Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1975

Vol. 286 No. 8

Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
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 of Human Rights, and is repugnant to the Constitution, in that it contravenes Articles 3 and 38."
—(Deputy G. Collins).

When the debate adjourned I was dealing with the credibility or otherwise of the Judiciary in the Six Counties. I held then and I hold now that they are not a credible, reputable or impartial Judiciary. Their record over the years, particularly in recent times, shows on the statistics available that they are neither fair nor impartial in the administration of their own laws. Therefore the participation of any member of the Six Counties Judiciary in the taking of evidence on commission for the purpose of prosecuting a person held by our courts here accused of some crime in the Six Counties is something we cannot countenance. The presence of such a member, far from lending credibility to the proceedings, must create in the minds of all that this is but a further part of the already loaded situation, the unfair and unjust situation created on a selective basis, and I emphasise "selective". That selection and selectivity, in the practical application of what is proposed here if this Bill becomes law, means that only Catholics and Nationalists will in fact be before our courts.

There are options available and a person taken in the Six Counties may opt to be tried in the Six Counties. In the light of the records to date a person of the Loyalist persuasion taken here, which is really a rather unlikely happening, will opt to go back to the courts where partiality is well established and where he can hope on the statistics of sentences handed out there to get only half the penalty in the Six Counties that he would get if he were prosecuted here, only half the sentence, in fact, that a Catholic or a Nationalist would get were he to opt to return to the Six Counties for trial. It is pretty obvious that the only people who will opt for trial in the Six Counties, taken down here for an offence allegedly committed in the Six Counties, will be those of the Loyalist group. They will go back knowing the courts will be partial and they will get light sentences. The Nationalist or the Catholic taken on this side on a charge, whether genuine or trumped up, if he opts to go back will be likely to get the hammer, whether justified or otherwise, and his sentence will be double what it would be if he were a Loyalist.

However much I may take issue with the lack of impartiality on the part of members of the Judiciary in the Six Counties, this is not at all as important as the source at which evidence will be taken in chambers or in court presided over by a member of the Judiciary. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach interjected: "Really the judge from up there would not be doing much. He would only be presiding." I agree he will preside and his role will be that of chairman more than anything else, but that does not take away from the overall objection fair-minded people must have when they consider the source at which evidence will be taken, transcribed no doubt, carted down here and put in evidence before our courts. That evidence will be taken in 90 per cent of cases—and that is being conservative—from personnel of the RUC, and UDR, the Special Branch, the British Army, SAS, paid informers and other well wishers. There will be no disinclination to come forward with either true or false evidence to get at those who do not politically agree with them. That has been clearly demonstrated over the years.

This is the sad situation we can contemplate. Our courts will be abused. We will provide this sort of trial here against all the established practice in our courts over the years and we will do it on the basis that it can only be applied selectively to Nationalists or Catholics accused by the 6-county authorities. But the Loyalist will opt to go back to where he knows he will get a soft deal. The Nationlist or the Catholic will not be able to go back even to hear the evidence against him taken on commission. He will not go back because, no matter what guarantees are given, he will fear going back into the custody of the RUC who, in the first instance, will in all probability have been responsible for handing him across the Border, possibly on trumped up charges or untrue charges.

Remember, we are dealing here with people who helped in the internment round-up operation on 9th August, 1971, who allied themselves with the British troops, who had no legal authority at all to intervene but were never challenged, and who subsequently participated in the torture procedures of which the Government are well aware and in respect of which the Government have been pursuing the British Government in international courts, without so far arriving at any conclusion. The Government are far better aware than are the members of the public or I or anybody else in the House, in particular the Minister for Justice is fully aware, of the type of tortures, the inhuman treatment, the brutality that was used by the RUC in some of their interrogation centres together with and connived at by some of their high officers and in conjunction with the British Army.

These are the people who we are saying will give evidence before a discredited judicial functionary presiding in chambers or in court in the Six Counties. These are the people who will give the evidence that will be taken down from those proceedings and used in our courts without the basic, elementary and essential right to which every accused person is entitled on demand, namely, to be confronted by his accusers in open court at his trial and thus given the opportunity to refute their accusations should he wish to do so. That right is being totally ignored. While in certain circumstances it might conceivably be excused, it is a travesty of justice in every sense of the word that in the case of accused persons who we suspect will come before our courts under this Bill if it becomes law their accusers will, in fact, be the persons who will be giving the evidence and their accusers and those giving the evidence will be the same forces as perpetrated the tortures and the inhuman treatment and the brutalities that followed on the operation of internment some years ago.

I cannot credit that any government in this part of the country should attempt to do such a thing, even if they had extraordinarily good reasons for doing it and even if the end that they contemplated could in some way be accepted as justifying the means. In the case of this extraordinary departure from the normal procedures of justice, not only in this country but in most countries, no justification is advanced as to why extraordinary exceptions should be made in regard to the basic elementary right of an accused person to be confronted by his accusers and given the opportunity to cross-examine.

Can we get from the Government good and cogent reasons as to why an attempt should be made to deny accused persons in our courts this absolutely fundamental right which is long established and accepted as the right of an accused person? Can we get from the Government or their spokesmen any indication that there is clear evidence of a change in so far as the RUC, the UDA, the ex-B Specials, which they mainly are, Special Branch, British Army, or that they are different from what they were a year or five years ago? I am not aware of any change, and I would have as good an opportunity of recognising a change as most people in this House.

