British White Paper on Northern Ireland: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the British White Paper: Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals.

This opportunity to discuss this motion has been arrived at on the basis of a request from the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Lynch. It will afford Deputies an opportunity of expressing their views on it.

In considering the White Paper we are talking about matters that go beyond economic or social questions in the sense in which we are accustomed to use them in this House. It is, in the simplest and starkest terms, the life or death of many of our fellow-country-men. Already more than 800 people have died in the North. Many thousands have been maimed. The property and the prospects of many others have been irreparably damaged, and the process is continuing. I know that on both sides of the House there is concern and sympathy for the people of the North and a deep-felt wish that their sufferings be brought to an end as soon as possible. All of them, whatever their political outlook, live under strain. All of them must long for a return to peace and stability.

I have no doubt that Deputies will bear these facts in mind when speaking and expressing their views in the course of this debate.

The proposals in the White Paper which was published on 20th March last have been widely discussed. Deputies will be familiar with its contents. The White Paper proposes a Northern Ireland Assembly whose members will be elected by persons entitled to vote at a Northern Ireland general election, using the system of proportional representation on the single transferable vote system with which we are familiar here. The precise procedures by which the Assembly will govern itself are not specified in the White Paper. The paper indicates, however, that the British Government intend to retain, in addition to the functions they had before, such as taxation, foreign affairs and the armed forces, some of the responsibilities which they assumed with the introduction last year of direct rule. These retained functions will be in the fields of elections and law and order, including the criminal law, the courts, penal institutions and the establishment and organisation of the police. The paper's proposals based on the report of the Diplock Commission for dealing with the violence in the North are now before the British House of Commons in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

The White Paper also promises to end discrimination in everyday life and to provide a Bill of Rights for the man in the street. It also indicates that the British Government are prepared to facilitate the establishment of institutional arrangements for consultation and co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Twenty-six Counties, including a Council of Ireland.

Overall the aim of the paper is to establish in Northern Ireland a broader consensus than has hitherto existed so that its people may enjoy the benefits of good Government and social and economic justice.

The first definite step in this direction is the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill which was enacted last week and which provides for a Northern Ireland Assembly of 78 members, and for the basis of their election which is to take place on the 28th June next.

On the day on which the White Paper was published the Government here issued a statement in which they accepted that there is no quick or easy solution to the many problems of Northern Ireland. In that statement we said that we saw in the White Paper proposals which could help towards a solution. Many aspects of the proposals outlined in March have still to be clarified, but that remains our overall view of the White Paper.

The place in which this debate is taking place illustrates the first point which I would like to make. We are talking here in an assembly elected by the people. We are representatives of those people. We may have our faults but if our deficiencies become too great, or if we fail to reflect the views of those who put us here, the people can dismiss us at an election. While we continue here we are part of the legislature and we must provide the Government of the country.

What the British White Paper offers to the people in Northern Ireland is an opportunity to provide themselves with an assembly like that in which we are now debating, though more limited in function, and not sovereign in the way in which the Government or legislature of this country are sovereign.

It is now generally acknowledged that the most basic problem of Northern Ireland has been the lack of the political consensus which any political entity needs if democratic government is to function. This absence of consensus was latent over a long period but it underlay many of the chronic problems of the area. When those other problems came to a head and culminated in violence, it was exposed and aggravated.

It is evident that the creation of a measure of consensus on which future government of that area in the short term can be based is the key problem which any proposals for the future must try to solve. If some structures could now be created to which people of both communities could give a measure of consent and acquiescence other problems could be dealt with in political terms. If this cannot be done then the exhortation alone is unlikely to bring reconciliation.

The new Assembly is intended to provide at least the basis for this consensus. Its method of election is designed to ensure representation in it of a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions within the community. I would hope that the British Government would see their way to ensuring that none of those with pretensions to a political following will be excluded; otherwise they will be in a position to exaggerate their importance and support in claiming after the election, that they were not allowed to take part in the political process.

This month the people of the North have the opportunity, provided by the local elections which will take place, to operate the new—for them—single transferable vote system of proportional representation. The local election results will, I hope, indicate the possibilities of that system and will be a proving ground for the election strategies of the various parties. The people of the North will, as a result, be better able to weigh carefully the possibility of working through it for the achievement, by argument, debate and discussion, of the aspirations they hold. For some of these persons, participation could mean the end of years of exclusion or abstention from the processes, responsibilities and rewards of government. More importantly, it could give the field to the elected politician and end the reign of violent men.

The arrangements for power-sharing within the Assembly, when elected, are not set out specifically in the White Paper. I welcome, however, the clear and unambiguous statement in the paper that the British Government will seek to ensure that the executive powers of the Assembly will not be concentrated in the elected representatives of one community only. This assurance is a further reason why all those wishing to influence their future should consider carefully whether they should not participate fully in the election of the Assembly. If they do their voices and their views can be heard in the place where laws are framed and where many of the executive decisions of Government are made.

There is one further point which I would like these people to bear in mind. Change is taking place in the world around us today with a rapidity unprecedented in history. In political terms both the United Kingdom and this country are now members of the European Economic Community of 250 million persons, whose ultimate aim is economic and monetary union. This is not the time or place to speculate on what this will bring in terms of political union. The point I wish to stress is that the aim of this Community—through its social fund, its regional development policies, its agricultural policies, its policies for competition and the elimination of trade barriers—is a better and a fuller life for every individual within it— getting away from sterile strife based on fear and the desire for national aggrandisement which Europe has known only too well. In that kind of world—and that kind of future—discussion and argument, heated and even bitter at times, are the weapons. When barriers are coming down in this way, can it be expected that boundaries in this island will survive as we have known them—unless they are perpetuated by a continuance of the violence which breeds division and hatred?

It has been pointed out before that the communities in Northern Ireland fear that any definitive settlement may leave it in the position of a permanently disadvantaged minority—in the one case, as part of a united Ireland: in the other as part of a new and permanent settlement in Northern Ireland.

It is difficult to see how any settlement that is definitive in its terms can be arrived at without meeting the hopes of one community at the cost of alienating the other. What the situation calls for at the present time is not a static, one-dimensional settlement, but one which is flexible enough to meet all of the dimensions of the problem. To do this, a settlement must positively encourage movement and growth towards reconciliation.

There is, of course, a danger, too, at the other extreme. I have spoken of a need for flexibility. But I do not mean to advocate continuing uncertainty or indecision. Definite political structures and institutions are called for. But they should, as far as possible, be of a kind which will encourage reconciliation between the communities and which will provide scope for the aspirations of both. They should as far as possible be flexible enough to be responsive to differing aspirations in their operation; and static only to the extent that their fundamental aim of reconciliation has been achieved.

Can this reconciliation be achieved in Northern Ireland alone? I do not think so. The full measure of the problem of Northern Ireland is that reconciliation between its communities cannot be brought about successfully in isolation from the larger issue of reconciliation within the island as a whole. The two issues are inseparable—since hope for a coming together of North and South is an essential part of the aspiration of one of the two communities in the area.

This, it seems to me, is the real meaning of the "Irish Dimension"— if I may take up again the phrase coined by the Green Paper. It is a "Dimension"—an essential, and not a secondary, aspect of the problem. This means that it must be faced if the problem is to be solved.

It is primarily as an institution which could respond to this need, and not simply as a means of smoothing out minor overlapping problems deriving from a common border, that a Council of Ireland seems to me to be called for. The White Paper proposals on the council are vague. They seem to suggest that it might concern itself with tourism, regional development, electricity and transport. These are subjects of vital and growing concern but the functions of a council should not be limited to them. A body such as the council should, in effect, properly be seen as an important element in a settlement in the North, and not simply a later and possibly superfluous addition to it. The council—and this was one aspect that the Tánaiste and I stressed to the British government when we met the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in March— should contain within itself the seeds of evolution. In particular, it should not be constituted in such a way that any one interest or party can stifle or dominate its development.

That is why we would like to see an effective Council established not simply as something to meet our position but as something to meet the needs of the North. The need is for reconciliation and not simply for a Council as such. But a council could be a means for reconciliation, if it has substantial functions which engage the common interests of North and South and thereby encourage them to work together to common advantage. That is why we would be ready to entrust important interests of our own to an effective Council.

But this does not mean, and I emphasise this very strongly, that we see a council as a Trojan horse to deceive the North, or as a device to lure it towards an eventual unity which it does not accept. We do not deny our aspirations. But I believe I speak for a wide range of opinion here when I say that we are more anxious to see a process of co-operation, of growth towards reconciliation, get under way than to set a time-table or try to determine in advance exactly what the end result would be. To speak of growth is, indeed, to envisage a process which would not be exclusively within the control of either party to it and which would have no fixed and predetermined outcome.

How far does the White Paper meet these needs of the present situation as I have outlined them? Through the Assembly, through the Council of Ireland if it is effectively established, through the safeguards on elections and policing, it is aiming at reconciliation. It also promises strong and positive safeguards against discrimination. This is a minimum point of departure. In our initial statement, we already noted that the White Paper contains in outline form some constructive proposals to guarantee human rights and establish an agency to prevent discrimination in the private as well as the public sector.

A matter of particular concern in this context is the way in which the area is policed. At this moment, in many parts of the North the police are not functioning. An acceptable police force or forces is crucial to the establishment of stability. It was through the police that the impact of government in the past was felt most immediately and, perhaps, most harshly by many sections of the community. The proper organisation of the policing function—with the effective ending of discrimination or anything that can lend colour to suggestions of discrimination—would make a major contribution to the acceptable ending of disorder in the North. The withdrawal of the British army and of the RUC from particular areas has often been marked by a decline in violence but what such withdrawal does not solve, of course, is the problem of petty crime and lawlessness. The paper, by proposing to reserve the policing function to the British Government and Parliament, provides what is probably the best solution of this problem in the short-term, but, in the long term, the crucial issue of establishing stability and a respect for law in a modern community can be solved only if the policing function can be discharged with the faith and trust of the whole community. Ways and means of establishing this faith and trust will need careful examination and a great deal of dedicated work on the part of many persons.

Finally, let me reiterate what I have said in this debate and on many occasions before. All my colleagues in Government and I repudiate violence. It is the most sterile of all activities. It maims and kills. Because, while it continues, normal progress cannot be made in industry, trade or business, it aggrevates the canker of unemployment and subsistence-living for thousands, and tens of thousands of working men and women in the community where it is occurring. The generations of bitterness which it must create have, within them, the possibility of divisions and hatreds which are the very opposite of the unity its perpetuators seek to achieve.

The White Paper is a carefully drafted document and there is perhaps a danger of reading too easily into it what each one wishes—or does not wish—to see there. I believe, however, that the proposals, indefinite though they are in some respects, afford a prospect of an advance towards the ending of fear and discrimination in the North and towards the creation of a better future for all the people there.

We are ready to play our part in this process and to put forward concrete proposals to that end at the forthcoming Conference to which the British Government proposes to invite the Government here and representatives of Northern Ireland opinion.

I have said that the White Paper offers a basis for hope. It is up to each of us—the British Government, political leaders on all sides in the North, and the Government and the people of this part of Ireland, to play our part in realising this hope. This island is too small for any of us to be without interest in what is going on in any part of it.

To that extent I believe this discussion can assist in directing attention towards the aspects of the matter which at present require to be considered and in offering some constructive ideas on how these may be developed.

Mr. J. Lynch

I agree with what the Taoiseach has just said, that whatever contributions we have to make here we should try, in so far as we can, to ensure that they will be helpful towards finding a solution. We have, from our own experience, knowledge of the difficulty that debates, leading perhaps to recriminatory words, could be counter productive so far as the solution we all desire is concerned. Therefore, in speaking on the Northern Ireland question there is a continuing need to avoid doing so in a manner which would in any way exacerbate feelings or inflame passions or generally aggravate the situation there. At the same time, in order to deal adequately with the complex issues involved it would be necessary to go into considerable detail so as to demonstrate the reasons for advocating particular policies or courses of action. In my view, anyway, it would be premature to deal with these in too much detail at the present time and although I felt that the Taoiseach might have gone into some greater detail in his opening comments I, however, will confine my comments to a rather limited range.

The first and obvious point to make about the White Paper is that it does not of itself produce a solution to the Northern problem but rather that it holds out a prospect of progress towards a solution. It was because of that prospect that we in the Fianna Fáil Party in our official statement, issued following the publication of the White Paper, gave it what was termed a cautious approval. The dominant question which arises, therefore, is whether this prospect can be realised. The answer to that question, in turn, depends on the interaction of three elements: firstly, the actions and reactions of the people of Northern Ireland themselves, who are, of course, most directly involved, secondly, the attitudes and policies of the British Government and people; and, thirdly, the attitudes and behaviour of our own Government and people.

On this point, if I may digress from the general theme, I should like to refer to one aspect of these attitudes and policies of the British Government. I refer to what has been referred to as the strong-arm tactics of some personnel of the British forces operating in the North of Ireland. The Minister for Foreign Affairs recently made reference to the activities of the paratroops up there. I, on a number of occasions, and indeed the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hillery, raised directly and indirectly with the British Government allegations of brutality in the ordinary course of duty by the British forces. In most cases we had some evidence, in many cases strong evidence, of this, to say the least of it, over-reaction. When ordinary, moderate people are abused in any way, innocent people for that matter, by military activity, it is a natural reaction for them to counter themselves, or, if they are not in a position to do so, to turn towards those people who are equipped to engage in counter activities. This is one of the areas in which I would encourage the British Government to continue to be on the watch and to ensure that the activities of their troops in Northern Ireland are not going to worsen the situation.

Another aspect is, of course the continued detention without trial of so many people in Northern Ireland. All parties in this House and the great majority of opinion in the South at the time deplored detention without trial, deplored the decision of the then Northern Ireland Government, supported by the British Government, to introduce internment because we knew that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland then prevailing internment would aggravate rather than help the situation there. It is at least worthy of comment, and adverse comment at that, that now after almost two years of detention—and many people have been in continuously since internment was imposed—the wit of the British legal system and the British Government has not devised some means that would appear to give those who are detained an opportunity of some form of trial in which they would be given an indication of the charges made against them and given a reasonable opportunity of refuting these charges.

I acknowledge readily the difficulties that are involved. We are aware of our problems here regarding certain kinds of trials with juries. We have to face up to those problems but the British public recently reacted in a very strong manner in the case of the charge and detention in Rhodesia of a journalist, Mr. Nieswand. It is claimed that it was largely because of that reaction that Mr. Nieswand ultimately procured his release. Nevertheless Mr. Nieswand was brought before a court, although to a large extent the hearings were in secret. He had access to a court of appeal which ultimately reversed the decision of the lower court. But there remains yet in what is now claimed to be United Kingdom territory scores of people who have been detained without charge for almost two years. This is another matter that the British Government will have to consider seriously so that they might see in what way they can produce some means of assuaging the fears of the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland.

Another matter that I would like to refer to, although on the surface it may not appear very important, is the continued occupation by British forces of Casement Park in Belfast. When this park was occupied first I made immediate representations to the then British Ambassador in Dublin. I know that he conveyed these representations to his authorities. Continuously since then, at the highest level, I have repeated my criticism of the occupation of Casement Park. I had not been familiar with the terrain. I have never played in Casement Park although I played in its immediate predecessor, Corrigan Park. Subsequent to my initial complaint to the British Government I received a deputation from the high authorities of the Central Council of the GAA and of the Antrim County Committee and they informed me then that Casement Park was by no means in a dominant position from a military point of view. If anything, it was in a rather depressed area—I say "depressed" in the topological sense— and that it provided no vantage point from which people who wished to take advantage of an area of reasonable succour could attack anybody.

The GAA have continued the campaign in a responsible and reasoned manner for the restoration of that park. It is a big mistake on the part of the British Government to continue to alienate what is an area of potential goodwill towards finding a solution in Northern Ireland. I know from my own knowledge that the GAA have repudiated any activities of a violent nature that might in any way deter a solution and in which Casement Park would be used. This is another area in British policy in which there ought to be a quick rethink.

Regarding the attitude of our own Government I would like to say that in matters affecting the North there is a grave need not to deal with them in a flamboyant manner. We have had some recent instances of flamboyancy in this respect. In mentioning the recent visit to Northern Ireland of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I wish to say that I do not object in any way to such a visit. The matter was raised by my colleague, Deputy O'Kennedy, the former Minister for Transport and Power, last week but raised in a manner to ensure that in matters of this nature the head of the Irish Government ought to know exactly what is being done and ought to have prior knowledge and be fully appraised of any such visit. The Taoiseach informed us that he had prior knowledge of the visit, that he was fully appraised of it and approved fully of it. Therefore, I have no objection to the visit so long as that was the position. On the other hand, I am not sure that the Taoiseach had much prior knowledge of a previous visit by the Minister to the British Prime Minister while the Minister was on his way to Strasbourg or Brussels.

The Taoiseach

I have said already that I had full knowledge of it and that I approved of it.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have been told that the full knowledge and approval was obtained only a very short time before the visit.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

But the Government were formed only a very short time before the meeting.

Mr. J. Lynch

May I speak in terms of minutes rather than in terms of days or weeks?

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

You are not tapping peoples phones again, are you?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am not accusing the Minister for Foreign Affairs of being in any way flamboyant, but I am afraid I cannot allow the Minister for Defence to escape from such an accusation in regard to the manner in which he dealt with the Claudia affair. As we all know, the Minister called a Press conference, engaged in a very well prepared public relations exercise and planned, I believe, another Press conference at the conclusion of the arrest and detention of those involved. However, I am told that this conference was cancelled by some higher authority.

I am raising this matter deliberately, Sir, because of your decision last week that the matter is sub judice. I assert that the Minister's Press conference was not sub judice and that neither the Claudia nor its crew are sub judice. Therefore, I think we are entitled to mention in a debate such as this the behaviour of the Minister in relation to a matter affecting Northern Ireland affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that a ruling was given on this matter last week. People are charged in relation to the incident and in that respect the matter is still sub judice.

Mr. J. Lynch

As I have stated, neither the captain nor any member of the crew of the Claudia has been charged and the ship has not been detained although certain people who were aboard the vessel have been charged. I do not see any reason why the deliberate discharge of the Claudia from our waters may not be mentioned in this House. May I put an analogy? If a magazine fort was raided and people were charged with stealing ammunition from it, would we be precluded from debating in this House the adequacy or otherwise of the protection of the arms afforded by the Government in that particular magazine? I take it that, if that is to be the precedent, it would have to be followed in the future.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair has ruled on this matter and that the whole question of the Claudia is sub judice.

Mr. J. Lynch

I will not refer to it any further today because, as I have indicated, I have raised it deliberately. This is a matter that will have to be given further consideration by our party. If we are to accept a precedent of this nature, it follows that if a person is charged in connection with a matter, a thing or a location, regardless of how remote it may be, that matter, thing or location may not be discussed in this House. I am giving notice that this matter will be considered further by our party.

I hope that the Press conference is not sub judice. During the course of that conference, the Minister for Defence spoke of his Government being a law-and-order Government. He based his statement on the effort made in relation to the arrest and detention of those aboard the Claudia but within a few days of that statement being made there occurred in Fermoy an incident of the type for which our Government were being pilloried constantly by the Opposition. I refer to the permitting of military type parades and the delivering of orations by people who belong to illegal organisations. No action was taken in relation to such an incident in Fermoy despite the much publicised statement of the Minister for Defence in relation to law and order.

We propose to raise these matters continuously as they arise. I wish to refer in a general way to the White Paper but it is proper that, as the opportunity arises, we should refer to these other matters. I was dealing with the three elements that would affect the possibility of attaining the prospects of the White Paper—the actions of the Northern people, the attitude of the British Government and of our own Government and people. It is possible to see all three factors operating in such a way as will restore peace and progress in Northern Ireland.

Regrettably, it is equally possible to envisage a course of events which further postpones the achievement of that goal. The first prerequisite for making progress is to recognise the dangers inherent in attempting it. It would seem the authors of the White Paper were also aware of these dangers and that they have sought to meet them by formulating what they know cannot fully please any one group and, at the same time, will disappoint all groups in one way or another. I agree with the Taoiseach that the White Paper is a carefully drafted document; I suggest it is a masterpiece of drafting in this respect. However, before dealing with those aspects where we may feel any sense of disappointment, I should like to begin my comments on a more positive note by underlying some of the points on which we can agree.

One point on which all right-thinking people can agree is the statement in paragraph 17 which states: "there remains no more urgent or compelling task than to bring the present state of violence to an end". The people of Northern Ireland have had to endure a terrible agony for almost four years. The cycle of violence begetting counter-violence, culminating in the horrible wave of assassinations, and more recently in the repetition of these senseless bombings, has clearly demonstrated the barrenness and stupidity of this course of action. Even at this belated hour it is to be hoped that the extremist minorities which have brought so much suffering to the people of the North will be persuaded to turn away from their inhuman behaviour.

Part 4 of the White Paper which proposes a charter of human rights in Northern Ireland is a second area that deserves to be welcomed because it was the denial of such rights during the years that contributed to the communal dissension which gave rise to the present tragic situation. The proposed new charter together with the machinery for implementation, such as the proposed standing advisory commission on human rights, holds out a real prospect for the first time that there will be, and will be seen to be, full equality of treatment for all the people of Northern Ireland. This is an important and major step forward and it will do much to heal the many divisions that exist now between the Northern communities. If it is accompanied, as the White Paper proposes, by steps to provide adequate employment opportunities so that no longer will there be any economic motive for discrimination, then a situation will be created in which each community will no longer see in the other a threat to its own survival.

