Meeting of Taoiseach and British Prime Minister: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann notes the terms of the joint communiqué issued after the meeting on the 8th December 1980. between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister.

We have offered this debate to Opposition parties in order that the Dáil may fully consider the outcome of the meeting held last Monday in Dublin Castle between the Irish and British Governments and because I believe it is appropriate that the Dáil should have an opportunity to consider the results of that meeting and assess its importance on the basis of what actually took place.

The British delegation was, in terms of its composition, the most important to visit this country since the foundation of this State, or indeed for a long time before then. It was led by the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and she was accompanied by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Lord Carrington, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Atkins. Deputies will be aware that I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy.

The talks were extremely valuable and were conducted throughout in the most constructive spirit. The Prime Minister and I had a separate discussion lasting an hour and 20 minutes. In parallel, the other Ministers had useful discussions on aspects of the Northern Ireland situation, cross-Border economic co-operation and European Community issues, including the common agricultural policy, EMS and the development of the Community generally.

We then convened in plenary session and after a working lunch and further restricted discussions we concluded the discussions at a further plenary session in the afternoon. In all, the talks lasted for more than five hours between plenary and tete-à-tete sessions.

When considering the outcome of the meeting. I would invite the Dáil to look carefully at the terms of the communiqué because it summarises meticulously what was discussed; it describes specifically what emerged; it sets out clearly what was agreed among those who actually participated; and it provides the only reliable basis on which the value of the meeting can and should be assessed. This agreed communiqué makes it abundantly clear that progress, substantial progress, was made and has been recorded.

The third paragraph of the communiqué outlines the areas in which new and closer co-operation has been achieved since the meeting in London last May — energy, transport, communications, cross-Border economic development and security. It indicates that further improvements in these and other fields will be pursued, particularly in relation to energy and cross-Border co-operation.

In the discussions on these matters I emphasised the importance attached by the Government here to follow-up action on the cross-Border studies of the Derry-Donegal and Erne catchment areas and to the implementation of the development measures to be aided from the non-quota section of the EEC Regional Fund. I was also able to indicate that following examination of the constitutional, legal and other aspects of the matter, we are now ready to bring forward proposals to effect an extensions of the franchise which would provide voting rights for British citizens resident in Ireland but that these proposals may have to be held over until the forthcoming British Nationality Bill is brought forward and the concept of "British citizen" defined.

I would ask Deputies to study carefully the paragraphs of the communiqué which deal with the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland and the situation in Northern Ireland and to assess their impact and importance for themselves. These paragraphs look forward to better times. Does anyone anywhere in these islands wish to fault them for that? We state clearly in these paragraphs our desire for a situation in which the relationship between our two countries, hitherto placed under recurring strain by division and dissent in Northern Ireland, will be placed on a new and better basis.

The communiqué affirms our acceptance of the need to bring forward policies and proposals to achieve this better relationship. These policies and proposals will be set in the general framework of the development of the unique relationship between the two countries. In this context, we have commissioned joint studies to cover a wide range of matters and we have agreed to give special consideration to these matters later.

I consider that the points to which I have referred represent real progress and I believe that my view is widely shared by political leaders in Northern Ireland and by people of all shades of opinion throughout these islands. The joint studies will embrace possible new institutional structures, citizenship rights, security matters, economic co-operation and measures to encourage mutual understanding. It would be our wish and our intention that the approach to possible new institutional structures would be open and flexible, unrestricted by prejudice, and that different concepts would be considered solely on the basis of whether or not they can contribute to political development directed toward peace and reconciliation. The words "totality of relationships within these islands" in my view simply mean that the special consideration to which our next meeting will be devoted does not exclude anything that can contribute to achieve peace, reconcilation and stability and to the improvement of relations between the peoples of our two countries. Is there any serious politician in these islands who cannot visualise some new idea or concept which would be worthy of earnest and serious consideration in this context?

It is scarcely to be expected that there will be a full coincidence of ideas. The important thing is that there is agreement to conduct joint studies in which all ways forward can be explored without any commitment on either side.

The Irish Government's deep concern and anxiety about the H-Block situation figured prominently in our discussion. The British Government fully understand that concern and I believe that our meeting and the statement included in the joint communiqué about the H-Block protest can contribute to a process whereby a solution can be found.

I have made it clear that we are prepared to play any further part we can in bringing forward a solution if at any time it seems that we could make a constructive contribution in this regard. We remain convinced that it is on the basis of the humanitarian aspects, as outlined by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State in his statement of 4 December, that a solution can be found.

Deputies may recall how, in the debate which commenced here on 29 May last, I indicated the potential for progress that lay in the agreements recorded in the joint communiqué of 21 May. There was some scepticism on the benches opposite. I believe that the outturn has justified my confidence and I would hope that, in the same way, the communiqué which we are discussing today will, in its turn, give a fresh impetus to progress towards the achievement of a new and brighter era for people who have already suffered too much.

I hope what I have said here and elsewhere indicates the constructive spirit in which the Irish Government are approaching every area of the relationships which exist and which, whether we like it or not must exist between the people who inhabit these islands. To follow that, I want to say that, in what has been agreed, there is nothing to which any Unionist need take exception. Our objective is to advance the welfare and security of all the people of these islands, including those in both sections of the community in Northern Ireland. I have stated before, and I gladly reiterate here, that, come what may, the safety and welfare of the community, in Northern Ireland, particularly the Unionist section of that community, would be a special personal priority for me and I would add that in any situation which might develop now or in the future that consideration would remain a priority. Northern Ireland's political leaders clearly have a very important part to play in any solution and I would like to see careful consideration being given to arrangements for appropriate involvement of such leaders in future developments. In particular, I would suggest that they have a particular interest in the joint studies on security matters which could well be inter-related with those on possible new institutional structures.

In my statement to the House today, I have kept close to the text and conclusions of the communiqué. I do this deliberately because the document was drawn up carefully and agreed only after the most meticulous consideration. Its virtue is that it represents exactly what was agreed. Commentators in different areas for their own reasons have tried to put different glosses on what was said. They parse and analyse to find disagreement where there is none. They read meanings into obiter dicta, which are not there. They conjure up confrontation and controversy where none resides.

The motives of those who would decry last Monday's meeting or who would seek to undermine it by misrepresenting or confusing its outcome are difficult to comprehend. These are people who would normally purport to support any attempt to improve relations between Ireland and Great Britain. That is the outlook and the policy they would profess to uphold. On this occasion, however, they seem to be determined to attempt to devalue a meeting which, by whatever criteria can be applied, made a significant contribution to the overall objective of better relations between the two countries participating.

We are not engaged here in a peripheral exercise affecting some local, political or economic issue of measurable consequence. We are dealing with a problem which has bedeviled relations between the peoples of Ireland and Britain for over a hundred years. We are dealing with something which can raise the most bitter passions and a situation in which there is already enough misunderstanding.

Let me now deal with some of the attempts to seek out apparent disagreement. The British Prime Minister for example is correct, absolutely correct, in stating that the meeting was one of the series of meetings which we had agreed to hold. At our meeting in London in May, it was agreed that a further meeting should be held before the end of the year and the meeting in Dublin Castle on Monday followed that pattern. Nor is there anything extraordinary in regarding the work done at one particular meeting in a series being more valuable, more constructive or more significant than another. The European Council, for instance, meets regularly but it is undeniable that some such councils are important and significant while others, by common consent, achieve nothing.

Again, it is absolutely true to say that we are exploring the possibility of seeing whether we can give some form of institutional expression to the unique relationship between our two countries so as both to achieve peace and stability and improved relations. That is what the communiqué says: that is what we are about; and there is no disagreement on that basic quest.

