, he was rapped on the knuckles for it and if not by the Taoiseach, the leaders of the other two parties insisted that he should be rapped.

In May, 1970, we had the dismissals of Ministers and a condemnation of their activities. The Opposition directed their attacks to people like Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey. Weeks afterwards we had the arrest of John Kelly and all of this was approved 100 per cent by both Fine Gael and Labour. The arrest of John Kelly, in my opinion, was the indication from here to the people in the North that we were no longer with them, that we were going to turn our backs on them. This is exactly what we did and the Fianna Fáil Government had the full support of Fine Gael and Labour in doing so. I say this because I fully believe it; if, when the trouble started in 1969 and when the Taoiseach had made his speech in August he had maintained that attitude and adopted a hard line and if he had got the support of Fine Gael and Labour in adopting a hard line with the British Government, we would not have an IRA in the North today; there would be no necessity for them. We have them up there because we turned our backs on the people in the North and we are responsible for it. This is why I say that the tragedy is that we have had a united front over the past three years; it is not something new.

Now that it has been agreed that it exists, let me say at this late stage we should get up off our behinds and do something positive. I think the most serious situation is likely to develop in Newry next Sunday. I know the Taoiseach has asked that British soldiers be withdrawn from Newry. That is not enough; the Taoiseach, and if he wishes he can take Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish with him, should go to London tomorrow, if not tonight, to bring home to Mr. Heath that the British Army must be kept out of Newry unless we want to run the risk of having another Derry. If it requires that they should sit on the doorstep and stay overnight to get this done, they should do it.

Let us be honest about this. A few moments ago I heard Deputy Cluskey from the Labour Party speak. He was in London recently and he told the House that there are about 25 Members of the British Parliament who understand the situation and give a damn about it and that Mr. Heath does not care a great deal about it either. There is no point in sending telegrams. We must go over and do a "Bernadette act", catch him by the throat and tell him he must get his army out of Newry next Sunday and keep them away from it because if he does not there is the risk of having another 13 or perhaps more dead. Then, perhaps, we would begin to agree with what Deputy Blaney said, that we should have had our Army on the border.

This debate was brought about by Deputy Blaney who was an early contributor to it. A number of Deputies have spent most of their time criticising what he said. What did he say? Among his suggestions were that there should be a call-up of our first line reserve, that the FCA should be put on standby and that members of the Army should be sent to the Border. Deputy Blaney made the same suggestion two or three years ago. In fact, the Government called up the first line reserve at that time and the Army were placed along the Border under the guise of being there for the operation of field hospitals. Let us do this now publicly and not try to cod the people either here or across the Border. If we fail to do so, we shall be failing the Irish people. Alternatively, the British troops must be kept out of Newry and we must let the CRA people know that we are 100 per cent behind them in their right to march in their own country and that we are prepared to protect them in the event of another Derry.

Deputy FitzGerald spent at least half his allotted time criticising Deputy Blaney. He said that Deputy Blaney was trying to create the situation in which there would be a civil war. In my opinion what Deputy Blaney is trying to do is to create a situation whereby civil war would be avoided.

Hear, hear.

If we do not show that the lead is coming from here there is every likelihood that those people who were in Merrion Street the other evening will begin to take over. Indeed, when one considers the inactivity of this House during the past two or three years, it would be hard to blame them for so doing. Anybody in Fianna Fáil who indicated pronationalist sentiments in respect of the North found that he was not acceptable to Fianna Fáil. We had an example of this only yesterday when a former colleague of Deputy Blaney's "hear-heared" Deputy Garret FitzGerald when that Deputy referred to Deputy Blaney's speech.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Deputy FitzGerald in criticising Deputy Blaney questioned his sincerity. I am not one to question anybody's sincerity but if there is anybody here whose sincerity I question now, that person is Deputy FitzGerald. Deputy FitzGerald came here as an economist of some kind and assumed the role almost of Taoiseach. Only last week he was running the show on the Referendum Bill. So far as this House is concerned he is not yet dry behind the ears, so to speak. I believe the vast majority of people in this House to be sincere. I listened to the contributions of the two Donegal Deputies, Deputies Blaney and Harte, both of whom spoke with emotion and sincerity. This emotion is understandable. However, Deputy Harte criticised the speech made by Deputy Blaney and suggested that Deputy Blaney was using this situation to win votes. Why should Deputy Blaney try to win votes when he has topped the poll in his constituency since he was elected first in 1948 with Deputy Harte trailing behind him? Deputy Harte told us of all the atrocities that have taken place in the Six Counties generally and no doubt he spoke with firsthand knowledge of the situation because he is an ordinary individual who, like Deputy Blaney, but unlike Deputy FitzGerald, likes to mix with the ordinary people. The Deputy told us about what is likely to happen in the future but yet he criticised Deputy Blaney for doing the same thing. As I see it, while Deputy Blaney offered some solution, Deputy Harte's line was a defeatist one. He told us we are a small people, that we do not matter, but that the people who really matter are Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Heath.

Deputy Harte did not say anything of the kind.

That is a matter of opinion. I listened to Deputy Harte also.

Would Deputies please cease interrupting and allow the Deputy in possession to speak?

Deputy Harte said that the paratroopers in Derry would beat our Army even with one of their hands tied behind their backs. That is a poor attitude for any Irishman to adopt. I am not putting the entire blame on the Government because the Opposition deserve some of the blame and there has been a united front in respect of the Army and the Garda during the past two or three years. Why should we bother now to spend an extra £1 million on the Army if they are not to be used for their primary purpose, that is, the protection of our people? As Deputy Blaney suggests, we should put our Army into the North and we should do so openly.

Surely even at this late stage we can stand together and tell the British Government that we mean business and that we will not tolerate another situation like Derry last Sunday. All that seems to have been done so far is that the Taoiseach has made an appeal that the British Army be withdrawn from Newry. If a similar situation arises next Sunday night, what are we going to do about it? If we do not do something about this here, the people will do something about it outside. They have marched the length and breadth of this country to show their solidarity with the nationally-minded people in the North. There are thousands of them, according to Press reports, who will cross the Border over the weekend to join with their Northern brethren in a Civil Rights march in Newry. Unless we stand up here and be counted and unless the Government and the Opposition face up to their responsibilities, the next place they will be marching on is Dáil Éireann.

I was interested to hear what Deputy Cluskey had to say. He has been in London and has come back a very disillusioned man. He did not find a great deal of sympathy over there. He found there were only about 25 MPs who had any idea of what was really happening in the country. He said he could understand this because over there they had their Palestines and their Adens and as far as they were concerned the incidents in the North were just like others that have happened in different parts of the empire. He did not think that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, had been very effective at the United Nations. I was glad to see the Minister go there, as I was in 1969, even though he was told again after he had made his speech to go home and be a good boy. I had hoped that in the intervening time the members of the United Nations would have begun to appreciate the problem here and they would use their influence with the British delegation to prevail on the British Government to do what most of the people of Ireland now want them to do, that is, to withdraw their army from the Six Counties. The Taoiseach has confined his request to withdrawal from the Catholic areas.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien suggested on television that the first gesture the British Army could make was to withdraw all the paratroops from the Six Counties. While I fully agree with him in that, I am not convinced that there is any difference between any of the British soldiers, whatever regiment or battalion they belong to. A few weeks ago we saw a film on television of the British Army raiding some of the Catholic areas in the North after the escape from the Maid-stone. There was nothing very gentlemanly about the British soldiers on that occasion, and the sooner they are all withdrawn from the country the better.

What is the alternative? We should be prepared to take a hard line here and send our Army, small as it may be, to the North. Last night I heard an MP from the Six Counties, whom I do not think anyone could regard as a warmonger and who up to now anyway could be regarded as a pacifist or a moderate, suggest that we should have our Army on the Border and that we should send them across the Border if there was any likelihood of another "Derry" next Sunday.

I do not know whether this matter is being taken seriously here. There is a change in attitude generally. A number of backbench members of Fianna Fáil who have spoken are beginning to give a lead to the Government. The Government have failed the people entirely over the past two or three years, and they have failed the people because they were allowed to do so by the Opposition, who cannot escape blame in this regard.

I promised that I would not delay the House. I do not know whether my remarks make a great deal of sense to the House, but what I have said I honestly believe. Unless the people see that we intend to lead them, then we shall arrive at a situation, particularly if there is any trouble in Newry on Sunday, in which the people will be leading us.

This debate is being held under the shadow of death, most immediately under the shadow of the deaths of 13 young men criminally shot down by British paratroops in Derry last Sunday; but, beyond that, under the shadow of all the deaths by violence during the past two years and more in Northern Ireland—some people shot by British Army units, some shot or bombed to death by one or other wing of the IRA, the death toll including many innocent civilians and women and children. I think a debate held under that shadow calls for a sense of responsibility about what we say and a willingness to avoid any unnecessary polemic. I think many of the statements we have heard correspond to that.

I regret my own absence from the earlier phase of this debate. I was in London at Westminster on business connected with this debate. I talked to the leaders of the two Opposition parties, Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, and I talked to the Home Secretary, Mr. Maudling. I did so in an effort—and it was almost a desperate effort as far as Mr. Maudling was concerned—to bring home to them what had been done, to bring home to them what the volley fired in Derry on Sunday had done to, among other things, public opinion in the Republic.

On whose authority did the Deputy go to London?

I went on behalf of my own party, and that was very clear in the minds of all who saw me.

I have asked Deputies not to interrupt Deputies in possession because they have a limited period of time.

Because of the publicity he got I should like it to be known that he did not represent the Government or the people of Ireland.

The Deputy's intervention is a little petty on an occasion of this kind.

The Deputy's statement did not represent the people of Ireland.

I have no apology to make for going there to see them and I think any other Deputy who could have seen them would have tried to see them also. What I went to tell them was of the immense revulsion of public feeling in this country, of a change in sentiment and intensity of sentiment which can only be compared —and I used these terms in conversation with Mr. Maudling—to the revulsion which occurred after Sir John Maxwell's executions in 1916. I went also to tell them that I had believed that the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland, pending the working out of a political settlement, was a lesser evil than their withdrawal in conditions which might be productive, and probably would be productive, of civil war.

I told them that my fear of civil war, based on contact with the two communities in Northern Ireland, had not diminished and that danger was as great as ever it had been, and perhaps greater than it had ever been before, but that the British troops after the action on Sunday and with the possibility of further such action had become so unacceptable to the minority in Northern Ireland and to the majority in the Republic and in the entire island that with their continued presence and with no date for their removal, it would not be possible to work out political structures and that we would have a condition of intensifying, escalating, spreading civil war involving larger and larger elements of the population of the Republic.

The previous week the Deputy asked for the British troops to be retained.

Deputies must not interrupt.

It got world publicity.

In these conditions I asked Mr. Maudling to consider setting a date line for the beginning of the withdrawal of the troops, for the beginning of disengagement. I did that with no light heart because I agree with what has been said here by Deputy Harte and others. The phased withdrawal of the troops sounds like a neat economical proceeding. You can think of it going on in an orderly manner but, in fact, granted the relations between those two communities, that withdrawal will be accompanied by a tremendous buildup of tension pushing towards the verge of civil war between Catholic and Protestant.

The conclusion I have been forced to reach because of last Sunday's events is that the continued presence of those troops will do nothing to avert the danger of civil war on their withdrawal, but will only postpone that hour, and postpone it in conditions of increased guerrilla action, so that the relations between the two communities will be even worse by the time the day comes—and it will come—when they will be withdrawn. It is fairly clear that they will be withdrawn and that a majority of the British public desire that.

If they are to be withdrawn it is better that we should be prepared for it and it is better that it should be known in advance. It is better that the British Government should say to Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, and to Mr. Faulkner: "By such and such a date we will be going. Now it is up to you to begin to work together, to talk seriously to one another for the first time, not to talk over one another's heads at Westminster or London or at international opinion and never to one another. It is time you talked to one another to see whether you can work out structures within which Irish people can live together in this island in peace and in justice to one another, and with deference on both sides to the great principle of consent of the governed which ought to be our guide here."

