Before Question Time I was commenting on the contribution of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to this debate. That contribution must be regarded as that of a person who will, at any price use the unfortunate situation in Northern Ireland to further his own political aims and ambitions. I am sorry to have to say that he is insincere enough to use the situation as a vehicle. The same Minister is known here, and in many other countries, for his capacity to cause trouble, whether by nature or design. It is unfortunate that he directed the debate away from the lines all Members would like it to follow.
Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975 (Seanad): Second Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
Dáil Éireann declines to give a second reading to the Bill on the grounds that it contains no provision for an all-Ireland Court, is unworkable and is inconsistent with Ireland's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and is repugnant to the Constitution, in that it contravenes Articles 3 and 38.
—(Deputy J. Lynch).
Could we get back to the Bill now?
If Deputy Harte wishes to continue on the lines I have been expounding he has only to ask. If Deputy Harte was as interested in this subject as he would like us to believe he should have been here from 10.30 this morning, as I was, listening to all the speakers, as I did, without interruption.
Fianna Fáil welcomed the Sunningdale package because we are committed to an acceptable arrangement which would help to foster and develop co-operation between Irishmen of different political traditions. Sadly enough, Sunningdale collapsed, the Executive went down and unfortunately, power sharing became an empty phrase. Since then the Coalition have not put forward any new policies or initiatives. The Coalition have been content to rely on a boast of law and order and a firm stance against the gunman. They seem to claim that law and order were created by the Coalition and that it never existed before their arrival on the parliamentary scene or, if it did, it was deficient.
No party did more to establish stable, economic and social conditions, in which there was respect for the institutions of state and our Constitution, than the Fianna Fáil Party. We had no hesitation in introducing appropriate measures to combat unlawful political violence in the past and these measures were successful. Likewise, when it was necessary to amend the Offences Against the State Act we did so in spite of the sustained opposition of men who should be sitting opposite me today but who now gladly avail of the legislation we put through. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may have a mind for each of the two nations he would like to see on this island and there can be no doubt that he has two minds on the issue of security also. How could he and the Minister for Justice have had such an extraordinary turnabout in their attitude to the Act which they so vehemently opposed only three years ago? There can be no mistake about it that when the chips were down the party that took a stand to protect the lives and property of our people were Fianna Fáil.
There are many reasons why we are against this Bill, apart from the fact that it is not necessary. For the record, I should like to tell the House that I, as much as anybody else here, and in spite of what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs might imply indirectly by half suggestion or innuendo, condemn the mindless acts of violence and numerous atrocities perpetrated since 1969, whether they stem from the Provisional IRA or any other illegal organisation. All legislation has to be examined in the context in which it is presented and that is why we see this Bill as part of the political problem involving both sides of our divided nation. We must see it as part of the Sunningdale Agreement, the principal object of which was to bring together different viewpoints in the North so that government could be shared by minority and majority and so that some means could be found to bring about an acceptable Council of Ireland which could also make recommendations about human rights. The agreements also provided for a commitment to end internment and the establishment of a commission which would recommend adequate means of dealing with violence here.
A Council of Ireland with influence over the security forces, an end to internment, and an agreed formula to control and eliminate violence would find acceptance. However, in the absence of safeguards provided by the Sunningdale Agreement, and particularly in the absence of an acceptable security force, a Bill of this kind is unacceptable and unworkable. The solution which my party have constantly proposed to deal with this problem is the establishment of an all-Ireland court with appropriate machinery to uphold the fundamental rights of all the people of Ireland and to ensure the maintenance of peace and security. There proposals have been described as unworkable but I am confident that the difficulty which some people envisage would be encountered if we set up an all-Ireland court could be overcome with the right will and a spirit of determination.
There is no doubt that such a court would require an amendment of our Constitution. We never questioned that fact. In the recent past the country had several referenda which went through very quickly without any technical or major administrative difficulties. I believe that if the Government were serious in their commitment to the Sunningdale Agreement there would have been ample time to organise an appropriate constitutional referendum. In the very vital period between the signing of the Sunningdale Agreement and the Report of the Commission there was ample opportunity to establish the machinery for an all-Ireland Council.