Let not this House waste its time chasing after imagined discord. Let us rather direct our minds to the worthwhile purposes to which last Monday's discussions were directed. These were, firstly, reconciliation and a just and durable peace throughout this island; secondly, the improvement of relations between Ireland and Britain, so that now, in this world, where wars and rumours of wars are becoming ever more frequent and ominous, old differences between our two peoples — who have so much in common and whose interests are so inextricably linked — can be eliminated and forgotten.

I think I am right in believing that those in this House who disagree with these objectives are few. There may be differences about means but not about ends.

For all the parties involved in this part of Ireland in Britain and in Northern Ireland, there are vast and immediate benefits in a durable and lasting solution. For us there are issues of politics and history. There is the possibility of reconciling ancient quarrels and providing a way forward out of the divisions which have impeded us for far too long.

There are economic benefits of which I would like to give one small example — from an area indeed where we are given all too little credit — security related to the troubles in Northern Ireland alone costs us, on average, three times per head more than it costs the people of the United Kingdom.

For Britain a solution would involve similar benefits on a different scale. Northern Ireland has changed from a position where it once contributed to imperial costs to one where it is now the most heavily subsidised region in the United Kingdom involving an Exchequer subvention of more than £1.2 billion sterling this year.

To the people of Northern Ireland itself the greatest advantage of all would accrue. They have lived with violence for a period longer than one likes to contemplate — and are a community more deeply divided than anywhere in the western world.

Progress can never be based on stagnation of political and economic thought. There can be no advance on the basis of learning nothing and forgetting nothing.

That is why I have been saying that the problem of Northern Ireland cannot be solved in the old framework, which has failed; why we must try to break out of it; why we must seek to raise the problem to a new plane, in which the old questions can be looked at afresh and new solutions tried. That is what we are about in seeking new initiatives, new ways forward, in which all parties to the present conflict are involved and no proposal is excluded simply because it has not been tried before — or does not fit into the artificial moulds of the past or the present.

The meeting in Dublin Castle last Monday was primarily concerned with the relationship between the two islands of Ireland and Great Britain. I believe that it represented a major step forward in that long and tangled relationship. I do not conceal my hope that through the development of that relationship a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland will eventually come about. Is it too much to ask all those who comment and criticise from the sidelines that they would accept that these are two noble purposes which can be honestly pursued side by side with malice toward none but rather for the benefits they will bring to countless thousands of ordinary men and women.

Dr. FitzGerald

At the outset, I wish to say that I do not propose to make any reference in the course of my remarks to the H-Block issue. This matter is one in respect of which the Taoiseach, the Leader of the Labour Party and myself have been in touch during the past week, and in relation to which the Taoiseach has kept both of us informed. The reactions of the three of us to the initiative of John Hume are on the record, and nothing that could be said in this House at the present time on this issue could add anything useful to what we have already said although we may permit ourselves an expression of hope that this initiative will in due course prove to have been successful.

In respect of the other matters discussed at this meeting of the Prime Ministers and other members of the Irish and British Governments, I have not sought, nor would I expect the Taoiseach to have made available to me, any information beyond that given to the media and public at large. The discussions that took place were inter-governmental, and confidential — save to the extent that the two sides jointly in the communiqué, or separately in later press conferences, chose to divulge their versions of what happened.

Having said that I should add that if at any time the Taoiseach wished to exchange information, that such exchange would be in the national interest, I would of course be prepared to meet him for that purpose, without prejudice to my right to express my party's opinions, and to put forward its policies in respect of a solution of the Northern Ireland problem. I have in the past exchanged information with his predecessor on matters relating to Northern Ireland, without in any way inhibiting either his or my freedom of action in relation to policy issues.

Before coming to discuss the communiqué and the press conferences I should like first of all to put forward clearly and concisely my party's views on the basic issues at stake. We share with all other parties in this State the aspiration towards a new relationship between the two parts of this island, on a basis that would be mutually advantageous, and freely agreed. We recognise that the basis of such an agreement does not at present exist. For it to be brought about, much would have to happen not merely in Northern Ireland, but here and in Britain also.

So far as Britain is concerned there would need to be as a minimum a reaffirmation of the British solemn declaration in the Sunningdale Communiqué that the British Government would support a wish on the part of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to become part of a united Ireland. We regret that, while successive Governments here have upheld the equivalent Irish solemn declaration that Irish unity requires the consent of a majority in the North, successive British administrations have notably failed to reiterate Britain's Sunningdale declaration of support for a united Ireland achieved by agreement. They have indeed chosen rather to harden attitudes by reversing this supportive declaration — the only one ever made by Britain after 1920 — into a negative formula of a guarantee for the status quo in the absence of such consent.

I would go further and say on behalf of my party that we would regard it as desirable that British political leaders, most of whom privately express their belief that the ultimate solution of the problem must take the form of a coming together of the two parts of Ireland, should state this conviction publicly, in fairness to the majority in Northern Ireland who have never been accorded their entitlement — an honest statement of the predominant British political belief on this matter.

Such an honest statement would not necessarily resolve this problem speedily. Even the knowledge of where British political opinion really stands on this matter while it might come as a shock to an important segment of Northern Unionists, would not necessarily lead a sufficient proportion of those concerned to turn their gaze immediately southwards. But it could help to start — or rather, for with a small proportion of traditional Unionist opinion this process has already begun, to accelerate — a reconsideration of entrenched attitudes, which, in time, if helped by constructive initiatives on our part, could lead towards a solution.

Secondly, so far as this part of the island is concerned, we in Fine Gael believe that there has been a consistent tendency to under-estimate what this State and its people could contribute to a change of attitudes in Northern Ireland. One of our great defects as a people in dealing with this matter has been our tendency to regard the Northern majority as an undifferentiated solid mass, all equally intransigent about the possibility of any changed relationship with the Republic. This attitude within our State stems from the depressing lack of contact of so many of our people, including in particular our politicians, with the North, and above all with Northern Unionists. It was one of the objectives of our Government to break down this ignorance, to make contact with Northerners of both sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and to invite Unionists as well as Nationalists to visit us here informally. We succeeded in this to a degree which in the nature of things has never been fully appreciated, because many of these informal contacts took place only because they were discreet and unpublicised.

What became clear during those years to all who were thus brought into contact with a range of political and public opinion in the Unionist community, is that within that community, and most especially outside the ranks of the politicians — there exists a wide range of views on the desirability, and/or the probability, of an eventual coming-together of North and South. A significant minority of informed opinion on the Unionist side is not intransigent on this issue, and some of that tradition has come during recent years to accept that a new North-South relationship is inevitable while others have come to regard it even as desirable, seeing no future in a continuation of the present tragic impasse.

It should be our task, our aim, our united objective, to seek to enlarge this minority within the Unionist tradition, by removing obstacles to the growth of this opinion. If we are serious about this matter we should be seeking to eliminate anything which enables hard-liners to inhibit this growth — any laws or practices, or actions, or words — sometimes words are spoken here that are singularly unhelpful — that give a useful handle to those who seek to oppose a coming together of the two parts of our island. Yet, again and again, suggestions for actions that might clear away obstacles to the growth of a rational appreciation of the advantages of a new North-South relationship, have been opposed here on the grounds that we would be wasting our time trying to persuade Unionist hard-liners to change their minds — when in the ultimate it is not those hard-liners who are the problem.

The problem is to create conditions here that will encourage an expansion of the minority of Unionists who see their future as lying ultimately with us, an expansion towards a figure in excess of 25-30 per cent, so that in combination with the Nationalist population a clear overall majority could emerge in the North which would favour a new North-South relationship. A combination of ignorance of the existence of this south-ward-looking minority in the Northern Unionist community, and a deep-seated inward-looking conservative reluctance here to change our society and to make it genuinely pluralist, has hitherto frustrated progress in this direction.

This debate has to take place against this triple background, first of the need for and possibility of changes, in the expression of political opinion in Britain; second of the need to move towards a more pluralist society in this State — a society that could be acceptable to reasonable Unionists in the North; and third in the North itself, of the need to create conditions that will favour an expansion of the minority view that already exists in the Unionist section of the community, favouring an opening towards the South. Let us see this debate against this background, and not talk as if it were in a vacuum.