A third area in the White Paper which can be welcomed, although possibly in a cautious way, is the section proposing a new Assembly for Northern Ireland. Inevitably, each separate group would have somewhat different views on the detailed manner of operating such a proposal but I do not propose to dwell on such questions here. I need simply note that the general outline of the scheme is along the lines which could be found acceptable. I may add that while welcoming and fully supporting the proposal to have a system of power-sharing so that both communities can have a say in and participate in the running of their affairs, I endorse the view expressed in paragraph 52 that no right of veto can be conceded to violent, subversive or unconstructive elements irrespective of the communities from which they come.

On the face of it, it may seem strange that those of us—I mean the vast majority—whose basic political philosophy lies in the reunification of our country should be supporting these proposals for a new Northern Ireland Assembly since the White Paper makes it clear that the powers which Stormont possessed in the past will continue to be held by the British Government so that in effect there is an increase in the degree of British involvement in and control of Northern Ireland affairs. This apparent paradox serves to illustrate the complexity of the present problem but let me add that I support the proposals because I see in such a development the possibility of faster progress towards our goal of a united Ireland.

I state this explicitly because it is well that on such an important and fundamental matter there should be no misunderstanding. I know that not all share this view and that there are those who suggest we should drop all reference to or suggestions of a united Ireland in order to assuage in some way the feelings of the loyalist people in the North. In this respect I welcome what the Taoiseach has said in his opening speech in a rather negative way that we do not deny our aspirations but there still remains an area where Government policy should be clarified. As everybody knows, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is of the opinion we should avoid all references to unification but it would seem by the negative assertion of the Taoiseach that we do not deny our aspirations. We should be told clearly Government policy in this matter.

We do not in any way wish to aggravate the troubled situation that exists in Northern Ireland by adopting inflexible or intransigent attitudes but neither is there any point in going to the other extreme and concealing all references to our basic philosophies and principles. To do this would be equally if not more dangerous because it gives rise to uncertainty and unease and thus helps to create a climate in which myths abound and fears predominate.

When loyalist people in Northern Ireland express their wish to retain their links with Britain, this I suggest does not estrange them from us; on the contrary, we respect their views and recognise their right to express them freely. For our part when we speak of our desire to create an Ireland in which all people may live in unity and harmony, we believe the vast majority of loyalist people recognise that this is a natural and valid political aspiration. A healthy democracy does not require that all its citizens should hold similar views on the political aims or objectives to be attained. On the contrary, reasoned dissent is one of the greatest spurs to continue progress and the basis of any sound democracy is that it can cater for conflicting viewpoints. The problem in Northern Ireland was that the dissent could never be adequately represented and the tragic consequences of that failure have yielded their bitter harvest. That mistake must not be repeated in the future, either in the Northern Ireland community or in any wider Irish context.

In commenting on the forms of institutions that may enable us to progress, it is important that all the major interests involved should make clear the basis on which they view any policies or proposals. In this respect I should like to refer to the suggestion of absenteeism that pervades the Northern scene in regard to the new Assembly. Some groups, while they may stand for election or have candidates in the election, say they will not engage in any activities of the Assembly.

Parliamentary absenteeism is not a new device. I am not always convinced that it is the most effective weapon that could be employed. I shall not refer to recent absenteeism activities but I think there is some evidence in the old catch phrase: "If you can't beat them, join them", but perhaps only some evidence. I believe that you could extend that phrase by saying: "If you can't beat them, then get in among them and try to influence them towards your point of view." I think this is important in respect of paragraph 50 of the White Paper which refers to the Secretary of State's functions following. I take it, the election of the new Assembly. It states that he will undertake the necessary consultations with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to determine how an acceptable basis for the devolution of powers may speedily be achieved. I take it that these consultations will be continuing ones and I think it would be very unwise, to say the least of it, if any element who sought the election of their candidates and succeeded in having some of them elected would deliberately exclude themselves from this process.

In our case we accept the temporary increase in British control over Northern Ireland affairs because we see in it a necessary first step to putting right the defects in the existing system and, secondly, of creating a framework which would actively encourage the Northern people, whether Nationalist or Loyalist, to seek more positive links with the South. It is obvious, for example, that we should wish to see the Northern people strengthen their ties with us, and should seek to create the means and opportunities for bringing this about. One possibility which we see as leading in this direction would be the use to which a Council of Ireland could be put. We know that as of now Loyalist opinion in the North is not enthusiastic over such a body and would accord only minimal functions to it. However, if Northern Ireland is given very little power in its own right and continues to have a small voice in Westminster so that its scope for directly influencing British policy is also limited, then a Council of Ireland which had substantial power, at least substantial potential power, can become a very attractive instrument to Loyalist opinion as well as to Nationalist opinion in the North since this could be the route by which they could have a substantial voice in shaping the affairs in their own area.

Naturally, it would be necessary to devise safeguards to meet the fears of domination by the South that might exist in the North but I do not believe that this is an insuperable obstacle. For example, one method of operation could be to give the Council of Ireland power to legislate for Northern Ireland provided that a majority of representatives from North and South approved of the legislation and that the Northern Assembly also ratified it. This would mean that the Northern community, on all or even on some of the reserved matters covered by paragraph 56 of the White Paper, would have the option of either accepting the decisions handed down to them from Westminster or of coming to the Council of Ireland and discussing with fellow Irishmen the form of policy which they would wish to see operate.

Paragraph 56 of the White Paper, as Deputies will be aware, refers to the "excepted matters" and goes on to say that these, the excepted matters, were outside the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament. To this category will be added a further list of matters in respect of which the Northern Ireland Parliament will have some degree of legislative power which are now considered appropriate for permanent exclusion from the Assembly's lawmaking powers. This part of the White Paper would seem to me to be an added inducement to the Loyalist majority in the North to strengthen, to the fullest possible extent, the powers of the Council of Ireland.

I want to say also that I naturally support the point made by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste at their meeting, shortly after their election, with the British Prime Minister that the Council should have within themselves the seeds of evolution. These were not fresh or new words to Prime Minister Health's ears because our Government had been continually advocating that this should be inherent in the White Paper—this prospect of evolution.

In relation to this, while we were not in any way responsible for any part of the White Paper, we as a Government kept in the closest possible touch with the British Government at various levels to try to influence them in the best possible way towards achieving the kind of solution that would be generally acceptable, and this was one of the big points which we kept making, that is, the evolutionary potential of the Council of Ireland. But the proposal as suggested would, I believe, give the Northern people a more effective and important voice in their affairs. I do not think that the activities of the Council need be confined to Northern questions. They should also prove a satisfactory forum for discussing the forms of policy which could be put into operation both North and South in order to bridge existing gaps or remedy existing defects.

The White Paper, for example, in dealing with the financial powers of the proposed Assembly makes clear that, while in some cases spending on social welfare benefits and other items would be directly linked to the British level of benefits, there would be a high degree of freedom and discretion. These are the words of the White Paper on spending on items such as health, education, roads, and so forth. These discretionary areas would account for perhaps more than half the total spending and therefore would imply a reasonable degree of flexibility in the operation of these services. This flexibility would be, for example, that if both North and South agreed there could be movement towards similar health and educational services in both parts of the country. This is a possibility which we have kept increasingly in mind during recent years so that in carrying out educational reforms we have sought to create a degree of choice and flexibility which would be sufficient to cater for the diverse interests and wishes of people both North and South. In reference to education I might refer to paragraph 20 of the White Paper which deals with education as one of the divisive factors in the Northern community. It says, and I quote from paragraph 20, page 7 of the White Paper:

One of the obvious factors in the situation is the high degree of educational segregation. This is not of itself in any way peculiar to Northern Ireland. The importance which, in the United Kingdom and in many other countries, certain of the Churches place upon their own school systems stems from deep conviction about the need for an underlying religious basis to all teaching. While, in Northern Ireland, it is the Roman Catholic Church which maintains a separate system, it is by no means to be assumed that, in practice, all Protestant parents would be happy to see a completely integrated school system, involving as it would the teaching of Protestant children by Roman Catholic teachers, some of them members of religious orders.

It is well that this point should have been acknowledged because generally it is to the Catholic attitude has been attributed any failure to make progress in this respect. Quite recently the former Bishop of Clogher, Bishop Hanson, referred to that in an interview and he did say that integrated education overnight would be disastrous but he went on to say that while many Catholics do not want it there were many Protestants also who did not want it and, indeed, that many Protestants were using integrated education as a stick to beat Catholics. So, there is an acknowledgement at least, that some of the social defects, if one can call them that, are not confined to one side only.

I do not propose to elaborate further on the possible ways in which North-South relations might evolve. My remarks, I think, are sufficient to indicate on the one hand that, in welcoming the White Paper proposals, we recognise that there is a valid role of a temporary nature—and I emphasise the word "temporary"—which the British Government may play in Northern affairs and, on the other hand, a valid, powerful role of a permanent nature which the Northern people may play in Irish affairs North and South, a role, moreover, which they can play fully while safeguarding their interests and wishes.

I referred to this powerful role in another speech when I was Taoiseach and I think it was pretty obvious that that powerful role would be backed up by a pretty powerful voice. Whatever changes in political representation there could be in a united Ireland, it is obvious that the representatives of one million Protestants, comprising almost one-fifth of the entire population, would have a powerful voice in any Parliamentary chamber. Whether they would integrate with existing parties, or from new parties themselves, or form one solid party of their own, it is obvious that in such a context their influence would be far and away above the kind of influence they can now exert on British Government policy in relation to their own affairs.

It is for these reasons that we indicated in our initial statement that we in Fianna Fáil believed that the agenda for the proposed tripartite talks should be open-ended and without pre-conditions. I have read the reference to these tripartite talks in paragraph 112 over and over again. Because of the fact that it is couched in very uncertain terms—and it seems without saying so to write in in advance the agenda for such a conference—that we included in our statement the reference to the need for such consultations to be open-ended. I refer the Taoiseach in particular to paragraph 112 (a).

Be that as it may, the first and most immediate task is to bring about an end to violence and its resulting misery and suffering in Northern Ireland. The related task is to set about creating conditions which will enable a healthy and democratic political system to operate in both parts of our country. It is our firm belief that the creation of such a political framework would set in motion an irresistible momentum towards the goal of a united Ireland, a goal which continues—let me say it again unequivocally—to be the primary objective of Fianna Fáil, becauce we see in it the creation of a society which can fully reflect and give expression to the richness and diversity of our many forms of Irishness.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

I should, perhaps, refer to something which Deputy Lynch has just said because it was aimed at me and requires a reply. Deputy Lynch has suggested that there is some kind of division in this Government on this subject.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but I said there needs to be clarification.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I shall try to give Deputy Lynch that clarification now. That is just what I want to try to do. There is no division. The Taoiseach speaks for the Government as a whole on this. We are solidly united on this issue. There is before us no such unfortunate experience as faced the Government formed by Deputy Lynch in 1969. We are at one on this. We are at one on the North, and at one on law and order.

Deputy Lynch referred to statements which I have made. There is nothing at variance between what I said in the past and what has been said here on behalf of the Government. I have laid stress repeatedly on the recognition of the very obvious fact, which anyone would be a fool to deny, that there is an aspiration among the great majority of those whom we represent to see the eventual unity of this country. I have, indeed, suggested that it is that aspiration which should be recognised in our Constitution and not a claim of right over territory. I have referred there to a past position which I have taken. I am not stating there a new Government position. I have recognised the aspiration.

I have said—and I think it is increasingly recognised to be true— that by emphasising all the time that unity is the only solution, unity is the only acceptable solution, unity is the inevitable solution, we are only rasping the nerves of those with whom we are, in principle, seeking reconciliation. That is the point which I have tried to make, whether well or badly I do not know. It is quite certain that the Taoiseach's speech with its very strong emphasis on reconciliation, on the need for reconciliation now, rather than spelling out final precise solutions—the whole spirit of that and the whole content of that—commands the support of all of us. It should not be necessary to say that. I do not regret that Deputy Lynch has provided me with the opportunity of saying it so that it may be clear, unequivocal and on the record of the House that we are all agreed here.

This is hardly a debate on the White Paper because, with the exception of one or, perhaps, two or three Deputies, there is a very broad consensus of general support for the White Paper, of hoping that it will work, and, therefore, I do not think that to inject a dimension of debate, and certainly of acrimonious debate, would either be realistic or would help. I do not think it would be realistic because I think the mood of the great majority of the people, both North and South is: "Give the White Paper a chance and let us hope to God that it will work. Let us hope it gives this country a chance of returning to peace, and opens the way to peaceful progress."

I do not think any of us want to try to get in the way of that but, at the same time, I think there may be a tendency in the country generally— I do not say in this House—towards too much euphoria about the White Paper, a sort of feeling that the White Paper has really turned the scale and that everything will be all right now. That may be so, and certainly many thoughtful people in the North think it is so. I found that moderate opinion in particular in the North is more optimistic now than it has been for many years. That is so. At the same time, we would do well to recognise that the crux has not yet come, that the crux comes not with the elections, not with the period before the elections or even their results, but with what happens then.

Everything we welcome about the White Paper—perhaps, not quite everything but a large part of it—hinges on the idea of power sharing. The White Paper has been hailed as a masterpiece of drafting, and so it is. With the same spirit animating the implementation of the White Paper as animated its drafting, there is room for considerable hope. At the same time, neither a White Paper, however well drafted, nor an assembly can get over in itself, or get over quickly, the continued profound alienation of the two communities. Specifically, inevitably, the Protestant majority of traditional Unionist allegiance will constitute, however expressed, the majority in the new Assembly. Because of the traditions of that community, because of the unhappy long history of the whole region going far back beyond the lifetime of any of us, the prospect of power sharing is something which will be very hard for the majority representatives to take. They will tend to avoid it and in so far as they do the representatives of the minority will, understandably, be indignant. Meanwhile, on both sides, at both ends, you will have men of violence who have not been eliminated from the scene on either side but they are more or less quiescent on one side for good reasons at the moment, who will seek to make the Assembly unworkable as they believe themselves to have made other conditions, other solutions, unworkable.

I think there are good hopes that this storm may be weathered but we must face it that the stormy period in the North is not necessarily over. We have to be prepared for a trial period after the Assembly is set up. It is important in our discussion of the matter here that we should be aware of that. I am not being a prophet of disaster and I hope I will not be understood in that sense. What I am saying is not to be unduly confident, not to be over-confident about the future, not to feel that we have come through and now we can get back to the level of familiar processes such as outdoing one another in how republican we can seem or disarming charges against us that we are not republican enough and so on. That kind of process, that kind of competition inside our State here has been one of the factors that has exacerbated the situation in the North.

Much of Deputy Lynch's speech was on the level that one expects from the Leader of the Opposition at such a time on such a subject and at a level of the best we have come to expect from Deputy Lynch. We have come to expect many things from him, some of them very good and others not quite so good. I did not think he was at his best in that part of his remarks where he raised such subjects as how long in advance was it that the Minister for Foreign Affairs notified the Taoiseach before he went to London. That is part of the legitimate give and take but here I wonder.

Similarly, I believe that the Minister for Defence had the support and combined two things of immense value in the action which he took and in the way that action was presented. The two things of immense value which he combined were a successful appeal to the feelings of the people of this part of the country. It was accepted, people liked it, people felt that this was a style of action which on the whole they liked and, at the same time, it projected the message to people in Northern Ireland, who had felt genuinely outraged for years by the belief which they had, rightly or wrongly, that a safe haven was being provided for the IRA in the Republic. The message that went over to them was that this is not a safe haven and it will not be a safe haven. Maybe the whole idea was wrong that it had been a safe haven but that certainly was the impression that northerners in general had.

I am not limiting this specifically to Northern Protestants because I do not believe that the mass of Northern Catholics are any keener than Protestants on having guns run in from here or anywhere else which put their lives in danger and the security of their homes in danger. There are several things we can do in the sense of making the White Paper work. Although what we can do in this respect is necessarily marginal. I do not think the formulation in the past about the second guarantor, although well-meant, was a good one. It encouraged one section of the population to think that if things went bad for them somehow there could be an intervention from Dublin of a kind that really was never possible and as far as the majority section was concerned it played into the hands of those who were certain, wrongly, that those troubles are fomented from Dublin.

I do not believe, with the exception of a short and unhappy period from 1969 to 1970, they ever have been fomented from Dublin and I am quite sure no head of any Government here has ever fomented them. We must not only not foment them but we must make it crystal clear that we are not doing so. I believe we are making that crystal clear.

There has been a reference to the behaviour of certain units of the British Army, the paratroops in particular. These references I believe are well-founded. I believe the Minister for Foreign Affairs has appropriately brought this matter to the attention of the British authorities and I think he is in a strong position to do so because I think if he is saying to them: "You recognise that we in the Republic are enforcing law and order, that we are not condoning illegal activities, even illegal activities directed solely outside the boundaries of the State, we have a right to ask you to be sure that your forces in the North are not in breach of law and order because the fact that people are in uniform does not mean that they are necessarily guiltless in that respect." The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be speaking from a solid base and I think it is a point which can and should be put through at the present time.

In conclusion, I should like to say something about the Council of Ireland. The Taoiseach, when speaking about it, said:

Of course, the Council of Ireland idea is one with a long history behind it. It was part of the apparatus which the British Government aimed to set up in 1920. At that time it failed mainly because the old Sinn Féin were not interested in the idea. It is an idea which if it is to work at all must have a strong bridgehead at least in both communities. We are understandably anxious that the council should have what Deputy Lynch referred to, in a rather unhappy phrase, as teeth.

In the North people were asking for teeth to bite I do not know exactly whom. I do not think it is a question of teeth; but we are anxious that it should have possibilities of development and the first possibility of development for which we must be anxious is that it should come into existence in reality, that is to say, with the participation of at least large representative elements of both Protestant and Catholic communities in the North as well as participation from the South, which I think represents very little problem.

Our anxiety there should be to get that participation even in something which may at the outset be to more than a discussion group, because we cannot pretend that the two communities are so near that it would not be an achievement to bring them within regular discussion range through their representatives and to hold those discussions: it would be an evil if the council never came into being but it would also be an evil if it came into being and then one or other set of partners walked out, boycotted the council, under the stresses and strains that are likely to come.

There, also, I think a low rather than a high profile would be desirable and that our main emphasis should be on our desire to see a council come into being and our willingness to work such a council and let the council itself take shape by agreement because unless that agreement is there there can be no development, no teeth, nothing resembling teeth. You would have just a one-end thing which would be no use to us. I think we are doing well to discuss this subject here. Perhaps my mind runs on broadcasting and television a little at the moment but I should have thought this is a case and this the kind of debate and period where the broadcasting of our proceedings could have a positive effect. No doubt fiery things may be said at one point in the debate but on the whole I think people who listened in the North to our debate, even with the occasional knock against one another which produces the dimension of reality, would be favourably impressed by how the Dáil which represents the people—and freshly represents them—has been approaching this matter.

I think the Taoiseach has given the right lead on this, that our primary need now is to work for reconciliation and that the White Paper and the idea of power sharing provide the elements of ultimate reconciliation, a means of moving that way, but the area is so sensitive and the feelings of the two communities towards one another are such that even a process of attempted reconciliation—perhaps above all such a process—is attended by very considerable strain and our object should be, and I believe is shown to be in these debates, to ease that strain.

Mr. Brennan

My intervention will be brief but I should like to refer to the White Paper and the reception it got from the different parties in this part of Ireland. It was interesting to hear the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs saying there was a certain euphoria about it being a panacea for our ills: I think it will be the very opposite and that most people regard it as the minimum that could possibly be offered. Many people believe it offers nothing. The Taoiseach himself admitted, to use his own words, that it was a basis for hope. That is the most anybody could say about it. So far as there is anything in the White Paper I think the important things we will be interested in are power sharing and the much-mentioned Council of Ireland. The references to both of these in the White Paper are entirely enshrouded in ambiguity and vagueness and deliberately so, I suggest, so as to leave everybody expecting that by doing his own thing he will get what he wants out of the White Paper. That is why we should be very much concerned about the ultimate outcome of the White Paper. If there is anything at all in it, it will be extracted by the way it is handled afterwards. There is nothing positive in it for anybody now.

The two parties who will be meeting in this Assembly and whose desires are diametrically opposed will require a tremendous amount of patience and persistent effort and if it can lead to anything in the way of reconciliation afterwards, that is the most we could hope to get from it. Many are prepared to grasp at anything now if it will de-escalate the violence, but we should not be misinterpreted in this whole problem. Recently, I attended a debate in the Coleraine University on the subject that a United Ireland was not relevant. Fine Gael were also invited but did not send anybody. Every party was represented there: in Northern Ireland there is a proliferation of parties at present but there was also a representative from the British Liberal Party. It was quite obvious that what all of these expect, even the British Labour Party, is that we will participate in putting an end to violence in the North and that they will then revert to the old status and that things will go on as they were before except that they meekly promise that there will not be so much victimisation or discrimination as before.

This is what we must face on our side and we would be unrealistic if we did not. Most of them in regard to the White Paper—I am not referring to Nationalist thinking—hope that we shall be good boys here and assist in every way in getting back to the old status and that we would then have some co-operation in making drains across the Border and in providing electric light and regional development from the EEC and that everybody will be happy ever after. I hope we are not ashamed to say that our main aspiration is the unity of this country and we shall not play that down to please anybody at any time, not even the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. If we are denying that aspiration we can forget about it all and have another Act of Union and get back to 1800.