What happened after the power sharing Executive was set up? The Loyalists called a strike and the British Government sat back like a toothless bulldog wrongly entered in a race for greyhounds. They allowed the essential lifeline to be cut off. This was the most audacious breach of a treaty by any sovereign government in modern times, except for the acts of dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini. We must ask ourselves what did our Government do in the meantime? They sat quietly by. It was almost as if they were fatalistic about the agreement from the start. They had nothing to say about the greatest example of treaty-breaking since the breaking of the Treaty of Limerick.
I will go further and say that the Government determined the squelching of all the positive elements of the Sunningdale Agreement by setting up a Law Enforcement Commission and the production of their report was a sine qua non to the implementation of any aspect of the Sunningdale Agreement. This was clearly a misrepresentation because if one studies the Sunningdale Agreement one will read the Government's pledge to bring about a change in the law to facilitate prosecutions for murders, wherever they were committed. This change was to be brought about immediately. I accept that the Government published a statutory instrument under the Offences Against the person Act, 1851, to give effect to that pledge but we all know that this procedure had not been invoked or in any way utilised by the authorities. Yet, it was announced with a fanfare of trumpets as though the Minister for Justice and the Government had written a new Constitution. So much for the urgency of the situation.
It is now accepted on all sides that you cannot have extradition for political offences or offences committed with a political motive. It is well known that no country has been stronger in asserting this idea of non-extradition for politically motivated offences than the British themselves. Yet now it appears they are trying to foist a different rule of law on us. I would remind the Government that we have a very highly developed sense of the rule of law here which is absent in England. There the various police forces, which are not under central authority, have been subjected to many inquiries and accusations of breaches of fairness in procedure which would not apply to our police force. In that context, we should stay well back from the suggestion that we have in a sense a bargain-basement type of legal procedure simply to satisfy the quirks of the British Tory Press.
We accept, especially in the early days of violence in the North, that a number of well-known characters came South. The fact that they could roam at will in the Republic was a matter of notoriety. I would remind the Minister and the Government that at present practically all the horrible acts being committed in the North are the responsibility of the people living in the North, whether Republicans or others. Is there any evidence that these criminals flee to the Republic and are not apprehended at the present time? Do the Garda not use their powers extensively under the Offences Against the State Act to bring prosecutions alleging membership of illegal organisations and are they not successful? Any of these people or those committing acts of violence in London or other cities who come to the Republic can be dealt with under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. Since that Act came into effect I think the numbers coming here are few and far between.
The present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said in the Dáil on 29th November, 1972, that he could not possibly, without utterly discrediting himself, do anything save support the stand by his party, which was a unanimous stand by that party against the Bill. Later in the debate he said that unless a new Government repealed it, it could be the law for a very long time. These were the words used by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who today in this House made what I consider to be a most dangerous and unfortunate contribution to this debate. If this Minister for Posts and Telegraphs talks about discrediting himself because of what he was doing in 1972—it is not so long ago; it is just three years practically to the month and almost to the day— he could well examine his conscience and see whether or not he has succeeded in discrediting himself, as he said he would. He did say that, unless a new Government came into office to repeal that measure, it could be the law for a very long time. Those are his words. The measure is still in existence, still being operated and used by those who made their contributions in November, 1972, on the lines I have outlined. In our submission the amendment to the Offences Against the State Act was a most effective measure, the most effective that could be enacted, together with the activation of the Special Criminal Court to combat the serious problem with which it is now alleged this Bill will deal.
Turning to the practical difficulties of implementing the Bill, I should like to refer once more to the Statutory Instrument promulgated by the Government in December, 1973. Its title is Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 (Section 9) Adaptation Order, 1973. It was designed to give effect to the Government's commitment in the Sunningdale Agreement and, as far as I know, nobody has been prosecuted in the last 100 years for a murder committed elsewhere. I gather the purpose of the order was to streamline procedure. Even in the days when this country was part of the United Kingdom that particular measure was never implemented and at the time this order was promulgated the Fianna Fáil Party predicted it would remain a dead letter since it was clearly impracticable and would not work. The Minister for Justice said he thought it would work. The fact is there has not been a single attempt to activate that particular order. That being so, we must ask ourselves now: is this piece of legislation anything more than window-dressing and, if it is nothing more than window-dressing, what is the purpose of the window-dressing? We have no obligation to the British to enact reciprocal legislation to please them. I know that Members of this House, people like the Government Chief Whip, may say we have an obligation on the grounds of common humanity to stamp out terrorism. I say we have a far more feasible plan in our proposal for an all-Ireland court, a proposal the Law Enforcement Commission would in all probability have recommended had they not been under the impression that time was of the essence. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs was quoted in one of our daily papers as being in favour of an all-Ireland court.