Jonathan Swift said more than 200 years ago that all government without the consent of the governed is the very essence of slavery. If we had all taken that seriously this would be a happier island than it is. We know, we are very conscious—and this is what Swift was talking about—that the English took little heed to that principle when they governed here and to the extent that they now govern here. We also know, we are also very conscious, that in Northern Ireland the ruling majority have paid no heed to that principle over their 50 years of power and we denounce them for it.

Are we sufficiently aware that when we bang the table and say: "We must have unity now," without alluding to the need for consent, we also are flying in the face of that great principle of government by consent, which will be on the day when the British reach the conclusion that they are going. If they give us notice and do not simply pull out quite suddenly as they did in Palestine, and as they may do here, if we have time, we should begin together, that is, the elected representatives of Catholics and Protestants in this island, irrespective of what we think of one another politically, to work out structures under which we can live in conditions of government by consent.

It will be no good then for Mr. Faulkner to say what he dislikes about what the Taoiseach did in the past, or for the Taoiseach to say how much he dislikes Mr. Faulkner and the record of the Unionist Party. They will have to speak in terms of the communities they actually represent. That dialogue will have to begin really for the first time. It has never taken place because there has always been the intervening British presence.

Let me also say this. We can urge that. We can urge the withdrawal of the troops but, like Deputy Cluskey, I have a very definite impression that there is no likelihood of any major change in the policy of the British Tory Party to this problem. Some of them understand intellectually that the present course is a disaster course but they do not feel that they have room to manoeuvre. To some extent they are prisoners of their own right wing. We ought, perhaps, in this Chamber to be able to understand that too.

The meaning of that is that it is likely that as long as the Tories are in power—and they are likely to be in power for some years—they will stick quite pigheadedly to this policy, while public opinion here is more and more set on a policy of confrontation, that is to say, with two forces unwilling to move on this, and on the margin of those forces people who are prepared to exploit that situation by different kinds of guerrilla violence.

I am afraid that this country—and I am speaking of the whole island North and South and including both Catholics and Protestants—may be on the verge of one of the greatest disasters in its history—and here I speak as an historian and with a sense of the responsibility not to exaggerate—a disaster comparable even to the Great Famine of the last century. We can see that, I think, if we look at where we are pushing economically.

In Northern Ireland trade unionists are conscious that an economic disaster is likely to be added this year to the political one, an economic disaster in part precipitated by the political one. The investments and orders that were in the pipeline before the crisis escalated at the beginning of 1971 have kept the area going up to now. These are now tapering off. The British Government have no intention. as far as I could find, of giving any significant economic aid to the area.

There will likely be mass redundancies and in those bitter sectarian conditions those mass redundancies will tell more heavily on the minority than on anyone else. This in turn will feed the violence again and the violence again will increase the economic disaster. We in the Republic are well on the way to creating a similar disaster for ourselves. When I speak of those who have caused this disaster let me say plainly what I mean. I think every one of us has some responsibility in this but I think the heaviest responsibility rests on the militarists. It rests on the Tory advocates of repression and I think it rests on the Provisional IRA and its offensive. These two forces playing into the hands of one another are creating a great storm which this country is not strong enough to withstand; which the fabric of society cannot withstand; which our economy cannot withstand and which risks scattering our people throughout the world.

In the emotional aftermath of the terrible events in Derry the British Embassy went up in smoke and various British-owned businesses went up in smoke. It is now suggested here that other things may go up in smoke. Two Deputies in those benches behind me spoke about this today. One of them said what a fortunate thing it was that the British Embassy was burned down as otherwise people might have burned down Leinster House. He seemed to insinuate that this might be on the agenda later on in suitable circumstances. Another Deputy spoke of crowds marching to this place presumably to take it over.

All that violence and system of threats of violence has its meaning in terms of human lives, even lives not directly affected by the violence actually applied. When those British firms, shops, or whatever they were, went up in smoke Irish jobs went up in smoke not just by the meaning of this for those particular firms or their particular plans but because of the reaction of this on trade and investment in Ireland. We should remember when in our previous wars with England, if a war with England is what we are now on the verge of—there are certainly people urging that—our economy was relatively under-developed and therefore not highly sensitive. Now it is highly fragile. This kind of thing can break it.

The Taoiseach in the economic debate made the point that unemployment was worse here than it need be because there were not so many job opportunities in England and the usual recourse to emigration was not available. That may or may not remain the case but if these jobs are lost, if this violence has these effects on the economy the men and women concerned will be either out of work or they will be looking for jobs outside this country. That is the net result of this set of patriotic endeavours because of course these actions invite reprisals. We saw when BEA planes were blacked coming into Dublin there was an immediate response in certain English cities to black Aer Lingus planes. Do we expect that kind of reaction to be confined to the airlines? What do we expect, if we press home this supposed solution of war with Britain, to happen to all our people in England, to those who were born here and those in the second generation?

It was already quite clear, talking to parliamentarians at Westminister, that Enoch Powell's idea of making the Irish definitely foreign, if that is what they want to be, is coming nearer to the edge of practical politics and it may be practical politics perhaps by the end of this year if this continues. We have already what I believe is the highest unemployment rate in western Europe. How much higher can we afford to take it? It seems to me that the Government here have a very heavy responsibility. I do not want to use this debate for a polemical speech against the Government. It has been a hard situation for any Government to handle and we cannot be sure that any other Taoiseach would have handled it any better than the present Taoiseach has done.

I would appeal for a certain change of tone and approach, a little of which we saw in the Taoiseach's speech in this debate which I have only read and especially in the Tánaiste's excellent speech which we heard this morning. There should be more the note of a national emergency, that we are facing an extraordinarily grave situation, that there is not a simple, easy, sudden answer which can be suddenly picked out of the basket if we go on pushing, confronting and engaging in a bit of collusion with the gunmen and the bombers.

The Taoiseach at the end of the Adjournment Debate last summer assured us as we went for our recess just before internment, that the country was in good hands. I do not quite know what he meant by the country there but the sequel did not confirm that message of good cheer he gave us then. That was wrong. It was a mistake to give that kind of reassurance. Like a doctor who might tell a patient, whom he knew to be seriously ill, that he was really all right, that he would soon be up and about, it was not responsible. This country is seriously ill. However we may diagnose the causes of that illness its acute character is absolutely unmistakable. There ought also to be less for the future of suggesting to the minority in the North that we are about to do more for them than we can actually do. It was a grave mistake from that point of view that the Taoiseach should have presented himself as a second guarantor of the rights of the minority when he was not in a position to guarantee anything and when no Taoiseach here could have guaranteed anything for the minority. We heard in those terrible radio recordings of what happened in Derry. We heard a woman mourning again and again: "What is the Dublin Government doing?" It was a most poignant appeal and it was natural that she made it. She had been encouraged to make it. She had been encouraged to think that Dublin could in some way protect her, which is not so.

Again, various statements made here about sending our troops across the Border or to the Border encouraged the same thing. I certainly do not want to disparage our Army. I have seen them in combat. I admire them. I want to say nothing that would let them down. But there is no use pretending that the kind of Army this country over the years has been willing to finance, support and train are capable of taking on the British Army. They are not and it is no compliment to them to pretend that they are. No serious-minded officer would claim that.

Speaking in terms of what presses on us immediately, I think we need more than anything to reach the British public, that big public in the middle which is neither right-wing Tory nor left-wing Labour, the big mass of the English people, who are puzzled about this. They find it hard to believe that their army have done what we believe them to have done. It is more important to reach those people, and also to keep in touch as far as possible with the majority of the community in the North, than to try to enlist the aid of Washington. The aid of Washington will not be forthcoming and anyone who knew the state of opinion in Washington could have saved our Minister for Foreign Affairs the trouble of his journey there and back, because in the backwash of Vietnam the American public, the American politicians, are so anxious not to get involved in any more foreign entanglements that they simply react automatically and say: "No. We do not want to have anything to do with that, thank you." They have reacted in that way to a number of situations that have arisen.

I should like to deprecate the tone the Minister for Foreign Affairs adopted there. Frankly, I think that at a time when Britain was under pressure for an indefensible action in Derry, indefensible in the light of reports filed by foreign correspondents, there was no need for an Irish Foreign Minister to raise his voice. The terrible facts told the story. By raising his voice, by sounding—he does not often sound like that but I am afraid he did on television—as if he was ranting he got the Tory Government to a great extent off the hook. They were able to turn round and say: "See how unreasonable those people are; what wild charges they make. We are trying to do the best we can in the situation but who can blame us if we fail to come to terms with people who approach us in that way?"

What about the Deputy's statements in the American Press the same day?

Deputy O'Brien has only a couple of moments left.

Deputy Loughnane will have an opportunity to speak if he wishes.

The Deputy may not interrupt.

Does he stand by the statements which were on page 1 of the American newspapers?

Deputy O'Brien is entitled to his time.

The headings were: "Cruise-O'Brien asks the British Army not to leave Northern Ireland."

Finally, I should like to suggest that long-range exchanges in these conditions between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister cannot serve any purpose at the present time except to transfer responsibility for terrible events that may happen in other places and times, in Newry this Sunday, to the other party. There is need for close contact now to face the immediate and continuing dangers inherent in the series of confrontations that will happen every weekend probably from now on, involving risks of further heavy loss of life, perhaps graver than anything we have yet known. In connection with that it would be important—I hope that nothing I have said may have prejudiced the chances of it—that there should develop here a unity of approach between the three main political parties represented here, expressed and institutionalised through a consensus of their leaders. It may be thought that our criticisms are not consistent with that. Of course they are because when we look for an all-party consensus we are not just going to rubber-stamp anything Fianna Fáil expect to do but we want to confer with Fianna Fáil to work out policies which can be steadily applied and maintained, which will not rock with every breath of wind.

The Deputy's time is now up.

In view of the fact that my time is up I will sit down but may I crave a moment to express slight protest that this debate is being so curtailed? It seems to me that there is no subject—what subject can there be—of more importance for the Dáil to discuss at the present time. Should we not have been given enough time for all of us to say our say, not protracting the debate but saying the things we wanted to say? I did not have time to say all I wanted to say.

There have been many discussions and debates in this House in recent times about the very serious situation that has existed in the North. This debate has arisen directly from the foul mass murders of Irish people last Sunday, mass murders that have caused revulsion throughout the civilised world. It has caused those feelings everywhere except among people who despite their public utterances are trying to pretend that they can keep a regime in power in the North of Ireland that has gone forever. I think that is obvious to all of us. I believe it is obvious also to the British Government and even to the Unionist Government. They do not know how to go back, how to cave in. We would think that a British Government that can look in such a hard-headed, detached way at these things, even if they had no regard for the mere Irish or for the friends of the Irish people throughout Europe and elsewhere, would start to look at it from the economic viewpoint and say: "After all, the Irish people are our third best customers."

Somehow or another they do not say that and there is no doubt that certain sections of our people here seem to be indifferent to the economic effects this is having. When we had a day of mourning here, as we should have had, when the people responded magnificently in attending religious ceremonies, in attending the funerals of the unfortunate people who were killed in this mass murder, and indeed in expressing their disgust and horror by parading, it is something terrible to think that such things cannot go on without a mob entering, without a small minority abusing the situation and acting irresponsibly. The British Embassy was set on fire. The gardaí were attacked. This can only be condemned as irresponsible by all of us; but a more serious situation could have arisen and perhaps if it was an outlet for the anger of the people it could be justified as being cheap at the price and that nothing worse happened. But let us go further and consider the other burnings that have taken place. I shall single out one to illustrate—the burning of the Royal Liver premises, a firm that has given valuable employment in this country over the years, a firm with which the Irish people have been glad to do business, a firm that has contributed much money towards the housing of people who badly need housing. Can there be any justification for this type of irresponsibility? All of us have a responsibility to condemn it. Here we are trying to carry out reprisals against the British and we are committing acts for which the Irish people will have to pay in taxation, in loss of jobs. It is not just the loss of jobs in the individual firms that have been spoken about. There is nothing so cowardly as money and there is nobody so cowardly as the people who come in here to invest money. They will run from the country and there will be an economic disaster here as well as in the North before the end of the year. It is not 80,000 we will have unemployed but 180,000. I would ask people who are moved by emotion to think hard about it. I would ask people who are inclined to be irresponsible to look at the situation into which they are getting our people.