I would make this observation to the Minister and the Government as to the operations of the British Army as of now in regard to intimidation in the everyday movements of our people: there is one route from Dublin through the Six Counties that comes in for special treatment, that has been given special intimidatory treatment over the years and given it persistently at the present time. It is not the route to Belfast, as one might expect. It is the route that must be traversed by the people of the outpost of the Twenty-six Counties, my own county people and, of course, the people of Derry. It is through Moy Bridge and either Craigavon Bridge, if you live on the nationalist side of Derry city or Strabane Bridge if you live in Donegal. Why, I ask, has nothing been done about this? Why is it not obvious to the Government that there is discrimination and that this hold-up, this continuous, regular searching and delay being caused to our people from Derry and Donegal is a deliberate thing which is not applied to the people going back to Belfast but which is applied on that particular route because the people there are likely to be of a particular persuasion? This goes to show, if anything further were necessary, that the leopard has not changed its spots. We still have the institutional violence, and violence this is.

I would invite any member of this House to go unannounced and without special arrangements being made for his expeditious and safe passage through the Six Counties, to go there, particularly on a Friday evening or on a Sunday on which there is a big sports event south of the Border and he will see the queues right back to the other side of the Border and will experience the totally unnecessary delays that are occasioned, delays of up to two-and-a-half hours, never less than half an hour and on average up to an hour. Why is there special treatment on that route? Why are there the outposts built in concrete?

Why have special ramps been put down recently? Why is there all this paraphernalia provided by people to whom by what we are proposing in this Bill we will lend our aid to try on this side of the Border people whom they accuse of crimes on the Six Counties side of the Border?

In the prosecution the evidence will be given by members of the British occupation forces and the RUC, the paid informers and all the rest. Surely, we should be saying to these people: "Stop your discrimination. Stop harassing the people of Donegal which belongs to this 26-county Republic of Ireland. Stop trying to make those of us who live in Donegal, with all its attendant difficulties as a result of Partition, travel round by Sligo." That is why there is this concentrated, sustained, persistent effort at intimidating our people travelling through and, of course, to harass the people from Derry and indeed to intimidate them from coming South at all. This goes on today, did yesterday and will next week and next month. Still we are leaning over backwards to give to these occupation forces, to the Establishment in the Six Counties, something to which they are not entitled, which in fact is unfair and discriminatory in itself and will be selective in its application by virtue of the circumstances in which it has been framed. Far from getting any quid pro quo, we are having our noses rubbed in the dirt day-in-day-out by those same forces in the Six Counties.

As we know, of course, they are not averse to crossing the Border. Then we hear the usual old story that they did not know where the Border was. If they do not know where it is, it is time they were not there. There must be a rare lot of fools in the occupation forces based on the Border—with all their maps and equipment—that they can so frequently forget where the Border is and have safaris into the southern side of it. We make weak sounds of protest occasionally but not by any means always. I suppose we are given some sort of assurances that it was a mistake and will not happen again but, of course, it happens again and again. It is no mistake—it is made nine times out of ten—these deliberate crossings, whether with the purpose of provocation or otherwise is difficult to ascertain. But certainly the treatment at check-points on the route to Derry and Donegal is intimidatory, provocative and cannot in any way be set in the atmosphere this Government would appear to think exists in making this offer to the Establishment, to the British Government, or to both—it is hard to know these days who is who and where they operate.

We should not forget that we are dealing with a situation that has not arisen from any wrong acts on the part of the Nationalist people of the Six Counties but rather from the imposition on that same Nationalist population over many years of violence of all descriptions, not only institutional violence, as we are inclined to describe the operations and harassment by police and security forces, but physical violence also with no hope of redress. This has not occurred merely since 1969. It went on long before that. We look at the end product now and say that the men of violence in one section of the population are the root cause of it all and, if we can eradicate them, we shall eradicate the problem. That would be funny were it not so tragic. We could not be further from the truth in proposing to adopt that sort of attitude. We must go back and find out why such people came into being and why they must have the support of the minority of the Six Counties in order to carry on.

Why do we appear, in what we are proposing here, to be more British than the British themselves? Why do we wish, by our recognition of the institutions set up by a puppet Government in the Six Counties—through the operations of this Parliament—to give our seal in an official manner to the partition of our land never accepted by our people as an ultimate, lasting or just operation? Whether or not we like it, that is what we are doing. One may say the Treaty of 1922 did that. It provided for the Boundary Commission which ultimately outlined the actual delineation of the Border on a basis that contrived a majority for the future in order to keep the Loyalists in Government; they, in turn, taking their cue from that, by intimidation of every description, through violence of every type, including the denial of job opportunities, houses and so on, maintained their position of ascendancy. The Treaty was implemented. At least we can say, of those who signed it and supported it in this House, that they did it under circumstances in which they believed the alternative was a bloody war being imposed on them by the forces of the then much mightier empire than it is today.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the creation of the situation in which we have got partition, at least it can be said of those people at that time they had that very large reason for doing so and for agreeing to it, even though it brought tragic consequences immediately after. We can say also, in extenuation of the acceptance of the Boundary Commission Report of 1925 —even though it was behind closed doors—that it was merely in the nature of a follow-on to acceptance of the Treaty by the Dáil in 1922.