We believe that this Bill, if it becomes law, will remain a dead letter like the Statutory Instrument to which I have referred. In the Schedule there is a list of offences which can be tried in the Republic if committed in the North of Ireland. The list includes murder, manslaughter, common law offences of arson, Kidnapping, false imprisonment, malicious damage, explosive offences, robbery, burglary, firearms offences and the unlawful seizure of aircraft and vehicles. The court to try these offences will be the Special Criminal Court. We all know that court has a very heavy workload. I think it works longer terms and hours than any other court. I should like to pay tribute now to the personnel of that court for the dedicated service they have given, a very valuable service indeed, and not alone to the court but also to the staff attached to the court. It has been a model of rectitude and fairness. We all share the concern that this court will not become a permanent feature of our legal structure. The right to trial by jury is guaranteed in the Constitution and we would wish a return to that situation as early as possible. The court is designed to deal with quite exceptional circumstances.
Were the judges constituting this court consulted about this Bill? Were their views sought? If they were the Minister has an obligation to tell us whether the judges agree with this Bill. If their views were not sought we are entitled to ask why not. They will be expected to activate the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law. There is the further point that most of the evidence will be taken on commission in the North before a judge in the North. That will entail the members of the Special Criminal Court and, I presume, the Registrar and whatever other staff may be necessary, moving lock, stock and barrel to a venue in the North of Ireland and sitting silently on one side while evidence is taken before the Northern Ireland High Court judge.
It goes without saying that in 99 cases out of 100 the accused will not agree to deliver himself in custody to the Northern Ireland authorities and it is fair, therefore, to presume he would be absent from the proceedings. Trial on indictment is never heard in the absence of an accused except in the most exceptional circumstances— where, for example, the accused creates such a disturbance as to frustrate the entire proceedings. What we are now attempting to legalise here is trial in which all the evidence will be given on commission in the absence of the accused, something which is totally unacceptable since it is at variance with the constitutional guarantees of fairness in procedures.
In rejecting this Bill we clearly recognise and accept that we have an obligation to put forward other solutions. Law and order is a matter which should not be considered in isolation. Sunningdale has collapsed without so much as a whimper from the Government. No attempt has ever been made at a rescue effort or at getting the British Government to move along the lines we put forward recently in our policy statement. The promotion of peace with justice for all sections of the community, together with the promotion of the rule of law and the putting down of violence, are matters that are spancelled together, so to speak. There is no way effectively to take any one on its own.
I have discarded and opposed the method proposed by the Government in this Bill and have dealt with our preference for the all-Ireland court method. This could have been implemented if the Government had had the wish to agree to the suggestion but they made no effort in this regard. It will be recalled that this method was interpreted by the commission as involving, and I quote from paragraph 9 of the report:
...the creation of a special uniform code of substantive law and legal procedure to deal with politically motivated crimes of violence, the institution of a new and separate court to administer that code, having jurisdiction over the whole island, and the appointment of judges to that court by a procedure to be agreed between the Governments.
By that method we should have uniformity in our laws, a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms as well as control over the police and an effective instrument to put down crimes of violence while at the same time safe-guarding the rule of law. That is our proposal. It is the line we believe the Government should be taking.