We are all glad to have an opportunity to express our views and our sympathy with the unfortunate victims of the most recent disaster in the North but we are all frustrated because we can do so little about this tragic situation, because we can only come into this House and talk about it. There was obvious emotion, obvious sincerity, on all sides of this House in dealing with this matter, but how many things were mentioned that can be brought about by our intervention? I feel enormously frustrated when I come to talk about the North of Ireland because there is so very little we can do. What is being done? I have felt for a long time that we let the propaganda about this situation die down unduly but that has now been revived. The radio, television and newspapers are now getting the message home.

We can never return to the situation that existed in the North for 50 years. No longer will the minority accept the situation of injustice and discrimination. No longer can the Unionists hope to govern. I think the Unionists know that. I think the British know it. I have discussed this with many British delegates at the Council of Europe, both Labour and Conservative, and they are all as one in their view that they want to get out of the North of Ireland, why should they be there, but they feel for some reason an obligation to stay there. I have argued about this. They say: "Look what they did for us during the war, look at the number of them who fought for us." I have had to remind them that far more people from the South of Ireland fought for them in the war and that far more honours came to the South. They did not seem to know this. However, they all accept that any settlement in the future must be based on reunification in some shape or form over a period. My view is that that period cannot be long and that the British must decide to phase themselves out of the North over a period of five to seven years and make such an announcement because if they do not the hardliners who are using the gun and the bomb will not see the end of the road and will not stop.

As well as that I think the Unionists must be given time to readjust themselves. I believe they see the inevitability of this but they must be given time. There is no doubt they have genuine fears about joining with us under a Thirty-two County Government. Perhaps we may not be doing enough here, we may not be talking enough about sitting down with the Unionist Government that is still in power, because I think that when the British make their announcement, as I believe they inevitably will, this must be settled between Irish people. We must talk to Unionists; we must talk to Nationalists; we must talk to everybody concerned. We will not settle this by shooting or bombing. In the last analysis, we must sit down together and work out a formula and Constitution under which all the people can live in peace and harmony. That day cannot be postponed. There is a great urgency about it now.

One finds it hard to understand the callousness and stupidity that have been displayed by the present British Government for so long. We can only exhort them and exhort the Unionist Government and everybody in public life in Northern Ireland to calm for a time, have a truce for a while and sit down and talk about it. It is obvious that serious discussions and serious dialogue cannot start until the British decide that internment should never have been brought into the North and that it has brought a holocaust with it. They must decide how this can be overcome and what announcement will stop the bombing on the other side to enable these talks to take place, in order to let the people out and bring them to trial if necessary, but they must get a fair trial. Internment has been an absolute disaster and they should see that by now.

What can we do? We should be saying publicly that we are prepared to meet everybody concerned—the Unionists, the Nationalists, Paisley, but before we do this we should implore the British people to declare their intentions now and to enable this to take place. It must happen this way. There is no other way.

People come in here and advocate that we should bring up our Irish Army and mass them at the Border and move in if necessary. What are they seeking? Wholesale destruction. I have been fighting here for the past two or three years to have the strength of our Army and our Garda Síochána increased. It is only now we have started on this but if we had an Army double the strength we have I would not bring them to the Border and I would not say they should go into Newry next Sunday to be annihilated. That is not the way to deploy our forces if we have them. That is not the way Michael Collins would have deployed them. If we want to declare war on England that is not the way to use what we have. We should keep our heads and see this. We do not want this type of confrontation and we do not believe this will be settled by guns and bombs.

Deputy Paudge Brennan has accused this party of backpedalling. If there is any party in this House that has not backpedalled it is Fine Gael. We have been consistent throughout in our approach to this problem. We have always said that reunification must come through a peaceful approach, through a greater degree of co-operation between our two peoples and through greater understanding brought about by getting to know the people in the North and getting them to come down here and see that there is no discrimination here and that there has not been. We talk about small things that arise everywhere.

I have been in the North time and again in efforts to talk to people, to get them to appreciate and understand. I have met people in influential positions. They confront you with the question: "What are you going to do in the South about your Constitution?" My answer has been: when you people make up your minds that you want to be Irish people, then all of us can sit down around the table, discuss what we can do about the Constitution and what adjustments must be made to accommodate the type of development that we all wish to see. We give them one thing today and they look for another thing tomorrow. It is not our business to adjust our Constitution for a situation; it is everybody's responsibility. All of the people in the North must be in on this adjustment. It would be wrong for us to start to fiddle with the Constitution before we can get all these people sitting around the table and having similar responsibility to rectify what they think is wrong, as far as that can be accommodated. These are only frivolous matters by comparison with the real issues and the real dangers that exist for all of us.

There is an urgency in this matter. How the British people cannot see this great urgency beats me. Statements were made recently by Mr. Faulkner in the North. He spoke about what happened in a war situation in England and about the great generosity of Churchill and the big look that he took at the situation in bringing in Attlee. Why does he not set up what he calls a National Government—now is the time to do it— and give the sort of representation all around that was given in England in a war situation? He has a war situation. Why does he not offer this? Why is he not big enough and man enough to offer it? This is the sort of thing that must be done, the sort of constructive thinking that there must be now. Is he afraid for his own neck? Is he afraid that the extremists in his own party or the Paisleyites would not have this? I think they would now. There have been extraordinary changes in the whole atmosphere among the people in the North. They know that Britain wants now to get out. The hardliners there feel that they are being abandoned by Britain. They sincerely feel, but they do not know how to get around to it, that in the last analysis they must sit around a table and make the best bargain with the South that it is possible to make. We want to say that we will give them the best bargain possible. We will start with anything that means progress. We must not be so eager that we want it all in one bite. It cannot be got in one bite. There are 50 years there to begin with, without talking about the many centuries behind that. The situation is not going to be changed by any magic wand.

Before I sit down I want to talk about something else, that is, the degree of co-operation among the parties in the House. This is one great consoling feature about the approach at the present time. It is now obvious that all of us in this House are equally concerned about this problem and all of us are equally anxious to play a part in its settlement. This is one great backing that this Government have had and no Government have ever had so much of it before. They should use it better than it has been used. I do not think the degree of co-operation is anything like as good as it should be and as it must be. This thing of the Taoiseach occasionally discussing the problem with the Leader of this party and of the Labour Party is not the co-operation that is required now. There must be frequent meetings between the Government and the representatives of the Opposition parties to watch every move and to see every opportunity. The Government must be open about this and must take into their confidence the leaders of these two parties because this is the only way. It is the business of all of us. The Government represent less than 50 per cent of the Irish people. I would appeal to the Taoiseach to make this a real thing. I know that he cannot disregard his overall responsibility as the Taoiseach of the Government of the country for the time being. I realise that it is not easy to arrange. If we cannot do it here, if we cannot show the degree to which we can do it here in these exceptional circumstances, how can we expect the people in the North, in the times that are in it, to make reasonable approaches from their side? We must meet and must take every opportunity that arises. We must make the opportunities as far as it is possible to make them by every overture and by every approach to the British Government, to the Unionists in the North, to the Nationalists. Everybody must be brought in because it is everybody's concern, because it can be everybody's complete and absolute disaster if there is a wrong approach.

This debate is clearly not an occasion for justifying stated positions of individual Members of the House or, indeed, of the parties in the House. It is proper to say at this stage that, with some exceptions, it is reassuring and encouraging to note that neither individuals nor parties have, in fact, used this occasion, coming as it does in the wake of a great national tragedy, to justify either personal or party positions. This, in fact, much more than anything that has ever occurred before, is an occasion for us to prove our maturity, our dignity, our determination and, as well, our tolerance, our tolerance in particular towards views that might not be entirely consistent with the traditional views that many of us have been nurtured in, the traditional views that others are so strongly entrenched in, the traditional views that may, in fact, be the base, not just of the Irish problem, but the base of the tragedy such as we witnessed in Derry on Sunday last.

For that reason, all of us have been gratified that out of this tragedy at least this much has emerged here, out of this tragedy has emerged this commitment here, not to ourselves individually or to our parties, but this commitment to the people of this whole country, that we will say or do nothing that will drive any further wedge between us but that, in fact, we will endeavour as never before to understand the attitudes that we may not previously have understood and to explain to others our attitudes that they may not previously have understood either.

What is called the new found unity between the parties in this House has been, in fact, described as an exercise in self-protection. I regret that that has been said. I regret particularly that no reason for such criticism or comment has been given. I regret it particularly because it has been the tragedy, if there is a tragedy of Irish history, a consistent tragedy of Irish history, that whenever the need was greatest for unity amongst ourselves there were always some who for one reason or another would endeavour to break the concentration of that unity. Have we not now learned the lesson of history, a lesson that has been so dearly applied in the past for many generations? Are we now once again, or are some people now once again, going to endeavour to show to Britain and maybe to the world, and at this time the world is watching, that the Irish, as the Irish have sometimes been promoted as being, are immature and incapable of managing their affairs in a united and consistent manner? Frankly, I know that not to be so and to those who for some reason would criticise this unity I would only say that if they want to achieve, as I am sure they genuinely do, as the rest of us must, a real unity in this country, let them first learn not to assert their personal purity of whatever doctrine over the united opinion of the country as represented in this House.

Are we generous enough here to recognise, first of all, that we in this part of Ireland have been diminished and are diminished in our status by what has been achieved in this country or what was achieved 50 years ago and indeed for generations before that? Do we suggest for a moment, not only to our fellow Irishmen in the North, but to the rest of the world, that our attitudes as they are now are, as they have been conditioned, are the totally representative attitudes of the whole of Ireland? Are we going to continue to live in the lie that we are here in this Twenty-Six Counties a natural unit— and some of us deny that we are but at the same time come back and apparently insist that the views of this limited unit here are the only views that might be considered or tolerated within a united Ireland?

We have protective attitudes in this country because of the wrong that has been done to our country, the terrible wrong of Partition. We have protective attitudes on both sides of that terrible Border, that Border which has been the cause of so much tragedy and so much prejudice. This protective attitude is evident in our reaction to association even with other countries, in our fears as to what the influence of other cultures and traditions might have on what we regard possibly as the only pure tradition, not alone in Europe but in the world, namely, our Irish, Catholic, cultural tradition. We should all of us respect that tradition and acknowledge that it is indeed a great tradition; but there is a feeling on the part of some that there is no other tradition, in Europe or elsewhere, that measures up to it. We believe it is a complete culture and tradition in the hands of a significant proportion of the Irish people. We have to think then of full involvement. But, in our division, we are diminished and, as we are diminished, then so are the people in the North even more diminished and not until both of us come together can there be a full flowering of Irish culture following on the reunification of our country and the uniting of our people and our attitudes. Not alone is the North diminished but it is, as of now, torn apart and racked asunder. It is much less a political entity even than we are here. It is basically an unnatural and undemocratic structure, instituted for undemocratic reasons. This unnatural structure is the base of all our problems. It is the structure which gives rise to the views, opinions and prejudices expressed from time to time by different spokesmen of the Unionist Party.

Can we accept that any individual here has a greater claim to truth and integrity than has an individual of even the Unionist Party in the North of Ireland? The views they express, which are so totally unacceptable, and which I totally reject, may be just as sincerely held as are our views here. What we need to say is that we cannot compromise and will not compromise with the structure which has created these views. That structure must be totally rejected. The Stormont system has been imposed by prejudice and protected by prejudice. It must be done away with so that those who express these views may, in a more natural condition, express more reasonable and tolerant views. The people in the North have been racked by strife, by tragedy, by fear and by sadness. It must now be dawning on all of them that they cannot continue in such a condition, that neither that section of the country nor the whole country can continue to tolerate division, particularly division in the minds of our people.