We should not be ashamed of what must be our first and foremost aspiration, to work towards which we should do everything possible. There are many things we can do, and all this talk about the fear of Unionists in the North and what would happen them in a united Ireland is bogey man talk. It cannot be substantiated in any way. We have only to look at the percentage of Unionists with whom we live in this Twenty-six Counties with whom we get on perfectly well. There is no question about that. Nobody questions what religion anybody else is. Nobody is concerned about rights because all have equal rights. There are thousands of examples of tribute paid to the conciliation enjoyed by those of us of different religions down here. I have frequently had friends for years without actually knowing what their religion was. This talk about fear that must be eliminated does not hold a lot of water. We seem to be approaching this on the basis that we must lean over so far backwards that we will topple over in order to give guarantees and assurances, guarantees and assurances which are not necessary. As the Taoiseach said, people have a right to assert their own aspirations and these people want to continue to be loyal to the Crown. It has long been decided that the difficulties that exist can best be solved by peaceful means and differing viewpoints can equally best be reconciled by peaceful means.

We are the party that came from the anti-Treaty side of this House. That was that cursed Treaty that has left so much damage on the pages of history here that we have been prepared to play it down for the sake of showing unity, that cursed Treaty that many people now would almost give us to understand was something of which, they believed, we could be proud. Partition was a curse. It was an unjust decision and we fought an inevitable civil war over it. All we can now do is try to make the best effort we can to undo the damage that was then done.

While we are attempting to bring about reconciliation without violence we should get the British to acknowledge the task we have. They have as much, or more, to do with it. The fact is that in the past they have shown that they are prepared to be concerned only when there is militant action. They have not been prepared to listen to reason and to have dialogue. They were frequently told the inevitable result of the continuing discrimination and injustice, but they would not listen to reason. They did nothing to ensure that peaceful means were pursued to reconcile legitimate aspirations. Had they not always been so ready to give the guarantees in the preamble of any and every document that they would protect treaties and agreements, because they allege they had a responsibility towards the people in the North, today many more people would be thinking psychologically in the direction of unity. They should have been preparing psychologically the minds of the people in the North for reunification. There will be no peace until there is reunification. That must be recognised.

The White Paper does not go far enough. Like the Taoiseach, we are hopeful it will be a basis upon which to move more rapidly than we have been moving in the past towards reconciliation. Those who refer to the creation of a euphoria are misinterpreting the signals. I was interested and, indeed, amused by Deputy FitzGerald's excursions across the Border.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have been in Northern Ireland at least twice or three times every week for the last so many years.

Mr. Harte

The Deputy travels damned fast through it.

Mr. Brennan

That is the best you people can do, indulge in the cheap jibe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to be heard without interruption.

Mr. Brennan

I have been in Northern Ireland twice or three times every week for the past 20 years. Perhaps we are reaching the stage now at which, when a Government Minister goes to the toilet, there will be a Press conference. We must be realistic about this.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

In the last Administration a Minister left a conference apparently through a toilet window.

Mr. Brennan

We will have to be realistic about this and stop playing politics. More politics are being played than anyone is prepared to admit. Every Irishman worthy of the name wants to see unity by agreement, with justice for all. It is stupid to pretend that it is not our priority. I admit freely that when victimisation, discrimination, power-sharing and so on are solved in Northern Ireland that will not affect by the smallest iota the aspirations of those who want a united Ireland. Anybody who thinks we want to see the Unionists reconciled and that will be an end of it and everybody will be happy is, indeed, subject to euphoria, a false euphoria which could be spread by the type of approach made to the matter.

If anything evolves from the White Paper it must be a movement towards unification, otherwise any result will be short-lived.

Mr. Harte

May I ask Deputy Brennan if he wants a united Ireland that provides a solution or a solution that provides a united Ireland?

Mr. Brennan

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said it was no good rasping on the nerves of the people by talking about unity. He also said there was complete harmony of purpose in the Government with regard to this matter. He did not, however, make it clear whether that complete harmony in the Government on this question arose out of policy under which unity should be relegated to the background or that it was something to be definitely pursued. We do not on this side of the House claim to have any special right to pursue our claim to unity. We want every party here to be unanimous. I thought we were fairly well agreed on our pursuit of that aim. Are we now merely thinking in terms of getting back to the old status quo in the North and, from there, beginning all over again, or are we going to ensure that we will at least get from the United Kingdom, in return for our part in ensuring that this will be pursued by peaceful means, an assurance that that is what is at the end of the road? Will we get a statement of intent? Will we get some assurance other than “only by the consent of the people of Northern Ireland”? When Partition was brought about the people of Ireland were not consulted. That has been said so often it becomes rather depressing. It has got to be recognised that the people of Ireland were not consulted when Partition was foisted upon the country. To say now that the people in the north east corner should, by a majority, perpetually decide the fate of that corner of the country is asking a little too much.

We all share the view that when unity comes about, as it must, we must live in harmony and peace with our neighbours, the people with whom we are at present striving to get conciliation and to seeing our point-of-view. We know that one cannot bomb one million people into unity nor a half a million people into harmony with a United Kingdom which they are not prepared to accept. These are the points we have to deal with.

Having read what was called the Green Paper, which was a paper for discussion, and this very cleverlyworded document which succeeded it, giving something to everybody and nothing to anybody, hopes are raised in us all that there may be a means for us to sit down and talk. If the White Paper does that it will have done something. That is what it is most likely to do. I thought that the SDLP paper issued beforehand contained some very acceptable proposals which could easily have been incorporated in this White Paper. If I had any criticism of the SDLP Paper it was that it did not go far enough. Perhaps it was too moderate, but the paper had in it the seeds of what would lead to permanent conciliation, definite peace and a reconciliation which would not lead to a recurrence of the incidents to which we have been accustomed and, I am afraid, will be accustomed for years to come unless the legitimate aspirations of the majority of the people of Ireland are recognised and unless we are given a chance to work towards that aim.

The Northern Assembly, if properly set up and having some semblance of power-sharing, and a Council of Ireland with possible means of evolution, and with executive powers rather than being a talking shop about drainge, electricity and tourism, an Assembly which could be formed as an important institution, would be worthwhile. In any event, we are all agreed that in so far as there is in the paper, as the Taoiseach has said, a basis for hope we must show that we are prepared to work to the utmost in order to get from it what we would like to see in it but what is not there because of its ambiguity and vagueness at the present time.

We must make use of anything that holds out any hope and without any preconditions and we must move towards doing what the vast majority of the Irish people want to do.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

The Taoiseach, in his opening statement, was at pains to say that this debate gives an opportunity to all Members of the House to declare their views, at this important juncture for Northern Ireland, on the latest developments in that troubled area.

This Parliament must at intervals, when great events are in the making in the North, and at decisive points in the area's history, speak out on these problems. There is a serious situation in the North. An end of one phase is being reached with the publication of the British White Paper. The general position is that the Deputies in this House have the duty of helping in any way we can the developments towards political dialogue. All Deputies in this House wish to see an end to the cycle of violence and the replacement of the language of the gun and the bullet by political dialogue between the parties and interests in Northern Ireland. All of us must resist the temptation—particularly Deputies in the Opposition —of utilising events, personalities and problems of Northern Ireland and the issues raised by such problems in a purely 26-county context for political advantage in this part of the country.

There is no point in suggesting that anybody in this House is more anxious or less enthusiastic than anybody else for Irish unity. So far as I know there is no Deputy in this House who has any reservations about the desirability of Irish unity. We must not suggest in any speeches we make that we look on casually at the unfolding of the Northern tragedy, utilising events there for political purposes here.

I listened carefully to what Deputy J. Lynch, the Leader of the Opposition, had to say this evening. Taking his remarks as a whole, the Deputy appeared to strike a responsible and balanced position. This is as it should be. I was a little taken aback by the speech of Deputy J. Brennan of Donegal. In the closing part of his speech Deputy J. Brennan apparently criticised the SDLP for not going far enough. All of us in this House who have any reservations about the British White Paper and the future Assembly must have nothing but praise for the politicians and representatives in Northern Ireland who have decided to give the Paper and Assembly a chance. Deputy J. Brennan spoke out against a spirit of euphoria. He asked whether it was only a return to the status quo because the White Paper offered only hope. Anyone who has observed Northern events closely would say that euphoria must infect every Member of this House if any step offers the slightest contribution in the direction of hope. What has marked the last four years has been the total absence of hope. I would not speak casually of any steps which offered hope of peace. What do all of us seek at present but peace in the Northern area? There can be no advance without peace. If the gunfire does not stop there can be no political developments and no progress towards consensus politics. At this point in time can anybody deny the great cleavage that is at the root of the problem in Northern Ireland, the great distance between the two groupings there? If the Council of Ireland, whatever its deficiencies as planned, is to be a body which in the future can offer an evolutionary development, then that Council of Ireland must be supported further down by a community in Northern Ireland which works together for common objectives. In the shortterm this dialogue, this consensus, this reconciliation, can only come about in conditions of peace.

We here who speak in relative safety in a free assembly must resist the temptation of pontificating to the agonised participants in the Northern situation. We must resist the temptation of telling the SDLP whether they went too far or too short, especially if our residence happens to be in the safety of Donegal. Therefore, I must admit I was disappointed in the contribution of the former Minister for Labour and Social Welfare, now Deputy Brennan. I hope he will resist the temptation to play Donegal constituency politics in relation to the wounds and lives and deaths of a whole community in Northern Ireland. I hope all of us in this assembly will resist that temptation.

I pay tribute to all those politicians on the other side of the divide in Northern Ireland who have decided to give the Assembly a chance, to see in it at least a faint hope. As I say, anything that can offer hope must be grasped with both hands, anything to substitute for the shooting, for the slaughter, for the agony which ordinary people, night after night, must endure in so many housing estates in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. We cannot afford to be casual about any development that offers hope there.

Many of those Northern politicians have reservations on the items promised in that White Paper, about the powers of the Assembly, how power is to be shared. There are many issues of principle to be moderated in compromise in the greater hope of an assembly which works. The use of PR in that Assembly may, mechanically at any rate, help to lessen the polarisation of politics in the area, but there is no certainly of success in all of the plans outlined. There are many unanswered questions and we are not yet on the bright side of the hill in relation to Northern Ireland. Therefore, all of us must guard our sentiments carefully, must consider always before we say anything that we do not live in the area, that our lives are not at risk tonight as a result of anything we say. It is a totally different situation for the elected representatives of the people from any side of the political divide in the North who are ready to make the Assembly work.

Like the Taoiseach, I would hope that any element in Northern Ireland willing to proceed to elections, however repulsive we may find their political attitudes, should be permitted to take part in these elections. Our whole efforts must be directed into getting that area to use political avenues once more. We all accept the utter futility of violence on one side or the other in an effort to bring about a political end. The gun is too blunt an instrument for the complicated political problems raised in the North of Ireland.

This Government have given ample evidence, in our short term of office, through our use of the security Ministries, of our utter determination to brook the activities of no private armies in this State. Whatever criticism may be offered by the Opposition, criticism which I thought unfair and unjustified in the case of our Minister for Defence, they must at least accept that there is no ambiguity in the attitude of this Government towards private armies, that it is our absolute intention to uphold our Constitution to ensure that our democratic institutions continue to express the will of the people in this part of the State.

I, like most other Deputies, would like to see a Council of Ireland which would evolve into something meaningful in an all-Ireland context, but it is not for us to theorise on these developments. What we must direct our remarks and our attention to is how this House and this State can contribute to restoring conditions of peace in Northern Ireland. That really is the nub of the problem: how do we restore the safety of life and limb—how do we restore conditions of peace in Northern Ireland working through this Assembly, which will have institutions to protect the minority against discriminatory practice? There are problems of policing and other matters which will have to be settled very soon, but the bedrock of any progress in the North must be the coming together of opponents in political dialogue and this Assembly gives them the framework through which these conversations can commence. After the commencement of these conversations we can see the development of a meaningful Council of Ireland; we can see proper discussions commencing on power sharing in Northern Ireland. We can also see the whole of the Anglo-Irish question examined in depth between Britain and Ireland and interests in the North. The most essential precondition is a cessation of all violence.

In conclusion, I salute all those politicians who in the past three or four years have faced probably more intimidation, more coercion, on all sides in Northern Ireland. Those elected representatives have faced more trying conditions than any Member of this House can possibly visualise. If these people have considered the Assembly and the White Paper worthy of support, even though qualified support, I do not think it is open to any Member in this House, in this relatively safe part of the country, to withhold his consent and support.

Mr. White

Over 70 years ago a young man making his maiden speech in a House of Parliament said that man is the only species of animal who has the power of self-destruction and of annihilation. Surely this terrifying statement has proven itself to be the truth when we have had two world wars since then. The man who spoke those words was the very man who was the architect of the victory in the last World War. I quote those words because in this green isle of ours over the last four years we have seen annihilation of our fellow-Irishmen, we have seen brutal, terrifying and indeed horrible cowardly acts with over 800 people dead and many thousands maimed and wounded, most of which have never had a precedent in this country. Men of vision after 1945 both in France and Germany, arch enemies since the middle 1870's, then said, as I am saying now: "Let there be no more war and let us work towards an economic and political solution."

Being an Ulster Deputy, in a 32-county Ireland concept, the newly elected Deputy for Donegal-Leitrim, I live closer to the Border than probably any Deputy in this House today. Almost daily I hear the rumbles of explosions, the clatter of the helicopters and the voices of angry young men on both sides who I feel have been misguided. We on this side of the Border must be prepared to change too and, if I may, I will mention two of the changes which I think are worth considering in this House today. The real physical barrier are the Border huts we have to pass on our way in and out of Northern Ireland. I sometimes wonder what these huts are really for because after all there are clearance huts further in and they are to stop smuggling. What we need are more car patrols to patrol the different Border roads, the different main roads. Let us not have this visible physical concept of the Border huts. These cars must be brought up to date; there must be more radio equipment in them; they must do a better job so far as smuggling is concerned but anybody passing from southern to Northern Ireland should not see these physical barriers.

I was glad to hear Deputies speak today about segregated education. I have believed for many years that this is the real basis of the trouble in Northern Ireland. For too long we have had different people going to different schools and fear and mistrust have grown up over the years. With a young family, living in a small country town I know how my children really only speak to the children with whom they have been in school. We on this side of the Border should at least bring out a paper showing that in the next few years we intend to amalgamate Protestant and Catholic schools and to do away with this barrier.

I suppose I am a unique politician because of my religion, my position, my education and my contacts. I am proud to be a Protestant. Remember we are the people of Burke, we are the people of Grattan, we are the people of Swift, we are the people of Emmet and we are the people of Parnell. These are not my words. These words were spoken in 1925 by William Butler Yeats. I am in a unique situation by my position—I only live three miles from the Border—and by my education—I was educated at Portora Royal School, Enniskillen, and I make no apology for that—and by my contacts —I have made many contacts over my 12 years in Northern Ireland, knowing people, living with people and trusting in people—and I welcome this opportunity to reassure the Protestant community in Northern Ireland that we, the Protestant minority in the Twenty-Six Counties, have no fear here. I have never seen any acts of discrimination against me or my family or against my friends and our families have lived in this State for hundreds of years. I would hope that some day we can all come and live in a united Ireland; remember, change must come from all sides.

Mr. Lemass

The Leader of the Opposition today said that this White Paper is a step. We all know that every journey must begin with a first step. Perhaps we could refer to the White Paper as a second step because Stormont is gone and I think it is gone forever. We will never see an institution in Northern Ireland quite like that institution. We know that the people up there who had their majority created back in the time of Lloyd George abused their position of power in such a way that violence became the order of the day. I think we all accept that it will take a long time for this country to be reunited. If it takes several generations what is that in the life of a nation, the life of a nation which has had to struggle with this problem for centuries? I do not think this White Paper will bring peace because so long as there is detention without trial, and this detention is seen by the minority to be working against them, I do not believe we will get the sort of peace that would be necessary for full political action to make progress there. I believe there are over 300 Catholics and about 30 Protestants detained and while this situation lasts I find it difficult to see people who have learned to live with violence and have learned to exploit violence ceasing now and agreeing to peace.

We must all agree that violence has not brought about unification but certainly it has brought about political change. It is a tragic thing that violence was necessary to bring about political change in a situation that could have been changed by logic at a much earlier stage. There is a suggestion in the White Paper that the local people should help the police authorities to prevent intimidation and any sort of vandalism but that paragraph presupposes the condition that the local people should have confidence in the police authorities and I am afraid that there does not seem to be very much confidence in the police authorities in Northern Ireland at the moment. However, I think we must accept this White Paper as a first step.

We must assume that in the judgment of the British Government it is the fairest and most balanced position that they believe they can put forward. I know that before direct rule there were aspects of British policy with which no one in this part of Ireland could have agreed but since the appointment of Mr. Whitelaw there has been a small but growing degree of trust and so far as I can be aware, although there is no one section that are satisfied completely with the White Paper, or with what is happening, the general view is to try to give this new deal a chance to work so that there might be some de-escalation in this situation.

Probably everybody in this House, with the exception of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, was unhappy that the Irish dimension referred to in the Green Paper was not spelled out in a better way. I hope that there will be some form of Council of Ireland which will not be a meaningless talking shop, a cover for inactivity, but which will consist of a group of people from North and South and, indeed, from Westminster, who will study the social and economic matters which would be of importance in the event of a united Ireland. It would be foolish for anyone to say that we should simply not talk about the matter at the moment and that Partition might go away. Anybody who was brought up with any sort of republican background must hope and wish and work for the reunification of our country, whether that reunification may be sooner or later.

Regarding the development in the local elections line up, it would seem that the Provisionals and Official IRA can in some way participate in these elections. I am sorry, however, that the political wing of both these organisations cannot contest the elections freely and openly. To my mind, their participation in the elections would do more than anything else to reduce violence but with the ban on their political activities they are entitled to say that they are being refused the chance to engage in the democratic process and they can use this situation to justify any campaign of violence that they may initiate.

In recent times there have been some very vicious and bitter crimes committed. It can be said that they have been as bad as any that have taken place at any time in our troubled history. If the various IRA organisations believe that some sort of military offensive should be continued I hope they will confine these activities during the next few months at least to military targets and that there will not be any more indiscriminate bombing or murdering of civilians. Any deescalation of the situation would be very helpful. Perhaps the White Paper will be the first step in bringing about a society in which there will be social justice for all the people of Northern Ireland. The White Paper is a framework only. It cannot work without the co-operation of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland. It will not be easy to make it work in a troubled and divided community. It will be necessary for political leaders to exercise extreme patience and understanding if they are to be able to work successfully together at any level. One would have thought that the Border referendum would have eased the Unionist opposition to the White Paper but, instead, there is now an unholy alliance of the most extreme groups of Unionists and other Loyalist organisations and the most extreme section of the right wing in Northern Ireland. This situation has not come about because these people are afraid of their constitutional position or because they are afraid of a united Ireland being imposed on them: what they are afraid of is giving up one inch of the power and privileges which they have enjoyed for the past 50 years. There still remain there many not-an-inch people.

There have been many contradictions among the Unionists. Many of them consider themselves to have been let down by the British Government. They are bewildered but at least it is reasonable to say that they have not stepped up violence on their side. Indeed, it is true to say also that there has been some tapering off on the Republican side.

I know there are many aspects of the White Paper that are far from satisfactory. For instance, there is a lack of clarity in it regarding the powers the new Assembly is to have. There is a lack of clarity as to how the Executive will be chosen and how it will operate. There is ambiguity about the Charter of Human Rights and about the Irish dimension which I mentioned earlier. However, I would like to see the package being given a chance in order to ease the tensions that now exist. If these tensions can be eased, perhaps some political progress can be made.

The drawing up of larger constituencies and the use of PR should result in a more representative Assembly, whatever may be the powers of that Assembly. The effectiveness of the Assembly will depend on the politicians. Indeed, the politicians, representing the various interests, will be able to work better together and to understand better each others point of view. Perhaps in time there may be some reconciliation among the politicians. It is clear, however, that there will continue to be some violence. It has been going on for too long for anyone to expect it to stop overnight.

One matter I wish to emphasise is that if Mr. Harold Wilson of the British Labour Party should decide to make the bringing home of troops from Northern Ireland a platform during the next general election campaign in Britain, the Provisionals will have won a major victory.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I noticed yesterday that a Belfast newspaper, the News Letter, devoted an editorial to what it called “Interference by the Dublin Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland Affairs”. It singled out especially the debate that is taking place here today as being the kind of thing which, in the leader writer's opinion, would only serve to inflame feeling in the North of Ireland on the Unionist or, as many call them, the Loyalist side, and that nothing could be less helpful than for this House to conduct a debate on the motion that is before us this afternoon.

I have always been susceptible to Unionist opinion in the sense that I have tried to understand it rather than merely to write it off as being not worth consideration. I do not know whether these words will reach the editorial staff of the News Letter or whether they will reach its readers. Even if they do, I am not sure whether they will attach much importance to them, but it ought to be said, even in reply to a newspaper editorial, that it is not unfitting for this House, regardless of which Government control it, to conduct a debate on proposals which will affect not only Northern Ireland but also the Republic during the coming years.

If I could reverse the position hypothetically, let us assume that this Republic contained a large minority which for many years had been the object of subtle discrimination, perhaps so subtle and so non-violent as to have escaped public notice. If as a result of that discrimination a movement had grown up in the Republic on behalf of that minority which, in turn, had generated or had given an excuse for the generation of an extremely violent movement and if that minority had in Northern Ireland a government or a parliament which identified itself with its traditions, I would consider that parliament in Belfast or wherever it might be entitled to take an interest in what was happening across the Border. If we were guilty of such an injustice I would not be resentful nor would I consider it interference in our affairs if a debate of this kind were to take place. The Government of the Republic should not be deterred from pursuing a strong, presistent and constructive interest in the North of Ireland merely because some Unionist or Loyalist groups dislike the idea of anyone opening his mouth down here about what goes on across the Border.

The fact that a daily paper in Belfast could carry a notice of this kind in its editorial columns shows the kind of people with whom we are dealing. It shows we are dealing with a local majority that is intensely suspicious, that has, I believe, reason to be intensely suspicious about what happens in Dublin; that has been given reason during the years to be suspicious of what happens here. I reject and rebut things they say which are not justifiable but, at the same time, I have to concede there may be occasions on which their suspicions, even though exaggerated and at times paranoiac, are explicable by the kind of behaviour and words they have been able to observe across the Border in the last few years.