I do not wish to deal at any length with the Bill but there are a few observations I should like to make and with which Deputies should concern themselves. The Minister gave the legal reasons for the Bill's introduction. He explained in reasonable detail the attitude of the Government in arriving at these conclusions. However it would appear from the discussions since the Minister's contribution that the sole concern is in respect of the violence in Northern Ireland. During the past six years in that part of the country there have been atrocities ranging from the mutilation of children in prams to the mutilation of old age pensioners and to the gunning down of a showband. As one Belfast surgeon said to me recently, they have committed every crime in the North with the exception of eating their young. Yet the only contribution we can make is to go back on the political jargon of what we would like to see happening in that part of the country. All we can offer are pious platitudes as to what the Northern communities should do to arrive at the levels of democracy that we would wish for them. That is all we can do after six years of shame, of despair and of the curse that is the Northern situation.
We all forget that the power of this House is limited to the boundaries of the Republic, that we do not have the power to legislate for Northern Ireland, to tell these people what to do. It is not with any pride I say that. People who are well meaning, who are concerned with their use of words, use the simplest language in the hope that in the end the problem will go away, that some morning we will all wake up to find that it was only a bad dream. However, that is not the reality. It is not possible to fight a war of yesterday. Therefore we, as public representatives, have the obligation to see clearly that the power we have been given, and the purpose for which we were elected, is to create a society in this part of the country which we can all be proud of, a society in which, we would hope, our Northern brothers would look on us as their brothers.
The conflict is recognised clearly as being between two groups of Irish people whose only difficulty has been that they have never discovered a political system to which both can give their loyalty and their consent. We can talk about republicanism, nationalism, unionism, orangeism and all the other "isms" and in so doing add to the confusion and the despair. But the fact remains that as a people we have not yet been able to find political institutions which will embrace the Thirty-two counties, an Ireland to which the nationalist, unionist and all others can give their consent. This is the challenge. We must realise that in the present circumstances the Northern Unionist cannot be coerced by any means into joining our society. Where do we lay the blame for this? Do we blame the salesman who is trying to sell or do we blame the customer who is not interested in the commodities being offered?
If this whole question concerns the reunification of this country the obligation rests clearly with us in the Twenty-six counties to persuade the Northern Unionists that their true and rightful place is as part of the Irish nation. All those people who believe passionately in a united Ireland, who believe that if the British were to go, a solution would be found, are missing the point. All those militants who use guns and bombs, who step outside the laws of parliamentary democracy, who are misguided but who are sincere in what they are doing, fall into the trap of not realising that the only group of people who can provide a united Ireland are the loyalists of the Northern part of this country. Fianna Fáil can claim to be the republican party. The National Coalition can claim to have a monopoly over the Opposition in regard to bright ideas. Provisional Sinn Féin can crazily think of reunification. Official Sinn Féin can dream of a different approach and the IRSP can campaign with the mad notion of creating an all-embracing socialist republic.
The fact is that the only people who can provide a united Ireland and those who are totally against it are the Loyalist Unionist Protestants in Northern Ireland. If we could realise that the people whom we are insulting, offending, whom we consider to be our enemies, the people whom we have been told are pro-British, are the only people through whom unification could be achieved we would be on the right road to attaining it.
As a public representative I am against a united Ireland until such time as people like Glen Barr, William Craig, Ian Paisley and other people who make up the UUUC can ask us to discuss the reunification of Ireland, until there is a situation where we can respect each other and can together run this society as an adult Christian people. It is codology and nonsense to be putting to death innocent children, old people who do not want to die: we cannot have a united Ireland without the consent of the loyalist people.
Fianna Fáil have called on the British to withdraw. This has been past phraseology by them and by other parties. It was a fair basket in which to gather votes at election times, this seeking for a declaration by the British to withdraw, to withdraw their financial subsidies and to withdraw their soldiers to barracks. That has been a slogan paraded before the Irish people and the Irish people believed this was a rational and a reasonable demand.
There is a different dimension to all this. How do the Loyalist people see it? I do not mind what Fianna Fáil or anybody else will say, but is it not a fact that when the Northern community see the militancy of Sinn Féin the name of the reunification of Ireland they cannot separate the Catholic population who reject the actions of these people from the people who commit the violence? It is impossible for an ordinary person born in a Protestant community in Northern Ireland and brought up in that tradition to separate the 2 per cent of the Catholic community known as the IRA from the entire Catholic community in the area. When people in the South call on the British Army to get out, the Loyalist in the North sees that as a move by the southern community, who are in cahoots with the IRA, to get the British out so that they can get at them—the real enemy.