That the Anglo-Irish relationship is a crucial element in this evolving situation has been evident for some time past. As I pointed out in speaking in Belfast almost two years ago on Fine Gael's policy for a Confederal Ireland, we have to take account of close cultural and other links between the whole island of Ireland and Britain. One model I said to which we might look in this context — though it could clearly provide only part of the answer — is Benelux, the institution which linked Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg even before the European Community was formed, and which continues to exist today. These states are not, of course, represented in the Community by Benelux — their interests are too divergent — but they find it useful to give expression to their especially close relationship with each other, which is in fact less close than that which links Ireland and Britain, by retaining this institution in parallel to the Community structure. One could envisage some such arrangement between the islands of Ireland and Britain, so structured as to give expression to what we and Britain share in common, without impeding the representation of Ireland's divergent material interests not alone within the Community but vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

I went on in that speech to raise the possibility of common citizenship, which I pointed out already exists de facto so far as citizens of this State in Britain are concerned, and de jure in the Republic so far as almost all residents of Northern Ireland are concerned, a fact which is little appreciated either North or South. Finally, in that speech I added that if these arrangements were not felt to give adequate expression to the sentiments of many Unionists towards Britain, further consideration should be given to how this could be done as between a Northern state in an Irish confederation, and the neighbouring island.

Of course, I was talking then in terms of a hypothetical Irish confederation. The discussions which the Taoiseach and other Ministers had with the British Prime Minister and other British Prime Ministers had to start further back along the road — they had to start from where we are now. The communiqué refers to the inextricable links between the "economic, social and political interests of the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic", for these are the existing political units between which discussions have to take place. Nonetheless, the same basic concept underlies these talks as lay behind my approach two years ago — the concept of placing the Northern Ireland issue in a new and broader context, the context of a new Anglo-Irish relationship.

This matter has become somewhat confused by a combination of the vagueness of the language of the communiqué — I do not complain of this, it is inevitable at this stage — and the very different tones of the two press conferences that followed its publication. It was perhaps unfortunate that there had to be two separate press conferences. Our experience in government suggested to us that there are certain dangers involved in meetings between the Irish and British Governments being followed by separate press conferences and this led to the arrangement towards the end of our period in Government which I pressed for of a joint press conference by Roy Mason and myself in Iveagh House, following a meeting there — a procedure which ensured against any confusion as to what had happened at the meeting. The decision to seek such an arrangement was based on an experience we had had previously. I commend this practice to the Taoiseach as one worthy of consideration in the future. I suggest to him also that in his speech today he sounded an unduly defensive note, and seemed to be tilting at windmills, with his reference to people who would normally purport to support any attempt to improve relations between Ireland and Great Britain but who on this occasion, however, seemed determined to devalue this meeting. In the meantime, opinion here is uncertain as to the real significance of this meeting. I hope that this debate may clarify some of this uncertainty though I am sceptical that it can in the nature of things.

There are several other aspects of this matter on which I should like to comment, choosing my words with some care. I note and accept what the Taoiseach said in explanation of certain specific comments by the British Prime Minister, but there are other comments by her, and yesterday by the Secretary of State, to which the Taoiseach has not referred and on which I wish to comment in this speech.

First, with due respect to the British Prime Minister, I have to say that I regret that she should have posited the unique relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom as deriving from the fact that our State is the only one with which the UK shares a land frontier. The uniqueness of the relationship between our two countries derives from the extraordinary close economic, social and cultural links between our two islands that are the products of our joint history. The creation of that land frontier within this island in the last half-century of an eight-century-old relationship has complicated this unique relationship but is certainly not the cause of its uniqueness, which will remain even when this land frontier has disappeared.

Second, I regret that she should have felt it necessary to say that there is absolutely no possibility of a confederation flowing from the discussions at Dublin Castle. This statement is, to say the least, difficult to reconcile with the Taoiseach's statement that the two sides had "set no limit on what institutions might be brought forward, might be considered, might be designed, might be conceived". Even more disturbing is the reported statement by the Northern Ireland Secretary in the House of Commons that constitutional changes are ruled out of these discussions.

On a different aspect of the problem I note that the Taoiseach told his press conference that public representatives in Northern Ireland would have a very important role to play in bringing forward a solution. Any judgment, he added, must recognise that Northern representatives would have to be involved in finding a solution.

I note also that in his speech today the Taoiseach said that Northern Ireland's politician leaders clearly have a very important part to play in any solution and he would like to see careful consideration being given to arrangements for appropriate involvement of such leaders in future developments. He was obviously suggesting that they might have an interest in the joint study on security matters which well could be inter-related with those on possible new institutional structures. Those remarks are an important reassurance because in the past the Taoiseach has seemed a little dismissive of the role of the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. Nevertheless, as he has also accepted explicitly, like all other political leaders in this State, that any solution must be one arrived at by agreement and not by constraint, the Northern Ireland input is crucial, although of course, as I have already suggested, Britain's influence on this Northern Ireland input can be significant.

Earlier in my remarks I referred back to my own approach several years ago to the possibility of a change in the Anglo-Irish context helping towards a resolution of the Northern Ireland problem. The terms of the communiqué leave open the interpretation, to which Mrs. Thatcher seemed to be directing her listeners at her press conference, that the proposed new institutions would be confined to reflecting the relationship between the United Kingdom as it exists at present and our State in its present form.

I would welcome closer ties between our two States as they exist, because I recognise that such closer ties will provide a better context for a solution to the Northern Ireland problem. But the ultimate significance of a new institutional relationship involving the totality of these islands would lie in the way in which such a relationship between the island of Ireland as a whole and the island of Great Britain could provide part of the reassurance needed to secure the support of a sufficiently large proportion of the Northern population for a new North-South relationship. This should not be overlooked. A new institutional structure between our States as they now exist could be no substitute for the new relationship that we are seeking to establish between North and South, and that needs to be said, quietly, but firmly.

I suppose it is scarcely necessary to add that press references, allegedly inspired by our Government sources, to limitations of sovereignty arising from new institutional arrangements, must necessarily give rise to some concern. It is of course true, as these Government sources apparently pointed out to journalists that we have already limited our sovereignty by our referendum decision to join the EEC, but there is a qualitative difference between the kind of limitations of sovereignty involved in that multilateral relationship, which involves a simultaneous and equivalent sharing by us in the sovereignty of the other nine States, and the kind of limitations that could be involved in a new bilateral relationship with a single state so very much larger than ourselves, and with such divergent economic interests. I shall not, however, develop this point further at this time. It may be necessary at a later stage to return to it.

Finally, none of us should be under any illusion — I do not think anyone is — that the route now being taken by the Government will yield quick or early results. I am sure the Taoiseach does not wish to delude the House or the electorate on this point. By its very nature the indirect route — through Britain, hoping to create a new context on which Northern attitudes may be changed — is a lengthy one. First there has to be progress in Anglo-Irish relations, and then the results of this have to filter through to non-hard line Unionist opinion in Northern Ireland, which will need time to mobilise itself against the even more bitter attacks from the hard-liners which this approach will initially produce — indeed is even now producing.

London and Dublin cannot settle this matter over the heads of the Northern Ireland people. That would be the route to war, not to peace, and we have unanimously abjured violence and have chosen the path of reconciliation and of seeking a new North-South relationship by peaceful means. We must be prepared to accept not alone that there is a long road ahead but that it is one that may involve frustrations at the initial stages, with an early hardening of opinion in extreme Unionist circles in Northern Ireland. But so long as we make it absolutely clear at every point that the policy being pursued of creating a new and better relationship with Britain is not designed to lead to a deal over the heads of the Northern people, who must, as the Taoiseach has said, be parties — and fully consenting parties — to any North-South arrangement, we can accept the delays necessarily involved in taking the route through London.