I hope to make a constructive rather than a contentious contribution to this debate but I must observe that it is taking place not at the instance of the Government but on the perfectly justifiable and reasonable request of the Opposition. I do not complain about that. I consider an Opposition are only doing their job, as we did when we were in Opposition, in seeking for debates on matters of national concern but, nothing that the debate is taking place as a result of a representation in the House by the Leader of the Opposition last week and in response to his perfectly justifiable inquiry, I was inclined to suppose that when he spoke today he would have something to say which would justify his party taking up the time of the House and would provide us with something new. It is not a matter of our impressing each other. The people we must impress are the one million Loyalists across the Border.

Although I have never accused him of being anything but well-intentioned with regard to the North, I am sorry to say that the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon did not seem much of an advance on his contributions on this subject when he was Taoiseach. Deputy Lynch said that the approach of the Taoiseach was a negative one. The Taoiseach emphasised very strongly that the Government saw a Council of Ireland not as a Trojan horse to deceive the North or as a device to lure it towards an eventual unity it does not accept. The Taoiseach said that we do not deny our aspirations. He stated that he believed he spoke for a wide range of opinion here when he said we are more anxious to see a process of co-operation, of growth towards reconciliation, get under way than to set a time-table or try to determine in advance exactly what would be the end result.

The words were carefully chosen. I hope Deputy Colley will not be offended at my putting the matter in such blunt terms but they are words for which I waited in vain during the period Deputy Lynch was Taoiseach when what he said was of life and death importance in the North. The words of the Taoiseach today should have been said by the former Government when they were in office; they should have been said not only by the leader of the Government but by every member of it. I have neither the wish nor the need to flatter Deputy Colley who is the sole occupant of the Opposition benches, but I will concede as I have done on other occasions that in this regard he is not to be blamed. However, his leader for reasons good or bad must carry some responsibility for a certain ambiguity of approach in the last few years. I made a small collection of statements by the former Taoiseach, all well-intentioned, all backed up by a desire on his part to put an end to the bloodshed but all of them were conditioned by the political necessity of keeping the various strands in his party in some kind of reasonable harmony. As one might expect, the result was they were not mutually reconcilable. In one breath the outgoing Taoiseach spoke about unity by consent only and in the next breath he spoke about how he saw Irish unity by consent as the only possible solution to the Irish problem.

That is the kind of thing that has produced the climate of opinion in the North which makes it possible for the Belfast News Letter to react in this way when the British White Paper is discussed here. They never knew where they were with the Dublin Government. Since the first bomb was thrown, since the first bullet was fired, since the first manifestations in 1966 of the wave of violence, the people who form the local majority never knew where they stood with the Government here. One day there was talk of unity by consent only, the next day there was talk of a prophetic or Mosaic kind that the only solution for Ireland's problems was unity. That seemed always to me, when you stripped it of its rhetorical flourishes, to boil down to saying to the people in the North: “We will not force you to come in but neither will we allow you to stay out”.

That kind of talk is repugnant to anybody, whether Catholic or Protestant or anything else, who believes in straight talking and straight thinking. I am afraid, although I give the Leader of the Opposition all credit for having a good heart and for wishing to avoid bloodshed so far as it can be done and so far as his Government could contribute towards it, his good intentions were not matched by the quality of his speech. The words which he used, month in, month out, year in, year out, towards the North of Ireland were very largely to blame—I will not lay charges at his door which are unjustifiable—for the climate of distrust towards us and towards what we do here as reflected in the editorial about which I have spoken.

The Leader of the Opposition a couple of hours ago said—and it is a sentiment of which everyone here would approve—that he did not want to aggravate the situation, that the situation ought not to be aggravated by anybody through a show of intransigence. He said there was no point, however, in concealing our own basic philosophies and principles. That is perfectly true. To be dishonest in denying what you feel in your heart serves no purpose. What I am not so sure about is the balance which must be struck between an aspiration, which is a very comforting and heartwarming thing when entertained in an armchair safe from shot and shell, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the brutal experiences of human beings who would not give you tuppence for aspirations of any kind 150 miles from here, to whom the existence of these aspirations and the propagation of which in schools on one side or the other has meant death, destruction and unhappiness for the rest of their lives in many cases.

It is fine to talk about our philosophies and principles. The early 1960s, when the late Seán Lemass was Taoiseach and the years shortly afterwards when Deputy Lynch became Taoiseach, were ones of political prosperity for the Opposition. I do not say this in a contentious spirit but they were years in which it is possible to comb the Dáil Reports without finding so much as a single reference to the disabilities of the Northern minority. They were years in which the Northern minority might very well not have existed in so far as we were concerned. I have had a good deal of difficulty in trying to find references to discrimination or to the disabilities out of which this whole trouble sprang.

Mr. Wilson

Is the Parliamentary Secretary forgetting the occasion on which the late Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach was in Oxford University?

Mr. Kelly

What contribution did his presence in Oxford University make to the lessening of the disabilities of the Northern Ireland Catholics? It would give most of them a horse laugh if they heard the Deputy say that.

Mr. Wilson

The Parliamentary Secretary said he could find no reference to the Northern Ireland situation——

Mr. Kelly

I do not know whether the Deputy would regard a single speech at Oxford University as a substitute for a continuous persistent policy of trying to make sure that the disabilities of the Northern minority were publicised. I would not regard it as such.

Mr. Wilson

Oxford is an important forum——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity of intervening in this debate if he so desires. In the meantime, he will desist from interrupting.

Mr. Kelly

I am grateful for your protection. I am willing and able to take on the Deputy in cross-talk if he wishes, but I have not got half an hour. I had only half an hour to speak and my time is running out. I have got quotations here from the Dáil Reports—they were hard to find. I can tell the Deputy— which will adequately demonstrate my point and if the Deputy insists I will read them out to the House. He may take it from me, and he can prove it for himself afterwards by reading the Dáil Reports, that in the middle and late 1960s the amount of concern shown by the Government—let me say this if the Deputy needs to be pacified——

Mr. Wilson

I do not need pacification—I am a very peaceful man.

Mr. Kelly

Let me add that I do not consider the Opposition to have been very much better. To get away from the Deputy who has been interrupting me, if any Deputy wishes to go through Dáil Reports for those years he will find it very difficult to discover any references, good or bad, to the Northern Ireland situation, to the Northern Ireland minority, or even to Partition or the national aspirations or the national principles or to the other things which we were all supposed to hold as our basic philosophies. He will find references to what I will call local constituency problems, Border roads and difficulties about traffic and smuggling, but he will find it very hard to assemble half a dozen instances when this House concerned itself in the 1960s until the situation in the North exploded. He will find it very hard to find half a dozen instances in which the things which we are now supposed to have grappled to our heart with hoops of steel ever came before the notice of this House.

Mr. Wilson

What does that prove?

Mr. Kelly

I will tell the Deputy what it proves. I consider it to show that what the Leader of the Opposition described as our basic philosophies and principles are only basic in the sense that, if I may put it in sectarian terms, some relatively obscure commandments of the Church might be basic philosophies or principles to a member of the Roman Catholic Church: they are things to which he will subscribe to and put his name to but they are not things which will engage much of his attention from one end of the year to the other. I consider that only a belief which is passionately held, which really lies close to the heart, justifies anybody in making trouble which can perhaps rebound on somebody else.

That kind of concern with the North of Ireland never was shown by the last Government. I want to say, in case I might be accused of making a partisan speech, that I do not rate the other parties in this House, the parties now in Government, all that much higher in that respect. We were all to blame in those years.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy did not make any reference to a very important matter, the meetings between Seán Lemass and Terence O'Neill.

Mr. Kelly

I have a swollen list of stuff here about the meetings and if this were an occasion on which the debate was unlimited I would give the Deputy his fill of it. I know all about the meetings. It was a good thing at that time that such meetings occurred. What I am saying is that those meetings between the late Seán Lemass and his successor with Terence O'Neill and his successor, although useful and valuable, did not at any point, or scarcely at any point, get on to the question which now most agitate us, our so-called Nationalist aspirations. I do not consider that a man sitting in a comfortable armchair on a deep pile carpet in a house in Rathgar has any right to blather about national aspirations when there are people 150 miles away being blown to bits on account of it. That is my feeling about it.

I was sorry to hear the son of the second last Taoiseach saying that anybody in a Republican background must look for and hope for a united Ireland. No matter what kind of a background one is brought up in, if he is any kind of civilised person he must work for and hope for a thing like that. That is the kind of talk that brought us trouble. It is the kind of talk which causes the kind of suspicion in the North about which I spoke a few minutes ago. I do not know whether the leader writer of the News Letter will see Deputy Lemass's speech this evening. I know Deputy Lemass did not mean it like that. It is the kind of talk in which he has been schooled by his political allegiance.

The best thing that can be done for the Northern people is for the people down here to pipe down for a while on our national aspirations. I am not saying we should abandon them and I hope nobody will try to misrepresent me by putting such words into my mouth. I do not want abandonment of them. I want Irish unity as much as any man in this House but I will not buy it at the cost of somebody else's blood or the blood of an uncounted number of people. If I wanted it that badly I would put my own life into the balance and anybody in this House or outside it should be prepared to say the same thing. If he is not prepared to put his own life into the balance let him pipe down about national aspirations, which occupied this House for only 15 minutes during the whole of the last decade until the thing blew up in August, 1969.

I do not want to misrepresent Deputy Lemass but I think I heard him saying that he hoped the IRA would at least confine their operations to military targets in the North of Ireland. I certainly hope that they will confine their operations in the North of Ireland but this is the crunch issue, the crunch point, between Deputy Lemass's party and the party to which I belong. Surely the question is who is entitled to decide in this island whether or not war is to be made. I thought this House existed on the principle that there is only one authority that can decide whether or not war is to be made. By war, I mean firing bullets and rockets at people in uniforms, whatever country they belong to, and putting bombs underneath their vehicles. That is what the democratic authority of this State is all about. If it is not about that it is not about anything.

I do not want to take Deputy Lemass short. He is not here. If he were and he wanted to correct himself, I would accept his correction. He added that he hoped they would lay off indiscriminate killing. Of course, that is a hope which everybody in the country must share. I did not like to find him, as it were, drawing a distinction between one kind of military operation and another, when they are both illigitimate, and when no one is entitled, and no one is elected to make war for the sake of Irish unity or anything else. When the time comes, if it ever does come, it will be this House that will do it and no other authority. I was very sorry to hear an ex-Parliamentary Secretary saying something like that. He may have said it unconsciously and he would, perhaps correct it if he were here, but in its very unconsciousness it shows, if you like, the tradition from which he springs, and it points up very accurately one of the basic differences, if I may say so without offence, between the party to which he belongs and the party to which I belong.

Mr. Wilson

Is this directly relevant to the White Paper?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is quite in order.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy will be glad to hear that I am about to conclude now. My time is running out and I want to make one other small point before I sit down. The advantage which I see in this White Paper from our point of view and from the point of view of the people who make up this House and this Oireachtas is mainly a single advantage. Before I say what I think it is, I want to say this. This is a personal view, but I do not like having to deal with the British in regard to Irish affairs. I would far prefer the Irish of all colours to sort out their own troubles between themselves.

I am sorry that a tradition has grown up—perhaps dictated by diplomatic necessity and certainly conditioned by diplomatic necessity and convention—whereby negotiations about Northern Ireland take place between us and the British. If it could be done diplomatically and decently, I would prefer to leave the British out of it altogether. I would sooner get to grips with the people with whom we are living and perhaps in the future we may have to live with them in closer proximity. The main advantage of the White Paper which I see—although, of course, it is disappointing in some respects to anybody of a nationalistic temper; I will not say to anybody brought up with a republican background—is that it foresees the creation of a Northern Assembly whose functions are not as yet closely defined. What that means is that we will know down here who are the leaders in the North of Ireland and what people up there are supported by votes instead of by the sound of their own voices. If this Government—I hope supported in this national matter by a responsible Opposition—play their cards properly, we will reach the stage before too long when we will be dealing not with the British any longer but with a representative selection of Irish people in Northern Ireland itself. In that way ultimately progress will be made.

It will not have escaped the attention of Deputies that the British are objects of suspicion, rightly or wrongly —it may be unfair to them; perhaps in a way it is unfair to them—to the loyalist side or the Unionist side in the North of Ireland just as they are to the extreme Nationalist side. I should like to see the British step out of the picture altogether. I should like, if possible, to generate an atmosphere in which they could be forgiven for their sins, thanked for whatever they have done by way of repentance, and allowed to step quietly out of the picture so that the people in this Republic who represent it either in Government or in Opposition would know who to deal with and could deal with them for the good of the whole island.

I am sorry if I have said anything upsetting or contentious. I did not mean to annoy anybody. I am sorry if I have done so. I hope that by the conclusion of this debate it will not have become any more heated and that the leader writers of the Belfast News Letter will have no reason to complain that anybody down here is trying, as the Taoiseach put it, to erect a Trojan horse in order to subvert what they regard, rightly or wrongly, as their legitimate Constitution.

Mr. Colley

While I would subscribe to the hope expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in his concluding remarks that nothing said in this debate would exacerbate the situation in the North of Ireland, nevertheless, I think we should make it clear that our approach to this problem will not be dictated by the leader writer in any Northern newspaper of any political or religious hue. The Parliamentary Secretary said in regard to one matter that in that he found the fundamental difference between the party to which he belongs and the party to which I belongs. I think he was mistaken in the context in which he was speaking.

I think he did refer inadvertently to one aspect which does reveal the basic difference between our respective parties, that was, when he referred to the absence of reference in this House in past years to the discrimination suffered by the minority in the North. I think his reading of the record is mistaken, but the real point at issue here is that he seemed to believe that if we had exerted ourselves to remedy that discrimination, and had succeeded in doing so, this would have solved the problem. Of course, it would not. It was a major spin-off of Partition, but that is not the basic problem so far as my party are concerned.

The basic problem is that our country is partitioned and that it was partitioned by a foreign country which had no moral right to do so. We claim, on this side of the House at any rate, that Britain had no right to divide our country. Even those who adhere to the two-nation theory—and there seems to be at least one of those in the present Government—would never and have never attempted to justify the geographical boundaries of Northern Ireland. Nobody can justify that. Even taking it at that level, nobody can justify what was done and the consequences which have flown from it.

It is no part of my purpose in this debate to go back over that history, although we would be very foolish if, in our approach to the problems of Northern Ireland, we were to forget what the basic problem is, and what the basic principles involved are. I would suggest that we have at the very least as much as right to aspire to a united Ireland as Unionists have to assert that the Six Counties are part of the United Kingdom. No practical purpose is served, in my view, in dwelling on the legal and historical implications of the situation in which we find ourselves today. That is not to say that they are not important or that they can be ignored or abandoned, but rather that our purpose should be to direct our attention to trying to produce or assist in producing a practical solution to the dreadful problem that exists in the Northern part of this country today.

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke in the Seanad about the speeches made by the former Taoiseach, as Taoiseach, when he talked about unity and unity by consent. I want to tell him that I still think he was mistaken on that occasion.

Mr. Kelly

It certainly got under the skin of the Fianna Fáil Senators. I could not get three words in edgewise without them roaring me down.

Mr. Colley

It may not have occurred to the Parliamentary Secretary that this may have been because he was so far from the truth.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Colley

The Parliamentary Secretary, who was a model today, will recall that there have been occasions in the other House when he engaged in a continuous interruption and barrage when I was speaking but that is in the past and I am not pursuing that now.

Mr. Kelly

I remember it with Deputy O'Malley but not with Deputy Colley.

Mr. Colley

We will not dwell on that. The fact is that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to speeches by the Leader of this party in which he talked about unity by consent. The Parliamentary Secretary interpreted that as meaning that "You will join us by consent and if you do not join us by consent we will force you to join". I may be paraphrasing his words but I think I got them reasonably accurately. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary can realise that another and much more likely interpretation of what he said is: "We want you to join us with your consent and if you do not consent to join us we will continue to aspire to having you join us with your consent."

Mr. Kelly

I am afraid I have to interrupt the Deputy. The important thing here is the interpretation by the people of Portadown of the words said.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a debate limited in time and we would prefer no interruptions. The Deputy is limited to 30 minutes and must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Colley

Of course the reaction of the people of Portadown is important, but it is not all important. There are more people in this country than the Unionists and it is very important that they should not be silenced, that what they feel deeply should not appear to be abandoned, that they should not be put in the position in which Unionists today find themselves where all their deepest and most cherished beliefs appear to be betrayed. We are not going to put the rest of the Irish people into the same impossible and traumatic position.

Mr. Kelly

I am afraid the Deputy is not doing justice to the fears of the people he is talking about. Both sides may feel there is danger of their case being betrayed, but only one side feels they are in danger of what they regard as their legitimate contribution——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to take two bites of the cherry on this occasion.

Mr. Colley

I want to say I was somewhat perturbed by the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, not for any specific thing he said but for a certain note in it. The reason I was perturbed was that it seemed to me he was reechoing gently the line which, prior to the last election, was taken very frequently, very publicly and very articulately by the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, whom I am glad to see is present.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I have spoken in this debate.

Mr. Colley

I heard the Minister at the beginning of his speech and that is the point I want to refer to. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us that there was no difference of approach within the Government. He repeated very briefly the line he has taken in the past and then he said that—as far as I can recall his words; I have not a copy of them here——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

They are on the record.

Mr. Colley

——The emphasis in the Taoiseach's speech on reconciliation is such that we can all subscribe to it. I agree entirely with that statement, but he then went off on another tack by saying he had now clarified the position. Of course, he did not clarify the position.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the Deputy unnecessarily, but I think a Deputy should not purport to summarise a statement made earlier in this debate. If he wants to quote it he should supply himself with a copy and quote from it. I do not propose to be paraphrased to death by Deputy Colley.

Mr. Colley

As the Minister knows, I do not have available to me at this time a written report of the statement made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs but, as he said, it will be on the record of the House. I want to say that I think this is a matter of considerable importance. It was not of major importance when the Minister was in Opposition, but it is of vital importance now, when he is a member of the Government, that the policy of the Government in this matter should be clearly spelled out, that there should be no ambiguity about it.

We on this side of the House certainly do not wish to bring about any division in this House on the general approach to the problem of Northern Ireland. That is the last thing we want, but I want to make it clear that we expect the Taoiseach to spell out, without ambiguity, the Government's policy on this approach to Northern Ireland. I also want to make it clear that if the Government's policy is the policy which was adumbrated by the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs before the present Government was formed, then we on this side of the House will not go along with it.

In regard to particular aspects of the White Paper, there are certain matters upon which I want to comment. It is my belief that the White Paper could lead to an interim solution of the problem in Northern Ireland. I do not believe anybody in his senses believes that an ultimate and finally agreed settlement is possible at this time. The most that anybody can hope for is an interim solution, an opportunity for everybody concerned to sit back and think about their future. I believe the White Paper, with various defects in it, does, or could, lead to that kind of interim solution which would give everybody the opportunity to think about the future.

The Taoiseach in his speech today referred to a passage in the White Paper in a welcoming way as being a clear and unambiguous statement that power-sharing would not be confined to one community only. I agree with the Taoiseach on that except for this. I would like further clarifications as to what the British Government mean by one community. Are they referring to communities by religion? Do they mean that there will be both Protestants and Catholics sharing power? If that is all they mean, this is worthless.

It seems to me that no declarations in regard to power sharing, or a desire to achieve reconciliation or that aspiring to a united Ireland is a legitimate aspiration will carry any weight whatever unless power sharing resulting from the election of the new Assembly is offered in reasonable proportion to people who are for a united Ireland as well as those who are against it. That is real power sharing in the only meaningful sense that is obtainable in the North of Ireland today: it is not Catholics and Protestants; the basic division is on a united Ireland or not.

Of course, people can say and with perfect justification: this is not democracy. It is not, and the White Paper does not envisage democracy. It envisages the British Government looking at the results of the election and then deciding the method by which power will be shared. Of course, this is not democracy. I do not fault it for that because the whole State of Northern Ireland, by definition was so created as to preclude the possibility of democracy. Therefore, when you are trying to achieve a practical interim solution you must work on the basis of what you have and you cannot pretend that you are going to bring about a democratic solution. None is possible within the confines of six artificially carvedout counties. In this connection of a reasonable proportion of power for those who aspire to a united Ireland, I should like very briefly to spell out again—I think I have done this three times in this House already and yet The Irish Times on occasion comes out with a leading article referring to a statement made by the former Taoiseach——

Mr. Kelly

I thought the Deputy did not mind that——

Mr. Colley

——in a different context.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy said a quarter of an hour ago——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Colley.

Mr. Colley

That is not what I said. This may be a pedantic and academic point but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary with his background will not refuse me that point. It is this: the former Taoiseach on occasions did refer in a different context to a division 50-50 between the communities in the North. And on a number of occasions The Irish Times have said this is not democracy—of course, it is not democracy for the reason I have mentioned —and it is creating a precedent for the future in a united Ireland. The fact is that when you approach the problem in Northern Ireland you very quickly come to the situation that you cannot have democracy as it is known in other countries for the reason I have given, that it is an artificially created majority. You cannot get ordinary democracy in that situation.