I ask Fianna Fáil to consider whether certain words from politicians in the South are not equally as dangerous as the bombs and bullets which kill people. I do not criticise the politicians of the past as much as those of the present. I am not too sure what, in the early days of this State, my attitude would have been. I should like to think it would have been an endeavour to understand the issues at stake and to support the people whom I believed were right. I can forgive the people who calculated wrongly in those days and who caused an honourable divide between brother Irishmen. In the height of emotion people can calculate wrongly, can make mistakes, but what I find difficult to forgive is that after nearly 60 years of self-Government we are again making the same mistakes. We are ranting and raving about history without looking at present reality. Surely history should have taught us the lesson that we should not make the same mistakes again.
I do not want to get into a controversy on this but I submit that the recent statement by Fianna Fáil calling for a British withdrawal, and referred to by Deputy Haughey in today's national newspapers, has been criticised by both communities in Northern Ireland, all sections of them, and that it has been coolly received in the South and totally rejected if we look at the West Mayo by-election result. If our statements to the Northern community that we would not coerce them into unification are correct, then there is no purpose in making the type of statement Fianna Fáil have made.
If we say to the Northern community, "We will not use force", we must make it clear that if we are not going to use force ourselves we will prevent other people from using force in our name, because no matter how many times we state publicly that we have no connections with Provisional Sinn Féin, Official Sinn Féin or any other subversive organisation in this island, we will not impress the Northern community by words any more. We have let them down too many times for them to say, "We will take your word for it".
The only way we can get that message through to the Northern community is by action in the area of this island where our writ runs. In a recent speech in Maynooth I referred to this fact and stated that the Northern community had the greatest admiration for the Southern Government and the Garda for the manner in which they handled the kidnapping case and the determination with which they saw it through to the end with without giving in to the kidnappers. There is no question that actions speak louder than words, and if we say "We will not use force, we will seek peaceful means, we will not coerce", the logical conclusion should be: "We are not going to force you into a political system before you wish it". The logic of that, as I understand it, is that we are giving them the privilege to opt out. If we are giving them that privilege to opt out, why are we not manly enough to recognise this and accept the fact as it is?
The reunification of this country would appear to many people to be one thing: the Border will be taken away; the telephone kiosks in Northern Ireland will be pained green; the flag will change over the city hall in Belfast; we will transform the RUC and put them into the uniforms of the Garda; we will remove the customs border posts. That is about the limit of the thinking on reunification of Ireland.
I am proud of the fact that I belong to county Donegal. I love the county. I spend many hours in relaxation along its beaches, its mountains, its rivers and its streams. I feel at home in Donegal, but what would Donegal mean to me if there were no people in it? What would Ireland mean to any Irishman if there were no people? The reunification of Ireland is about people and not about joining two territories that are now governed by different political systems, and if it is about uniting people, the only people who are against reunification at the moment are the Loyalist population. The only way we can persuade them to come with us is by friendship, understanding and compassion, by forgetting the past and forgetting the mistakes of yesterday. It is not all black and white. We are not the goodies and they the baddies. There are good and bad on both sides and a grey in between.
I meet many of these people and I find them to be very warm and hospitable. We disagree on political thinking, and if we could settle that political difference, the group which would make the greatest contribution socially and economically to the future of this island would, without question, be the hard-thinking Presbyterian from Belfast and the suburbs. May I make this, I suppose, vain appeal to the Opposition Party to reconsider their attitude to Northern Ireland? No party in this House has a monopoly of ideas. No individual in this House has the wisdom to find all the answers. We can make a contribution but only in conjunction with the elected representatives of the Northern community, and when I say "elected representatives of the Northern community" I mean all those people who would like to make a contribution to us either publicly or in private conversation.
There are no kudos any more for a political party who for very shallow reasons—perhaps only wanting to be different—go out on a limb and present a different policy for Northern Ireland. It is not so very long since I was a boy listening to my father talking about Northern policies. I did not know what he meant then but I know now what he meant when he said that Northern Ireland should not be party politics in the South. For many years that was a cliché to me, but it now makes sense. It should not be party politics in the South. Regrettably I say the only people who are keeping it in party politics in the South are the politicians of the South.