The House will have noted that I have been deliberately restrained in the comments I have made on this matter. It could have been open to me to have made harsher criticisms on some points or to have raised more contentious issues. The gulf between the two press conferences provided ample scope for such an approach. But it has been my wish — and, I should add, that of my party — to avoid introducing such elements into this debate, not because we do not have serious doubts on a number of points but because we regard the issues raised by this meeting as much too important to warrant such treatment.

If with the passage of time it appears that our restraint has not been justified and that the reality of what emerges from this meeting falls far short of what has been claimed for it, it will be time enough then for us to voice such criticisms. To do so now would, we judge, be irresponsible. The Taoiseach knows as well as I do that it is on results, and not on verbiage, that the nation will eventually judge his approach to this problem. But at this time we must wish his efforts well — for our country's sake and above all for the sake of our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland who have borne the full brunt of this tragedy for over ten years.

Mr. Cluskey

I did not prepare a script for this discussion because I wanted to hear what the Taoiseach had to say and be able to respond to what he said. Listening to the Taoiseach I got the distinct impression that he was, to say the least, very defensive in his speech, conjuring up all kinds of images that those who did not go unquestionably along his lines were somehow less Irish and less patriotic than he. Neither I nor my party have ever used rhetoric as a criterion for Irishness or patriotism and I do not intend to do so now.

I should like to confirm what Deputy FitzGerald said regarding the H-Block issue. Discussions were held between the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald and myself last week and yesterday and because of possible developments in the issue I also feel it would be of no benefit to anyone concerned to have any comment in the House at this time except to sincerely hope that the matter can be resolved within the context of the statements made by the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald and myself, which were similar, commenting on the initiative from John Hume.

We asked for this report for two reasons. First of all it is appropriate that after a meeting of this nature the Taoiseach should report back to the Dáil and also because in this instance there is a very distinct and clear difference between the interpretation of clause 6 of the communiqué in London's view and in Dublin's view. It is a very serious difference indeed. Deputy FitzGerald said he felt one could be charged with irresponsibility if one raised these issues in the House at this time, and the presentation of the Taoiseach's point of view this morning was designed to some extent at least to fuel that approach by the media to anyone who would question what happened or did not happen. At the risk of being termed irresponsible by certain of the media, I feel there is an overriding responsibility on a Member of the House to clarify or attempt to get clarification on precisely what is included and what is excluded in the agreement that was reached at the summit.

I view the summit in two parts. The Taoiseach very rightly and correctly claims that it was a very constructive meeting. It was. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for this very wide difference on clause 6 which has arisen between London's and Dublin's interpretation, one would have been in a position to congratulate the Taoiseach on the very constructive nature of the summit as far as closer links and development of mutual co-operation in many areas between the UK Government and our Government are concerned. Of course they were useful and are of mutual interest and benefit. Substantial progress was made on co-operation and economic matters. Communications, security, transport and cross-Border co-operation are all mentioned and a whole range of matters of mutual interest, not least those that come within the ambit of our relationship by reason of our mutual membership of the EEC, were dealt with. The difference is not in some economic issue or technicality over cross-Border relations or in an area of transport or our approach to the common agricultural policy; the difference is on the most important fundamental principle of Fianna Fáil policy.

The Taoiseach declared on his election as Taoiseach that the first political priority of his Government and party was the reunification of this country and to progress towards that. That is how fundamental it was to the Taoiseach. It is inconceivable to me that there was any misunderstanding on paragraph 6 of the communiqué. If one accepts, as I do, that there was no misunderstanding, one must try to analyse how there was a difference. Why does it exist, how does it exist, and who benefits from the different interpretations? On the one hand, the Taoiseach gave a press conference in Dublin and described the meeting as historic. It was an important meeting and made a lot of progress, but without his interpretation that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland could be discussed under the terms of paragraph 6 within the context of the joint studies that have been initiated, it could not be described as historic. That word was used deliberately. We were told by the Taoiseach through the media at the press conference that he put no limits on what could emerge from these study groups, and there were hinting, implication and innuendo at all times, suggestions, but nothing definite, nothing clear.

Again this morning there is nothing definite, nothing clear. There is no statement by the Taoiseach: yes, the British Prime Minister and her senior colleagues agreed that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland could be — not even would be — discussed by the study groups and would be discussed at our next meeting. We have had no clear, unequivocal statement of that nature from the Taoiseach at the press conference, since or in this House this morning. On the other hand the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, is very clear. I heard and saw her on television and she was asked by a reporter on a BBC news programme on which she was being interviewed about the constitutional matters. Immediately she pulled the reporter up and said,"No, there is a difference. Institutional arrangements, not constitutional arrangements. Good gracious, no, good gracious, no". She repeated it. She was quite clear that constitutional issues would not and could not be discussed, they were not open for discussion. Certain institutional arrangements which would be of mutual benefit, which would help us all and which we would all subscribe to and support fully could be discussed but no constitutional arrangements could be discussed.

Mr. Atkins in the House of Commons last night stated that constitutional matters would not be discussed; institutional matters, yes. Here we have on this side suggestions, hints, innuendos, hopes, aspirations, all sorts of things; on the other side a clear, unequivocal statement regarding the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. One wonders who is going to benefit. Who wins by these different interpretations? Much more important as far as I am concerned — and that is why I am prepared to stand up here and take the risk of being told that I am irresponsible — who loses? Who can lose more than political favour, votes, even their very lives? All those elements are in this. The Taoiseach can gain in political terms and advantage, there is no question about that. The Taoiseach, the Government, the Fianna Fáil Party, by agreement with Mrs. Thatcher, have set up joint study groups, and the Taoiseach has implied not that this is the way forward towards better relationships between the UK and us, but that through these joint study groups, through their input, through the further discussions he is going to have with Mrs. Thatcher, unity is at the end of the road. She has said definitely, "No". However, the Taoiseach has stated that, he has implied it and he has caused a considerable amount of confusion, and that is beneficial. If it is not factual the next best thing is to cause confusion, particularly amongst our friends here on the gallery and more particularly amongst some of their editors who are only too willing to be confused, and have shown that. They love it, but the stakes are too high to play footsie with this, they are too high for our fellow countrymen and women. The Taoiseach will gain. We are going to have a general election. It can be presented to the electorate as a marvellous leap forward.

It has been suggested that the ultimate aspiration which we all share is now in sight due to the efforts of this Government and this Taoiseach. On the other hand, Mrs. Thatcher has her home front to consider. Let us be fair, a much more serious view is being taken, both within and without the House of Commons, of an office holder standing up and telling a deliberate untruth than there is in this assembly and in this country, unfortunately. It is not lightly done because the consequences and the judgment of your peers come swift and severe. Unfortunately, that does not always happen here. but it does, by tradition, happen there. Therefore, Mr. Atkins on behalf of the British Government did not lightly get up yesterday and say that no constitutional issues would be discussed.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cluskey

Oh, we have the mutterings now "but I am less than Irish". It is because I am Irish and patriotic and I love this country and its people that I am speaking now.

Mr. Moore

Do not be hypocritical.

Mr. Cluskey

I will not seek votes or political support over the dead bodies of Irishmen and Irishwomen or the possibility of it. I will go out of this office and public life first. Let us analyse this a little further. Is Mrs. Thatcher a loser? No, she is not. Therefore, we have two participants in the Summit who can be gainers. We have paid a heavy price for her gain, and particularly the people of Northern Ireland have paid a heavy price for it. What is her gain? We have had the Atkins round of discussions, a total failure which fell in a shambles around his ankles. The British Cabinet do not know what to do next or which way to go forward. There is no political initiative, but pressure, rightly, from the Taoiseach, from the Government, from the SDLP, from other interested groups, from us in this party, from Fine Gael, from America, from European peoples and governments. That is her gain. Unless the Taoiseach can get up here and reply in unequivocal terms that the constitutional issues can and will be discussed, what price have we paid? The price of our silence when no political initiative is being taken on the North, when she can refer to the Taoiseach's assessment that these things can be included in the study groups. That is a terrible price that we have to pay, particularly the people of Northern Ireland.