The most important aspect of the White Paper where people in the South are concerned is the Council of Ireland idea. Outside the House some time ago I spelled out some suggestions in regard to a possible structure of the Council of Ireland modelled on the EEC. Because of the time available in this debate I do not propose to repeat those suggestions but I refer to them as one possible approach. There are certain things in regard to a Council of Ireland which, in my view, are essential. One is that not group, whatever its political or religious view, should have a right of veto over the possible development of the Council of Ireland. Secondly, it is not enough for the British Government to say that they will not stand in the way of the possible development of a Council of Ireland. They must create from the beginning a structure which, even if not required at the beginning for the purposes we would like to see implemented, will be possible of utilisation as the kind of Council of Ireland we would welcome.

I say that this type of structure is necessary from the beginning because if that is not there it will be too easy for those elements which do not want to see a Council of Ireland succeeding to veto it and ensure that it does not grow. In my book the test of the willingness of the British Government to see development of a Council of Ireland by consent between North and South lies in the structure which they will propose for the Council. If it is one which depends for future evolution on the wishes of a small number of intransigents then the British Government will not be showing the bona fides we are entitled to expect from it in the circumstances of this time.

Mr. Kelly

Does the Deputy not admit that if the Council of Ireland is so constructed as to point unambiguously towards Dublin within the foreseeable future that would guarantee it would not work because the Northern majority would not have anything to do with it.

Mr. Colley

That is not what I meant. Let me give an example: I believe that the Council of Ireland must be so constructed from the beginning as to be capable of carrying out executive functions on an all-Ireland basis. I would certainly strongly desire that from the beginning it should carry out some executive function in some such area as tourism which I would hope would be non-contentious but even if it is not doing that, if it is not structured to do it, the possibility of ever structuring it to do that in the future would, in my view, be remote. The fact that it is so structured does not mean that Unionists who are opposed to a Council of Ireland are forced into a Council of Ireland but it means that if they choose to use it in that way it is capable of being used without them having to look over their shoulders at the backwoodsmen who would stop them.

The third point in regard to the Council of Ireland is that the British Government should ensure that there are inducements for Unionists to avail themselves of the council. The Leader of my Party spelled out today certain ways in which this could be done. There are other ways and it is certainly not beyond the ingenuity of the British Government to devise ways in which there is an inducement and a reward for Unionists to use the council of their own free will.

I want to refer briefly to the activities of the British military, particularly the paratroopers and particularly in the Ardoyne area. I do not profess to understand how this situation has come about but I do not think it is good enough for the Secretary of State, Mr. Whitelaw, to talk about this as though it were pure propaganda. We know there is more to it than that. Of course, there is propaganda involved but there is more to it than that. What worries me is this, I said something similar on the occasion of the massacre in Derry. I do not accept that British paratroops are an unruly, undisciplined force; on the contrary, they are a highly disciplined and highly-trained force and while they might include a few men who might go berserk, you could not have a situation in which there was for long periods widespread harassment of the population by the British paratroops unless they had authority for it from much higher up. As far as I am concerned the efforts of the Secretary of State to whitewash it simply will not do and a great many people will judge the bona fides of the British Government by the manner in which they attempt to control the British paratroopers.

Another aspect is the failure to deal with para-military groups in the North, openly parading and blocking traffic, with complete freedom, because they come from one side of the line rather than the other. This kind of thing does not inspire confidence either in the people on the minority side, who want to work the White Paper, or in those people outside Northern Ireland, whether in this part of Ireland or outside it, who want to assist the British Government in any way they can, believing they have a bona fide approach, in achieving a solution. This does not help one bit and it does not inspire confidence.

The Taoiseach was, I think, right in referring to the problem of policing in Northern Ireland. This will probably be one of the most intractable problems with which anybody could be faced.

Dr. FitzGerald

Hear, hear.

Mr. Colley

I do not suggest that I have a solution to it and I therefore do not attempt to criticise the British Government in any way if they have not produced a solution to it. It seems to me, however you approach it, there are almost insoluble problems, but there are possible approaches, approaches I do not think I need to spell out here, approaches which were discussed by the former Government in certain ways with the British and which, I am sure, the present Government are pursuing. They are not the ideal answer, but some solution must be found. If it is not, then no solution is possible to the whole problem.

I would support the Taoiseach strongly in his reference to the necessity for allowing all groups to fight the election to the new Assembly and the British Government will make a major mistake if they do not permit this.

With regard to paragraph 112 (a) of the White Paper referring to the necessity of acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and other things, I just do not know what this is supposed to mean. I would hope that the Irish Government would seek and achieve in due course clarification from the British Government of the meaning of that phrase. It may be that they have already obtained clarification. I can well understand that it might not be advisable to publish such clarification at the moment, but it is essential that we should get clarification of what the British Government have in mind because some people have interpreted this as meaning what is commonly referred to as "recognition" of Northern Ireland.

There has been a great deal of nonsense talked about this. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign State and, leaving everything else aside, it is not therefore possible to give "recognition" in the ordinarily understood sense of the word. In 1967 there was a report from the Committee on the Constitution in the course of which a proposed amendment to Article 3 of the Constitution was supported by members of the present Government and by the Government of the day, including the late Seán Lemass, the former Taoiseach. Contrary to what has been alleged on occasions, that proposed amendment does not abandon our claim on the British to the unity of the country and, when people talk about "recognition", that is in effect what they are talking about because we cannot say we recognise Northern Ireland when it is supposed to be part of the United Kingdom: effectively what we are saying is that we are abandoning our claim to the British on the Six Counties. The recommendation of the Committee on the Constitution did not, of course, do that.

Mr. Kelly

Does the Deputy not realise that, if Britain, disappeared beneath the waves tomorrow, the problem would still be there in exactly the same form?

Mr. Colley

It would not be the same form. If Northern Ireland were not internationally claimed to be part of the United Kingdom we would have a problem, but it would be quite a different problem from the one we have today, and the Parliamentary Secretary should not mislead himself.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would it be any better?

Mr. Colley

We want clarification of paragraph 112 (a) in the White Paper. If anyone says we should, in response to that paragraph, go any way, that would amount to abandoning our whole claim to national unity and this party will certainly not go along with that and I would be surprised if most of the Members of the parties on the Government side would go along with it either.

Mr. Kelly

I am sure Mr. Kevin Boland will rejoin Fianna Fáil if that is the party's attitude.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies have only a limited time to speak and they should be allowed to use that time without interruption.

Mr. Colley

I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs is here. What I have to say now I do not say in any spirit of criticism but, rather, because it is information the Minister may not have. It illustrates the dangers inherent in this whole situation. Not so long ago the Minister visited Belfast. My recollection is that he later gave the names of certain people from one side of the community, people who said he could give their names, but he did not give the names from the other side because he did not get permission.

Dr. FitzGerald

I made no statement as to whom I saw. Other people made a statement and I accepted the truth of it.

Mr. Colley

The point is that in one newspaper report there was a reference to a certain man having met the Minister. In fact, the man did not meet the Minister on that occasion but, since the report appeared, this man has been harassed by the British paratroopers; his door has been broken in at least four times. This man has suffered very considerably.

Dr. FitzGerald

Perhaps the Deputy would give me the relevant information afterwards.

Mr. Colley

I mention this here in order to draw attention to the dangers inherent in any move one makes in regard to Northern Ireland.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

Does the Deputy not realise that the manner in which he is now drawing attention to the problem is likely to have the effect of engendering a certain reluctance on the part of those people with whom it is essential to have contact in the North?

Mr. Colley

I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary, if he does not know, that the people who met the Minister and the people who are likely to meet the Minister in the future know a great deal more about what I am talking about than I do.

Mr. Cluskey

I would think so.

Mr. Colley

And they do not have to read about it in the newspapers or in the records of this House.

Mr. Cluskey

I was just wondering did the Deputy realise the seriousness of the statement he is making and the possible consequences as a result of the manner in which he is making it.

Mr. Colley

My purpose in making the statement is, first, I would hope, by its being ventilated here, that the harassing tactics on this particular man would cease and, secondly, I would hope that more care would be paid in the particular newspaper in which it appeared and more attention given to accurate reporting of matters such as this. They should realise the consequences of inaccurate reporting and this was inaccurate. This man did not meet the Minister.

Mr. Cluskey

I think the Minister could have found a more responsible way of ventilating the matter.

Dr. O'Connell

I am sorry more time is not being allocated to this debate. However, it is welcome to find such a number of Deputies ready to discuss Northern Ireland affairs. This is a change because the former Government denied us this right.

I welcome the White Paper. I think the election to the new Assembly will present a great opportunity to Northern Ireland. I believe some of the self-professed spokesmen on Northern Ireland will vanish from the scene after the election and we will get moderate opinion in Northern Ireland. The silent majority will assert their rights and elect people of goodwill.

We should not go over the events of the last few years. The last four years have been tragic ones, not alone for Northern Ireland but for Ireland as a whole. I would not be too pessimistic about the new Assembly. It will give an opportunity for discussion and debate, for an exchange of views among the different groups in Northern Ireland. It will give an opportunity for discussion and debate and for an exchange of views among the different groups in Northern Ireland. It is sad that there has been no political arena in Northern Ireland where there could be such an exchange. The arena was taken over by men of violence on both sides in Northern Ireland. It was to the detriment of that entire section of our country that that occurred.

In the south we must pay attention to the future of this province. We must show our sincerity or else be silent. If we talk about unity and about joining with our people in Northern Ireland, we must make changes here. It is not right for us to sit idly by and do nothing while letting Northern Ireland change unless we are prepared to make the necessary changes here. It is not enough for us to pay lip-service to unity unless we talk about facilitating and accommodating the people in the North and about doing everything possible to create a climate that will be acceptable to the majority there, whom we want to join with us in a united Ireland.

Are we ready for a United Ireland? Deputies on all sides of the House must consider this point. Are we ready to bring about the Constitutional changes and to introduce the legislation necessary if we are to show the Northern Ireland community that we are sincere? Are the Churches ready? Are the Catholic and the Protestant Churches ready? Are they prepared to give way and to say "Northern Ireland is unique and the situation in the community there is unique"? Are they prepared to say that they will accept integrated education? The problems will not stop now. In 15 or 20 years' time the problem will still be with us unless we make major changes now and have the young children of both religions educated together in common schools so that they will get to know and love each other, and to treat each other as neighbours and friends. We can talk about assemblies and white papers, but unless we urge the churches to look at this unique situation in Northern Ireland, and to admit that it is unique, and that the traditions of the churches must be changed they will not say "This will break the traditions of our churches but it must be done".

It was on this point that I found the greatest opposition when I spoke to communities in Northern Ireland. Some members of the community agreed that changes were necessary, but the Catholic Church said that they would not allow their children to attend integrated schools. The people who talked about unity and about Catholics and Protestants coming together would not allow their children to be educated together. Unless we can discuss this problem seriously we are not sincere about unity and reconciliation between our people North and South.

I hope that our new Government will be talking about changes in the Constitution, and changes on divorce and contraception so that the rights of the minority will be respected. These are the important points on which rural Deputies will have to lead public opinion rather than follow it. They will have to tell the public that if they are talking seriously about unity they will have to discuss such problems. These are serious problems to the people in Northern Ireland. We must talk about changes in our health services and in our social welfare services so that they can be brought up to the standards of those in Northern Ireland. These are important to the people in the North. The artificial Border created by Partition would become irrelevant to many people if they could have the same services here as they have in Northern Ireland.

Over the past 50 years we have had very little communication with the people in the North. When I was growing up there were posters on the walls which read: "Aiséirí. Six divisions, six days, Six Counties". I took that to mean that if we had six Army divisions they could take over the Six Counties in six days. That was all I ever knew about Northern Ireland. I went up North and I saw for myself that talking to the people, even if one only agreed to disagree, made contact. I had great admiration for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald, when he went to the North and saw both sides. I hope that his visit will be followed by the visits of other Ministers to the North to meet representatives of public opinion there and to let them see that we do care about them.

A few months ago I spoke in the North. The criticism there was that we did not care and were not interested in them. It was sad that they should feel there that we did not care about them in their mistery and agony. Many people who talk here should go and see the situation in the North. They should see how depressing it is for the people there. They should know what the tragedy is like. One does not get the feeling of the situation by seeing it on television. One must talk to the people and see at close quarters what their sufferings are; then one can sympathise with them and see about doing something constructive about their position.

I will speak now about the IRA. I have tried to reason out what they mean and what they are trying to do. I do not think one can beat up a man and then say: "Be my friend". One cannot get a friend that way. One cannot repeatedly beat a man and expect him to be a friend. The members of the IRA will have to look at the position and say they have been wrong and that they will not achieve anything in that way. One cannot bomb people or frighten the lives out of them and expect them to be friends. One must talk to them. I would appeal to the IRA to cease operations and to realise that their actions will not achieve anything. When I talked to them about a peace conference they said they will be glad to have it, but that the bombing must go on in the meantime. That is completely illogical. If one is going to discuss a position with anybody one does not start hammering him in the meantime. The politicians and the leaders of the different communities must be given an opportunity of sitting down and discussing the situation. This is the only way of achieving reconciliation.

I was speaking to a loyalist on a programme and I was astonished at how bitter he was. He could not recognise us as neighbours. One would think that we lived on the Fiji Islands from the way he talked. He would not accept the suggestion that we might have some of the leaders in the North as Senators in our Seanad. He did not consider us even as neighbours. It was despressing to hear him talking in this manner. I have known from experience that when one does not talk to people misunderstandings arise. People become bitter. The loyalists in the North have been in a privileged position for the past 50 years. They do not like losing that position. They do not represent the majority opinion in the North who have now come to realise that they were asserting their superiority for a long time. I spoke to a junior Minister in the Stormont Cabinet who said that they did not realise that they were asserting their superiority when they held Orange parades and that it is only now they were realising the harm that had been done. Perhaps the trouble in the North has shown them this.

The elections to the Assembly will give an opportunity to the people for the first time in many years to express their views in the ballot box. We should proceed from there once the new Assembly is constituted. It would be a great tragedy if the bombings were to continue with this new Assembly because from the new Assembly will come this Council of Ireland. The Council of Ireland, if it does nothing else, will give an opportunity for leaders of the community, North and South, to talk to each other, to sit down and discuss their differences. As we progress within the EEC, this Border will become more and more irrelevant and we will find, North and South, that we have more in common than has Northern Ireland with Britain. We have a great deal in common. We have an unemployment problem and they have a very serious one up North. We both have a tourist problem. We are both suffering as a result of this bombing. Apart, there is little we can do but united there is little we cannot do. We must try to sink our differences and come together on our common problems. The message should go out to the people in the North that we want to be friends with them. If we make attempts to establish contact with them on all occasions, this is the way we can overcome the terrible prejudice that exists in the North among the majority and the suspicion they have towards us in the South.

I would ask that the initiative that was taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs be emulated by leaders of the Opposition too, that they go out and visit leaders of public opinion in Northern Ireland and seek to have discussions to our mutual advantage.

Mr. Blaney

I fully agree with the Deputy who said earlier on that these proceedings were not really a debate; they are merely a discussion after the event, too far after it to have any real purpose in so far as the power and influence of this House is concerned. This discussion, or debate as it might then have been, should have taken place at the earliest opportunity after the emergence of the White Paper. There is nobody to blame for that but ourselves, because the White Paper's coming was pretty well forecast. We knew that on the first day that this new Dáil met and yet we decided to adjourn, perhaps rather appropriately or conveniently, over the period during which the White Paper would have been expected.

I had at the time sought an assurance from the Government that we would have the Dáil back to discuss the White Paper or that it would be discussed at the earliest possible moment. At the next time of meeting I also sought to have a discussion that truly could have been a debate and that might have led to some of the thoughts of the liberators in this House getting through, even at that stage, to the British Government so that some of the things that have been omitted from the White Paper might have been included, and made it perhaps acceptable, which I do not think it is.

The week before the White Paper was issued rumours were rampant as to what it contained; in fact, I would say they were inspired rumours. We were given to understand that that White Paper would contain proposals for an Assembly, that the Assembly would be elected by PR, that there would be power sharing, although nobody yet understands how this is to work, in what is to be regarded as a democratically elected Assembly, that is, after 28th of next month. Further there would be some sort of Council of Ireland. What we had been given there in the White Paper is broadly what was rumoured in advance of its coming.

We have been promised an enlarged Assembly, much greater in numbers than it was, elected from constituencies different from those in the past and, of course, with proportional representation operating. The power sharing has been promised, and there has been some little effort to enlighten us as to what this means, some sort of committee arrangement and so forth, but there is nothing in it that would convince any party who would take part in it that it had a hope of changing the way of things under a Belfast Government elected by a contrived majority of Unionists as it was contrived by the geographical division made back in 1920.

The Council of Ireland is not even that any more. It is a conference that may lead to a Council of Ireland, but it is hedged in by many conditions that make me believe that, if it ever came to pass, which I rather doubt, it would be of a totally negative quality and could promise nothing to help really to get to the point of satisfaction in this country, and when I talk about satisfaction I talk not only of getting rid of violence but of the end which should be in view, however distant, the achievement of unity.

This White Paper, to be fair to it, should be compared with perhaps the only thing we have for comparison and that is the proposals of His Majesty's Government, as it was then, for an Irish settlement as issued in 1921. In making the comparison it is necessary to quote from both in order to give some idea of what is involved. As we know, the proposed settlement of 1921 proved disastrous, and we are now seeking a solution by way of Green Papers and White Papers as a result of the disastrous mistakes that were made in those proposals in those days. These proposals, which could more truthfully be called the Lloyd George proposals, said in relation to the partition of the country:

The form of settlement must allow for full recognition of the existing powers and privileges of the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland which cannot be arrogated except by their own consent.

Mr. Heath's White Paper, which is the one under discussion here today, says:

In accordance with the specific pledges given by successive United Kingdom Governments, Northern Ireland must and will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the majority of the people.

I should say here that there is no question of the "majority of the people" referring to the people of all Ireland; it purely refers to the people of the lopsided Six Counties, sometimes known as the North, other times as Northern Ireland, and very often as Ulster. In this matter of the permanence of partition it is to be noted that Mr. Health goes no further than did Lloyd George in his time. This then against a background of built-in Unionist majority in the Six Counties. Surely there can be no doubt about the wishes of that majority in regard to a united Ireland. There is not a hope in this expression in the White Paper that there can be any possibility of there being unity brought about by the White Paper and the proposals contained in it.

Lloyd George wrote into the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, a specific clause for setting up a Council of Ireland, another point in the White Paper, and his proposal was a much better proposition and promised much more than do the terms of this White Paper because in that specific clause on the setting up of a Council of Ireland it was stated that it would be composed of 20 members from each parliament with the then Governor General as Chairman. The Unionists of course, refused, as I have no doubt they will refuse after 28th June, to have anything to do with that Council and if there had been any hope that it would be forced upon them as a result of the clause in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, that was thrown out with the dishwater by way of the Boundary Agreement of 1925. Nineteen twenty-five finished whatever prospect there might have been of finding out what was implied or intended by the Council of Ireland at that time but at least it was not hedged around by conditions and "ifs" and "ands" as is the suggested council or conference that is mooted in the White Paper.

Mr. Heath in Part V of the White Paper, which is entitled "Relations with the Republic of Ireland", not only sets his Government up as arbiter of affairs in Ireland, North and South, but also demands that the Dáil, as a precondition to any such conference, should recognise the right of the Six Counties to remain part of the United Kingdom so long as the Unionist majority in the North so desire. In referring to a Council of Ireland the Heath White Paper speaks of:

. . . some sort of scheme for institutional arrangements between North and South...

It goes on:

True progress in these matters can only be achieved by consent. Accordingly, following elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government——

that is the British Government

—will invite the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the leaders of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland opinion to participate with them in a conference to discuss how the three objectives set out in the Paper for Discussion may best be pursued...

That vague promise hardly goes as far as Lloyd George did but even if it did go that far and even if the Unionist leaders were to have a dramatic change of heart and change of outlook almost overnight and if they were to agree to participate in such a conference what are the three objectives they are to discuss with the Dublin Government under the chairmanship of Mr. Heath's Government?

The conference will have nothing to discuss about the unity of Ireland. That is not on. It will not have on its agenda the question of the bringing to an end of the discrimination and injustice meted out over the past half century to the minority in the Six Counties; it will not be allowed to discuss the partiality of the courts and the police in the Six Counties of which we see blatant examples every day nor will it be permitted to discuss the disgraceful way in which members of the minority are denied access to employment in many of the major fields and firms in the Six Counties. No. The first point the proposed conference will discuss according to the Heath proposals will be:

the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland...

That is to be their first point of discussion, if they ever meet with the agreement of the Unionist opinion that will emerge after the election. The third point is:

The provision of a firm basis for concerted governmental and community action against terrorist organisations.

Terrorism but terrorism only as Mr. Heath sees it, on the one side, that is from those who are fighting his forces in the Six Counties today. No mention of the UDA, no mention of any of the Unionist extreme organisations and no mention of the violence being perpetrated by the forces of the Crown sent there by Mr. Heath's Government. In all their excesses, and there have been many and they are still continuing, let us not cod ourselves that these are instances of over-reaction by individual members of these forces.

These are disciplined forces of an army that has long experience in this sort of warfare and these excesses have been happening periodically and frequently, far more frequently than we ever hear about, day by day and week by week. They are not just the excesses of the individual over-reacting. They are part and parcel of the occupation forces' methods of repression, well practised and well understood by those who who command them and by those who send those commanders there. Let us not let the British Government off the hook on this one by blaming the individual soldier for over-reacting. This is not the case. This is a pattern well worn and well tried not only in this country over the generations but in many other countries far removed from here.

The second point is that of putting down terrorism, terrorism regarded as only emanating from one source and no mention of the terrorism being applied by those acting in the name of authority, not just in the past four years but in the past 54 and for many years before. That terrorism is still there and it will be there after 28th June. We approach this White Paper at the 11th hour, too late to make any impression on it by way of change. We are advocating its acceptance on the basis that we should try anything that might help. We are going to try that which we know will fail before it even starts because we had proposals of a similar and in my view even more promising nature well over 50 years ago and tried out since then with disastrous results and culminating in the emergence of this phoney White Paper.