I am convinced that the ordinary people who make up the South of Ireland do not want politicians to be in conflict about what way Northern policies should be designed to meet the needs of the moment, in other words, to restore or help to restore peace, without giving up our aspirations to national reunification and recognising the reality of the situation.
I am convinced that the ordinary person, whether he votes Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, rejects the idea that Northern Ireland should be party politics in the South. Therefore the politicians are failing in this regard if they are not manly enough to rise above their own level and find a national policy produced by Dáil Éireann which will mean to the Northern community that no matter what Government are in power down here the attitude of the people of the South will be as spelt out by us in this House. Any individual elected who disagrees with the policy of Dáil Éireann in relation to Northern Ireland still has the democratic right to come in here and say so or make all the speeches he wants to make. But he speaks for no one but himself when he makes that statement.
I should like more people to do as does Deputy Ruairí Brugha—to go and talk to people of the opposite section of our community in the North because there are different levels of thinking. We are looking at one level; the dimension is much deeper. We could talk at length at different stages of development along the lines of progress. We cannot get away from the reality that if we want to make a contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and to normal political development there our role is confined to the Republic of Ireland as far as action is concerned. If we do find ourselves talking about the North let us do so with some informed opinion, not based on history, political gain or pride in getting our name in the paper. That makes no contribution. The only people who have been fooled in this political game that has been going on for far too long are the Nationalist, Catholic, Republican people in Northern Ireland—putting them in that bracket—the anti-Unionist group. We, as a people in the South, never encouraged them to take part in the institutes or running of the State in Northern Ireland because we did not recognise the right of the Northern com-Unionists or of the Northern community to govern themselves. We encouraged the Nationalist people of the North to withdraw their support. At the same time we made them belive that we could reunite this country and that, one day, they would be justly rewarded by being part of an Irish nation. We put them in the limbo of not being part of a Northern State and being unable to join a Southern State. They are the people who have suffered.
The complacency with which we have looked at Northern Ireland over the last 50 years must be the responsibility of southern society to some degree. It cannot be right to say that the maladministration, job discrimination and the corruption of the old Stormont were the only reasons for the civil unrest that has existed there for the last five or six years. Undoubtedly they have contributed; undoubtedly there has been the failure on the part of the Northern politicians to find a political system under which Catholics would give consent to be governed. Undoubtedly they were blind and, had they been a little wiser, things that have happened over the last six years might not have happened. But it is too easy to say that they are totally to blame. I do not think it pleasant that I would be part of a society that would allow this to happen. As an individual, I suppose I could say that I did not contribute. But, as part of a southern society, I cannot get away from the responsibility that I do share part of that blame, and any other individual living here must accept that responsibility; to shed crocodile tears for the minority living north of the Border is but a political game. We taught them to hate; we taught them to fight, by song, by history, by romanticising the past. While I know it might be sub judice to go into one particular detail —there is one young lady who has been in the public eye over the last fortnight or three weeks——
The Deputy must not refer to a matter that may be sub judice.
Then I shall drop it. We criticise people who find themselves in subversive organisations, particularly teenagers or people in early life; we do not stop to think that they have grown up in a society we have tolerated and that political leaders have not had the courage to come to terms with the changes necessary to embrace a society that would be Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. We might ask ourselves: what way would our teenage children react if they were living in Northern Ireland, or in what way would we have reacted as teenagers in such a society?
I do not live that far from the Border. I have the experience of knowing families who have been trying to keep their children out of conflict. Only recently I told a story which comes to mind again of an evening spent on the Falls Road in Belfast, where a priest told me he had spent the whole morning talking to a class of 12- to 14-year-olds explaining to them how futile it was to be throwing stones at British soldiers. The story is that he left the school feeling very satisfied that he had persuaded most of that class of the wrongs of their ways. On his way back to the parochial house he noticed that three or four of those children were again throwing stones. He asked one of them: "Why" and the reply he got was: "Father, they called me chicken". This gives us an insight into the way people of that age group will react when they are travelling in groups, as is the normal thing for children everywhere to do.