But there is, and cannot be, any like excuse for a Parliament, established all those years, purporting to represent—and I deliberately say purporting to represent—the opinion of our people on this island as a whole. For them there is no excuse in this clear, final sell-out, and sell-out it can only be because we now propose in this Bill—even though some people in this House who will vote for it will not agree with it—to copper-fasten, recognise and accept that which our people have never done heretofore. Under the most extreme circumstances never before has there been an attempt, on behalf of the Irish people as a whole, to recognise that the Border is a proper or just thing. If one quibbles and says: "We are not recognising it in this Bill," I say that if we recognise, as we propose to recognise the courts of the Six Counties, the so-called peace-keeping forces of the Six Counties, then we must, without doubt, be recognising the sources from which they sprang. Willingly or otherwise, we are selling out as we have never sold out before.

I am quite sure that the majority of people of this country, regardless of their politics and of what we do here would not accept this. I do not believe that the majority of people of all of this island would condone this by their votes if it was put to them in the form of a referendum were that capable of being done.

Unfortunately and tragically it is all for nothing, meaningless, hopeless, and can only bring in its train further trouble and violence. It can have no other outcome. Why, then, do it? Why give credence to a discredited RUC that even now the minority will not recognise after all their suffering and hardship? They still do not see that police force as their police force, as an impartial police force, much less recognise the British Army or any branch of it as being impartial.

It is extraordinary that the man who was in charge of the regiment in Derry the day the massacre took place, Bloody Sunday, was not disciplined. On the contrary, he was decorated.

He was honoured by the Queen.

We must bear this sort of thing in mind. We should try to drive home to the Government and to those who will support them by their votes if this measure is to go through, that we are not only dealing with people who have erred in the past by murdering the people in Derry and elsewhere but that those in charge that day, far from being disciplined, were decorated for their service to their country.

The same applies to the RUC. Members of that body who were present and were known locally to have participated in some of the atrocities I mentioned earlier have not been disciplined but are still in the force and have even been promoted. In face of this, how can we say that we will make our laws conform with those in the North? Those people have been found capable of violence and brutality to our fellow Irishmen in the Six Counties. Now we will pursue, catch and jail people down here who could not be caught in the North. We will sentence these people and lock them away on charges which may not have any basis whatsoever.

Does anybody suggest that the hundreds of people who were interned in the Six Counties on the 9th August were guilty of crimes of violence or of membership of an illegal organisation? We all know they were not. The explosion into violence after internment had taken place clearly demonstrated that far from locking up the people they considered were causing violence, they must have locked up very few of those people but had interned a great number of people who were not guilty of any such offence. If this is so, why do we make this extraordinary effort to lean over backwards to accommodate the occupiers of our country who used brutality and violence against our people, who failed to conform with the unnatural and unjust situation which has existed since the establishment of partition and the Border more than 50 years ago? Why do that? What is the pay-off? What is the benefit? We have heard a great deal of generalisation about putting down violence, but with clear determination this Bill can only apply to a very restricted part of one section of the community and will do nothing to be fair and impartial in prosecuting, bringing to justice or giving what would appear to be the just deserts to those in the Loyalists' organisations. That cannot be done under this proposal, and on that ground alone, since it cannot apply impartially across the board, it must make bad law. It cannot be just in its application if it can only be applied in a selective way.

Will the Minister or a member of the Government tell us before the conclusion of this Stage, what has been the outcome of their efforts to bring the British Government before the International Court on torture charges? In spite of the numerous delays we should have some result by now. This is so important that it should be fully aired before this Bill is passed through the House. It will have a bearing on the contents of this Bill if the charges made by our Government against the British Government are true. Will we have the result before we pass this Bill? We are entitled to that information. Perhaps the Government spokesman will reassure us and we and the general public will be told the outcome in detail of these proceedings.

If the people concerned are found guilty of brutal assaults and tortures and SD operations—known to the psychiatrists and psychologists as sensory deprivation, and that covers a multitude, as some of those who underwent such operations will tell us—that too must be taken into account. If we fully understood what is meant by those two words—sensory deprivation—we would throw out this Bill.

I will not attempt to get across in this House what is known about this type of torture. I will just say that is is beyond our conception. I do not know who thought it up, the RUC or the British Army, but it was applied by both. I hope this Government will be unrelenting in their pursuit of those charges against the British Government so that the world will know and recognise the type of people which our Irish citizens in the Six Counties have had to tolerate since this country was so unnaturally divided by partition.

It is a small tribute to the suffering of these people over the years, indeed the reverse, to find the Government and the House, as it will be so read if this Bill is passed, putting into law something to aid those very people who carried out those tortures and violence on the people in the name of law and order. Instead of being sentenced they were rewarded for it by promotions, some decorations or other, clapped on the back and told what fine people they were. We are condoning this. We are giving them a recognition they never enjoyed before and we are doing it in the name of the Irish people, including those they have trampled down and intimidated for a life time.