The second point Mr. Heath puts down for discussion at the proposed conference is:

Effective consultation and co-operation in Ireland for the benefit of North and South alike.

In other words, back to square one. We are now back to talking about co-operating in regard to electricity, tourism, and so on, these are all matters in which, despite our difficulties, there has been co-operation for many years without any fanfare of trumpets. We do not need a conference or a Council of this nature in order to talk of such matters. If that is the only purpose in bringing forward such a Council it would be better that it should never meet because it would be only a waste of time and would even give rise to expectations that there was some hope of an improvement in the situation in the Six Counties or in this island of ours as between North and South. We are told that there must be a recognition of the Six Counties as a first point for discussion. In other words, we can have the conference we wish provided the Unionists agree to take part in it but as a precondition we must accept the Six Counties as it is now, that is, as a sundered part of this land, belonging to and an integral part of the United Kingdom. I have mentioned already the other two conditions. These are to put down terrorism and to come together and talk of water supplies and tourism.

These, then, are merely the matters that we are talking of here today when we talk of the White Paper. This is the situation after four years of tragedy and discrimination, of death and bloodshed of which, perhaps, we are more knowledgeable than we are of the greater destruction and the greater violence than has been perpetrated during 50 years of almost silence. It is too late to point out to Mr. Heath the fallacy of his ways and to make positive suggestions as to how he could have brought about developments in his proposals that would at least have in their end product the prospect of unity in this country and the ultimate harmony of all our people. But, no, we ran away from that as we ran away from so many other matters relating to this sorry tragedy during the past four years. We have run away from it again since 20th March.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach was opening his speech today, he referred to an editorial that appeared in the News Letter decrying the fact that we here in an Irish Parliament should have the temerity to discuss a matter such as the White Paper. Is it any wonder that they write such articles? Our own lack of action and our omissions since 20th March alone are sufficient reason for the writing of such editorials in a news organ of that kind. They say that a discussion by us on the White Paper might only add to the troubles in the North. By running away from the White Paper and from a true debate on it, we have given them every reason to decry this belated effort on our part. The time for us to have discussed the issue was during the week of the publication of that document.

When I raised this matter last it was suggested that we should not have any such debate until after the long Easter recess. The Taoiseach was open-handed about the matter and in his view it was better for us to wait until after we had heard what other people had to say before having a debate here. Surely that is not the role that this Government and this Parliament should be playing in regard to a vital matter that concerns our future and the peace of our island as well as the peace also of England.

Indeed, the contributions from the Leader of the Government and from the Leader of the Opposition, to which I listened avidly, confirm what the Taoiseach said in regard to our waiting until we had heard what others had to say. There was nothing in either of the two major speeches here today other than the going over of what is in the White Paper and the expressing of platitudes and of hope that the proposals might work and that we should not do anything that might upset them in any way. There were expressions of wishful thinking that the violence might cease, all of which we have heard before so often and which make no impression. This is the attitude that has brought this House to the point where it is totally irrelevant in so far as a settlement of the real Irish problem is concerned.

We can have a Council of Ireland provided we recognise that Partition is right and then we can go on to discuss coming together with the British government and with whatever government may be in Belfast for the purpose of putting down terrorism which can be spelled out as putting down only the minority who are fighting for their existence in the Six Counties. That is what we will be allowed to discuss provided, of course, that the Unionist opinion which will dominate the new Assembly agree to come to such a conference. If they do not so agree, the conference will not take place. However, if the conference takes place and the matter of terrorism is dealt with, all will be happy that the minority will have been crushed into the ground. We will have helped the British to do that as if, indeed, they are not capable of doing it themselves. Then, we will go on to talk of tourism, of electricity and of water supplies, all of which matters are very important but which are of no consequence against the background of the White Paper and what it is trying to do.

Yet, here we are in this so-called Irish Parliament waiting to hear from everybody else before discussing this important matter. Apparently we have no thoughts or suggestions as a Parliament. We are not prepared to tell the British that they must get out of this country and that unless and until their declaration of intent proves true there can be no peace. There have been quite a few on both sides in this House who, during the past year and a half have taken up this cant of a declaration of intent. Surely they should have pushed for the proper inclusion of such declaration in the White Paper, but there has been no such demand. All we have had is a slavish attitude, the attitude that the White Paper may do some good and that we should not do anything that might upset matters in any way. Surely if we consider this document objectively as against the background of the White Paper on this matter that was issued in 1921 we will see that this present one can have no less disastrous consequences than the previous one. It was not accepted in 1921 until after there had been a bloody civil war and the excuse for accepting it then——

Mr. Harte

It was accepted by a vote of this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blaney.

Mr. Blaney

I will leave it to the Deputy to make his contribution in his own way in due course.

Mr. Harte

I interrupted in the interest of accuracy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blaney has only a limited time in which to conclude his contribution.

Mr. Blaney

If I had unlimited time at my disposal, I would not pay any heed to Deputy Harte's interruption.

Mr. Harte

My only wish was to ensure that the Deputy would be accurate.

Mr. Blaney

I said that a civil war had been fought because of that White Paper.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has only four minutes in which to conclude.

Mr. Blaney

In my estimation those proposals of more than 50 years ago were superior to the present-day proposals. Yet, it was not considered possible to discuss the matter in this House until this belated hour. However, having had these discussions today, there has not been one firm proposal from the House to the British Government in an effort to guide that misguided British Government into producing something at this stage that would give some hope for future peace and unity in this country.

I do not know where we think we are going but it is evident that the overall attitude is that if we can keep the difficulties centred in the Six Counties, if we do nothing, they will go away. This seems to be accepted by almost all Members in this House at this time. This is a tragedy because if there was ever a time for a real breakthrough that would promise us ultimate unity and peace, surely it is now. Unfortunately we do not recognise it as an opportunity or we cannot make any suggestions that would help us to grasp it. It is a tragedy that on a vital matter such as this our Parliament has nothing to offer. Even though Members do not see much in the White Paper and they do not know if it will work, all they can do is hope something will come from it. Is that the way our Parliament should behave? Is that the best we can expect from it? It is much less than what would be expected from a similar assembly in similar circumstances in any other part of the world.

We are being asked to accept the White Paper proposals, proposals that are worse than those offered to the First Dáil by Lloyd George. It is interesting to recall what the First Dáil had to say about the Lloyd George proposals. Our President, Eamon de Valera, in a letter to Lloyd George on 10th August, 1921, wrote:

As regards the question at issue between the political minority...

—the Northern Unionists—

...and the great majority of the Irish people, that must remain a question for the Irish people themselves to settle. We cannot admit the right of the British Government to mutilate our country, either in its own interest or at the call of any section of our population.

De Valera was merely asking for what we asked during the centuries and what we are asking today. At the risk of labouring the point, I ask again that there be a declaration of intent by the British Government to get out of the North in the not too distant future. If that shadow is removed, people North and South, Catholic and Protestant, can find their own solution to live together in peace and harmony and ultimate unity

Mr. Esmonde

The White Paper is not a solution; it is merely a starting guideline to help us all to try to approach the difficult problem in the Northern part of our country. Earlier in the debate the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs put it very well when considering one aspect of this paper and the problems that gave rise to it, namely that it will be difficult for the majority to accept power sharing. Obviously he was referring to the group whom we call the Unionist majority in the North.

In certain circumstances power sharing—of which we do not know the particulars—may not be an easy matter for what is popularly known as the minority to accept. There will be a certain amount of dissatisfaction about the White Paper. I do not think there is a single person in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland or here who is completely happy with the White Paper. However, because of this it may encourage people to think about it a little more thoroughly than they might otherwise have done. It will make them take an interest in the problem, maybe from fear, maybe out of a feeling that they will get something out of it, but it will have the effect of activating people's minds.

There was a useful meeting of West-minister MPs and certain Members of the House. It was held behind closed doors and it was agreed that what took place would not be for public circulation. I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say I was one of the Irish delegation and that there was a frank and free discussion. There was no nice talk for the sake of nice talk. We said things that otherwise might not have been easy to say, but I think the Westminster representatives went from here with some helpful ideas on the problems they have to face. We should encourage intercourse of ideas with the purpose of adopting a constructive approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland.

I have listened with regret to some speeches in this House today in which there appears to have been an utterly negative approach. If the White Paper is accepted to the extent that it enables people who are prepared to work the White Paper to be elected as members of an assembly, it will have the effect of taking the street politicians off the street. It will add a little respectability to Irish affairs. We have had to put up with mob orators, what I would call the Don Quixotes and the Sancho Panzas of Northern Ireland. They go on and on like continuous long playing records and I am afraid that in the past some parts of the media have been responsible in giving these people undue publicity. A statement to that effect has been made in this House before.

I should like to make this suggestion now. There is no use having a White Paper, no use in having a Northern Ireland Assembly, if the people outside, both here and in the North, are not prepared to give it a trial and to adopt a constructive approach to the problem. Any Parliament can only live on the strength and the ideas, philosophies and faith of those people who put them there. The people of Northern Ireland, whether they are happy with their proposed Assembly or not, at least will have an Assembly which will take issues of the street and get them discussed around the table. Something good must come of that. If there should happen to be a majority of the people elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly who are not prepared to implement the principles, vague and all as they are, in the White Paper, there may not be convened a Northern Ireland Assembly. This is one of the risks and I think the people of Northern Ireland should be very careful when they come to mark their ballot papers to see to it that they vote for those people who are prepared to accept in principle that there is a White Paper, to try to make it work, not necessarily as a final picture but at least as a start.

I have referred to possibly undue publicity being given to certain elements in the North of Ireland in the past and I should like to follow it with a suggestion. I as a citizen of the Republic find myself extremely ignorant about the day to day lives of the people in the North of Ireland. This is possibly due to one simple reason and that is that the media do not tell us anything other than what happens in Shankill, Falls Road and various parts of Derry. One would think they were the only parts of Northern Ireland. It is fair to make that comment and I think the press and the other communication media could greatly help the solution of the Northern problem by talking about the ordinary citizens—let us know how the ordinary people in the North are living. After all, they are part of us and if the media are prepared to talk about our normal day to day lives why cannot they tell us something about the normal life in the North? Why has it to be in a limited sense that we get news of the North? I am afraid this has helped other people who may wish to use our media for the purpose of propaganda to show that Irish people cannot agree—that we have no system whereby they can be dealt with by the law.

Deputy Brennan said earlier he felt this White Paper was another step backwards to the old regime. I am sorry he said that. He read far too much into it and Deputy Blaney did the same. We were given a history lesson about Lloyd George. I do not know what Lloyd George's thoughts and actions have to do with 1973. I would hope the people living in 1973 will gain from the mistakes of the past and will not give easy credence to words like "pledges" when that term is used by Her Majesty's Government. That word is used in paragraph 2 of Part 1 of the White Paper:

The Northern Ireland people should not place too much credence on the word "pledges" because they can go back to the days of the Unionists and learn what happened when the then British Government made use of the word "pledges" before the Act of Union.

I wish now to turn to another point. I feel that in today's terms we must be very careful when it comes to the matter of a written document, when it comes to the actual implementation of any undertaking or pledge given by the UK Government. I quote paragraph 12 (c) of the White Paper:

Those who wish to see the achievement of Irish unity, which can only be on the basis of consent, have an obligation to accept that such consent does not at present exist, and —without prejudice to their aspirations— to assist in the achievement on a constitutional basis of peace, equality and prosperity.

I like the vagueness of "aspirations". One would have thought they could have used "national aspirations". "Aspirations" could be to win the Derby or the Grand National. It is vague words of that kind we have to be careful about, and instead of decrying the White Paper as a whole we should accept it now as a pro tem hope of getting something done, but only as an interim situation and a very limited one.

Mr. Wilson

At the beginning I would like to use a quotation which, I am afraid, is from memory. It refers to a letter from Mr. de Valera quoted by Deputy Blaney. The sentiment in that letter was, in effect: "We do not contemplate the use of force".

I understand it is customary in this House to state one's qualifications to speak on any specific subject, particularly on this one, and I speak on this one as an Ulsterman, a man from the North of Ireland. In the part of the country where I was born and brought up we have experienced the heavy gravitational pull that all large cities seem to exercise, increasingly so nowadays. It was from Belfast in our case. Many of my near relations live in that city and consequently I have always been reasonably well informed on the activities there. My family always took a Belfast newspaper every week and therefore the ignorance of the Northern situation spoken about by Deputy Esmonde, if it existed in my family, was due to our lack of comprehension rather than of opportunity.

I speak on this White Paper without apologies to the editor of the News Letter or to anybody, whether from Ulster or elsewhere. On reading the White Paper the first thing that irked me was the references to devolution of power. My party believe that devolution should not rest with the people who claim to be devolving.

Nevertheless, I would say that the clever young men from Whitehall who drafted this White Paper had to be careful because the people whom they nurtured in their privileged power for so long are easily irritated, and consequently they got them to say they wanted to be members of the UK and they told them: "If that is what you want you will have to agree to certain standards". My irritation was somewhat toned down by that realisation.

Contrary to what previous speakers said, there is reference in the White Paper to extremists on both sides, to IRA and Protestant extremists. They are specifically mentioned in paragraph 17. It is important that the two parts of the terror game should be mentioned because there is a tendency, in the British press particularly, to mention only one group. I have here a quotation from a paper in which Desmond Wilson, whose name is honourable, states that the amount of terror inflicted on the community in Belfast is unknown to the general public. I will not read the more extreme statements because I am conscious that what we say here—not what I say particularly but what we all say here—may be misinterpreted and used as fuel by people in evil causes.

One point he makes here is that a house under attack waited for an hour for police to arrive and that protection is granted only reluctantly. The Army make it clear that a Catholic Church under attack or a Catholic house under attack is not necessarily a first priority for them. So, keeping as much balance as I can between the two sides—and this balance is not kept by the media, I regret to say, in our neighbouring country—it is important that in paragraph 17 the determination is expressed that both sets of terrorists are to be dealt with. One objective we have all heard attributed to justice is even-handed justice, but even-handed justice has not been at a premium in the Six Counties.

Another part of the White Paper that is of particular interest to me is the reference to education. Education has been my lot or my vocation. A desire is expressed in the White Paper that real and continuing points of contact in education should be developed and may be developed in certain educational regional councils. I have a suggestion. I have been thinking about this and I think there should be some kind of année pre universitaire, such as they have in France or in Spain, some kind of course for students in the year immediately before they enter the university.

I would suggest that in the North of Ireland a great deal of good could come from a scheme which would take leading people from both sections of the community to a place like, say, Portora School and give them such a course. They do not necessarily have to yield their principles, their political principles, or economic principles, or any other principle. Living together, discussing problems and being educated for the university could possibly bear fruit in the not too distant future.

This type of year could very well be fitted into the system in the North of Ireland because the sixth form advance level studies often last two and sometimes three years before people go to the university. At the moment they are isolated in different schools, schools of a very high standard in many cases. They come to Queen's University for the most part afterwards, and a certain amount of segregation exists all the way, although in the alembic of the university at times great friendships and great understandings are developed. I am saying this fully conscious of what Deputy Lynch, our leader, said, that you cannot expect too much from the university system; you cannot expect in a very short time to undo the built-in prejudices of the ages.

The reference to the high level of unemployment in the Six Counties is extremely relevant. Of course, if you had fewer economic problems I think you would also have fewer political problems. This is not to say that, if you had all the economic problems solved, the political problems would dissipate and disappear immediately. This would be advocating a kind of fleshpots philosophy which is as alien to us in the South as it is to even the most extreme Unionist in the North.

The kind of pretence that we live in two different countries is difficult to take. The absurd statements of certain gentlemen highly placed in politics in the North who say: "I have no objection to him going to a foreign country"—and by "foreign country" they mean the Republic of Ireland— or: "I have no objection to him visiting a foreign capital"—and by "foreign capital" they mean Dublin are so ludicrous that it is a great wonder that people have not dislocated their jaws long ago laughing at them. When I go to Emyvale and cross up to the foreign country in Aughnacloy I find that I can get the same liquor in both places and they speak the same language and accept the same money. Lifford and Strabane, those two frontier towns between foreign countries, also show a common ethos. All this kind of nonsense has been used diplomatically and politically for far too long, and the commonsense people of the North of Ireland regard it as just as ridiculous as we do.

The Assembly which we will have as a result of the elections at the end of next month is very much of a lucky bag. What will happen in the near future, politically anyway, in the Six Counties depends on the constitution of that Assembly. There are some very puzzling aspects of it. There is, for example, the reference to the committees and the constitution of the committees. It is very difficult to understand what they will be. If I mention again the meeting which we had with the Inter-Parliamentary Committee I do not think I am breaking any confidence. If I am, I am breaking the same kind of confidence as Deputy Estmonde. At that meeting they seemed to think that there was a possibility of getting a majority in the new Assembly which could work in such a way that the primary objective of the White Paper would be achieved, namely, that the minority would have effective power. In fact, to me this is more than dicey. I hope it works out but at this moment I cannot see how.

There is a certain amount of fragmentation at present which may tend to achieve this, but I do not know. People who may differ very much on paper may find that they gravitate to each other again in the old way in the Assembly. I cannot quite understand how this will work, for example, if a leading man in what we call the minority, a man ready and willing and able to act as chairman of one of these committees and exercise executive power is chairman of a committee and the committee is not willing to co-operate with him. From the words of the White Paper it would seem that this committee is merely consultative but it must be more than consultative because, if he cannot get his committee to agree at any time, no matter what executive move he makes, the thing will become a charade and a farce and will be unworkable.

When small jobs became vacant or when small appointments to authorities of one kind or another were being made, some people with glee ran with the Bible and asked for an oath to Her Majesty, the Queen, not as an act of loyalty to the Queen but in an attempt at the discomfiture of the unfortunate person who had been elected to a council or who had been placed in a job. I am glad to say that with a few exceptions this requirement is being abolished. According to the White Paper it is not being asked except in cases where it is asked correspondingly in the United Kingdom.

In relation to paragraph 70, unless things change radically the reference to the Police Authority and the elected representatives who would serve upon it is a slight bit of waffle, because the whole ethos and the whole attitude to the police would have to change before people would act on such a committee. History will guarantee no co-operation unless the whole training of the police and the whole attitude to the police change.

With regard to the Human Rights Charter, both the guarantees that continual vigilance will be exercised in regard to public appointments and appointments in private business are very welcome. It is a very difficult thing to achieve because as we know in another country freedom and equality of opportunity were guaranteed to a large section of the community many years ago but one way or another, without the will to make this freedom effective, people have been denied the rights and privileges to which they are entitled.

There is a serious effort in this section of the White Paper to deal with this discrimination in employment both public and private; housing and so on. I hope, no matter what happens to the White Paper, no matter what happens with regard to our aspirations, if that is what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs wants to call them, that they will be able to make those particular provisions stick. One of the greatest scandals of the area was that able people, fully qualified for specific jobs had to leave and take to the emigrant ship. I know this from my own experience. I have examined a career officer's book in the city of Belfast. In that book were columns containing the student's name, student's vocational references, opportunities for jobs in this vocation, opportunities for jobs in the North of Ireland for this vocation, opportunities for jobs in the south of Ireland and opportunities for jobs in Britain.

The opportunities for jobs in the south of Ireland and in Britain were completely open but in many places along the column which said opportunities for jobs for Catholics in the North of Ireland was the entry "none", "very slight" or "very few". If we could take that column out of the career master's book and say there was no further need for it we could solve a great deal of the employment and economic problems in the North of Ireland.

With regard to the Council of Ireland I think that the draftsman in Whitehall was cleverer than usual. There is a reference to the consent of the majority and the minority being essential but it is a strange thing when the statement is made earlier in the White Paper that the minority must have a share in power the draftsman of the White Paper did not say: "This can only happen if both the majority and the minority agree to it". It is a very strange thing that the consent of the majority and the minority is involved here. The draftsman in the last paragraph in this section knew it was weak and it was weak deliberately and perhaps his motivation might be the best.

I see no reason why the co-operation that has been going on up to now on the various fronts mentioned and some that were not mentioned already on tourism, electricity, water supplies and the Foyle Fisheries should not be developed openly. These achievements were mainly the result of solid, serious, civil service worked-out arrangements. Why not do this in the future through the Council of Ireland? Why not do this openly and let the world see it is going on? In the past very often it was done and people were careful to conceal that it was being done. This was a mistake. This will help to give teeth, to quote the leader of my own party— or if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs does not like that, this will help to give feet to the Council of Ireland.

I should like to refer to something the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said. He remarked that there was no division in his administration about the North of Ireland. For the most part it was an exercise in semantics. He talked about our having an aspiration rather than a claim. A claim is slightly triumphalistic, slightly arrogant and slightly militaristic. To me an aspiration is intellectually based. It is something which impels you to try to achieve what you set out to achieve.

I also want to refer to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. He said that one's deepest held philosophic beliefs tend to become overt. I do not concede this at all. Psychologically, one's deepest thoughts are, particularly in Ireland, the ones you are most careful about exposing. You can hold very strong views about unity in Ireland and you do not necessarily flaunt them on every occasion. I do not think it is any test of your credibility, your sincerity that you do not take them up on every opportunity you can.

Having been born in a planted country, having been brought up in a rural parish where no distinction was made socially or economically, between Catholic and Protestant, I think we should say straight from here that we want the people of the Six Counties, that we want Unionists and Nationalists, Ulstermen all, that we want their skill, their expertise, commerce and trade. We want their long experience in industry. We want their hard-headedness and we want them as part of our society. We do not want them as bosses or as putting themselves forward as superior to any type of Irishmen, either by reason of economic wealth or by reason of being in power for a long time in their own area. We do do not want them as subjects or inferior to us in any way. We want them as independent, free, hard-thinking citizens of a 32-county Ireland.