I do not know which is correct. I have stated what I believe to be correct. The Taoiseach pleads here for us all to be understanding and not to be seeing things that are not there. If he wants that, surely if the British Prime Minister is entitled in her parliament through her Secretary of State, with the British media to state in clear, unequivocal terms that the constitutional issue cannot and will not be discussed, the Taoiseach is entitled to say to his parliament, to his media, to his people in unequivocal terms that they can be discussed. He has not done so. He can do so. I will shut up if he does. I will sit down if he does. She has made her position clear. He has the opportunity here this morning to make this perfectly clear as to what the proper interpretation is and how he arrived at that interpretation. If there is any doubt, the irresponsibility is almost beyond comprehension.

Everybody here knows that, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned at this moment and over the H-Block issue, the sectarian tensions are at a height now that have not been witnessed since the early seventies and that both communities have retreated more and more to their own positions. If the British Government, the British Prime Minister, our Taoiseach or our Government are trying to get political advantage out of fuelling that situation, which has been fuelled by this confusion and which can be cleared up if the Taoiseach wants to do it, it is not only irresponsible but criminal. I appeal to the Taoiseach to say in clear, unequivocal, no roundabout way but straight out, is it permissible and was it agreed that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland would be referred to those joint study groups? Will they be on the agenda of the next meeting with the British Prime Minister? If that is the position there is no breach of confidence as Deputy FitzGerald seemed to suggest. There cannot be a breach of confidence. The British Prime Minister has already done it in her parliament through her Secretary of State and directly to the British people on BBC television. There is no breach of confidence. The Taoiseach can do it. The noise and the rumbling coming from Northern Ireland can put fear in the hearts of all our people, whether they be Catholic or Protestant. For God's sake, will the Taoiseach get up and be clear about what did or did not take place, whether or not those things can be included or excluded. The Taoiseach owes it to the country.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

This problem, to which the debate is addressing itself, is one between two governments in these two islands. It is an Anglo-Irish problem which includes also the fundamental necessity to effect a reconciliation within the Northern Ireland community and the rest of the country. It is in that context that the discussions which took place last Monday and previously in London between the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach and between members of the British Government and the Irish Government should be viewed.

The reaction to the meeting last Monday has been highly constructive in the British and Irish media. It is in this area we must seek to mobilise support so that public opinion in this island and in the island of Britain can come to a comprehension of the complexity of the problem involved. I would like to place on record my view that the constructive response by the media, with some exceptions, particularly in Britain, can only lead to a constructive evolution of debate and, hopefully, lead to a constructive conclusion to this intractable problem that has bedevilled relations between Britain and Ireland over so many centuries and has divided our people in this island. I believe the part to be played by public opinion in this matter is very important. It is public opinion in the last analysis that will motivate the British Government. It is public opinion at home, in the South and in the North, that will come round to a constructive and responsible attitude to the matter and lead those who take part in public debate to a similar constructive and responsible attitude to the matter.

I feel very strongly that the partnership at the present time between the people, the politicians and the media to see some way out of this intractable and complex problem is excellent and cannot but be fruitful. In that context I might mention the excellent production at the moment on television relating to Irish history. All of this I believe is leading to a new convergence of intelligent, constructive and responsible assessment of this situation. We do not want negative notes at the present time. We want, above all else, positive thinking. I do not have to emphasise what is set out in the previous communiqué in London that the relationship between Britain and Ireland is a unique one. It is unique and it is also complex with its roots deep in history. Real progress can only come about if there is a willingness to look at this relationship in a new light, to adopt a fresh and positive approach. I believe the meeting last Monday was a major step towards the adoption of such an approach.

Surely experience has shown us that there is no ready made solution that will suddenly emerge and that we must proceed in this area step by step and as long as we proceed constructively step by step and have an overall positive approach to the matter, that is important from the psychological point of view because this whole area is motivated by psychological attitude, the environment of thought, the approach of people and, in particular, the lessening of suspicion and distrust. This can only come about through exchanges such as we had last Monday and will continue to have on a regular basis with particular emphasis on the positive result of last Monday's meeting, to which I would like to address myself.

We have now got a positive decision set out in paragraph 6 of the communiqué where the two Governments have now decided to commission at the highest level joint studies covering a wide range of vital issues. They are spelled out as new institutional structures, which is what counts. There is no written constitution in Britain, for the benefit of Deputy Cluskey. We are talking about new institutional structures within this island, citizenship rights, security matters, economic co-operation. All of those vital areas will be covered by joint studies, already commissioned, which will be examined by officials at the highest level and will form the basis of an agenda for the next meeting between the two heads of Government and respective relevant Ministers, which will take place next year. That represents a positive step forward because at this meeting special consideration will be given to making decisions on the basis of the joint studies in the wide areas I have just mentioned, which have been commissioned and will be examined between now and the next meeting.

I would like to emphasise that this particular decision embodied in paragraph 6 of the communiqué merits the description of the discussions that gave rise to that decision, as referred to in paragraph 8, in which both sides subscribed to the view that the discussions were extremely constructive and significant. The things I have just mentioned, those studies which will be specially considered at the next meeting between the two Governments, represent the significant element in the talks that took place last Monday. The Taoiseach made that quite clear in the course of his press conference after the talks. We are satisfied that it is through the development of a better mutual relationship between the two Governments and peoples that a lasting solution to the problems in Northern Ireland can be found. The Government will press forward with these studies. We are determined that the next meeting between the heads of Government will be important in that these studies, having been thoroughly prepared, can be examined fully and decisions made.

I would emphasise another aspect which is also very important and essential. What we are talking about here is not only the question of Anglo-Irish relations, though that aspect must be the broad context since Anglo-Irish relations comprehend exchanges between the only two sovereign Governments that exist in these islands. In addition, there is the basic issue of the Northern Ireland community. At this point I would make a particular appeal to those who belong to the other Irish tradition. There are two Irish traditions on this Island, the Nationalist and the Unionist traditions. The people of the Unionist Irish tradition need have no fear provided that we set our sights on reconciliation, on the securing of stability leading to reconciliation and provided we set our sights towards achieving reconciliation by way of agreed structures and by way of discussion. The whole emphasis must be placed on that area. Every aspect of relations between the two Irish traditions is on the table for discussion by all the people of this island represented by those whom they have elected to speak for them.

More than anything else we should emphasise that what we are talking of is not something exclusive between Britain and Ireland but, rather, that we are talking about an all-embracing exclusive aspect which includes Anglo-Irish relations on the one hand and comprehending and including relations both within the Northern community and between the Northern community and the rest of the country. Our two islands are linked together inextricably on this planet and it is in that context that we are seeking to lift this whole debate on to a new level.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must conclude now.

Mr. Lenihan

In conclusion, I would emphasise one other aspect and that is that this debate be kept at the level which it has attained up to now. I say this because the issue concerned is of such basic sensitivity and importance. Proress is being made step by step and we hope that this situation will continue.

Mr. Blaney

The Taoiseach and the Leaders of both Opposition parties have talked about a unique relationship existing between Ireland and Great Britain but they have omitted any reference to what I regard as unique in this whole situation: that we have here a Government dealing with the British Government and their representatives as if everything in the garden was rosy. So far as I am concerned — and the same goes for thousands of my fellow countrymen both at home and abroad — the whole situation is bizarre as well as being unique in that we are occupied by Great Britain and have been so occupied for 800 years. We are partitioned within our own country by Great Britain while at the same time several Irishmen are dying in jails in the Six Counties. Yet we continue to behave as if everything was normal and that there was a situation in which two sovereign Governments were discussing the economic difficulties being experienced both here and throughout the world.