I cannot credit that this is happening yet it is happening in this House. I do not want to draw this out and I do not want to go into the whole litany of what has happened. I mentioned a few tragedies and unaccounted for deaths caused by members of the peace-keeping forces in the Six Counties during recent years. I do this with a certain amount of revulsion. I hope nobody will say that I have given very little account of what has happened and what about the others? I believe the point is made. I mentioned four or five instances that clearly were in the public view at the time and clearly were the responsibility of one of the arms of the law in the Six Counties and in respect of which no action was taken to find out the perpetrators of the murders in question. In all these cases the victims were Nationalists, Catholics.

I believe I have gone far enough, although I could give a lot more detail. I do not believe it is really necessary. It is there, if wanted, to show how the courts have been leaning over blatantly towards the Loyalists when they are brought before them for prosecution. I merely sum it up by indicating that for similar offences the ratio of Nationalists jailed as against Loyalists was two to one.

This should indicate that we should be very careful, even if there was never any other reason, about associating our courts with those who preside over courts that have behaved in that manner over the years. We should also ask ourselves if we are not being double faced in proposing this Bill and our obligations under international agreements we have reached on extradition. We are providing a means to get around extradition for one particular class only. We should ask ourselves if we must do this would we not be better doing it in the open, doing it honestly, renouncing our international agreements and saying we are not abiding by them. It appears to me that we are getting around extradition by the proposals contained in this Bill. We are not being honest with our neighbours throughout the world who have joined with us in international agreements on extradition in so far as the non-operation of it is concerned for political offences.

We must ask ourselves how the Government feel in proposing a measure such as this, with all its shortcomings. Some Members of this combined Coalition have expressed misgivings about parts of this Bill and others have expressed total condemnation of the Bill? How do the Government feel about putting through such a controversial matter, not knowing its ultimate bad effects, and putting it through on the basis of an imprisoned majority, some of whom do not agree with the Bill? If those people who disagree with the Bill acted according to their consciences and voted against it, the Bill would be defeated. They will vote for it because of their loyalty to their parties. Surely this should give the Government some food for thought and give them reason to pause and think again before putting through such a controversial measure on that sort of support?

It is held that the majority in this Parliament represents the majority outside it. If a true majority for this Bill does not exist in the House, we can take it that, conversely, there is no majority for it outside. The Minister and other members of the Government should surely agree that in a matter so controversial, that strikes so very deeply at the roots of the beliefs of a great number of people in the country, it is wrong to carry it through, even though it is legitimate, to use the majority of the Government side if that majority is not a true one in the sense of believing in what they are voting for. Therefore, it does not represent the majority of our people, which should be the basis of our democratic Parliament.

I appeal to the Government again, as I did earlier this afternoon, most sincerely to take their time about putting this through. There was a big rush first, then a delay, a sudden spurt again and then more delay. I hope we do not have it pushed through at this stage because I believe that if they stop, think again and seek out the feedback from their people throughout the country they will find that when the Irish people recognise it for what it is—a recognition of the Partition of our country and the occupation of it by an outside power—they will not want that. I am quite sure that the Government, having an eye to the political future of their parties, will not run in the face of what could well turn out to be a very substantial majority against what is now proposed to be done.

I do not wish the Government any particular good nor do I wish them any evil but I would ask them, for their own good, to take that into consideration in further considering the Bill before galloping ahead with further stages of it here. I would also ask them in their consideration of the effects of the Bill to take into account the very grave danger that it will bring trouble to this side of the Border. I say this bluntly here: for the past five years, despite the terrific violence, turbulence, upset, bloodshed, shooting, maiming and bombing in the Six Counties the very people the Government are setting out to trap here particularly, time without number, to the knowledge of the public, the House and the Minister have been taken although armed by unarmed gardaí of our force, of which we can be very proud. But there is good reason behind this. I put it to the Minister and the Government that that will not continue under this Bill and that there is grave danger that any armed—or unarmed—men in future approached to be apprehended on this side of the Border will not recognise the difference in the uniform from that from which they have run on the other side of the Border. For that reason, and not by any means by way of threat, I say to the Minister as advice that we are providing in my opinion a recipe for violence that we have not known up to now on this side of the Border.

Clever people with legal minds will take up what I have now said and twist it out of recognition. I am not a legal man but I know a little about what goes on and I see the future with very great fear if this Bill becomes law as a future on this side of the Border no less appalling in its violence than that on the Six County side at present. I ask the Government to consider this as well as all the other factors I have mentioned and even in a selfish way to ask: will this cause violence and trouble here of the type that so far we have miraculously, generally speaking, escaped?

Would the Government in that connection ask themselves who bombed Dublin a few years ago? Who killed our people in Belturbet? Who caused the explosions in Monaghan? Who caused them in the airport a week or more ago? What are we doing about those who would have caused those explosions, death and destruction on this side of the Border, who earlier tried to blow up a power station at Ballyshannon? Is there a connection between them all? Do we know? Are we accusing the IRA of these? Are we accusing the Nationalist extremists from the Six Counties or from the Twenty-six Counties? If we are not, and if the probabilities are that it was not from that source these things came, what are we doing under this proposed law or any existing law to apprehend those who brought these things about or to visit on their heads retribution at least equal to that which we give to others who might be caught in the same acts?