We should say that and we should say that we are willing, ready and able to co-operate with them, that we are anxious to do so, that we regard them as a great treasure in our land and that when they, as they eventually will. share a common citizenship with us then this country will be on the right road to economic prosperity and political peace.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Anybody speaking on a subject as charged with emotion as this which has defeated the ability of the best minds in the South and in the North and, indeed, in other countries to find any ready made solution can do very little more than preach the necessity of peace and goodwill to the tortured and unfortunate people in the North of Ireland. Today we are discussing this White Paper and all the people I have heard speaking on the motion before the House have endeavoured to put forward their views in a very reasonable way. Yet one finds oneself in the position that when one preaches reason and peace one is open to the complaint that one has not said anything new or found any solution.

We have terrorism, bombings and murders in the North. We have had, and still have these things and men, women and children are afraid to say what they think and, as part of the horrible position are afraid to voice the reasonable viewpoint which should be held by all people. That is the position in which the Southerner finds himself when speaking. There is also the fact that many people in the South are so aghast and so nervous of the situation that they want to hide from it. There is a good deal of apathy about the situation because people are nervous, even down there, of that violence spreading and of the effects it would have. They look back on the past 50 years in the South which, while they were not always as peaceful as we would have liked, were not, even at the worst, as bad as the situation in the North at present.

I have mentioned the feeling that exists in the South because it is a very reasonable one; at the same time the Southerners want to help the people in the North towards a solution of their evils but they cannot. Nobody in the South has been able to see a clear way to bring about a solution.

The White Paper which we are now discussing is an effort to bring a degree of reason into the situation. Yet very few of us are widly enthusiastic about it; but it is a ray of hope. It is an effort to take the initiative from the men of violence on all sides —because in the North there are more than two sides. The previous speaker made a very interesting and sincere contribution and referred to his difficulty in understanding power sharing. I am in the same position; if I were a Scot I would say "I had ma doots". I wonder how the power sharing can come about. I hope and pray very sincerely that it will be a success but it seems to go contrary to the normally accepted way of committee procedure. If certain people have a majority on a committee it is very hard to ask them voluntarily to give up that majority in regard to views they may sincerely hold, perhaps only on very small local matters, and which they believe to be right. It is very hard to see such people voluntarily abandoning their majority on occasions.

I hope very sincerely that power sharing will succeed in Northern Ireland because somehow the people must learn to get on with each other. It was out of their difficulties, their inability to carry on in a democratic fashion for whatever reasons that the way was opened to men of violence on all sides. How that appalling dilemma can be resolved is what we in the South wish to discover. I think the British, not only the people but the Government, very fervently wish to see peace with honour and justice and fairness to all in the North. At times I feel very despondent because those splendid people of the North— and there are splendid people on all sides—have been made almost the tools of some men of violence who have probably sincerely held their varying views while somehow in that unfortunate province the men of goodwill who form the vast majority have been unable to make their voices heard or provide around them what we might call the ordinary decencies of civilisation.

As Irish people we feel sad and ashamed that that should have happened in our own lovely country. We should like to see the Northern people in with us in the South. I think that would make for a greater and better Ireland which could live in complete amity with its next-door neighbour, not deferring to her or fighting with her on various matters of interest, but working together with her. I believe that the end product of the coming of a united Ireland—which will come some day—will be an infinitely happier and saner relationship between these two islands. Certainly, that cannot come about as a result of violence. That is clear; we shall only have more and more trouble. We can only hope that this White Paper, which is not a perfect document, is a sincere effort to better the situation, to give the minority the feeling of having a real voice in the deliberations of the whole province. That feeling has not existed, and the reality did not exist either, for historical and other reasons. All that must be set aside.

A paper no matter what colour it is, whether it be white, green, orange, or any other colour, cannot bring that about unless the North of Ireland somehow finds its own sould and finds the advantages of living in a civilised fashion and not going against law and order. When I say that I am not speaking of law and order as being only in the hands of the police and the soldiers. There is violence that comes about through injustice. We know that only too well. One can have judicial violence. There are many, many forms of violence in the North of Ireland. But we, in the South, are not by any means perfect. Our society is not a perfect society but, in the main, it is at least a peaceful society, a society which tries to bring about democratic changes in a democratic fashion. I do not see how democratic changes, be the views orange or green, can be brought about by violence of any kind or in any form. They cannot be and never will be.

We Irish men and Irish women must learn to live with each other. If we are a religious people—I am making a speech, not attempting to preach—not only must we learn to live together but we must somehow learn to love each other and to respect one another. Part of our difficulties in the North of Ireland—when I say "our" I mean that some of the difficulties which exist in the North exist because we are all Irish people—stem from the fact that people have not learned to respect each other. We, in the South, have learned to respect each other. We have learned to work together in a way which, so far, does not appear to have been found possible in the North. I say "appear" because this also has been touched on by others. One cannot be very original, but there is no need to be original when speaking on a subject like this. All one can do is stress the old, tried methods of finding the truth.

We, in the South, are learning the values of ecumenism. We are learning the values of co-operation with regard to schools and in other things too. The old divisions that existed—they were not harsh divisions in the South, but they existed—are breaking down like barriers before a mighty torrent. Mostly it is a torrent of goodwill inspired by the desire to have Irish people respecting each other's differences and helping each other in their difficulties. I am sure that in many parts of the North exactly the same thing is happening. Speakers have said that. Unfortunately, I do not know the North. I have not set foot in the North for years. My life has been down here in the South. I have not had business connections to any great extent in the North. They were not necessary. I have no relations there and it was not necessary to travel to the North and so I cannot speak as an expert on the North. At the same time, I know well that there are areas in the North where the people think just as we do in the South. They want to live in peace, at more than peace, with their neighbours and they succeed in living in amity with their neighbours.

The last speaker spoke about his youth in the North. I am sure that the links between the various sections of the community there are stronger today in a majority of areas in the North than they ever were before. I understand that. It is the strange tragedy in which we find ourselves. Two world wars, through which a great many people alive today lived, must have wrought changes in people's minds. Young men and women joined the forces. Means of communication are much better today and I am sure that there is in the North a great fund of goodwill towards a spreading of that sense of one community. We must foster that and do the best we can to bring about a happier situation.

Again, this White Paper will help towards that. I understand the extreme Unionist section in the North does not look with great favour on the White Paper. I would say to them, if it is any consolation to them, that the extreme Nationalist section does not welcome it either. There are areas in which the paper does not go far enough. It is a compromise. All life is a compromise. Peace can only come in the North with a degree of compromise, with people understanding that, in order to get to a situation in which women and children can go to bed at night in safety and not in fear, no matter who they are, that situation will not come about overnight, but will come gradually. Above all, it must come first, I think, in the hearts of the people in the North of Ireland and in a determination on their part to break down the barriers that separate them.

Let the people in the North have their own differences and beliefs. Let each one have his own belief. Civilisation and religion, if they are properly understood, teach us great respect for our neighbour's beliefs and way of life. For that reason there is hope for this White Paper. I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will get the peace which they deserve. I hope that nobody will find anything controversial in what I have said. It was not meant to be in any way controversial nor in any way smug in the sense that we in the South have peace and in the North the people have not got peace. We want to use the peace which we have to help the people in the North. It is in that spirit that I spoke.

Ruairí Brugha

It is fairly obvious that the entire Northern situation could be resolved if the respective groups there were willing to come together to bring about a reasonable and acceptable solution. This could be done by them without either the aid or hindrance of Britain. We all know that disputes of all kinds have to end at the conference table. In the complex Northern situation there can be no victory for violence. Honourable compromise is the only alternative to the continuance of destruction and slaughter. I am not sure whether or not the discussion on the White Paper is wise. On balance, it probably is wise.

For many years I have been conscious of the ease with which people can talk at the expense of the lives of other people. One of the points which we should bear in mind about the White Paper is that it is a British Government document. It is legislation which is to be introduced into the Parliament of another country about the affairs of this island and the people who live on it. In that sense it is merely something to be discussed by us rather than something on which we can decide.

Very many of the more intelligent of the Unionist community are beginning to understand that the whole aim of national policy during this century has been to create a situation where decisions about Ireland should be taken in Ireland by those who live here and not by any other country or people or by the Parliament of any other island. In normal circumstances the outlook which we have in this regard would be shared by Unionists, including extreme Unionists; their own belief in their right to independence is a stronger influence with them than any form of overseas government. Were it not for the situation which was created in the North, involving two opposing sections of the community, were it not for the traditional attitude of antagonism towards us on the part of Unionists in the North, the problems of Ireland would have been resolved long ago.

One of the aspects of this particular document which can be viewed in some sense dispassionately is that it seems to go part of the way with everyone. The important thing about it is that any assembly which may develop from it, or any structures which it may create, should not have within themselves any barrier whatever to progress on this island. It should not have within it the sort of barriers which were created by the 1920 Act in which, as history has shown, Britain found herself, either intentionally or otherwise, supporting a one-sided undemocratic regime.

Some of the questions which have been touched upon bear repetition. The recent actions of the British Army create in me a serious doubt as to whether the British Government really want peace. The question of abstentionism in the future election for the Assembly in the North is an important one. The people of the Northern community deserve a chance to come together. Where abstentionism may, in some cases, be desirable such situations would be very simple ones. The situation in Northern Ireland is far more complex. Abstentionism is not likely in any way to contribute towards any peaceful solution.

The question of violence has been mentioned. None of us is under any illusion about the levels of violence. Violence has been imposed upon the people of the North. It has come in many areas from the British forces and from the two extreme elements. Britain could help to bring about a solution more rapidly if a declaration were made of Britain's interest or disinterest in the affairs of the whole of Ireland. I say that in the context in which I believe it is seen by at least some people.

Looking at the history of Britain over the centuries, and looking at the continuance of a British presence in the North, it is difficult to convince people, especially young people, that Britain's intention is not to remain in the North of Ireland for the foreseeable future. If, as I understand it, the British interest is in finding a solution to the problem of the North of Ireland, she could contribute considerably if it were declared that she does not foresee her future in Ireland as a permanent issue but rather that she would wish to be disengaged at the earliest possible opportunity.

There has been a good deal of talk about unity and about the undesirability of discussing unity. To my mind there is no question of instant unity in this country. Talk about unity is unhelpful and unconstructive when it is engaged in by people who are seen to be prepared to use any and every means, including violence, to bring about that unity. But the fact that people are prepared to use violent means does not detract from what has been described as an aspiration or the ideal of mature Irish people—the eventual unity of this country—and I do not think there is anything whatsoever to be ashamed of in saying that one would like to see a coming-together of all Irish people in the interests of all the people.

The main aim of policy, since the beginning of the century, or certainly since 1921, has been and must remain to get Irish people talking to one another about our common interests. I feel that before this could be brought about Britain herself must have reached a point in her own evolution where to her there would be no longer any benefit in maintaining a system such as we saw in Stormont or in supporting the undemocratic situation there. If this is what is in Britain's interest and she wants eventually to arrange her disentanglement from the affairs of this island, and if the British White Paper is the means by which she is proposing to do this, then we cannot, in so far as we have influence over it, ignore this document or reject it, because it may be the only opportunity that Irish people in the whole of Ireland may have to bring about a peaceful settlement of the situation in Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

I now call on Deputy Michael O'Kennedy to conclude for the Opposition.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The proposals contained in the White Paper and this discussion on these proposals should, as Deputy Brugha has stated, be placed in their proper perspective. These are proposals which emanate from the British Government in regard to the part of this country which, as many speakers have said, has suffered greatly in recent years and indeed since its foundation 50 years ago.

For that reason it is important to examine the background to this White Paper and to consider the inevitable restrictions on the potential of it, and at the same time to acknowledge the meaningful proposals that it contains, and as well, of course, to give every encouragement to those who would work towards peace and reconciliation not only in that part of our country but in the whole of the country.

Reaction to the White Paper in Northern Ireland has varied from welcome to qualified acceptance, to total opposition and in some cases even to a sense of betrayal. Therefore, I think it is important for us to tread cautiously but at the same time to recognise that there may be here an opportunity for us to show a sense of magnanimity to people who may have been betrayed by those in whom they placed the greatest trust. I am not making any value judgement on it, but those who have watched the newspaper reports since the publication of this White Paper will be able to confirm for themselves that this is so.

There is also in England a growing feeling that this Irish problem, as it is so often called, is a whole sorry mess that somehow seems to defy solution. There seems to be a very ominous development in English public opinion which would seem to suggest that the sooner they can extricate themselves from the "Irish Problem"—and the implication is that it is an Irish problem with which they have not been associated by history or otherwise— the better for all of them.

This illusion has to be corrected. The discussion which we are now having and the problems to which it relates have not just arrived from the condition of Ireland itself; in fact it may be said that, worthwhile and fair though many of these proposals are, they are belated recognition of the injustice and the lack of civil rights from which the people in that part have suffered for so long. Although this belated recognition has emerged, nevertheless it is important to state for the sake of the pride of the people of Ireland, North and South, of whatever origin, with whatever loyalty, that they themselves have not been the authors of their misfortune historically or otherwise but that there have been historical events affecting Britain and Ireland—happily forgotten now in this part of the country—which have cast them in the role in which so many of them have suffered in recent times.

This White Paper, then, is a proposal from the British Government to correct these injustices, to chart the direction for the future, to try, as it repeatedly says, to appeal to moderate people, people of goodwill, to work towards reconciliation. Which of us can say in any country that any of us have a greater predominance of people of goodwill or people of moderation?

The White Paper states the problems of the area as being violence, social, educational and economic problems. The background presented by those problems is too narrow. It ignores the whole question of the relationship between this country and Britain and the desirability of the development of further meaningful ties and associations between our two countries and between our two countries and Europe. That is referred to in the course of the White Paper but not as being a background to the question under discussion. It looks at the symptoms of the problem in Northern Ireland as they exhibit themselves in violence, fear and distrust, but it somehow seems to fight shy of looking at the actual source of the ailment. Maybe, too, fear which exists in the North towards us in the South, though obviously it is not a matter which would be appropriate to raise in the White Paper is of significance to the background of these proposals. Here, again, the need for us to look at ourselves, our institutions and our attitudes is very clear and very urgent.

There is also the fact that in recent years there has been a significant change in British private, public and official opinion towards the North of Ireland and towards this island as a whole. It is not too long since the convention in Westminster disallowed any reference to the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. It seems like light years away now that the internal affairs of Northern Ireland could not and would not be discussed in Westminster. That was so then, and a few short years later it seemed to occupy a significant amount of the time of the Westminster Parliament. A major change has occurred. A major change has occurred even since the Downing Street Declaration. Each of us welcomed it as being a statement of the principle of equality of treatment throughout all of the United Kingdom and, indeed, also in Northern Ireland but we remember too the clear statement in that declaration, which somehow seems to be a casualty of recent years, that the Border is not an issue. I do not want to go back over this but I think it has been fairly clearly recognised by all sides that for one reason or another the Border, in the broadest sense, has been recognised very much as an issue.

There have been many changes in the attitude of the British public and of the British Government. Also the restated guarantees which have been given by Westminster in some ways suggest that there is a need for these guarantees to be restated. Those of us who live in any normal condition do not need to have the guarantees of our security reiterated week in week out, year in year out, and while the guarantees have been restated they have been slightly changed and again the people of Northern Ireland have acknowledged these changes and are rather apprehensive as to what might happen next in the course of these developments.

One of the significant developments in recent times has been the plebiscite which was held in Northern Ireland. To that extent the previous guarantee that no change would occur in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland has now been changed to "without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland". This consent has been taken as having been expressed in the recent plebiscite. Most people recognised that as being a futile exercise, an exercise which would not do anything to break down the tension in that part of our country. I wonder whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs who, when in opposition expressed support for that plebiscite, has had any reason to change his view on the effectiveness or purpose of it. I know that his view was based on reason and fair play but the plebiscite does not seem to have brought us any nearer to reasonable reconciliation or to significant political development.

I state these as qualifications on this White Paper. As has been stated so often here the proposals, broadly speaking, contained in the White Paper are indeed fair and reasonable, as far as they go. The White Paper itself recognises the limitations which, of necessity, are placed on it by virtue of the condition into which it has been introduced. It reads at paragraph 15:

The solution to the Northern Ireland problem is not to be found in any set of political proposals or institutions alone however skillfully and fairly framed.

That in itself is a recognition of the fact that the proposals here relating to the Assembly, to the Executive, to fundamental rights and many other things, fair and reasonable though they may be, are not in themselves alone the answer to the Northern Ireland problem as it is, are not in themselves alone a guarantee that violence will go away and that tolerance and a sense of brotherhood and reconciliation will emerge.

One of the aspects of the White Paper which leaves something to be desired is the rather brief reference to the role of the police under the new constitutional proposals. I know it does acknowledge that it is intended to set up a new police authority and also that this new police authority will have consultations with district councils to be established in October and that representatives from the Assembly will have an opportunity of being either represented or expressing their views to that authority. All that, of course, is entirely desirable but when one talks of the Assembly, the Executive and many other instruments of Government, one has to recognise that for the man in the street in this country or in any other country, the parliament, the government, are very often very remote from his normal experience. One of the arms of government with which he is most often in touch is the police force. The attitude of the police force, the attitude of the public towards the police force, the understanding between the public and the police force, are in many ways the guarantee of well-being, security and tolerance in any society. One of the reasons for the establishment of respect for law and order in this country, where this was not a traditional characteristic because of our history, has been the respect which the community at large have for the police force. Law and order is something that cannot be enforced in confrontation but that must develop from a sense of respect, from a sense of security, from a sense of togetherness between the community and their police force. It is absolutely urgent that as soon as may be after the establishment of this Assembly the proposals which refer to the establishment of this new authority should be implemented and that the police force in the various regions of Northern Ireland should be of the people and that those who are governed should consent to be governed. They will do this only if they trust the police force which is the arm of government with which they are most closely associated. This opens up the whole question of reasonable police authorities but it is a matter that is not developed in any great detail in the White Paper and it is one that requires very urgent consideration. Otherwise the proposals for power sharing in the Executive, for representation in the Assembly, may all fail to have any impact in that Parliament and Government from which many people in many countries are very remote and their normal experience is with an arm of government, the police force.

For that reason it is important, too, that the instruments and the arms of government would be subject to stringent control and self-examination. The conduct of the paratroopers has been referred to here by some speakers. The conduct of the regiment gives rise to fear and suspicion among those people who have seen the confrontations between the regiment and the people in those areas in which they are billetted. When this type of fear and suspicion has spread in a community nothing can change it. The reputation of any regiment or police force will remain long after the events which gave rise to that reputation have been forgotten. Therefore, it is important that the agents of peace and security in any state would be recognised to be such and would not develop their programmes or pursue their work in combat alone.

The proposals in the White Paper are fair and reasonable although they are vague in parts. Perhaps that is intentional. For instance, as previous speakers have pointed out, the proposals are vague in regard to the possibility of power sharing, in regard to the selection of the heads of the committees on which the success of the constitutional proposals may very well depend, in regard to the function of the Executive and, in particular, they are vague in regard to the selection of the Executive. However, it appears that these matters will be considered after the election of the Assembly. I suppose there is much in this area that has to be vague and, to some extent, imprecise at this stage. Despite that there are proposals in the White Paper that we in this Parliament could follow usefully. For instance, there is the suggestion that there could be a pre-legislation stage for consideration in committee of certain legislation before it is brought into the House. It may well be that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has something of that nature in mind in regard to the discussion of EEC legislation or such matters but in any parliament it would be a progressive step to have these committees.

The position in regard to all these proposals is that they depend on the willingness of people to work together. It is stated in the White Paper that the Executive must be composed of persons who are prepared to work together by peaceful means for the benefit of the community. This means recognition of what is the community. This is part of the crunch of all the proposals because people must recognise the community as being a fair and just community with which they share a bond of obligation and commitment so that they can work for the betterment of that community.

It is stated in the White Paper that there is no room for ambiguity about the right of the Westminster Parliament in certain matters that have been reserved to that Parliament. It follows that neither can there be any room for ambiguity about the obligations of the Westminster Parliament. This White Paper seems to be a recognition of these obligations but such obligations can be implemented only by way of the financial arrangements that have been referred to in the White Paper after consultations with the Assembly in Northern Ireland and where necessary with the Parliament and the Government of this part of Ireland. The crunch will come with the provision of adequate finance for the development programmes in the Border areas: it will come after consultation between the Assembly and the agencies of the EEC and it will come in the willingness of all concerned in this part of the country as well as in the North and in Great Britain to work together at least towards economic and social betterment and to put nothing in the way of further co-operation between the two parts of this country.

I agree with all who say that none of us has a right to lay down the direction of this country for any other section of this country. Yet, it is recognised clearly that all of us have our aspirations and our aspirations here are of reconciliation and unity but on the definite condition that this would be a unity by consent, a unity which would acknowledge the genius and right of these people to fashion the direction of this country and in many ways to contribute more to the renewal of the spirit of this whole country than perhaps we, without them, could contribute on our own.

I turn now to the question of the Charter of Human Rights which I do not think has been the subject of much comment during the course of this debate. I would like to make some broad comments in this regard because the philosophy of this particular chapter is somewhat pale and leaves something to be desired in the whole area of human rights. The late Dag Hammarskjold said that freedom from fear could be said to sum up the whole philosophy of human rights. In this section of the White Paper and particularly in paragraphs 95 to 104 there is much detail concerning the safeguards, offices, restrictions and stipulations which, in so far as any machinery can implement human rights, one would expect would guarantee the implementation of these human rights. For instance, it is proposed to have a parliamentary commissioner for administration, otherwise known as an ombudsman. It is to be noted that we do not have any such office here.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yet.