Let us not make the mistake of attributing to personalities that which basically we should attribute to the structures in which these personalities operate. There are reasonable fears operating amongst the minority, a significant proportion of which live in the Six Counties. Even today reasonable fears were expressed by the Protestant Church of Ireland Bishops, the Bishop of Down and Dromore and the Bishop of Connor, that they would be coerced into a form of society which would be totally unacceptable to the vast majority of their people in that part of the country. I had the opportunity of meeting these bishops, one of them in particular, on many occasions and I must say that they can hardly have been reassured by the statement made in this House that the Six Counties is ours for the taking.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

It is not ours for the taking any more than anything is ours for the taking. This country of Thirty-two Counties is ours for the sharing and these people can rest assured that, while individuals—and they represent happily a very small minority—express that righteous view of what is ours, and ours for the taking, the vast majority of us here and elsewhere know that it is ours only for the sharing. Strangely enough, out of the tragedies has come a unity, a unity even of the Churches, a unity of the middle-of-the-road people. Have we sufficiently acknowledged that? The Press has in many ways been very responsible in its coverage of events in the North over a long period. Has it not promoted much that is being done in the way of co-operation by Church leaders, particularly in the Northern part of the country, much that is being done to break the barriers and to reach out hands that were never offered before this recent tragedy befell us?

I echo the views of many here when I say, particularly to those reaching out for understanding, that our hands are reaching out for the very same thing and that inevitably we must, we will, create all the requisite conditions, conditions that we recognise will involve changes here so that the new Ireland will accommodate, and gladly accommodate, all views and ultimately we will have a full flowering of Irish nationhood.

Turning, then, to Britain, we may be frustrated; we may be impatient, we may feel helpless in the face of the stated position of the Tory Government but, maintaining our dignity, our maturity and our unity, we must be generous and we must look particularly for any signs of light that are there. Mention has been made, but without any emphasis, of a significant statement from Lord Carrington this week. It is probably the first sign of light, the first sign of a breakthrough. He said that the Protestant population of the North of Ireland has shown restraint and had, I think he said, been generous in recent times, but he went on to say that they must be asked for more; they must be more generous. No one has acknowledged that they have been anything like generous in the years leading up to the recent tragedies and troubles. There is great scope for generosity and the very fact that Lord Carrington mentioned this may legitimately be interpreted as meaning that doubts are now arising in the minds of the Tory administration and, if that is so, then we here should be ready to negotiate and consult in order to ensure that the result of these doubts will be to bring about the fulfilment of the political initiative we all await with such impatience. He also said—this, again, was not highlighted —that the minority must be given a say in government. Others apparently have not so stated, and, in fact, from their views, have disagreed with it, but there is evidence at least that some people in the Tory administration are now looking at a situation, and let them know that we will force a condition by the promotion of public opinion, not just here but in England and throughout the world, which will greatly assist them in reaching that political conclusion.

All of us are conditioned by the attitudes that are basic in our environment. We have been frustrated by the present policy and by the policies of the Tory Government for such a considerable time—the sanction of the blowing up of Border roads, the introduction of internment, the indiscriminate and provocative searchings of the Catholic areas, and above all else, the terrible tragedy of Derry and the terrible attempts to justify that awful tragedy in placid tones but basically in lying detail. What has been equally frustrating is that the lines of communication on which these decisions have been taken appear to run only from the Stormont administration, and here I want to pose a question: is it just possible that because of the antipathy which I believe exists between the former Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Heath, that at a change of Government in England after the last election, the Tories had nowhere to turn to, no lines of advice open to them except the formal established lines from Stormont?

Remember that what is going to happen from Britain will have to come from this Tory administration. We might like the views being expressed by the Labour Party now, but remember that they were not expressed in any thing like the same way when they were in government and even the Downing Street declaration which has been regarded by many as the charter of the rights of the people of the North of our country had, as a very specific statement in it, something which no politician in the Labour Party, or which very few in England would now accept, and certainly none here, that the Border is not an issue. What we have to do is to reach British opinion, to act on their Government. It may well be fruitful through the Labour Party in England but they are not the Government party at this time and we have to recognise that as being a reality. British opinion has been aroused but it must continue to be aroused. The reaction of the Press in England and of the public to many things that have occurred in recent weeks and months there, to many statements on the Irish position, to many examinations of that position has been significant.

Their attitude towards their Army is probably also explicable in that if you start on the basis that your Army has been sent in there to protect, that your Army has an honoured tradition of the protection of right behind it and if you believe all you do believe about your Army, is it surprising that they cannot accept the objective truth that their Army has perpetrated this terrible massacre? Is it any way effective for us to say that this is just awful? Must we not try to change that attitude? They obviously believe so much in their own integrity that whatever be the reaction of the people of Derry to the inquiry which is being established, or the reaction of the world, the British people apparently accept that if they set up an inquiry which satisfies them as to its integrity and capacity, it is the answer. We must shake them out of that complacency. They must be led to understand that not just because they accept it, genuinely or otherwise, as being the answer, it is the answer. As all of us know, it is not the answer and as the world knows, it cannot be the answer and particularly as Derry knows, it is not the answer. They are not interested in the satisfying of public opinion, or the Government view or Army view in England by virtue of an exclusively British inquiry, and here I think it is time that English public opinion was aroused to know that not all that is being dealt out to them through official channels of communication is as untainted and as totally the Bible as is sometimes promoted.

Can we not, too, remind them that there is a wasteful expenditure, not just in the maintenance of their British Army but in their subvention to the Stormont statelet, a wasteful expenditure that involves in particular in areas like Derry vast unemployment, when people have not had the dignity of working for their own living, where the people—of Derry particularly—have more natural dignity and forbearance than any other part of this country? They will readily tell you that they feel most deprived because for generations, fathers and grandfathers and possibly sons, have not had the dignity of working towards the achievement of their own personal integrity. Can that expenditure not be applied more fairly, and particularly when the inevitable withdrawal—and here I recognise, as Deputy Cruise-O'Brien has, the limitations of each of us in discussing this— when this inevitable timetable for withdrawal occurs, that expenditure can be more effectively used in our joining together, particularly in regard to the social and economic development of areas of traditional poverty and neglect?

It has then become a political issue in Britain to such an extent that one is also encouraged by the results of the recent polls taken by the BBC. For the first time, the British people, or a majority of them, want their Army home. They still may feel—the vast majority—that their Army are doing a great job but for the first time they want their Army home. There are many issues of this sort that are there for us to utilise, united together, and provided we do stay united together.

Turning up to the other area of our activity, it must be the promotion and advancement of world opinion to maintain this pressure on Britain to create a political initiative. Can anyone doubt after Derry and the events of recent years that what Dr. Farren said at the funeral Mass was, indeed, true, that the eyes of the world are on Derry and on all of us, through television and Press coverage all over the world? Significantly let us remember particularly that our concentration must be in one area where the present British Government are particularly sensitive, that is, in the European mainland. Some time back— and, unfortunately, one has not been able to get copies of the European Press since the tragic events of Derry —in Figaro, a lady journalist who has been in permanent residence here, Huguette de Basso, asked with regard to the question of whether or not the internees were guilty or innocent could there be any guilty or innocent in a condition where the total minority are consistent behind the people, behind the rejection of the Stormont administration.

These views are being promoted through the international Press and we must ensure—and our Press with the good wishes they will have and the channels of communication they have with their colleagues, particularly in Europe—that they will continue to be promoted. Europeans have been aroused and will not be satisfied until these injustices, so far as they can influence them, have been righted or at least some political steps are taken to right them. Let us not forget that Britain is vulnerable in one area which we might sometimes overlook, its great international prestige, as the British see it. They have always looked on themselves as a world power that has achieved greatness for themselves and for others. As they see it, this has been their role but when they now see public opinion throughout the world question their integrity and their justice, then, being sensitive as they are to this criticism, we can hope and indeed expect this, in addition to the other factors I have mentioned, will have the effect of moving them out of their complacency, their acceptance of tragedy towards vital initiatives for which we have so long been calling.

Only yesterday I had the opportunity of being interviewed by Swedish television representatives, an example among so many others, of people wanting to inform their own nations on the Irish situation. Each one of them I have met—and I am sure the same could be said by others in this House —is sympathetic and anxious to promote knowledge of the injustice and anxious to ensure that the sometimes self-proclaimed dignity and injustice of the British Government and all that has been done in their name for generations will be questioned, if not totally rejected.

Our relationship with Europe, apart from Press coverage, has been mentioned in this debate. It is obviously an opportunity for us to consult and seek the support of those we have now applied to join, in the European Economic Community, but we should not assume that they have the authority or the institutions to achieve what we would like to see. Much can be done but we should not condemn them if they fail, through lack of authority or institutions, to achieve what we want. Neither should we condemn the movement which the European Community represents towards peace in Europe if it cannot exercise effective institutional pressure. What it can and no doubt will exercise is effective persuasion by private consultation and by clear indications to the British Government that the Community, which was founded to ensure that no longer would war rack the European mainland, is not happy that a country—Britain— should bring with it the seeds of its own historic wrong and also a country —Ireland—deprived by the sowing of those seeds.

In view of the reaction of world opinion, in view of the fact that this situation has become a political issue in Britain and for the first time not all the Britain Press are taking up the expected stated position, God knows the wedge has been driven between us for long enough to let the British off the hook in historical times at least by doing what they were charged to do and would not, surely now is the time when we should maintain our unity and dignity so that the pressure, if not the wedge, can be kept between them over there and so that what has become a political issue for them will reach the conclusion we want.

Apart from what happens in this House, what happens outside is also very important. I believe I express the views of everybody in the House when I say that if there is any sign in this part of the country of any sectarian recriminations of any sort each of us as parties and as individuals has a solemn obligation publicly to decry and condemn it and so far as we can —sometimes it is suggested we are not leaders of public opinion—lead the public in a total rejection and condemnation of any such unfortunate action. Each of us has the obligation not to let the emotion of the minute, the hour or the day make us forget the responsibility which we always have— not for a minute, an hour or a day— to create happy social conditions in this country as a whole. If we compromise on that with any minority group or with any group, whatever their views may be, we shall have failed in our responsibility.

I have never felt so optimistic that we shall not fail. I think the Irish people and this Parliament will prove their maturity and from that, before Britain and the eyes of the world there will come and must come the inevitable political development which will ensure that tragedies such as that which the great people of Derry and so many other parts of Northern Ireland have suffered will never occur again.

I sympathise with the working people of Derry in the appalling tragedy of last Sunday. We share their personal anguish and, in the words of the notice of the Workers' Union of Ireland to their members, we also tender sincere sympathy to the relatives of all of those killed or injured since August, 1969 in north-east Ireland. We share equally the sentiment expressed last Wednesday in Belfast by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at the hopeful, special delegate conference on "Peace, Employment and Reconstruction in Northern Ireland" when he reminded delegates of the words of John Donne that "any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind". I endorse that and I endorse particularly his comment that politicians, North and South, have been far too heavily engaged in winning the war to care about winning the peace.

I also wish to be fully associated with the authoritative condemnation of the murder of the 13 Irishmen in Derry. I do so particularly as a Dáil Deputy who has not yielded in this House to the temptation to be selective about condemnations of murder. The eyewitness accounts of the killings hardly need further corroboration by means of inquiry whether Irish, British or international, judicial or otherwise, but in view of the inevitable attempt by the Tory Cabinet—I distinguish them from MPs and I distinguish them from the British people—and by the Army GHQ to whitewash the actions of the paratroop regiment, our Government should compile a full, factual report on these murders in consultation with responsible community leaders in Derry. This report should immediately be made available to the Press, particularly the United Kingdom Press and all British public representatives.