Do we have any organisation other than the IRA proscribed on this side of the Border? I am genuinely seeking an answer to that question because for quite a while I know that was the only organisation. It should not be the only organisation; there are other organisations which even Mr. Rees has found in the Six Counties and saw fit to proscribe there. Have we likewise proscribed them and. if so, for how long have we done so? Under that proscription have we, through our special courts, prosecuted anybody for membership of these other organisation? Do not tell me they do not exist; there is evidence that they do, very tragic evidence on this side of the Border, and that they come amongst us and may even belong to the midst of our people. Why should there be this apparent obsession in one direction and not equally in all directions? That is inherent in the Bill before us, this matter of selectivity, not necessarily contrived; I think the circumstances compel it to be so. If we go through with this measure it will be applied on a selective basis; it cannot be applied any other way. Yet, we propose to go through with it despite the selectivity in the application of it by virtue of the circumstances which makes it unjust and lacking in impartiality. Are we satisfied to ignore all these things and go ahead with it? I do not think we should; it is another reason why the Government should pause and have another very hard look at what they are doing.

I am no constitutional lawyer but it seems—I think it is open to argument the other way and I am open to conviction on it—that the Bill is unconstitutional on the basis I have already mentioned. How can we recognise the legal system and its functionaries, including the alleged peace-keeping forces and its judiciary when, in fact, under our Constitution we deny that the State in question exists in a constitutional sense? How then can we recognise and provide for the recognition of the judges, of the courts, of the RUC and others who are merely functionaries of the State which we deny exists in a constitutional sense? How can that law be constitutional?

Finally, I would put some further matters by way of question. How can we propose to accept the discredited RUC and the British Army and all that goes with it? I shall not go into any further detail here. How can we propose to pass a law that in its application of necessity can only be selective? How can we recognise and give recognition to the Six Counties as another State which is merely there in the existing situation because of the force of the occupation group that is capable of being kept there by the British Government? How can we accept with apparent equanimity the violence of the Establishment in the Six Counties? Whether it be Stormont or Britain or whatever it is does not matter; it is still the Establishment so far as the Six Counties are concerned.

How can we accept the violence of the Establishment, which has continued down through the years and which will undoubtedly continue in the future while at the same time create a great furore about the violence that has been resorted to by those who could not take any more of what was being meted out to them? The Government may say that there have been many changes, but in trying to end the violence they must endeavour to find a solution which will eradicate the reasons for the violence. Can we ignore a line west of the Bann that has been deprived since the establishment of Partition? The problem has existed for so long that we tend to forget that the violence, in terms of deprivation and so on, inflicted on the Nationalist population was violence of a most acute and cruel nature. A system which ensured that job opportunities and housing would be denied the Catholic population can surely be regarded as a form of violence which, because of its continuous oppressive and discriminatory nature, goes beyond the violence of the outrages that have occurred since 1969. I shall not attempt to indicate that I comprehend such a situation but I am aware that this system was designed deliberately and has been pursued for a long time. The violence of that system has been perpetrated with determination and perseverance on successive generations. Close as I was reared to the area in which that system operated, I cannot comprehend fully the horrific effects it has had on the people for whom it was intended.

In putting through this legislation are we not accepting and condoing that type of violence on the part of the Establishment in the North of Ireland? In these days when international opinion is so important we should realise the picture we are presenting to the world. This Establishment violence has been the root cause of the problems that have beset that part of the country during the past six years. This legislation will indicate to the world that the Irish Parliament recognises the "puppets on a string" set-up of the discredited regime that was Stormont and which is now continued by the British direct-rule procedure. In this way we appear to be condoning the judicial and police operations of that regime. In these circumstances the question of the non-acceptance of any right on the part of Britain to occupy any part of this country will have little impact. However, regardless of our recognition of the situation, the occupation of the north-eastern part of this country will continue to be criticised and ridiculed.

If the Government have regard to our claim that all of the island of Ireland is Irish perhaps they will have second thoughts on this measure. One would hope that if time were given for further consideration of the proposals, there might be no attempt ultimately to enact them. Both from a constitutional and a legal practice point of view this legislation is wrong. It is wrong, too, in terms of natural justice and it is in contravention, in spirit if not in practice, of our international agreements on extradition for political offences. It is wrong, too, that laws be enacted which would not apply equally even to the occupants of the territory towards which it is directed. Above all, it is wrong that we should so besmirch the judicial functionaries on this side of the Border by associating them with the judicial personnel on the other side of the Border who were put there for a purpose which they and their predecessors have served well. It is wrong to put our Garda and, perhaps our Army, into the position of collaborating fully with the occupiers and the usurpers of the Six Counties. It is wrong to ask our unarmed Garda force to indulge in such activities as part of their enforcement of the law.

I wonder whether the Garda or the Army have advised the Minister and the Government as to the possible repercussions this Bill may have on their morale in the future. Although in uniform these people are no different from the rest of us and, consequently, there may be mixed opinions among them. It would be well to find out whether there is not likely to be a great revulsion among the majority of both forces against the sort of operations we are proposing to institute. If the Minister has not acertained their views already he should do so without delay, because it is important that the information be obtained while there is time left to drop this measure. This is a Bill for which there is no justification.