I do not know whom one should blame, whether it should be the politicians who refuse to change the laws, who refuse to have open dialogue with each other, who, for reasons I find difficult to understand at times, resent speaking to each other. Or is it church leader who have failed? Or the people themselves who do not want change? I do not know, but it is reasonable to say that the changes which were needed did not take place, resulting in civil conflict in the North of Ireland. We do not pay the cost. We can live in reasonable comfort in the south. In many ways the whole thing is totally abstract; it could be happening in Vietnam, but to the ordinary person living in the conflict areas of Belfast, the murder triangle, Newry, or of Derry—who cannot get away from it, who for economic reasons cannot leave it—this is the price they pay. Or it may be the innocent bystander who merely happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the person whose name is similar to that of a name on an assassination list, or to the casual observer standing at a shop window whose throat is cut by flying glass from a bomb inside, or the street in a pram by its mother; these are the people who are paying the price. We have not had to pay much of a price here.
We know immediately after the bombing in Dublin the resentment and the feeling of hatred the southern Ireland community had towards the Protestant paramilitaries who claimed responsibility for this. If we could magnify that by the number of times this has happened in Belfast, Derry and the various other places in the North of Ireland, surely we could not fail to realise the type of feeling that must be in the minds of the Protestant people in the North when the IRA claim responsibility for what happens there?
It is for this, among other reasons, that I am supporting this Bill. I have had to live in a society in Donegal where people on the run from Northern Ireland lived in caravans and other settlements in different parts of the country. Some of them were wanted for shooting soldiers and policemen and others were wanted for robbing banks. I was expected to live in a community where everyone knew that living in a particular area there were people wanted for murder. It was so unreal that I was ashamed their misguided deeds were done under the pretence of furthering reunification and the cause of Irish freedom—had those people been killed they would have gone straight to heaven because they had given their lives for the freedom of Ireland. Such is the crazy thinking.
It is wrong that persons who commit crimes against society can live freely in the same parish and within a mile radius of the scene of the crime, without the police force on this side of the Border putting a finger on them. I do not believe any person can support that type of society. While at times we may say the people who commit those acts are misdirected, they cannot be totally forgiven. They must be rehabilitated at some time or other. The most destructive policy that southern society could put forward as a means towards reunification is to allow people with no mandate other than the point of a gun to speak on behalf of the vast majority of the people in this part of Ireland.
The Civil Rights movement in the North of Ireland contributed more to the reformation of political thinking in Northern Ireland than all the violence that has taken place since. If we had had the courage of our convictions at that time and had told the people who were causing confusion in the ranks of the Civil Rights movement—people who believed in nothing other than destruction, violence, bombs and guns—that if they broke the law in any part of this island we would charge them for it, there would not have been as many heroes rushing across the Border into the safe refuge of the Republic of Ireland.
Deputy Collins said that the Fianna Fáil Party are in no way associated with the Provisional IRA. We can make all the glossy speeches we want as a Government and say that we will condemn the IRA and they do not speak for us. But so long as we tolerate a situation where people can be identified as being on the same side as us by the Northern loyalist community, the Northern loyalists will surely make up their minds, and probably justifiably so, that we are all the same, that we have links with the Provisional IRA or subversive organisations.
There is no answer to this except to clearly recognise that our responsibility and the jurisdiction of this House are confined to the Twenty-six Counties. While we might be interested in what is happening North of the Border, while we might want to contribute to the political development of institutions North of the Border, institutions to which both communities can give their consent, our first responsibility is to peace, reconciliation, reunification and friendship with the loyalists, and the only way forward is to confine our thinking to the Twenty-six Counties and to speak with one voice when addressing the Northern community.
