Yesterday I was dealing with aspects of the Sunningdale Agreement on which we had some reservations, the principal one of which was paragraph five. The Taoiseach in his speech has done nothing to remove these reservations. It may be, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court, the judgment it has given to the effect that the Government have not acted unconstitutionally in signing the Sunningdale communiqué which contained paragraph five, that the Taoiseach has not seen fit at this stage to give any explanation or any clarification of it. He may have other reasons but I do not think the one he advanced yesterday, that he must await the handing down of the Supreme Court judgment, is a sufficient reason for that.
I make no attempt to anticipate the reasons that the Supreme Court will give for its unanimous decision but the fact is that at the moment the President is regarded as the custodian of our Constitution. In the ultimate, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not any Act, legislative or otherwise, is constitutional. I say "otherwise" designedly because the Supreme Court has said that only when a matter decided by the Government is incorporated into legislation has it seisin of this particular aspect of Government administration. There are acts which the Government may do, acts any citizen or any group of citizens may do, which can be called into question as being in contravention of the Constitution. For example, we know that trade unions have taken certain actions which have been declared to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Be that as it may, only the people themselves can ultimately change the Constitution in any respect. It must be recognised that if the Sunningdale Agreement is implemented to the point of setting up the Council of Ireland there will have to be constitutional changes, changes in many areas which, perhaps, will not cause any degree of concern to the people generally. However, if paragraph 5 infringes in any way the Constitution, and indications are that it does not, but if it does only the people ultimately can decide whether article 2 of the Constitution which is the sovereignty Article in the Constitution may be changed.
What disturbs people is that Northern participants at Sunningdale have frequently and persistently given their interpretation of paragraph 5 which would seem to conflict with Article 2 of the Constitution. At the same time no interpretation or clarification is forthcoming from our representatives at Sunningdale. The attitude is that we must take Sunningdale as it is or leave it. In the circumstances it is not unreasonable for us to request clarification. I want to repeat that there are many parts of the Sunningdale communiqué with which we are in agreement and which we support; but, in supporting it, it is not unreasonable for us to question parts of it which are not readily understood or to criticise parts of it with which we do not readily agree.
The Taoiseach, in the course of his speech yesterday, mentioned on a number of occasions the need for accommodation by the different traditions of the views of each other. A reasonable sequiter of that admonition is that the Government might accommodate the views represented and expressed by our party instead of adopting the "take it or leave it" attitude. The Executive in the North is now working and as far as can be seen is working well and diligently and addressing itself to the social and economic needs of the people of the North. This is in itself a tremendous achievement; the representatives of both communities are working in harmony for the greater good of the entire community in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding that their efforts are being thwarted and frustrated by extremists on both sides who for their own reasons are trying to deny the kind of progress in extending brotherhood and in making economic and social progress in the North.
While the representatives of each tradition in that Executive make no attempt, and I believe have expressed themselves so, to dominate the other, who would have thought 25 years ago, 20 years ago or even five years ago that this would have been possible? As in the Executive so I anticipate it will be in the Council of Ireland. Five years ago when I was urging a change in the institutions of Northern Ireland and urging new methods of co-operation between North and South, I said that our aim was not to extend the domination of Dublin. That statement still holds good as far as my party and I are concerned in relation to the Council of Ireland. Even if there was a desire on the part of one side to dominate the other then the proposed structure and composition of the Council of Ireland as indicated in the Sunningdale communiqué would, I believe, make that impossible. Therefore, if the Executive in the North can work for the greater good of the people within the jurisdiction, how much more good could a Council of Ireland, power sharing or whatever one likes to call it, do for the people of the entire country?
In the minute or two remaining to me I should like to return to the amendment itself. If the Taoiseach's amendment is carried it would mean that we in this House would deliberately rescind and delete the terms of the 1949 Resolution, the unanimous resolution passed in this House. We recognise that times have changed but I charge the Members of the Government who will speak after me with telling us and spelling out, paragraph by paragraph, in what respects the 1949 resolution is not acceptable and is not relevant.
Our amendment would retain the 1949 Resolution. It would retain the terms of it, the spirit of it and the purpose of it. It would also retain three of the paragraphs of the Taoiseach's amendment but at the same time it would express, we believe, in more realistic and practical terms, the fourth paragraph of the Government amendment. I conclude by again asking whatever speakers remain on the Government side to tell us exactly, to convince us, and to convince many of their own Deputies, why, in current circumstances, the resolution of 1949 is not acceptable and why in that event our amendment should not be passed and the Government amendment should, in fact, either be defeated or not put. There is that onus on them. That is as far as I can go. My time is up.