Is it not both sad and incomprehensible that we get the parsing and the analysing of what took place on Monday last at this so-called historic meeting? Is it not sad that there is little emphasis on the part of the Taoiseach, none from either of the two main speakers from the Opposition and nothing of any sense from the Minister for Foreign Affairs — there seldom is — in regard to the burning question of those people who are on the brink of death, who are on hunger strike as a last protest against the inhumane treatment that is being meted out to their fellow Irishmen, not all of whom are Catholics, in Long Kesh, and to the women in Armagh prison, not to mention the treatment to which our Irish prisoners are subjected in jails in Britain? It is difficult to understand how people can come here today and endeavour to gross over the whole problem. We know, not as a result of any communiqué nor from anything that has been said here today, that the Northern Ireland Office in Belfast are prepared for the deaths of those prisoners who are on hunger strike. We know from that office that in the event of the first death there are preparations for containing what would become an immediate escalation of violence. That situation will be contained by the RUC, backed up by the UDR — all of whom are Irishmen — in that order and finally by the British Army. In other words, the RUC will be in the frontline followed by the UDR while the British Army take third place in order in containing what they expect to be an escalation of violence lasting for two or three days. It is expected that those remaining on hunger strike would then decide to take food and that, consequently, everything would be the same as it was a couple of months ago. But there will still be Long Kesh and the brutalising of our people there. Yet there is no word from the Taoiseach on all of this.

There is much that I could say on how the H-Block and the blanket protest came about, on how the hunger strike was brought about and on how it has continued. I could say a good deal about how this hunger strike parallels that which took place in 1972 when political status was granted. It parallels also similar situations in 1917 when political status was granted, too. It is not being granted on this occasion. One of the reasons it is not being granted is because successive Governments are not treating Britain in the manner in which we should at a time such as this. Our unique relationship with them at the moment is that they are occupying our country, brutalising our people and discriminating against a minority within the partitioned part of our country. Those who are protesting today on hunger strike and on the blanket are carrying on the struggle that has been going on for generations. While the cause is still there it will prevent any real development of the relationship that should and could exist between two neighbouring islands on the fringe of Europe who need each other badly in the depressing world in which we live today.

Has the Taoiseach put it to Mrs. Thatcher that the security he talked about here today is costing three times as much per head for the people in this part of the country as it is for the residents of Great Britain? Has the Taoiseach asked Mrs. Thatcher to find a solution to this terrible tragedy and told her that, if she does not, we will not provide this security? Has the Taoiseach said "Why should we pay for securing a border that the British put there and want to keep there and that we want to get rid of?" As a representative of the British Government has Mrs. Thatcher been asked whether her Government are prepared to declare their intention to get out of this country? What is the Taoiseach's attitude to the information coming from the Northern Ireland Office that they are prepared for the deaths of some of the seven, that the rest will come off hunger strike, that the public uprising that will take place will be put down in two or three days and that we will be back to square one or back to H-block?

Perhaps then our unique relationship can be developed in the way we would like.

Mr. P. Barry

When will the concluding speakers be called?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The concluding speaker for Labour will be called at 12.15 p.m. and the concluding speaker for Fine Gael will be called at 12.35 p.m. The Deputy has ten minutes.

Mr. P. Barry

I do not normally contribute to Northern Ireland debates. This is not because I have a lack of interest, nor because I have not visited Northern Ireland and studied the problem, nor is it because I have not good relations with members of both communities there. It is because I find that I agree with Deputy Blaney in that the trauma and the tragedy and the way in which the partition of this island has affected our thinking, emotions and our history is the most distressing thing in public life here, and words have not contributed a great deal to the solution of this problem over 60 years. The attitude of the founders of my party in the twenties was correct, and in spite of many Governments since then we were possibly nearer to unifying this country then than we are now.

I recognise the views of all Members of the House in their welcome for what the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to as the other tradition of this island. In our desire for friendship, harmony and co-operation on this island unpartitioned in the future, everything we do and say should always be put forward with a view to reconciliation and eliminating the violence that has bedevilled this country for far too long. I have tended to bend over backwards to facilitate what might be regarded as backward steps in this regard, because I fear the violence. I fear for the future and the mental stability of people who are reared in violence. I fear for the future of this country unless we can eliminate violence. I look at everything in this House and any meetings to see if they measure up to two criteria — do they lead to unification and will they help to eliminate violence? I am willing to submerge many of the criticisms I make of people and organisations if I can accept that they may put us on that road. It is with that outlook that I look at last Monday's meeting, the important part of which took place in the hour and a quarter the Taoiseach had alone with Mrs. Thatcher. Obviously, in a meeting with just two people a much more frank discussion would take place and there would be a much clearer view of the necessary steps to bring about my two measurements of success — the elimination of violence and the reunification of the country. As Deputy Dr. FitzGerald said earlier, many British politicians see that in the end this country will be united, but what they cannot see is the format of words or policies that would allow them get out with honour and without bloodshed. Perhaps the hour and a quarter that the Taoiseach spent with Mrs. Thatcher will have enabled them to come up with a solution to that problem. If they have, whoever is head of the Government in this country will have the full support of our party. In the meantime perhaps for the wrong reasons I will submerge any criticism I may have of the meeting.

A joint press conference, after issuing a joint communiqué like this, might be more beneficial to both parties because it is not productive to have wrangling over the interpretation of the words used in the communiqué in the press as a result of two separate press conferences held in London and Dublin.

I took particular exception, and I presume every Member of this House did too, to the reference by the British Prime Minister to the unique relationship between the two countries being a common land border. That is not so. The unique relationship between Great Britain and Ireland is that we have economic and cultural ties going back into history and we are two islands of the mainland off the west coast of Europe.

As I said, I am willing to submerge any criticisms I might have in the belief that the participants in that conference want to achieve the same ends I want to achieve, even though it is more difficult for one of them to say so, that is, the unification of this country and an end to violence on this island. If last Monday's conference leads to that end, the Taoiseach can be assured of the support of this party.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Kennedy)

This House is debating a joint communiqué issued after a meeting last Monday which was described very deliberately as being extremely constructive, this being the consensus of the parties to that meeting. Obviously we are trying to find a way out of the web of relations which existed between the two countries over the centuries, particularly out of the division, dissent and tragedy we have seen over the last 60 years, and particularly over the last ten years. We have seen divisions, fears, prejudice feeding on prejudice based on ignorance and perhaps on fear. Last Monday's very significant meeting took upon itself the obligation, intention and determination to bring forward policies and proposals to achieve peace, reconciliation and stability where previously there has been division, distrust and instability, particularly in the North of Ireland and to eliminate the strain of dissent and division which has bedevilled relations between the two countries, between North and South and within the North. These intentions and commitments which emerged from this very positive meeting will not be easily achieved.

These policies and proposals will tax the ingenuity, imagination, concern, commitment and confidence of all parties involved over each stage of this series which is getting under way as a development of what already exists. Unfortunately Deputy Cluskey wants precision now as to what exactly will be done and what is intended to be done each step along the way. He wants this to be clear and unequivocal thereby demonstrating his lack of experience in this kind of meeting and his lack of appreciation of the deep historical problems that have to be faced, solved and overcome in order to realise the potential on this island and for an improvement in relations between both parts of this island. As one involved in these discussions I want to tell Deputies that any implication that there is not agreement and commitment by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister has no basis.

Secondly, there are some aspects of this matter which are very sad. I heard on BBC Belfast this morning — and it was echoed a little by Deputy Cluskey when he said the Taoiseach will gain in political terms, implying that this advantage was only for himself and his party as distinct from the great political advantage that will benefit all — a former Member of this House and a current member of the Labour Party. He said this would enable the Taoiseach to reap propaganda dividends inside the Republic. That was said with a stamp of authority by an editor of a major British newspaper. He went on to say that the Taoiseach stood to gain by fooling the electorate about a united Ireland. I find it sad that someone, who may for one reason or another have been disillusioned at what he was not able to achieve, should now create confusion where the signs in the British media are very positive.