While the Fianna Fáil Party might have an alternative to the proposals incorporated in the Criminal Law Bill they are not in power, and they must realise the system which operates in this National Assembly. If they want to make a contribution, if they feel this Bill has weaknesses— no Bill has ever gone through the House that has not been amended at some stage or other—I implore them to consider the possibility of putting forward reasoned amendments to this Bill. If they want to show in deeds rather than words our Northern brothers that the Provisional IRA does not speak for them, that men of violence do not represent them, there is a clear obligation on them to cooperate with the Government rather than to try, for political reasons, to oppose this legislation. I do not intend at any stage to carry a brief for the Fianna Fáil Party, but I say to them that if they oppose the present legislation they will be clearly seen in the eyes of the Northern Loyalists as people who support a situation where people from the North can offend against the laws of the North, come South and live in a haven of refuge and of hero worship in many cases. It is no harm to mention that in some of the night spots of this city men whose names have been romanticised have been welcomed as celebrities. I am told by people who were there that they were scared by the welcome those people got. They felt it was a most disgusting thing that a southern society should applaud and cheer and encourage people who had committed crimes against Irish society in the North.
I have spoken for longer than I intended to. Any Government who do not give a clear lead in the South and who neglect to recognise their responsibility as the supreme power in upholding law and order are failing as a Government. If this Government were to allow a situation to develop in which people had not got the freedom to walk in the streets of their own towns or their country lanes, or to drive from one town to another in normal safety, they would be failing as a Government
If we continually refer to the area called Northern Ireland as part of Ireland, and if we are sincere in our claims that these people—although some of them reject the thought of it at the moment—are part of Irish society we must face facts. It is wrong that our contribution should allow a situation to continue in which people in that part of Ireland have not got the freedom we have here and that people who disturb the peace are allowed to live here in comfort. I see no reason why in a situation of emergency, when our ambulance and fire services cross the Border to assist each other, and when there is a volume of support on both sides of the Border in favour of closer co-operation, the police forces on both sides of the Border cannot have a close relationship with each other to ensure that justice—and I mean justice—is done to all our people.
Nobody living in the 32 counties of Ireland can defend a situation in which people who have committed crimes, who have robbed banks, who have murdered people in and out of uniform, can cross the Border and come to the South to spend the money they robbed from the banks and live in total freedom here. I certainly will not defend that and I will not be part of it. Therefore, I am supporting the Minister and the Government on this Bill. It is a contribution towards peace in Northern Ireland. We are clearly saying to the men of violence in the North, "If you commit atrocities in the North you will stay there. If you come here we will try you for the crimes." We are clearly saving to the politicians in the North that we are fulfilling our obligations to society and it is about time they made their contribution.
I have confidence in the leadership of the political parties in the North of Ireland, more so perhaps, in the leadership of the parties on what is commonly referred to as our side. The contribution of people like John Hume, Austin Curry, Oliver Napier, Bob Cooper and others I do not have to name, over the past five years has been of greater dimensions than the contributions of any single politician or any half dozen politicians in the South. Why should we meddle in their affairs? We recognise that they have been elected to represent the Northern people. We recognise the terrible divide which separates them. Our contribution is to do the things we have power to do and in having open dialogue with them and having communication with them. We must ensure that what we are doing towards reunification and towards a better Ireland will be in line with political thinking North of the Border.
While it is true to say that the leaders of the UUUC at the moment do not want to know us, if they can judge us by our actions and not by our words, I am a bad judge of human nature if some of them do not request an open dialogue with us at an early stage, and if at some stage a majority of them will not want to join with us to some minor degree and then a greater degree as we progress. If reunification is to be development for this nation, the people who frustrate the wishes of the people and who have no mandate other than one of violence and romantic history must be told they are not our representatives. The public representatives elected to this Parliament are the only people who can speak for the vast majority of our people. When will we learn that if reunification is the prize we are after, the only group of people on this island who can produce it are the Loyalists, and it will not come one moment earlier than the moment they request it?
Deputy Harte has said much with which I find myself in complete agreement. He did say, however—and I trust he will not misunderstand me—that Fianna Fáil called for a British withdrawal and for a declaration of intent. To say Fianna Fáil called for a withdrawal of Britain is, of course, to line Fianna Fáil up with other elements. To say that a declaration of intent is sought is also to line Fianna Fáil up with subversive elements here.
It seems to me, reviewing the past few weeks, that on many sides there has been a considerable degree of hasty judgement in regard to the statement issued by Fianna Fáil. The first part of the statement represents a simple aim of policy, and contains the —to me—significant phrase: a total rejection of the use of force.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 25th November, 1975.