Having regard to the faults in the Bill there is no justification for it and it can do immense harm. The Minister and others have been meticulous in pointing out that it takes only a little harm caused here to create a great deal of harm on the other side of the Border. In this case it will be harm caused by us, but its effects will be felt much more on the other side of the Border. I would ask the Minister to consider the possible dangers and the damage that may be caused, the trouble it may stir up, and to measure that against what I can only regard as negative results. Whether one agrees or disagrees with what I have said, the Government should recognise that it will be unwise, politically and otherwise, to go through with something that will yield no gain but will mean a substantial loss in many ways.

I would ask the Minister and the Government and those who back them to take a hard second look at this matter before they proceed further. It is wrong under so many headings, but it is vital that the Government should examine the more important aspects. If they do that perhaps they will realise it will not be worth the candle and the legislation can be scrubbed. I feel very strongly about this matter and I have tried as best I can to give some of the reasons I consider the Bill should not be passed. Naturally, I will vote against it. As the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs remarked recently, I am saying the things that others are thinking. That may be, but which of us in this House is not saying, or thinks he is saying, what others are thinking? As Members of this House it is our function to say what others are thinking.

I said the Deputy said what others were thinking over there on those benches. Perhaps he is now joining them?

I refrained from speaking until most of the Fianna Fáil speakers had offered. I did it deliberately because I did not want anyone on the Government side to chivvy some Fianna Fáil speaker after I had spoken if he said anything that remotely resembled what I had said. On this occasion they have said it first and I am merely confirming——

Why should that be a matter for chivvying?

Instead of speaking earlier I awaited with interest pronouncements from various speakers, not alone from the Fianna Fáil benches but particularly from the Labour benches and also some Fine Gael speakers.

Did the Deputy listen to the Labour Party Conference?

No. I know about the stage-managing of these annual events. If the Minister can recognise it as well as I do, he will know it was overdone. Standing ovations get a bit tiring after a while, particularly when they are puppets on a string. The sooner we recognise that these annual events are what they really are—the showpiece of the year, politically speaking, with time out for the supporters of the various parties—the better it will be.

If it had gone the other way the Deputy would have had great respect for it.

If the Labour Party Conference was the reason this Bill was delayed, all I can do is congratulate those who pulled the strings, who fixed the puppets in their places and had them stand up and say in an overwhelming way they were not opposed to the Bill.

One thousand delegates are not puppets.

The Deputy in possession should stay with the Bill.

It was a far from convincing performance and on a serious matter like this it was dangerous. It may be the cause of the Government having a majority——

I have asked the Deputy to stay with the Bill.

——which I do not believe they truly have. As I have said before, if it were a free vote the Bill would be beaten. I do not like the Bill. It is bad, dangerous, unjust, selective in practice, it is unconstitutional and it will do much more harm than good. For those reasons I would ask the House not to accept it. However, all of us understand that it will be accepted and I would ask the Government to please have another look at it. I am quite serious when I say it will do a great deal of harm and it may cause much trouble that we have not had so far. I am not imputing any wrong intentions to the Government or the Minister. However, they are seeing things the wrong way round and they will be very sorry if they go through with this legislation. I earnestly ask them to have another look at it.

One's first reaction to this Bill might be vehement, but the matter is so serious that I address myself to the Minister in a spirit of earnestness having regard to our common history on both sides of the House, a history we have experienced since the State was founded. It is with thoughts like that that I plead with the Minister to reconsider the provisions he has before the House.

The effect of section 2 of this Bill, particularly when coupled with section 14, will turn this State and particularly the agencies of the State, the security forces and the courts, into an agency for another sovereignty over which we have no control. That is what these two sections and the Bill generally propose to do.

One must, therefore, question the wisdom, quite apart from the justification of doing such a thing. It is easy enough to understand, in part, the origins of this but may I remind the Minister, as one lawyer to another, that hard cases make bad law. I am afraid we are going to make very bad law here. As far as the average person is concerned, and remember it is the common view, in the end, that determines the action of a democracy, this Bill is simply the remnant of Sunningdale and it is completely one-sided. The Sunningdale Agreement would appear to be its immediate origin. That agreement was, as it was described on an earlier occasion, a brave effort to meet a very difficult problem. It provided, as all solutions of problems provide, give and take. There were certain objections to it, approached from any point of view, but, by and large, in view of the almost insoluble nature of the problem of partition which confronted not only this country but also the British it seemed to offer an approach that could lead to some kind of an equitable and workable solution. These hopes were unfounded.

It would be digressing a little to analyse the real reasons for the failure of Sunningdale. To do that we would have to go back to the reasons that led to it, and that would lead to an interminable debate. Therefore, I will confine myself to saying that when it came to trying to work out the provisions of that agreement and to implement it it very quickly became evident that the Irish Government were expected to give all along the line, that the Irish Government were expected to acquiesce in any demand made either by the people who have been in control in the North or by the British Government. Bit by bit, every single clause of that agreement that was advantageous or contained something of benefit to the people of the South and the Irish Government was removed or eroded. In the final crisis, the whole thing was destroyed, or so it seemed. But not quite destroyed, it would appear, because here we have an Irish Government presenting to an Irish House of Parliament the one remnant of an agreement that they made and that remnant is utterly inimical to their own interests and to the interests of their people. That is how this Bill appears. When all the polemics and all the partisanship have been swept aside what the people are asking is: "Why bring in this legislation now? Why does the Irish Government want to make itself the policeman for an outside power at this moment, particularly when the Bill is all that is left of an agreement that had some advantages which have all been taken away?" The answers to those questions should be forthcoming.