We have come a long way from 1965 — this coincides with my first election to this House when I was involved in discussions in this area — when the only group in Britain, the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster within the Labour Party, were aware of what was happening; the media, or the political representatives were not aware. The British media is now much more aware and is expecting much more from those who have the responsibility to help the people to find their way out of this fear, distrust and division into a new area of co-operation, understanding and achievement.

This comes at a time when BBC are showing a very significant television series by Robert Kee which it is hoped will not stimulate fears but will create a new awareness among the British people of the tangled web of relationships between the two countries. It is well that the problems of the past are known so that the problems of the present will be understood.

Some of the facts we have to face derive from economic problems which I want to touch on. The North of Ireland economy has been a dependent service economy, an economy which depends on public expenditure from the British Exchequer. This has been the reality. Now that the pressures that apply to all Governments, particularly Treasury Ministers and Ministers for Finance, are becoming very clear, the need for a new adaptation of the structures there, and here, to meet the needs of the eighties, nineties and into the next century as distinct from the position over the last 50 or 60 years when each country had and played different roles, is of vital importance. Everybody is concerned with these constraints. Allowing for the special preference which the British Government may see they are giving the North of Ireland in terms of public expenditure, we are concerned to ensure that instead of watching the consequences of a huge bill, greater economic depression, we can begin to see, through new co-operation on economic policies particularly which these studies will bring about, proposals that will enable us to harness our joint capacities and our total commitment.

Security costs can and must be put to better use. It will be a first priority of successive Governments here to ensure that while we recognise the responsibility this Government have — as the increasing security bill demonstrates—to see that that money, which incidentally turns up on the current budget and which economists would maintain is all current, is not deemed to be further evidence of our failure to control our current budget. We are not failing in our commitment in that area. I am glad to say that, from my own experience in this area, that question is now over; nobody now raises that as they did some years ago with the former Secretary of State and myself; it is over. But both Governments are anxious to ensure that the moneys that are being applied there be applied much more positively to economic development. There is a great space for study, co-operation and common cause and purpose in the interests of the people involved.

The three final speakers have 25 minutes each.

Mr. B. Desmond

I do not propose to take my 25 minutes because the pride of place, in terms of explanation to the House, still rests with the Taoiseach. We have had 14 pages this morning of elaboration which, if one might be uncharitable about it, was strong in rhetoric but extremely slight in content. The Leader of my Party has laid it straight to the Taoiseach to clarify his precise interpretation of the communiqué.

We all accept that it is the conventional practice and wisdom on occasions such as the meeting between the two Prime Ministers that there should be a degree of licence permitted both participants in elaborations on what took place, particularly at subsequent press conferences. I must confess to being rather jaundiced—as the Leader of my Party was correctly entirely jaundiced this morning—that the Taoiseach should come in here and rather defensively chide individuals like myself who went on radio and expressed a degree of scepticism on what allegedly had been taking place, and expressed a degree of concern that the media should be rather confusing the issue. The reverse is the correct position. The Taoiseach took licence above and beyond the conventional interpretations given to those occasions when, at his press conference, he indulged in certain rhetoric. Perhaps I may quote him from The Irish Times of Tuesday last, 9 December. I think that newspaper is reliable enough; its editor would be somewhat sympathetic to the Taoiseach's view on these matters; he is given to a good deal of rhetoric himself. The Taoiseach is reported as maintaining that the discussions had brought “significant political movement into this tragic situation”. The article went on to say:

...the Taoiseach commented that he was hopeful that they were "in the middle of an historic breakthrough"...

I do not know where he gets these public relations phrases—perhaps somebody in his Department hands him these pieces of paper—but the article continued:

and that the problem facing the two Governments had been placed "firmly on a new plane".

If expectations of a false nature have been created they have been entirely of the Taoiseach's own creation. He should not indulge in what one might described as false recrimination against the Opposition or the media, that they are hammering him with interpretations which are incorrect when he himself quite evidently, way over and above the conventional wisdom, has gone on to create expectations apparently for internal, domestic consumption. But we have a clear conflict. The British Prime Minister has apparently been under no illusions whatsoever as to the format and content of her discussions with the Taoiseach. There has been the implication by the Taoiseach that the concept of studies relating to new institutionalised structures have a constitutional dimension. This has been repudiated by Mrs. Thatcher and by Humphrey Atkins. Therefore, a clear responsibility rests on the Taoiseach to set the record straight because without that clear and absolute confirmation from him we just drift on in an area of false expectations, false implications and false interpretations of what happened.

It is important to note that in the communiqueacute; there was no reference in paragraph 6 to the situation in Northern Ireland. If it is intended by the Taoiseach, and accepted by the British Government, that possible new institutional structures include the situation in Northern Ireland, then the Taoiseach should say so. If it is not he should say so. If it is his wish that that should be included he should say so. There is nothing more destructive to the political situation in Northern Ireland than that an impression should be created among the population of Northern Ireland that by a process of nudge and political wink between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister somehow or other they are in but they do not know whether they are or not in the context of institutional studies. If the Taoiseach has been hoisted by anything he has been hoisted by the rhetoric of his own interpretation.

It is not in any way destructive or counter-productive for the Opposition, relative to the situation in Northern Ireland, to ask such questions. Down through the seventies — apparently now we are going to have a spate of it up to the next general election — we have had this perpetual ambiguity and creation of false expectations. The Taoiseach is anxious to go into the next general election telling the people that the North is in safe hands and that we are on the verge of new studies. He wants to be able to tell the people that we are going to emerge with a new programme and new proposals which would impinge on the constitutional structures of Northern Ireland. He wants his troops and the electorate kept happy about the situation. I suggest that the situation is more serious and of far greater consequence than that kind of indulgence which has gone on down through the years in terms of alleged Fianna Fáil or Government policy at such meetings.

The Taoiseach has told us that significant political movement in this tragic situation has emerged in those discussions but we want to know what movement. Is there any real British initiative as of now for 1981 proposed relative to the political situation in Northern Ireland? That is a straight question. It would appear from the communiqué that was issued that the British Government have pushed it all away. It would appear that if anything the whole process has been long-fingered by the British Government and that the Taoiseach is blandly accepting that situation. He knows he will have to face a general election within the next six or 12 months and he does not want to have to face the harsh realities in terms of stating his position unequivocally on that matter. If we are to have institutional studies of an alleged constitutional character, something that has been repudiated by the British, if there is no agenda or time scale and if the subject matters are no more than the conventional subject matters of economic co-operation, security consultation, matters relating to fisheries and agricultural policy or the role of sterling and the punt in the European monetary system, there is nothing momentous about that. We welcome that type of mutual economic and political co-operation in these islands.

However, if the Taoiseach is saying to us that there is within those studies a specific Northern Ireland content he should show us the agenda, if any agenda was agreed. Presumably, the Foreign Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs had consultations prior to the Summit. Generally, as we all know, in the development towards a Summit meeting prior consultations take place. The final discussion takes place on a comprehensive basis at such Summit meetings. In my view this is another example of this new characteristic in Government, that one has a public relations-media impressionistic policy of an almost atmospheric nature, all very vague, and once that impression of goodwill towards the situation is created by the Taoiseach it is a substitute for politics. The real politics centres around the questions: was there any discussion between the Taoiseach, Mrs. Thatcher and Lord Carrington about next year in Northern Ireland, what is going to happen between now and local election time in Northern Ireland? Is there any prospect of a new assembly in Northern Ireland to enable public representatives there to act as the democratically elected public representatives in 1981? Were those questions discussed or was it a question of the British saying that they would keep the Taoiseach on a little bit of a string, keep him happy, let him say what he liked about the communiqué but they were not going to give anything. Was it a question of the British saying that pending the general election here they would not give anything and would let the Taoiseach say what he liked because he was needed on security matters.