I am one person in this House who can claim at least to have consistently put forward peaceful political solutions to the political sectarian strife of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I can claim, not in any selective sense, the right to ask that members of the British Army parachute regiment be withdrawn from Northern Ireland and that, at a minimum, they be confined to barracks. Such action is essential to community calm. Most of the Labour Party speakers have not indulged in puerile solutions to the Northern problem but some of the contributions that were heard, notably those from the dissident Fianna Fáil Deputies, have displayed an appalling political bankruptcy, such as the calling up of the Army reserve and marching them over the Border while Deputy Blaney would be at home comfortably in Clontarf.

Regarding the appropriating of British firms in Dublin, there was no question of consultation with the trade unions and there was no mention of the effect of such action on unemployment or on the economy of the country. We have had the burning of the British Embassy and there has been daubing of Protestant churches. Business premises, too, have been daubed with anti-British slogans. There has been an indulging in the kind of disgraceful exhibitionism of what is nothing more than crude and sterile anti-British propaganda. The classic example of this was the speech of Deputy Foley. His contribution was a classic example of anti-Unionist propaganda and of the fomenting of a civil war climate in this country. His speech is to be deplored. It is the kind that no self-respecting Deputy should indulge in. There is a real danger that we could talk ourselves into a civil war climate. It is bad enough that there should be the action of the lunatic fringe, North and South. It is bad enough that there should be the lunatic acts of certain sections of the British Army. It is bad when statesmen refuse to have the moral courage to face the right wing in their political parties, as, for example, Mr. Maudling refusing to face the 40 right wing MPs in Britain. But it is worse that we should talk ourselves into a civil war. Is it not enough that this should have been done before in this country at the time of the Treaty debate?

Therefore, one must put forward peaceful political solutions and they must be put forward not only to the British parachute regiment but to the British troops generally in Northern Ireland. I would endorse the comment made by the Labour Party spokesman and by the leader of this party in the opening contribution of last week which has been published today. Regarding the troops, such is the intensity of Catholic reaction that they should be withdrawn from the areas that are well known as areas of tension and provocation. In saying this I am not favouring, as I never could favour, the handing over to the IRA of the rule of public order and public law in those areas. If the troops are withdrawn, there will be a cooling of the emotions of the people and there will be a return to stabilisation in so far as that is possible in that part of the country.

None of us should be ready to rush in with some novel solution to the problem. Each person is trying desperately to be original, but the well-known solutions are the most obvious. I favour the phased and planned withdrawal of the massive military presence of 15,000 men in Northern Ireland. In saying that we must not be under any illusions but remain conscious that, even if every British soldier were withdrawn tomorrow morning, there would remain the 6,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, a very heavily armed and mobile regiment of mostly Ulster men and mostly Protestants. There would remain also the 6,500 strong RUC and the RUC reserve. The latter, although not a police force in the accepted sense of that word, is a heavily armed, strategically garrisoned force, who have a very good intelligence service. These 12,500 would be available to defend what they regard as being their property. If we consider also the 100,000 guns in private hands, we cannot be under any illusion as to the outcome of the confrontation which Deputy Blaney wishes to see.

We must deplore the vicious and unchristian statements of reprisals and vengeance in relation to retaliation for the murders in Derry. The deaths of our fellow Irishmen must not be dis-honoured by evil political expediency. No act that could be committed could bring these men back to life. Therefore, we must honour them by ensuring that there will never be another such disaster. Those of us who have been working for a peaceful solution to the problem must not give way to despair because that would be a denial of our human dignity. There is an obligation on everybody who is in a position of public responsibility to provide constructive leadership to all our people. We must convey the profound reactions of everybody to the British people and, in particular, to the British Government. I am not impressed particularly by Deputy Dr. Hillery losing his temper at Kennedy Airport. I do not think either that impresses the British or the US Department and it lends very little dignity to the advancement of a peaceful solution in Northern Ireland. I would prefer to endorse, as I endorse wholeheartedly, the views of a Belfastman, Bishop Daly, who, speaking at a Mass in Longford, said we must demand that the British Government provide the necessary and decisive leadership to ensure justice in the North. Bishop Daly is a man of immense public responsibility and he has made very definite contributions to the problem in his statements of the past few months. However, in making this demand of the British Government we should not do so in any supine attitude. In so far as the Labour Party and the trade union movement are concerned, we will play our role. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that Mr. Heath and Mr. Maudling are very lacking in imagination. They are simply afraid of the Tory backlash at Westminister, the backlash from the 12 Westminster Unionist MPs. They are afraid to face up to their own extreme right wing.

This brings me to the proposals of Deputy Neil Blaney, which are a public disgrace. His speech was vindictive and bloodthirsty. His was the voice of non-reason, the voice of a mob leader, leading comfortably from behind. It was an evil and hypocritical speech. It was an obscene reaction to the gospel in the church in Derry to which he went last Wednesday. That gospel said: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they are the sons of God." I would not equate that gospel with the gospel propagated by Deputy Neil Blaney in the past few days.

I found his proposal for the release of so-called Republicans from jails in the Republic to be nauseating and hypocritical. I would remind Deputy Blaney and his fellow super-duper Republicans in the backbenches of this House that not so long ago, between 1957 and 1961, they suffered no qualms of conscience in agreeing to the internment of Republicans, which Deputy Blaney as a Cabinet Minister endorsed. Deputies must not give way to panic reaction in respect of those who are currently serving sentence in jails in this State and those who are in the custody of the Garda Síochána. Deputies must not play to the gallery in response to superficial public sentiment. If they do they will be acting in an undemocratic and dangerous manner. It is only a Deputy of the proven arrogance of Deputy Blaney, who always regarded himself as being above the law, who would support such a proposition.

No Member of the Oireachtas may set aside the rule of law under our Constitution, no matter what the issue may be. No Deputy may set aside the decisions of our judges who have been appointed by our respected President, or set himself up as a jury. We do not want an army council with Deputy Blaney as presiding judge and jury. That is not my kind of democracy or that of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. Therefore, we in the Labour Party will oppose, irrespective of the consequences to our political future, those who try to undermine the legislative institutions of this State which our parents fought so hard to establish.

This island is not the property of any group of politicians. It is the common property and the common heritage of all 4,500,000 Irishmen who live and work on this island and who must learn to live and work in a pluralist, interdenominational society. We have recently adopted a policy which advocates the creation of conditions in Northern Ireland, through structural reforms, which will guarantee to the minority their right to participate in Government at all levels and ensure for them equality of rights and fair treatment both in the public and private sectors.

We listen to very little that comes from Northern Ireland, and I would endorse the suggestion made by Mr. Brendan Harkin, on behalf of some 220,000 workers in Northern Ireland at the Europa Hotel on 2nd February last, that there should now be a date agreed by which civil disobedience would end, internment without trial would end, all public representatives would return to their duties and inter-party talks would commence. He also suggested that a Bill of Rights should be enacted immediately which would provide for equal rights for all citizens in Northern Ireland. He further proposed that a mammoth economic programme should be embarked upon to reduce the high level of unemployment. Finally, he suggested that the three Governments in Belfast, Dublin and Westminster should agree immediately to take appropriate steps to protect the lives and property of innocent persons and to prevent the re-emergence of violence. I certainly endorse these proposals of a responsible trade union leader in Northern Ireland and I think his contribution has been most constructive.

In advancing this policy, we in the Labour Party are not a Twenty-six County version of the Fianna Fáil Party; we are not a Catholic Labour Party or a Twenty-six County Nationalist Labour Party. We claim to follow the republicanism of Tone and Connolly, which is a far more honourable tradition than that of Deputy Blaney and which strives to cross the religious and civil divides of this country. I am pleased to know that our republican socialism and that of all of the speakers of the Fine Gael Party and of the overwhelming majority of the Government party means something more than fomenting bloody, sectarian war between the Catholic and Protestant working classes of Northern Ireland. It means something more than an exclusive Catholic claim of the South to territorial domination in Northern Ireland. It means something more than the courage to fire a high-velocity bullet at a British soldier or to explode a bomb in a crowded street. It means that in years to come—it looks now as if it will be decades—we shall not ask anybody in Northern Ireland to share our sectarian Constitution, our relatively inferior system of education, or our sectarian concepts of private morality; nor shall we ask them to share our redundancies as of now, our poorer social security system, our lack of adequate housing or our lack of planned industrial development.

I would ask Deputies to throw out the men of treason in this House who would demand a civil war, the men who will never have their children on the wrong side of the Border if Irish troops go in. There are men in this House who have evil in their minds. Coming from a mixed constituency I suffer no cruel, anti-British sentiment. Irish people are much too mature for that. They live on two islands with many millions of people. They will not descend to that undignified level or to that stupidity, nor will they engage in a betrayal of our common heritage in these two islands.

This is not just an ordinary debate on Northern Ireland. Would that it were and that the Members of the House would face up to the realities of the situation which we in the Labour Party forecast and which now unfortunately is upon us. Without trying to instil fear into the minds of people, or to scare them, I think it could be said that at present we are on the edge of a precipice because there is the undoubted possibility of killings, of a massacre, in Newry on next Sunday. The Dáil met specially yesterday and today because of what happened in Derry last Sunday. I hope and trust that next week we will not be discussing what happened in Newry.

I am bitterly disappointed that the Taoiseach, the leader of the Fine Gael Party and I are not in a position to talk to Mr. Heath. If Mr. Faulkner will not or cannot impress upon the British Prime Minister the urgency of this situation, I think we could. This unwillingness to discuss the immediate situation is indicative of the callous indifference of Mr. Heath to the possibility of loss of life next Sunday. It indicates his hardline attitude on law and order, his conception of law and order.

I am sorry we have not got the opportunity of going to London to see Mr. Heath because all of us are prepared to make any sacrifice to ensure that not one more life is lost in the Northern part of our country. That type of meeting would be an indication to the people of the country that we are prepared—as indeed I am and my party are—to do everything possible to prevent another catastrophe. The manner in which it could have been planned would also have shown to the British public that the onus of responsibility in the immediate future rests on the shoulders of the British Prime Minister.

There is no foretelling the consequences of next Sunday. Mr. Heath must recognise the possible consequences. If he does not, he is failing in his duty and in his responsibility as British Prime Minister. He could stop the march by one single act: the granting of the Civil Rights Association demands as published by them shortly before Christmas. I do not say that all these demands could be met immediately, but many of them could. It would be a gesture by the British Prime Minister showing that at last they were beginning to understand the problem of the people, and particularly the minority, in the Six Counties. It would give hope to all of us, no matter what our religious or political persuasion, that at last there was a beginning, that some political initiative was being taken to bring peace to that stricken part of our country.

In any case, he has the responsibility of spelling out the demands to which he objects, and he has the responsibility of giving his reasons. I said on Tuesday last that no bans or appeals could stop Sunday's march, in my view, because of the passions aroused by the events in Derry, passions that are easily understandable in the circumstances. I believe that because of Derry, the Newry march will attract more people. It is important to point out that the plans and the attitudes of the Civil Rights Association, as shown in their Press conference yesterday, prove that they are reasonable and responsible people and that they are taking every precaution to avoid a confrontation.

They have made it abundantly clear to people not only from the North but also from the South, that this march is solely for the establishment of civil rights in the North. They have done nothing to encourage participation by anybody other than those who are deprived of their civil rights by the fact that they live in Northern Ireland. To their credit they have discouraged those who, it would appear, might be the instrument of causing the sort of confrontation to which I have referred. This may not be possible in view of the events in Derry on last Sunday.

This march on Sunday in Newry could have all the classic ingredients of a large-scale disaster. The reality is —and this is what we have got to face up to now—that the march is going ahead. Again may I say to the credit of Members of this party, that we foresaw this many years ago. Back as far as 1969 we warned the House and the country. Now we are approaching a time in which we are thinking not in terms of years or months or days: we are counting the hours until the march takes place and ends in Newry next Sunday.