I do not approach this in any spirit of antagonism. I should be happy to plead for a consideration of the case that has been put before the Minister if I felt that pleading would be of any use, but I fear the commitment is already there and that pleas may be too late. Nevertheless they should be made. We must recognise the basis of this legislation. In the short-term it was as I have said. In the longer term it was something broader. Historical implications would at this stage be perhaps outside the confines of the Bill. Let us, therefore, try to see where we might find agreement between us, even at this late stage, or what common ground could we find on which to approach this Bill. We all recognise that the problem of partition, a partition which is unnatural in political origins and geographically and from the point of view of community groupings, is the result of a certain strain in history. We are all agreed that partition has been a thorn in our sides. We are all agreed that as it developed over the past 50 years, or so it became a genuine problem for three separate parties and though one of these parties could have done more than the other two none of them could have solved the problem completely on its own initiative. The parties involved were the divided people of this country, the people in the North belonging to the Unionist tradition who had been built up into an artificial enclave and put in a particular position because of a quirk of history at the beginning of this century, or even before it—I am talking politically now about political evolution—and the people of the South who suffered for what happened and the British who, in the last analysis, were responsible for it. There were three parties involved in this problem—the British who caused the problem, the Unionist local majority and Nationalist minority who were built into separate enclaves in the North, and the Nationalists suffered for it and are still suffering for it just as the people of the rest of Ireland suffered, the third party. That is historical fact.

Now that the Minister is back I should like to repeat something I said earlier. The problem was a problem for all three parties and the solution was not completely in the hands of any one party, although the major power of action lay in the hands of the British. The events leading up to Derry and the violence stemmed from the civil rights and other constitutional movements of that nature. That artificial and impossible situation was bound to erupt in some relief of existing pressures and tensions, and that is exactly what happened and, as a result of the catastrophies which followed, we are now in two parts of this island and in Britain confronted with a diabolical problem of uncontrolled violence.

If what I have said are adequate premises on which to base this debate then one must ask what is one to do. It is very easy to misrepresent someone approaching a measure of this nature, as we are approaching it, as having sympathy with violence or lacking the desire to curb violence.

While it is important for people to support order, particularly democratic order in a democratic State, it is equally important for those responsible to ensure that the actions they take are really designed to minimise disorder and violence and will not aggravate it. It is from that point of view I am most disturbed about this Bill. When I say that I do not, of course, want to minimise in any way the other objections to the Bill, and I personally do not propose to go back on the legal or social aspects of it which have been thoroughly debated by my colleagues and others.

On the question of what the Bill will achieve, I would remind the Minister that we have been opposed over the whole period of this State's history but, in that opposition, we have acquired mutual experience and, whether we admit it or not, we have acquired mutually a great deal of understanding of one another and one another's point of view. In return for trying to understand the Minister's point of view here I would ask the Minister to try to understand mine. If we are agreed that there is a problem for the three parties involved and the two Governments, the British Government and the Irish Government, and the problem is the basic cause of the murder and violence rampant in the last five years, then can we not ask ourselves what is to be the solution.

Again without going back into greater generalities that concern this Bill, as far back as 18 months ago— 26th June, 1974, or somewhere like that—I myself pointed out in the House that until the British had organised the integration of this country—if unity is not an acceptable word—the suitable integration and co-operation of the parts of this country on an equitable basis, and directly withdrew in the implementation of that commitment, it would be futile to look for a lasting solution. I am still of that view, more than ever when one sees the impact it is having on Britain herself. We cannot get away from the fact, and this is vital in this Bill, that we are being asked in section 2 of the Bill in effect to give active police aid and assistance to the British Government. Whether you like it or not, that is what this Bill is doing. This Bill is asking this House to become the policing agent for the British Government and its institutions. Have no doubt about that. The British Government and the British institutions are directly responsible for affairs in the North of Ireland, and if section 2 and section 14 of this Bill are enacted it is a simple logical conclusion to say that our Government have undertaken to be the policing agent for that foreign government.

If that is so, I think I am entitled to ask, is that wise? One of the great difficulties in this problem, of course, has been the one-sided support of the British Government for the Northern situation, economically, financially, at very considerable cost to the British themselves. I think the British themselves are beginning to realise the cost and the incubus that they have in the North of Ireland. The British people are beginning to realise what it is costing them in money, in resources and in the maintenance of security forces, to say nothing of the disruption and disorder that in consequence of this unnatural situation is being foisted upon themselves. To say that is not to condone in any way what is happening. What is happening can only be described as diabolical, but the diabolical things that are happening should be traced back to their causes, and the cause is where it has been appreciated unanimously by this House, by the Minister's party no less than by this party to have been—in 1948.