Mr. O'Kennedy

So far the lack of an ombudsman here has not given rise to any major outcry regarding a lack of civil rights. I make this point only to illustrate that the very existence of the office itself is not necessarily a guarantee of the availability of or the functioning of these rights. It is proposed to have a council for complaints— something that is not anticipated for this part of the country. There is to be a statutory agency to investigate discrimination in private employment even to the point of being entitled to bring a civil action for damages against those who would withhold civil rights. There is to be a community relations commissioner and, above all, there is to be a standing advisory commission for the purpose of co-ordinating the activities of the various offices and commissions.

The functions that are given to these various offices in this White Paper are clear and precise but we must ask the question whether the people who have put forward these proposals see in those offices the guarantee that normal civil rights will flow freely and spontaneously or whether they think it is necessary that the whole structure of rights be surrounded with this very complex but fair system of supervision. Paragraph 105 states:

In circumstances where the individual will be protected by a comprehensive charter of human rights, the community as a whole can properly seek from him an acknowledgement of its own rights.

The crunch here is that the community will only get an acknowledgement of its rights from an individual when the individual recognises his duty to that community. Gandhi said about rights and duties that rights accrue automatically to him who duly performs his duty. What we are anxious to see achieved in that part of our country is the normal flow of human rights to those who see their duty as that of working towards and living in reconciliation. I have some reservations that this rather complex machinery of supervision and implementation of rights now evolving to a certain extent may hide from the community the simple basic fact that the most fundamental rights are only those they are prepared to give to themselves. If man accepts the community as a just and fairly based one, the most important and cherished civil rights will flow freely and will be duly acknowledged.

The direction for the future of Northern Ireland and the country as a whole, and even the relationship between the two countries, as yet has not emerged from the White Paper. The White Paper was not intended to be the solution and it would be unfair to regard it as such at this stage. The possibilities for co-operation between this Government, this Parliament and the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament must be explored and developed further. This has not received very much notice in the White Paper apart from the reference to the Council of Ireland which seems to be tied up with preconditions. I think the views of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition are that the Council of Ireland and the negotiations should be open-ended and without preconditions.

The potential for us in the EEC and with regard to the regional policy of the Community is great and consultations between our Governments in this area are important. Paragraph 115 of the White Paper states:

But it would require either exceptional vision or exceptional foolhardiness to forecast the future development of relationships involving North and South in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the British Isles and Europe.

I suggest this is precisely what is required at this time—exceptional vision, possibly exceptional foolhardiness, but at least the courage to know we must make our contribution.

We must acknowledge that people in the North with the various traditions have a real contribution to make in their own right to the development of this island, to the association between this island and Britain and to the development of an association between these islands and Europe. For too long they have been prisoners of the past. Events have dictated that at frequent and regular intervals this House has discussed the conditions of our fellow-Irishmen in the North. I should like them to realise we do not regard this as our special right, we do not look on it as an indication of our smug superiority. It would be a healthy practice if some time the Assembly would have a discussion on conditions in this part of our island and between us we could fashion the future for which the White Paper has laid down constitutional proposals.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

This has been a somewhat mixed debate. There have been many constructive contributions from both sides of the House. In fact, I have listened to one for the last 30 minutes and to several speeches before that. There has been a significant difference in tone in the speeches from the other side, ranging from Deputy Blaney's speech, which perhaps was not unexpected in its tone and content, through to Deputy Brennan who said a number of things which diverged very much in emphasis from that of later Opposition speeches, to Deputies Colley, Wilson, Brugha and O'Kennedy. I regret I was temporarily absent from the House during Deputy Wilson's maiden speech. I am told it was a constructive contribution, as I had expected it to be, and I am sorry I missed it.

On this side of the House we would regret if the change of Government led to any step backward by the Opposition, if it weakened the cohesion of the Opposition in maintaining their policy approach towards which they had moved during the past three years under the leadership of Deputy Lynch. Before the change of Government there seemed to be from what was said a fair measure of agreement on policy on the other side and between the parties.

There was an acceptance that there was no solution through violence, by offering violence to anyone, even the British Army. A comment was made in rather unfortunate wording by Deputy Lemass but in the light of his other comments perhaps he did not intend it to sound as it did. There was an acceptance that there is no solution to be found by the British simply withdrawing, by abdicating their responsibility and leaving behind them a mess for the Irish to clear up. Neither was a solution to be found by the British pressing, pushing or shoving one part of the Irish people on top of the other part. Fundamentally the problem is one we have to resolve with help, assistance and patience from our neighbour who, historically, has been responsible for the problem in the first case.

There has been acceptance of the principle that reunification should come only by consent. This is the position which was adopted by this party very specifically in 1969 and I welcomed reaffirmation of this principle by Deputy Colley, although I was not in agreement with everything he said. He said that the message he wished to send to the people in Northern Ireland was: "We want you to join us by consent but if you are not prepared to do so at this time we will continue to aspire to unity by consent." I am glad there is a consensus on this and I hope it will not be broken in any way. We have arrived at this somewhat painfully during the past few years and it is the only possible basis for progress.

I am afraid there is some muddled thinking on the part of some people. I wish to put forward a proposition with which most people agree. First, we aspire to the unity of our country and nothing anyone has said has ever suggested otherwise. An attempt was made before and during the election campaign and in this House today to suggest that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in some way does not share that aspiration and aim. Nothing he has ever said suggests that and any attempt to divide the Government on that will get no place. Secondly, we aspire to unity but recognise it can be achieved only by consent. If we accept that proposition—that is the message that came from Deputy Colley and it has come from this side of the House consistently for the past four years— certain things follow from that. Yet they seem to be absolutely logical corollaries of it and if we could only get this sorted out once and for all we could go ahead together on a very constructive course. First, and most obviously, if we believe in unity by consent then any type of attempt to force unity by violence is out. Any support, or sympathy, of any kind for the Provisional IRA, or any other IRA is out and there should be no echoes of such sympathy in this House or outside it.

Secondly, if we believe in unity by consent then we must recognise that the majority in Northern Ireland have fears. These fears exist. We believe that they are ill founded. Some of them are based on the most extraordinary myths about us in this part of the country which would be shattered if the people concerned would only visit us more frequently, but the fears are there. Here, I think, we have a difficulty because Deputy Brennan says that all this talk of Unionist fear is bogeyman stuff but the point is not whether the fear is justified; the point is that the fear is there. If it is there then surely it is incumbent on us to do nothing that will encourage it, to do nothing that will give substance to it, nothing that will enable anybody of ill will in Northern Ireland to twist anything said down here into justification for that fear.

Yet, I am afraid, that is not always recognised or followed, even in this House. Again, if we believe in unity by consent then we must recognise that these fears do have some basis that gives them a colour of justification, that there are features of our Constitution and laws and practices that are unacceptable, not merely to hard line Unionists but, frankly, to any self-respecting Protestant in Northern Ireland. These are things we must look at hard in the face and be prepared to change if we are serious about seeking unity by consent. This can only come if and when our society is such that a self-respecting moderate Protestant in Northern Ireland would want to be part of it. Again, unity by consent, will not be achieved if we seek to undermine guarantees or assurances that reunion would only come by consent. There is a lot of double think here.

Deputy Brennan spoke of guarantees and assurances not being necessary. He said that if the British had not given certain guarantees many more people would be thinking of unity today. But if we believe in unity by consent then we can scarcely fault an assurance being given by others in Britain that they share our view and that unity by consent means that they will not be forced into unity unless they give that consent. I cannot see how one can justify a double think which resents a guarantee from the British Government that something will not happen which we say we do not want. Here, I think people do not always think straight and Deputy Brennan did not appear to be thinking straight on this point.

He suggested that we seek an assurance from Britain other than reunification by consent. I do not think he was speaking on behalf of the Opposition but very much on his own account when he asked us: "Are we going to ensure that we get from the United Kingdom an assurance that this, this reunification, is at the end of the road, an assurance other than that of reunification by consent?"

There is no assurance we seek other than that reunification by consent and if we start saying that we want the British to start telling us that they are going to ensure at some point in the future the ending of this without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland then we are on the road to a civil war of the worst possible kind. We are asking another country to impose a solution on Irish people at the point of a gun. That is not reunification by consent and on this also Deputy Brennan did not seem to be thinking very clearly.

I would address myself also to Deputy Colley who says that if we believe in reunification by consent then this does not help, it cannot help, to talk about our claim on the Six Counties. He talked of abandoning our claim on the Six Counties to the British and of abandoning our claim to national unity. If we go on thinking of a territorial claim and if our approach is that we are asserting a territorial claim to the territory of the Six Counties, that could never lead to unity by consent. Any self-respecting Irishman, North or South, would get his back up to ensure that he does not have anything to do with the people who are seeking to assert such a claim. If that is our approach it is the opposite to seeking unity by consent and it merely undermines that programme.

There are various ways in which we could achieve reunification of this country. It could be achieved by illegal armies, it could be achieved by an illegal army of our own, by the British Army forcing it. These are all methods none of which would commend itself to this House and this House is firmly committed to the principle of reunification by consent. That being so, the assertion of a claim to the territory of the Six Counties, to talk of abandoning it, is unhelpful. It cannot lead towards that end. It can only lead us away from it.

Having said so much as a general introduction, let me come now to the White Paper. First of all, let me say that this Government's first concern on taking office was that they should do what they could to ensure that this White Paper would be as constructive and helpful as possible. The House will recall that the Government took office on 14th March. The British Government met the next morning to consider this matter. Owing to the time of the election—on this I fault the Leader of the Opposition—which came at a time which would mean that the new Government would take office at the very beginning of the period within which we were told back in January that the White Paper would be drawn up and announced, there was very little time. However, it is to the credit of this Government that the views of this Government, formed on the night of 14th March, reached the British Government in the middle of the following morning in a well thoughtout form, after considerable work having being put into it to ensure that the particular point we felt should be stressed would be put before the British Government. That was reasonably prompt action.

May I refer to the recurrent story about my visit to the British Prime Minister, echoed today by Deputy Lynch, to the effect that the Taoiseach had not much prior knowledge of this visit? The question of my visit was discussed and approved and before the meeting ended Mr. Heath's agreement to the visit had been received. How anybody can conceivably think that the visit was done without the consent or agreement or knowledge of the Taoiseach I cannot imagine. Perhaps in the previous Government things happened in that way. They certainly do not in this Government.

That is how it happened. We were grateful that the British Prime Minister found it possible to see me at such short notice and that I was given an opportunity of reinforcing what we had said in our note that morning and elaborating on some points, that I had an opportunity of discussing points which were not clear and which could be developed further by way of question and answer. That was a constructive and useful visit. A lot of people just do not like to see me visiting anywhere at the moment—unless I stay quitely at home I will be constantly in trouble in this House and outside it.

Now I come to the question of the White Paper itself. The provisions in respect of power sharing are, of course, complex and subtle in their presentation. They include important vital guarantees without which there never could be a reconciliation of the communities in Northern Ireland after all that has happened, with the guarantee that the executive will no longer be based on any single party if that party draw their support and selected representation almost entirely from only one section of the divided community. It is a guarantee that power will not be concentrated in the elected representatives of one community only and that the executive must be people who are prepared to work together by peaceful means for the benefit of the community. That is a very appropriate way of stating the degree of consensus necessary and is a long way from some of the requirements laid down by some politicians in Northern Ireland that the people must agree with them on this or on that before they will go into Government with them.

All of us in this House hope that the majority that will emerge from the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland will be one prepared to work this system, prepared to work together in an Executive. They will differ in their views in many things but if they are people who are prepared to work together by peaceful means for the benefit of the community, then we could be on the path of reconciliation in the North which is, as the Taoiseach said in opening this debate, a precondition towards any progress towards closer relations and eventual political unity in this island.

Deputy Blaney suggested that the 1920 model of the Council of Ireland was better than that proposed in the White Paper. He said it was more specific, that it laid down that there would be 20 on each side attending the meetings. I think the right kind of Council of Ireland would be one not imposed by a British Act of Parliament, imposed without consulting anybody and gaining no support from any section of this community as was the case in the 1920 Act. The White Paper Council of Ireland is one that will evolve from consultations between Irish people North and South working together towards a solution with the goodwill of the British Government. That is the kind of Council of Ireland that could emerge—one cannot at the moment say more than that—from the discussions and developments of the months ahead.

Mention has been made of the importance of entry into these discussions without pre-condition. Of course, that is something which our Government immediately made clear, and the Opposition support us on this. Obviously, the only kind of discussion that can be helpful is one without pre-conditions. If pre-conditions are imposed on one side, they will be imposed on the other side, and you do not get to first base. Pre-conditions of any kind are merely an obstacle to successful negotiations.

Just to summarise briefly, we believe that the kind of Council of Ireland that we should like to see emerge—although these are matters open to discussion; we are not trying to impose a hard and fast pattern— it should be bi-partite; it should be a Council of Ireland, of Irish people North and South. It will need, of course, the close co-operation of the British Government. The British Government, initially and, indeed, in the course of the life of the council at different times will have to delegate functions to it, and provide some of the finance for the things it will be doing. Basically, we believe that the council itself should be bi-partite and should be a Council of Irish people working together. It must include a decision-making mechanism at intergovernmental level of some kind to take decisions on a basis acceptable to the people of both parts of the country.

In order to execute these decisions the bodies will need to have executive power in functions in significant spheres and in economic spheres. It will be necessary to have a secretariat of some kind to carry out these functions, a secretariat, which in our view, should be independent rather than having people seconded from the administrations of the two parts of the country. It is desirable also—and this again is a matter for discussion as to the shape it might take—that there should be a parliamentary council, because nothing could be more healthy and useful in the long run than to have the parliamentarians of the two parts of the country sitting down together to discuss their mutual problems. Many misunderstandings could be resolved if we only talked to each other. That is a point to which I want to return again later.

Of course, the council must have a job to do. It must have specific functions to perform. Here it must be said that, perhaps, not all of us are facing the implications of this. At times I detect a feeling on the part of some people that the council will do certain things, and that Northern Ireland will transfer certain functions but that we will carry on as before. This is to be a Council of Ireland. If it is to undertake an executive function in some area, if some area—and we hope a number of important areas will be transferred to it—is transferred to it, those concerned at the moment who are working for the Irish Government whether in the public service or in State bodies will be working to the Council of Ireland in that area. We have to face that down here.

I sometimes think that we may find more obstacles at home than in Northern Ireland to progress when, as could happen, various vested interests start digging in their heels, because the path towards bringing the two parts of this island closer together and towards eventual reunification by consent will be a thorny one. Partition strikes deep roots. Not just in Northern Ireland but in this part of Ireland too, there are many people who are unconsciously and subconsciously deeply partitionist because of the effects of 50 years of division. It will not be easy to get people to accept the sacrifices and the changes and the upset which will be involved.

Above all, the council must, we believe, have power to evolve at a pace acceptable to the majority on the principle of consent. I believe that, if the Northern majority would face this, and would consider how it would work, and face the realities of it, they could find, perhaps, in this concept of a council of Ireland towards which we would direct our energies in the process of seeking closer political contact and eventual reunification by consent, a source of stability and security if, in fact, it were the case that within it progress would be made by consent and that our efforts towards reunification were concentrated in this area.

Other points have been raised. On the question of the police Deputy Colley was frank, as, indeed, we must be, in saying that he does not easily see the solution to that problem. This is in many ways the most intractable problem. None of us sees an easy solution to it. It is something to which we can apply our minds over the months ahead and try to offer some assistance. We have at least this much to offer, that, in the middle of a civil war in this country, we established successfully an unarmed police force that served the country then and has served it since in a manner that has never given rise to any of the kinds of tensions that existed in Northern Ireland. I admit it was easier for us because we did not have the same internal community conflicts. It was not all that easy to get it established and accepted during a civil war and the fact that it was an unarmed force was the key to this. This is something which I will not pursue because there is no easy answer open to us here to put forward.

We can usefully discuss the problem with people in Northern Ireland and with the British Government. We can put our heads together and try, bit by bit, to find piecemeal solution which may involve fairly radical changes in the present structure of the police force there if it is to become once again acceptable and therefore effective.

Deputy O'Kennedy said that the White Paper represents a measure of progress. It does. We have to accept that progress here must be gradual. We have to retrieve 50 years of mistakes. We are all conscious now that, over the past 50 years, it was not just in Northern Ireland that things were done which consolidated the partition of our country. We ourselves in our attitudes and the things we did, and the things we said, and the changes we made in our own part of the country over the period, did a lot to consolidate Partition and a lot to drive the two parts of the country apart, and a lot to make it more difficult for Irish people in Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, to feel a sense of identity with us. That sense of identity is not all that strong in the Catholic as well as the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. Neither is there a great sense of identity with us, a feeling that they can look to us for great support or sympathy, because we have not managed to convey a great sense of sympathy to either side.

The way ahead is difficult. I am convinced that the key to it lies very much in personal contacts. The more personal contacts I have had with people in Northern Ireland, the more evident it has become that so many of the things that stand between us are myths that derive from the absence of personal contacts. I know this is difficult. I know that, especially if one is in Government, it is difficult to make these contacts and they can be misunderstood. I regret that my recent visit and the way in which publicity came in relation to it—not from me— led to a misapprehension about the nature of my visit which was undertaken because of a commitment entered into before the election to visit the leaders of an important Protestant ghetto area of Belfast with a view to a frank consultation and dialogue with them.

In accepting that invitation it seemed to me appropriate to visit the Catholic area of the Ardoyne where there was a good deal of distress. However, as the visit was presented in the press the next morning, owing to the fact that naturally enough the people I met in the Ardoyne were more willing and anxious to have it known that I was there than the Protestants I met were anxious to have it known that I met them, the impression emerged that I had gone there to visit the Ardoyne and to take statements from people which was not in fact the intention of my visit. Indeed, it was only when I arrived there that I found that the community leaders were anxious for me to meet the people who had suffered in recent incidents. Naturally I met them and talked to them.

What I found in both communities— and above all in the Protestant community—was the enormous value of talking to people. There is no way of conveying one's sympathy and concern and interest in and the sincerity of one's feelings about the communities in Northern Ireland except by personal contact. You can make speeches and have them reported in the papers and you can talk on television but it does not make the same impact. In fact, if one goes there and talks to them in their own areas, in the area of distress, in the midst of the ruined conditions in which so many of them are living and sees the destruction around them, that makes it possible to make some progress towards trust and confidence. In talking to the Protestant group I met, who were, I understand, representative of the whole hardline Protestant leadership, as we would call it, of the area in question, I found a great willingness to talk frankly. They were more than anxious to tell me of the grievances against us and how they could not understand our attitude. They have beliefs about us which to us are incredible and which I tried to dissolve. After several hours of dialogue, very hard-hitting dialogue, they seemed to want me to come again and have another discussion. I believe that since then, despite the fact of the publicity, which one might have thought did not help, they have maintained that desire.

The more people from this House and from this part of the country who can find the time to go North and meet people in both communities and talk to them as fellow-Irishmen the better. Because we have not done this, because we have opted out, because even before the troubles started so many people down here had no real interest in it—they did not want to go to the North, they were not interested in it and they avoided it; indeed in recent years that avoidance has been on an even larger scale—this has been disastrous. Here lies the key ultimately to the solution. We should be prepared to go and meet them and show that we feel for them, Protestant as well as Catholic, to talk to them frankly, to admit that there are things down here that are wrong, not to try to cover up but to admit to the mistakes we have made and to demythologise them by telling them where in fact their beliefs about us are wrong and get that message across with sincerity and conviction. Unless we do that we will not resolve this problem which rests in the minds and hearts of bemused people living in appalling conditions, brainwashed on both sides for generations past, people whom we have done nothing to help, people, in respect of whom we abdicated our duty 50 years ago and have not fulfilled it ever since. There is, however, much there to encourage as well as to depress. Let us not mistake the fact that there are in Northern Ireland vast numbers of people working in a dedicated way to reconstruct their communities and there is there a sense of involvement in the community on either side, which is something which we have perhaps never achieved down here.

After a visit to the North soon after Christmas, to meet young youth leaders and social workers working in the two communities, I came back here with sadness because it seemed to me the work they were doing to reconcile people, to help people in their distress, to try to rebuild the community there, in all the violence that was happening, was perhaps the only really worthwhile thing to do in Ireland today, and on coming back to this part of the country I felt, in a sense, I was deserting them.

We must not mistake this. We must realise that there is much being done there of value. Our job then is to show that our concept of violence is one that involves, above all, love of our neighbour, Protestant as well as Catholic, to show that we feel for them in their agony, that we feel for the Catholics, battered by the violence of the last four years, and we feel for the Protestants, who have lost their sense of security, who now have doubts about Britain's role in relation to them, who are bewildered by what has happened to them. The answer lies not in making claims to territory, nor, indeed, in making political speeches, in this House or elsewhere. The answer lies in our ability to feel love for our fellow Irishmen in the North and our ability to express it and be seen to be sincere in expressing it.

That is the message I would like to go out from this debate. Much of the debate has been constructive and I hope that it is those parts of the debate that will be reported in Northern Ireland and that some sense of the genuine feeling of the people of this House and their concern to see this problem resolved will go forth from this House. Let us hope that the White Paper will be the beginning of a solution but it is a long road ahead, a road on which we can easily make mistakes and blunders, and probably will, but where we must at all times be trying with sincerity, conviction and determination to work towards the only solution, reunification of this country by consent which means in the first instance reconciliation, the achievement of peace with justice in Northern Ireland, within Ireland, North and South. With that achieved, the rest, please God, will follow in time.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 8 May 1973

British White Paper on Northern Ireland: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 May 1973