Mr. Heath must also accept the reality of the situation. Time does not permit me to read out the telegram I sent to Mr. Heath on behalf of my party advising him as to what he should do in order that the risk will at least be minimised in Newry. Because we have particular associations with him, on behalf of my party I have asked the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Wilson, to use what influence he has to bring home to the British Government and to Mr. Heath, the consequences of his attitude particularly in the past few weeks and to ensure that there will not be violence and that there will not be a repetition of what happened in Derry last Sunday. If I were to give any advice briefly to Mr. Heath it would be that it is the British Army who must not march on next Sunday.

Hear, hear.

If the march cannot be stopped or postponed Mr. Heath, as the British Prime Minister, can ensure that there will be no violence if he directs Mr. Faulkner that there should be no British soldier within ten miles of Newry next Sunday. That may appear to be too simple but I think it is a solution. The British Army has withdrawn, as some of us saw last Wednesday, from the site of the funerals of the victims in Derry on Sunday last. Let them withdraw from the site in Newry on next Sunday so that there will be no victims in Newry.

I say further to Mr. Heath that, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, he has the greatest moral responsibility for what happens on Sunday. He claims that the people who are going to march are his citizens. Yet he is prepared, it appears, to sacrifice them in the interests of another section of the same community, the right wing of his own party and the very survival of his own Government. Where is the morality in that type of calculation? Would it be unfair to accuse him in present circumstances of political expediency?

I bitterly resent the assertion by Mr. Heath in his letter to Cardinal Conway and Cardinal Heenan that next Sunday's march will be nothing more than an excuse for hooligans, I forget the other description, and extremists. This is not the intention of those who organised the march, the Civil Rights Association. I was in Derry last Wednesday. I should like to ask those who were present, or those who observed the funerals on the television screen, or saw pictures in the newspapers, or read the accounts: were those 13 coffins the coffins of hooligans and extremists? In Derry I saw the funerals of ordinary working-class people and I suppose, if the truth were known, unemployed people, people who were deprived and who were oppressed. I must confess I was as deeply affected by the harrowing scenes I witnessed as were the viewers over the entire country and in many other parts of the world. I do not ever want to see such harrowing scenes or to hear such cries of anguish as there were in Derry, and not because I was in a certain part of the Six Counties. I never want to hear of or be present at such scenes whether or not they are Catholic funerals, Protestant funerals, those in this Army, that Army, the other Army or any police force.

The violence that has happened in the North gave rise to such harrowing scenes as many of my colleagues and I witnessed. Nothing will be the same again because of Derry. That is an historic fact and the British Prime Minister had better recognise it. What happened in Derry last Sunday is already in the pages of history. No matter what the outcome of the British inquiry the undoubted fact is that violence and deaths arose from the demand, belated as it was, that these ordinary Irish people wanted to be treated as equal citizens with equal rights and equal opportunities.

The same demand is being repeated in Newry next Sunday. Is that demand to be the cause of further violence, further bloodshed, further deaths? The demand for civil rights is simple and elementary. It is difficult for us, and I suppose much more difficult for those outside this island, to believe that people would have to brave violence and even death in order to assert that demand for civil rights. It is indeed much more difficult to believe that one of the world powers should use its Army, as it did last Sunday, to suppress these demands.

There will be more of the world Press in Newry on Sunday because of Derry and the subsequent coverage of events by the newspapers, radio and television. Many more radios will be reporting the events of Newry and there will be many more television cameras taking the scenes. We have to remember that, no matter what our emotions and sentiments might be, both sides in Newry next Sunday will be on trial. There is a glimmer of hope within me—and I must confess it is but a glimmer, for all the signs are ominous—that Newry could still be a victory. Newry could still be the turning point. Newry could be a demonstration not alone for civil rights but a demonstration to the world that the minority in Northern Ireland reject the achievement of those civil rights through violence and that, as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King led their followers with patience and with dignity for what they believed in, so too can the Civil Rights Association and those who attend in Newry demonstrate that their cause is just and must be acknowledged by Stormont and by Westminister.

They have an opportunity to demonstrate to the world by a peaceful march and by proper marshalling and by the ejection of those who would cause trouble that their cause is right. That is why I say that this is an opportunity to show that the minority in the North reject violence in any form for the achievement of their legitimate ends. It struck me in this debate that some of the contributions were made as if Newry were in the distant future. As I said before Newry is only hours away and both sides are on a fast collision course.

I do not believe brute force will bring about a lasting solution. Again, let me say that, if the British Army withdraw and there are no incidents and particularly no deaths, it will only be a holding operation. It will only mean that we in this part of the country and those in the North-East part of the country will have a breathing space, but that breathing space will be important. We must use it to exploit with initiative, imagination and with the greatest possible speed, in order to ensure that we will not have the situation which confronts us at the present time.

We have a responsibility as well. There is no point in our making the speeches we made in 1947, 1948, 1927 or 1932 and blaming everybody but ourselves. We must define what we want. We blame the British Government for this situation. We blame Stormont and we blame the IRA. Those of us who have been Members of this House for a long time, those of us who have been Members of Dáil Éireann since 1922, must take a major portion of the blame. We have never tried to understand the minds and the mentalities not alone of the Protestants but of the Catholics as well. We have not made any attempt to understand the minds, the feelings, the fears and the aspirations of all the people of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.

We have, up to three years ago, to our shame, accepted Partition in the same way as the Iron Curtain in Europe was accepted. Which of the parties in this House now and those outside who would like to take over have made the major plank in their policy platform the question of Partition—and not necessarily the physical Border but the Partition of the two communities in Northern Ireland, the Protestants and the Catholic minority? Up to 1968 there was no real dialogue whatsoever. It is only comparatively recently that we established our television station but there was no effort in the establishment of that station to ensure that there would be full coverage for the whole Thirty-two Counties. As a matter of fact only 60 per cent of the Northern population receive what we could regard as one of the important media, the television news and views from this part of the country.

Our criticism in the past was very confined. In the past our main criticism on Partition was that the constituencies were gerrymandered and that the minority did not get a fair representation in Stormont or on the local bodies, which they would have under a different electoral system. We were not concerned about unemployment in the Six Counties. We were not concerned about bad housing there. It was only the Civil Rights Association which prodded us and began to make us think about the things that are important today while we were making these dramatic speeches about the ending of Partition.

As my colleague has just said, take away the Border in the morning and you would still have the same difficulties. There was no mention of civil rights as far as we were concerned. Partition had its useful purposes, of course. Politicians on both sides of the Border, in order to whip up national sentiments and in order to get elected, dragged out Partition in every two or three elections. That is the way we thought about the Six Counties until October, 1968. We did not listen to those who wanted to tell us how things really were. We made no preparations for unity.

Perhaps this is not the sort of debate to engage in this sort of thing, but it has to be said nevertheless. We allowed our economy to stagnate. We found ourselves in a position where we are too weak to sustain proper social services in a United Ireland. It is dreary reading to list the wide differences between our expenditure per capita on social welfare, education, health and housing. Suffice it to say that a very wide gap confronts us and if we are to think in terms of a united Ireland that gap must be closed.

We enacted a Constitution for only part of the country and as far as reforms are concerned, in the last few years since the troubles started we have been dragging our feet. I would urge the Taoiseach, as I urged him in private, to establish this all-party committee not alone to make what we regard to be the necessary changes in our Constitution to provide for a united Ireland but also to discuss the economic, social and legal implications of unity of the Twenty-six with the Six.

Some Deputies spoke about concessions to the Northern majority and were begrudging in their remarks. The Northern majority should not be afforded what would be described as concessions but should be afforded in our laws and in our Constitution what they consider to be civil rights. They would say: "Damn your concessions, we want our rights." They would be perfectly correct in that. The fact that they have been described by some people in this House as concessions shows how psychologically unprepared a lot of people in this country are for unity.

I said at the beginning that I believe we are on the edge of a precipice. Deputy Desmond said we should not talk ourselves into civil war. It is not my intention or the intention of any genuine Member of this House to talk ourselves into a situation of civil war. However, I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that we may be in a war situation. I do not want to exaggerate or to cause panic. It has been said that our relations with the British Government are at the lowest level in 50 years. This is cynical, it is Gilbertian to some extent when one remembers the protestations from the Government side of the House apropos EEC membership that if Britain goes in we have to go in. Now we find ourselves in the situation where the relationship between the British and ourselves is at its lowest level in 50 years.

I have not had contact with West-minister but my colleagues have and I am appalled at the disinterest there appears to be in Westminster. One would imagine we were thousands of miles away. We want to be on friendly terms with Britain but we should like to see them taking a little interest, particularly at the present time. There is apathy in Westminster with, of course, some notable exceptions. In making any criticism of the British Government, I know I cannot be regarded nor do I want to be regarded as being anti-British. The people who talk about minorities—most of us here would regard ourselves as being the champions of the minority in the Six Counties—must remember that there is a minority of one million Irish-born people in Britain and in anything we do and say we must have regard to them and to their future. I would not like to fan the flame here but there has been evidence from my colleagues, Deputies O'Brien and Cluskey, who have been on recent visits, that there is a growing wave of anti-Irish feeling in Great Britain which could have repercussions on our economy. We describe the British tourist as our best customer and our trading relations with them are greater than with any country. We are following Britain into the EEC because of our special relationship.

We have got to remember also the matter of unemployment, and those people who engage in this sort of talk have got to remember that any acts of violence by way of arson or the blowing up of factories in this country will not serve to do away with the Border or to get civil rights for the people in the Six Counties. The only effects such actions would have would be to put Irish workers out of work in this country. Perhaps the British would be pleased, as Enoch Powell would be, to see some of the Irish go back here. That would create a very big problem for us and I do not think I need to elaborate on it.

In these emotional times I want to say as well that we should not be anti-Protestant. They are the very people we want to be united with and if we say they have nothing to fear in a united Ireland let us not give them cause for fear in a divided Ireland. Let us take action economically, legally and constitutionally which will demonstrate our good faith in desiring unity on the basis of equality and justice.

Finally, I would say there are people who believe the resources of this country, legal and illegal, can bring about unity and that action, bloody as it will be, can be confined to the Six Counties. It will not. It will spread and engulf us all. Let us make no mistake about that. The responsibility of the House is to try to prevent this. We cannot secure peace as long as we have people preaching war. To Mr. Health I would say that he was a major responsibility in this situation. His past behaviour has been insane, insensitive and intransigent. I would say to him in the name of humanity that he should think again, withdraw his troops and let Irishmen begin to talk to Irishmen because we have all got to live on this little island together in unity and peace.

This debate takes place in circumstances as grave and as serious as any which have faced this country since the end of the civil war. For that reason I believe it is important that what is said and the resultant actions flowing from speeches and remarks made have to be weighed with care. I believe that in the present situation emotionalism is no basis for rational thought and action. We must resist the natural temptation and the normal reaction of most people to express, through emotions of one sort or another, the naturally strong feelings which they have about the situation. There is no use in indulging in verbal extremism which may satisfy some emotions but merely inflame emotions in others. I want to express the strong view that has always been expressed in the course of this debate that giving way to emotion resulting in reckless attacks on property and damage to premises and factories where Irish people are employed is doing no service to the Irish people or to the cause of unity. We must face the issues and not seek to evade them, difficult and disagreeable as the realities are, by wild gestures which damage the prospect of Irish people maintaining their jobs. No emotions, however strong, justify reckless actions against the interests of Irish men and women. Uncertainty and a natural concern which people with businesses, industries or trading concerns of one sort or another have is the greatest danger to investment and the quickest way to cause a flight of capital and money is by attacks on property. This, as has been repeatedly said, is no contribution towards the solution of the problem of the North of Ireland. Everybody understands and appreciates the natural human reactions, the strong feelings, in some cases the bitter resentment, of Irish people in this State, not to mention in the North, but to indulge in wild gestures of arson and other attacks on property cannot help and will, indeed, only add to the already swollen numbers on the unemployment register. This aspect of the situation must be faced and recognised. We have got to appreciate that unless this question is considered in a rational and realistic fashion it is quite impossible to expect that degree of rational discussion and reasonable consultation which must take place in dealing with it.