When talking about this back in 1974, in an attempted dispassionate and clinical examination of the problem I pointed out the impossibility of dealing adequately with the Northern situation until that disbalance was removed, until the British were as ready to co-operate with us and with the Irish of the South as they are with their favourites in the North, until they are as ready to co-operate with us as they are with one element—and they are not even completely representative of even the Unionist element in the North—one small political element in the North. Until that situation is remedied, it appears to me to be futile to seek for a solution of the Northern problem, but in the context of this Bill that fact in all probability will make the provisions which the Minister is proposing nugatory in effect for the purposes which he wishes to achieve and, indeed, which we would all like to see achieved— the eradication of and the end to the violence that I have been talking about. Not only will it fail to do that but it may bring other consequences of a lamentable and disastrous nature for us. Many of these have been discussed and commented on by the Members of the House in the course of this debate. There does not seem much purpose in repeating a lot. It is on the record and I trust the Minister will pay the House the courtesy of studying what has been said. It is his responsibility to do so and in any event he will have to be held responsible at the bar of history for having done so.

There is an aspect which to anybody who has been in any way close to the events of the last 50 years in this country must be greatly disturbing and it is this: That provision will command the support and approval of some people and well-meaning people in the South, but it will also command the suspicion and the hostility of another considerable group of the ordinary people of this country. This Bill is a sign of contradiction which might well have been avoided. Is it necessary, I would ask the Minister at this stage, to bring in a Bill that is going to polarise opinion on a matter of this nature, as this Bill will do, among the people of our own community, for no effective purpose because I believe the purpose will not be effected?

Is that a wise thing to do? Will anyone deny, from the speeches in this House and from what has been said outside, that this will be the result? If, then, one finds people hostile to a Bill of this nature, that old emotions spring up—even if old emotions are to be condemned; and I am not trying for the purposes of my argument to say yes or no to that—is not the inevitable result to undermine the universal confidence of our own security forces and courts?

The Minister and all under him have my very sincere sympathy. It is extremely difficult to discharge the Minister's duties and those of the forces of law and order, in the administration of law and order, in this modern age. One of the things that has stood to us in this State has been that, from the beginning, our Garda and courts—here I will give credit to the Minister and his side of the House, historically and otherwise; taking credit here also for recognising it and continuing it; but, whatever the credit goes, it is a very laudable fact that our institutions of law and order, were and are held in high esteem by the community, amply trusted. As far as any agencies of law and order will get active co-operation from citizens in this modern world, the Minister may congratulate himself in that, in his area, he can command that co-operation from the bulk of the community and that the people under him can do so also.

I fear we are putting that at risk. I will say quite frankly that the difficulty in pursuing this line of thought is the feeling that one might appear to be inciting. That is the very last thing I would wish to do. For that reason I would prefer to leave it to the Minister to develop the line of thought I have indicated to him. My fear in regard to this Bill is that it will not achieve or make any significant contribution to the solution of the problem of violence in the North, in the South or in England; that it will, on the other hand, import elements into our situation that will aggravate our problems in regard to security and law and order. If it does that, that will inevitably be coupled with partisanship and with a diminution of the universal acceptance and regard for our own judicial and security institutions in the South. That is the plea I make most earnestly to the Minister here.

Perhaps I should conclude on that point because it is one of fundamental importance. Other points of importance have been made in the debate also. I should like to bring home, with a sense of personal historic experience, the dangers I feel in this Bill and to ask the Minister to reconsider it. Can he trust those other agencies? The Minister and his Government—for all their desire to be co-operative and reasonable with the other parties in this, and with the British in particular—have had the humiliating experience of seeing the deal they got from the British media when they stepped out of line. From their experience of Sunningdale— where every point they had gained in their favour was filched away and abrogated while, at the same time, they were battered about the head for not giving this, that or the other thing—from contraception back to major items if it was not Articles of the Constitution always the Irish Government were asked to give, give, give. But what did they get? We have had too much experience of that in Irish history, far too much of it, particularly now when the British themselves are realising their problem, when they themselves are reckoning the cost, when they themselves are approaching what could very easily be a very reasonable and rational approach to the problems of the day. Why, for the sake of a traditional idea, of a minority idea, a political Tory idea of the last century should an Irish Government now become the policing agency for the British Government and, even if they did, could they trust them on the Sunningdale experience to take the last example? Can you trust them? Where are all the things that were in the Sunningdale Agreement? Even when they were gone it was sought to be registered, if you please, in order that our admission would be on the record.

I am saying this to the Minister in the friendliest spirit, knowing his problems and difficulties. In the past the Minister and his party were the victims, perhaps, of their own trust and their own honesty. There is an old saying : fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We sympathise with the Minister. Generally speaking a fairly good job has been done by our police and army and our security arrangements have functioned very well. I see this Bill putting all that into jeopardy. Therefore, on that basis, if on no other, I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill. No matter what the logic of the moment is, history has a peculiar way of working out something different. The feelings of communities, the feelings of our people, are a reality in the situation. They may be illogical but they are still a reality. It is the reactions of those feelings to all the factors of the situation that can well up in the undesirable consequences I have only touched upon but that, as I said, could make a section which will not work anyway, not to our benefit, and would turn it into a national disaster.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share