In the short time we have I want to say that this issue has brought forcibly before the public two major questions: the overriding question of securing a political solution to the problem of the North and the equally important question of ensuring that the democratic institutions that exist here are maintained and respected and guaranteed to function on behalf of the people. The will of the people must prevail and anarchy must be resisted. The institutions of State, this Dáil and the Army and Garda force responsible to it, are there on behalf of the people. This is the only legitimate authority to speak and act for the people and we cannot be slightly constitutional about it.

Hear, hear. As some of the people are.

There cannot be one attitude when we have the responsibility to speak and act and another when we feel free to indulge in political activities or actions of a personal or party character.

For centuries and for generations Irish people fought to establish this Parliament. It is true, and it has been said on many occasions, that it never ment the full aspirations of an independent free Ireland but the issue has long been settled whether it represents the will of the people or not. I think it is right that we should reflect, when this issue has been raised, on a couple of sentences Lincoln once wrote:

We must settle this question now whether in a free Government the minority have a right to break up the Government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.

We have established and the people through their courage and determination have maintained these institutions. The Army and Garda forces are there to serve the people. The people who serve in these forces are the sons and daughters or the fathers of our neighbours and they are not operated by alien institutions. They have given to this country and to this Parliament and to every Government good and loyal service. They are, of course, like any other human institution not perfect but they have rendered faithful and honourable service and it is in the interests above all of the weakest sections of the community to see that they are respected, to see that they are allowed to perform their functions and carry out their duties.

The problem of securing a political settlement to the present situation in the North is of course the overriding reason for this debate. It has been said frequently, and as recently as earlier this week, that the attitude of the British Government, and for that matter the British Parliament, is one of intransigence and obstinacy. I should like to emphasise that the unity we have shown in presenting a united front to emphasise our common aim is only for the purpose of achieving that because we have seen here how disunity has been the curse of this country down through the generations. We saw how in vital national issues either in the recent or the remote past when these matters were raised disunity prevented the realisation of the accomplishment of the national objectives. It is for that reason more than any other that we have endeavoured in recent debates and in the actions we have taken as an Opposition here to convince the British Government that on this issue Irish public representatives and all shades of political and other opinion here are united in their desire and determination to work for a satisfactory, peaceful solution. In one form or another a great many people have a knowledge of the impact of one civil war in this country and realise we do not need another. That elementary lesson has been learned by anyone with even a casual acquaintance with either politics or ordinary life here.

We have endeavoured to bring before the British Government, and particularly the present Government, the urgency of getting a solution and of initiating meaningful political talks. I believe that there is in the present situation little ground for optimism, that the situation is as serious or as grave as any that has been seen in dealing with this problem over the last 50 years, but we have to look at some signs of change or some remarks that give a glimmer of hope.

I, like other Deputies, have been reading the debates in the British Parliament this week and I think there were a few remarks of some significance, possibly made by a Minister representing a Department and for that reason, maybe, carrying more significance than if they came from another quarter. For instance, there was the speech made by the British Defence Minister, Lord Carrington, in which he said—I quote from The Irish Times of Thursday, 3rd February:

There can be no doubt that the central problem was the antagonism which a large part of the Catholic community have for the Northern Ireland Government and for the forces of law and order.

He went on to say:

But this fear is a fact and so is the hate and bitterness which stems from it. A sizeable part of the Catholic population is sympathetic to the terrorists and is willing in varying degrees to afford them shelter and assistance.

Lord Carrington said:

The key question was how to regain the confidence of the Catholic community, recognising that it was fully entitled to expect some significant measure of political change. There were three points...

and he went on to enumerate them. I will quote only the last one because it is the most significant. The Irish Times report says:

Lord Carrington said he believed it was possible to find a solution to this dreadful problem. "It is certainly the intention of the Government to do what is humanly possible to get agreement among the people of Northern Ireland for a peaceful and just settlement. We shall need the help of all men, of all parties and of none, who genuinely wish to find such a solution. We do not think it can be easy, but it can and must be found."

Probably the most significant passage was this, as reported in The Irish Times:

Lord Carrington said patience and restraint were not all that must be asked of the Protestants. "We must also ask them to be realistic and to be prepared to talk with Catholic citizens about the future."

That did offer some glimmer of an improvement, some ray of hope in the present situation and it is because of that that I believe we have to try to convince, because Deputies have emphasised this in the course of this debate, and it is one of the unfortunate aspects of it, that there is immense ignorance in the British Parliament and, worse still, amongst the British people, about the situation in the North. We believe that there must be consultation, that there should be discussions on a political level between all political parties and all groups in Britain as well as here and in the North.

We have said here in this Dáil, and it has been repeated in the course of this debate, that we are prepared to make constitutional and other changes. I do not think that is the major difficulty. I think it is a mistake to elevate these constitutional problems and to make a fetish of them. There are aspects of the Constitution that have to be changed, legislative and other amendments and changes of a different character that would be required, but the real issue is to establish a system of government that will give the Catholic minority an effective say on a fair basis in decisions and in the consequences that flow from them.

We here over the years have established a system that provided fair treatment for minorities. Speaking from this side of the House, we can say we understand what discrimination is. We realise, because we have been in a political minority, how a majority party can discriminate in certain cases of employment. We recognise that; we have had experienced of it, but, because of the decisions that were taken at the very inception of this State to establish independent authorities like the Civil Service and the Local Appointments Commission, a whole range of public positions were put outside the whim of political parties or a Minister, no matter what Government may be in office. That has not been the case in the North where there has been discrimination on a job basis, on housing, on voting, in a multiplicity of areas in which civil rights should operate and people are now endeavouring to get civil rights and have been prevented from getting that to which they were entitled, rights which in ordinary human dignity they are, as individuals, entitled to receive.

It is because of that that the minority at present in the North have no faith in the Stormont regime. We want to get some discussions going to enable them to participate effectively and fully in government on some basis that will give them an effective say and at the same time lead to the eventual establishment of an Irish State to which all can give allegiance.

On the question of the events that took place in Derry last Sunday, I believe that we have go to bring this matter before the Council of Europe and before the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms but I think we have got to go further. At the present time Britain is an applicant for membership of the EEC and seeks to secure certain discussions and arrangements with that organisation. We should make official representations at the very highest level to all the member governments of the EEC as well as to the other applicants as to the manner in which the British Government and the government in the North of Ireland are acting. We should bring before them the serious consequences. This organisation was brought into being to bring Europe closer together. We should let them know that in one part of the territory of one applicant country, where its political and legal writ still runs, discrimination is being practised on a basis and in a manner and in circumstances unparalleled outside the Soviet Union or other governments under dictatorship. We have got to do that because this is a place in which the representations, the initiative, the power of international opinion can be brought to bear in an effective and in a purposeful manner.

I believe that some of the representations we have made abroad have in certain cases been misguided and misjudged. Because of the ancient tradition we have there is a danger of our seeking to bring this issue before certain countries on every possible occasion. Circumstances are entirely different now from what they were in the past. Changes of a constitutional and political character since the establishment of the State have changed the reaction and approach of a number of these countries. They approach us now as an independent, separate State with which they have diplomatic and other ties. They also have diplomatic and other ties with Britain and other states on the ordinary international basis. It is for these reasons that I think the initiative in this matter should be directed towards two organisations in Europe, the Council of Europe, to secure an international inquiry under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, and to the headquarters of member countries of the EEC. The latter are countries with which we have direct ties and with which both Britain and we propose in future to be co-members of the European Economic Community.

This is a situation in which we have to use every possible opportunity to secure the support of friendly governments. We must approach this in an absolutely calm fashion. There is absolutely no use in allowing ourselves, no matter how strongly we feel, to give way to our emotions. As I said last Tuesday, there is no in-between situation where peace and war are concerned. The only authority which can make war in this country is this House and we cannot allow ourselves to drift into or be manoeuvred into war either by giving way to emotion or to the reckless consequences of those who have assumed unto themselves rights they have not got.

I have repeatedly said, and I wish to emphasise it in this debate, that we have consistently argued, and argued with conviction, that we want in this country—first of all, in the North, but ultimately for the whole country—a Parliament which will represent all sections of our people. We want a situation in which the majority are willing to go more than half way in getting all sections to work together, with equal rights for all, a situation in which we can have a Parliament and a Government guaranteeing to religious minorities and to political minorities equal rights and the ordinary fundamental freedoms. We have to try to convince the Unionists in the North that we have no ulterior motive and that there is no attempt here to coerce people into a way of life they do not want. Equally—and this is where I reinforce the remarks of Lord Carrington —the Unionists and the Protestants have got to realise that the Catholics in the Six Counties must get their fair share and must be given a reasonable and fair allocation of appointments and jobs and ordinary civil rights in respect of housing, employment and voting. These are fundamental to any meaningful discussion directed towards a settlement in the North. The greatest mistake possible would be to imagine that this will settle itself or that people can be lethargic in their approach to the problem.

I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that the British Government have a responsibility to act quickly. They have a responsibility to initiate discussions of a meaningful kind. They have a responsibility to ensure that the minority are brought into those discussions and that the steps necessary to restore confidence are taken. Reading the speech of Lord Carrington, if this man represents the British Government, then there is no doubt but that he re-cognises the lack of confidence on the part of the Catholics, that he recog-nises the fears they have. He also re-cognises the fears the Protestants have. It is interesting to note that he represents the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry responsible for the Army. If he believes this, and his belief must be based on what those who brief him and report to him have told him, then it ought to be borne in on the British Government that, so far as this country is concerned, we desire to be associated with them on a diplomatic and friendly basis, a friendly basis that recognises our rights and the rights of every section in this country but, above all, the rights of the oppressed section in the Six Counties, that oppressed section that has suffered and been denied its rights over the last 50 years.

We want to bring home as vigorously as we can and with as much emphasis and urgency as we can command that the time to hold discussions with those who are in a position to deliver the goods may be running out. This State is only 50 years old. It was founded on great personal sacrifices of one kind or another. In its 50 years existence we have endeavoured to show ourselves as a civilised and Christian democracy. To those who wish us to discharge our duties and fulfil our part of the bargain we say there must be give and take. We want to hold discussions with the British Government as well as with the Unionists in the North without any preconditions, with nothing other than the aim of achieving a situation in which Protestant and Catholic Irish men and women can come together and live in peace and harmony.

It is no harm to mention again what a former Prime Minister in the Six Counties, Lord O'Neill, said when he retired. He said then in a farewell broadcast in April, 1969: "Either we live together or we have no life worth living." The import of that might with advantage be pointed out to the Unionists and to the British Government; this was the conviction of a man who had endeavoured to make some contribution towards the realisation of those aims we all have in common.

The message of this debate is, I hope, clear to Britain and particularly to the British Government. There is no reason now why the British Government should not know the views of all strands of political opinion here, should not know how we feel about the situation in the North and, in particular, about the slaughter in Derry last Sunday. I want now to make one or two comments on some reported views expressed by British Cabinet Ministers. First, Mr. Maudling is reported as saying that many people who were calling for political initiatives were calling for surrender. Does Mr. Maudling, I wonder, not know that the creation of Partition and its maintenance was and continues to be a surrender to the threat of Orange violence?

In the North of Ireland the world is witnessing an agony, an agony that could be ended by one act of courage on the part of the British Government. The two communities there are paying an appalling price for the pussyfooting and timidity which inhibits Whitehall from facing up squarely to Orange intransigence.

Sir Alec Douglas Home is reported as saying that the present situation constitutes a threat to the relations between our two countries and perhaps a permanent threat to those relations. We have no desire that that should be so, but if it be so, not being of our doing, so be it. I hope, I believe, that the British Foreign Secretary did not mean to convey anything in what he was saying other than what appeared on the face of it, but if by any chance there was any suggestion of a threat to us, let him know that we will not be cowed by any threats.

The same British Minister said in a television interview, I think, last night: "The Irish Foreign Minister, Dr. Hillery, sat in this room and asked for a ban on all parades in the North." This presumably refers to the meeting between Deputy Dr. Hillery and Sir Alec Douglas Home at the Foreign Office in London on Wednesday, 8th July, 1970. Our official record of this meeting in London on shows that Sir Alec asked if Dr. Hillery wanted all parades banned and Dr. Hillery replied: "Only certain parades which are deliberately provocative should be banned. All I am asking is to stop provocation, bigotry and intolerance." Replying to questions at a Press conference following his meeting with Sir Alec Douglas Home, Dr. Hillery said: "I have not sought a banning of parades; I have sought the banning of parades in sensitive areas where they could not mean a commemoration but only mean an aggressive humiliation for the local population."

On another occasion since then, British officials have suggested to Irish officials that Irish policy was to seek a ban on all parades, and on this occasion also it was made clear to the British side that the Irish Government felt that the principle to be adopted in Northern Ireland was that sectarian parades should not be permitted except in areas where they were welcome. It was explained that this meant that parades such as the Apprentice Boys' parade in Derry and attempted Orange parades in places like Dungiven should not be allowed at all in future. Clearly this principle would not prevent parades and demonstrations which demand equality of treatment and freedome from discrimination for everyone in Northern Ireland, as is promised in the Downing Street declaration and by successive British Governments.

It could be argued that the occurrences in Derry last Sunday were because of soldiers running amok. I do not believe it. It is my personal view that there was ample notice of what was likely to occur in Derry, ample notice of march and demonstration. Of necessity, a good deal of thought must have been given to the contingencies and plans made for those contingencies. That being so, I find it incredible that the soldiers could have run wild. I can only conclude that Mr. Faulkner, the Security Committee and the relevant British Ministers must have approved of a contingency plan in certain circumstances which led to what happened in Derry. If that is so, the only possible motive for it could be to try to ensure that civil rights marches and demonstrations were broken once and for all, and if that was the objective, it was a gravely mistaken calculation. I think that amongst the many other things that are shown, if that theory is correct, is the fact that civil rights marches are a source of dread to Stormont and Westminster.

There has been set up an inquiry in Britain into what happened in Derry. We are not interested in a British inquiry. That is a matter between the British Government and its own people, but the British Government and the British Army are on trial at the bar of public opinion throughout the world, and if they do not agree to an independent international inquiry, they will be found guilty where they have not already been so found. There is a dangerous school of thought in Stormont and in some quarters in Britain that once you suppress violence in the North, you will get nine or ten years of sullen peace from a weary minority. In the secret councils of the Orange Order there are men who would consider this as the appropriate approach to the problem. This is the illusion that sustains the present misery in the North.

The civil rights movement was started by men of vision and generosity, who seek Protestant as well as Catholic sharing in a new and decent society. The fire they kindled will not be extinguished by any military suppression. The tragedy of Derry demonstrates the dread in which peaceful protest marches are held by the Stormont regime, when so many thousands of people came on the streets to indict an evil system before the eyes of the world. These people who came on the streets are wielding a weapon which no oppressor can overcome. When decent people wage a great moral struggle, the answer of the terrified men of Stormont is a butchery which has disgusted people everywhere. Does Mr. Faulkner think——

On a point of order. I want to ask a question.

The Deputy may not ask a question.

Was the Irish Government represented——

The Deputy may not ask a question.

Was the Irish Government represented by the Taoiseach——

The Deputy will resume his seat.

Can I ask a question?

No, the Deputy may not intervene. He must resume his seat.

Were we represented in Derry last Wednesday?

The Deputy must resume his seat.

Does Mr. Faulkner think that his paratroopers or his bullets will deter the people of the North from achieving their just claims? The minority of the people in the Six Counties have said that never again will they accept the regime which has robbed and cheated them of their dignity for half a century. The people of the South have clearly indicated their full support for that attitude. It is the curse of our relationship with Britain that even in these days British policy towards Ireland is still apparently responsive to the bigoted Orange influence which has been responsible for so much bloodshed for a century and a half. It is, I suppose, a perverse tribute to the influence of Orangeism that the blasphemy of a military solution should persist in some quarters in Britain. It must be now crystal clear to all rational people in Britain that there is no such thing in this situation as a military solution. There are on the Orange side sinister forces working very effectively to polarise the situation between the two communities. The provocative behaviour of the British Army in their indiscriminate searches of Nationalist areas, in cratering Border roads and the ruthlessness displayed in Derry are clear evidence of this influence.

I would ask every man and woman who takes pride in an Irish heritage in Britain itself, in the United States or wherever they may be in the world, to use all the influence they can bring to bear to change the disastrous course of British policy. What we seek in the long term is in the interests of all the people of these islands. It is in the best and immediate interests of Britain herself. In these circumstances, it is not a simple question of neutrality in a dispute between states. We are reasonably satisfied to expect more from our friends than expressions of concern. It is, for instance, surely in the interests of the United States that this dispute should be settled amicably. I hope there are no doubts on that point. Even during the War of Independence Irish leaders were at pains to stress that once a settlement was reached Britain could rely on Ireland to ensure that she would not have hostile or potentially hostile forces on her flank. Successive Irish Governments have honoured that concept. Of course it is a concept that is of great value to Ireland as well as to Britain and indeed to the whole of Europe but it is a difficult concept to sustain when Britain, obdurate in the face of the most recent and specific demands for new policies, resorts to the ruthlessness and bloodletting that we saw last week.

We know what is said to be the stumbling block to negotiations. There is a way around that stumbling block and if the British Government have the will, the way is there. If that could be overcome the way would then be open for a style of government in the North under which the domination of one community by another would be impossible and this interim arrangement would be a decisive step, I believe, on the road to a united Ireland. Once again I would say to our Protestant fellow countrymen in the North that those who exploit their fears are leading them on a perilous course. There are hundreds of thousands of them who must now bitterly resent the methods by which the Stormont-type society is maintained. It is time they made themselves heard. Their Catholic neighbours in the North will welcome them when they take their places in the ranks of those who would walk in peace and dignity towards a better Ireland.

I want to turn now to matters which are perhaps more directly internal and of within-the-State concern. First, as the House knows, the Taoiseach has already indicated that the Government have decided, subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann, to provide out of public moneys finance through suitable channels for political and peaceful action by the minority in Northern Ireland, designed to obtain their freedom from Unionist misgovernment. The Government envisage this financial assistance being channelled through the Assembly of the Northern Ireland people. It was indicated at a meeting of the Assembly on 6th December that it was their intention to launch a fund for the assistance of people who were deprived of human rights in Northern Ireland. It is evident, I think, that the purposes of that fund of the Northern Ireland Assembly would be much wider than the objects envisaged by the Government. It would, for example, include the relief of distress. Equally, it is clear that the Assembly envisages a fund open to world-wide subscription. The Government contribution, therefore, would be partial both in respect of the total size of the fund and of the objects of its expenditure. The Government contribution would certainly not remove the necessity for contributions by people everywhere who wish to help the oppressed people of Northern Ireland.

The Government will have early consultations with the representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the details of administration of the fund covering such matters as the definition of the objects of expenditure, the regulation and monitoring of disbursements, auditing arrangements and various other matters. The Government will discuss the proposed arrangements with the leaders of the two Opposition parties in the near future.

In the course of this debate calls have been made to have our Army put on the Border, to have the Reserves called up and to call up the FCA. These calls have been made by some speakers, but particularly by Deputy Blaney. It seems to me that in making this kind of proposal those Deputies can only have had one of two things in mind: either they were suggesting that we do this as a bluff in our efforts to achieve what we are trying to achieve or they envisaged the invasion of the North by our Army. If what was envisaged was a bluff I can understand why what was in mind was not spelled out; the value of the whole thing would disappear if one spelled it out. I think, and I imagine most people think, the time for bluffing has passed. We cannot afford that kind of thing. If, on the other hand, what was envisaged was that we should invade the North, then I think all of us are entitled to expect, indeed to demand that the consequences envisaged by the speakers should be spelled out. These consequences, serious as they would be in many areas, must also include the strong probability of the massacre of the Catholic population of Belfast, who have always been hostages in this matter.

We also had calls for the release of what are described as Republican prisoners. It was not specified as to whether this meant members of the Official IRA, the Provisional IRA, Saor Éire or any other groups nor was it specified as to whether we should fail to enforce the law or change the law. These are matters on which I think the people who make these calls should be more specific. I would ask those who make these calls where do they stand. Are they for or against our democratic institutions? You cannot stand half-way on this matter. You are either for or against.

The Minister is making a fair try anyway.

That is not true John Redmond——

The Deputy must resume his seat.

Let us be Redmondites or let us be Republicans.

We, in this party in the past——

(Interruptions.)

I am not a Redmondite.

The Deputy will resume his seat.

I did not interrupt Deputy Corish. Will Deputy Coughlan allow me to speak? I have a limited time.

I can speak for myself. I shall never be a Ballybricken republican.

The Deputy will resume his seat.

We in this party have had to face this situation before.

You are Redmonites now.

We in this party have had to face this situation before in our history——

Because ye are cowards.

——and then, as now, we had people who wavered and were weak. If we have such people today it will not weaken in any way the resolve of the Government in this matter but will merely show up the people who take this attitude.

What are you going to do?

We also heard references in this debate to the question of emotion and Deputy Blaney said that we had been asked not to feel emotion in this situation. Of course we were not asked to do any such thing; we were asked to control our emotions. I put it to the Members of the House that any fool can feel emotion and any fool can play on emotions——

Pádraic Pearse did the same thing, you know.

——but this is not the role of leadership. It is not the role of public men.

Go back to John Redmond now.

It is not what we were elected for. I would ask our people to look at this problem in a hard headed and cold blooded way. The people we are dealing with on the other side, many of them are cold blooded in their appraisal of this situation and we would only be playing into their hands if we allowed ourselves to be carried away by emotionalism or sentimentality.

We have had enough of glorious defeats in our history. Let us choose the weapons with which we can win. I want passionately to see an end to the partition of this country. I want to see that as passionately as any other man in this House or outside it but I want to see it achieved as quickly as possible and with the least cost to our people. The special circumstances in the Six Counties determine clearly that the most effective and the quickest method of achieving that end is by passive resistance combined with a generosity of spirit towards the Unionists. I have said in the past to the IRA, and I have been criticised for it but I shall repeat it now: get out of the way and for Ireland's sake. I say to them: get out of the way in Newry this weekend.

The Minister should get out of their way.

The Deputy must cease interrupting.

If Mr. Heath or Mr. Faulkner could be sure that they would have no civil rights demonstrations in Newry this weekend but that instead they would have a major gunbattle with the IRA they would be very happy men tonight, no matter what the casualties.

The IRA speak for more than 80 per cent of the people of Ireland.

Would people get the message? What has Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Heath in trouble is passive resistance and not the IRA.

Hear, hear.

Can you not see what has happened and what can happen?

The Minister has faltered.

If the Deputy does not cease interrupting the Chair will ask him to leave the House.

I went through all this before.

In this connection considerable significance can be read into the comment by Mr. Paisley on the possibilities of what may happen in Newry in so far as the future of Northern Ireland is concerned. If our people will only get the message——

What message?

——we can clearly win but too many people have not got faith.

They must defend themselves.

No democratic Government engaged in maintaining major injustice as the British are doing in the North can stand up to a huge passive resistance campaign. The ordinary unarmed people can do the job far more effectively than can any violence.

Nonsense. The Minister's father did not think so.

He was fighting a different situation.

If Deputy Coughlan does not cease interrupting, the Chair will take the only step open to him, that is, to ask the Deputy to leave the House.

Send him back to the religious order.

Go back to Redmond.

May I address the House or may I not?

We are waiting for the message.

Deputies must cease interrupting.

Passive resistance requires courage and discipline and it requires that on the part of huge numbers of the public. Our people, North and South, have shown that they have these capacities. They have this courage. They have this discipline.

They have not.

I would ask people like Deputy Coughlan, the IRA and so on, if they will have faith in our people. The people have the courage and the discipline. Let them do the job and let the IRA get out of the way.

Motion agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 8th February, 1972.
Top
Share