The Taoiseach, by agreeing to institutional studies — whatever that means — has long-fingered this matter into 1981-82. If our response this morning to the Taoiseach has been harsh it is because expectations of a very false nature were created and there was a manipulation of public opinion which we, in seeking elaboration from the Taoiseach, are not prepared to accept. We do not accept it because to us that is the phoney politics of partitionism. We cannot accept that type of phoney approach in Irish politics. It is because of the serious situation in Northern Ireland, where tensions can be heightened, where impressions can be created and where conflict of a serious nature can occur in inter-community relationships that that kind of ingredient should be removed from the mix of political inter-reaction. We look to the Taoiseach to clarify the situation. In that regard the position has been clearly stated by our party leader this morning and any further comment on my part would be superfluous. Accordingly, we rest our response on that basis.

Mr. Harte

I have listened with great attention to the Taoiseach, the other Government speakers and speakers from this side of the House and I agree that this is probably the most urgent, most emotive and heart-wrenching subject Irish people have ever had to face in this or any previous generation. The Taoiseach is saddled with the responsibility of going in the right direction and we, as fellow Irishmen, hope that he will succeed, because it is not important which party in this House or which Irishman of any political party can, in the modern term, deliver the goods. I cannot see anything objectionable in the Taoiseach's speech. It is a well-documented address, one with which I could not find great fault in sentiment but it had very little in content. It was reiteration of speeches made by former Taoiseachs, particularly in the Fianna Fáil Party. I could not help thinking that it could have been the late Deputy Eamon de Valera or the late Deputy Seán Lemass who was making this speech, or maybe in more difficult times the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch could have made it. The only things we would have to substitute are the name, the date and the occasion.

However, one thing that all speakers have missed so far is the shift in position of the present Government party. We all remember that it is not so long ago that the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party was a British withdrawal. They knew that that would not work because if Britain did withdraw her troops and her finances with them, not alone would there be economic chaos in Northern Ireland but civil war would have followed inevitably. Therefore, after many months of listening to words of reason, maybe from their own party supporters at grass-roots level, honest-to-goodness Irishmen trying to think out seriously the correct way forward to reconciliation between Irishmen, they got away from British withdrawal.

The next cliché was, "Take away the steel wall. Take away the guarantees from the Unionists and let us treat them as equals." That did not make much progress, and they moved from that position to a British declaration of interest in Irish unity. That was an admission of failure on the part of that party who came into being on the two foundation stones of Irish unity and the restoration of the Gaelic language. We know how successful they have been in restoring the native language. This parliament must be the only parliament in the world where the native language has to be translated into a foreign language for us natives to understand it. That is the progress, not a very pleasant thing to have to admit, since the party came into being as a separate entity in Irish public life in 1926 or 1927. Their success in Irish unity is just as non-productive.

Living in a Border area, born within a hundred yards of the Border, growing up in a community that straddled the Border, ignoring Partition because I had come to live with it, just recognising that the pillar-boxes on one side of the Border were painted green and on the other side red and that there was a red, white and blue flag called the Union Jack flying over the Post Office in Strabane and a tricol-our of green, white and orange flying over the Post Office in my native town of Lifford, growing up like many other boys in that community, I came to tolerate Partition, to ignore it, to relegate it to my subconscious. It did not exist. The only thing that brought me to reality was the policies of Irish Governments, particularly successive Fianna Fáil Governments, who put more partition between North and South than Lord Craigavon could have dreamed of. What the Taoiseach has said today — if he means it — has come close to the basics of my politics and the politics of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and of those people who believed in political separation from but economic association with Britain. The difference between that and the Unionist-Irish tradition is that they wanted political separation and economic union. This party tried to sell a concept that Irish unity was possible economically, culturally and socially between Irishmen of different tradition, but politically it was not possible until we won the confidence and consent of each other. That was the position between 1921 and 1932.

At this belated stage has the Taoiseach really put the Fianna Fáil party on the right course to Irish unity? If he has I assure him that my party as far as I and the leader of the party are concerned will not impede him for a moment in his attempts. We all cherish Irish unity, not territorial unity but the unity of the peoples of Ireland. That does not mean sitting down and talking for one hour and twenty minutes in private to a British Prime Minister, although that is a very necessary exercise and procedure to explain in detail to the British Prime Minister the political direction a Dublin Government hope to pursue in the quest of Irish unity.

However, like it or not, lump it or otherwise, one million Irish people north of the Border will not be coerced into Irish unity and we at some time will have to take our courage in our hands and sit down and talk to those people, not on our conditions but on their conditions. I hope that if the Taoiseach really means what he says in his speech he will not exclude anything at any further talks. That means going to the leadership of the Unionist loyalist community in the North of Ireland and saying to them, "What do you want to talk to us about so that we can share the island of Ireland, that Catholic and Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist may share in the true tradition of Tone whom all of you idolise to the exclusion of others. We do not tell you that you are less than Irish because we question the direction that you go".

It sickens me in my stomach and makes me ashamed at times to be sneered at by people, mostly from the Fianna Fáil Party but also from other super-republican groups in this island, and told that I and people like me are less Irish for seeking the friendship of other Irish people, for going into the ghetto areas of Belfast and listening painfully — I repeat painfully — to the concept of the people there of what we are all about until such time as they run out of wind and we get an opportunity to explain our true position. What are we told for doing this by somebody whom the Taoiseach promoted to a Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture? That I and people like me are less Irish than he, that in some way we are a peculiar brand of Unionist or of West Briton. I do not want to be anything other than Irish.

I am clearing it up now.

Mr. Harte

The Taoiseach described it as an historic meeting. If that is not a breakthrough. I do not know what is. It is a choice of words. The Taoiseach should tell us what extraordinary thing happened at this meeting that did not happen before. When the Taoiseach speaks about "institutional structures" what is meant by that? What is meant by "citizens' rights". We know what "security" and "mutual understanding" mean, and we hope the Taoiseach does. These are all pious terms with which we do not find fault, but the view put across by the media amd by the public relations work of the Taoiseach gave the impression that there has been an immediate breakthrough, that something is about to happen. What we are talking about here is progress in the long term.

Short or long, I am not finding fault with it. In the most sincere words I can muster I say to the Taoiseach that if he succeeds in moving topwards Irish unity he will not be impeded by this side of the House. We will co-operate with him in every way possible. Any experience we have gained in the past ten years is at his disposal just for the asking, not in the interests of political gain or vote-catching but in the common interest of Irishmen in the hope that we can put an end to the slaughter that has taken place in the past ten years.

When we hear Fianna Fáil these days talking about economic co-operation we should not overlook that when they came to power in 1932 they changed the course of Irish history. Unity has not been achieved, and 50 years further on we find ourselves more remote from Irish unity than we were then. The only man I gave credit to for breaking away from that harness is the late Seán Lemass. He tried to renegotiate the free trade agreement that had existed from the time of Grattan's Parliament until 1931. Fianna Fáil believed there were other ways to attain Irish unity and they have pursued policies in the meantime which were partitionist in themselves. Right up to the break with sterling not enough consideration was given to that.

As a fellow Irishman I wish the Taoiseach in the time left to him in office every success in his endeavours to bring Irishmen together peacefully. However, I hope he will respond to and reciprocate the good wishes of this party and the Labour Party, that he will not try to be a Napolean in his own time by thinking that he alone has been given the divine right to achieve Irish unity. No man singly will ever unite the Irish people. Unless the Taoiseach can achieve it in this Parliament it is futile to talk about Irish unity to one million people who are not listening. We all share the desire for Irish unity between all our people — Catholic, Protestant and dissenters. But between all of us in this House and that one million people there is basic disagreement. The Taoiseach must realise that Irish unity will be achieved more easily and sooner by agreement with the people in Belfast than between Dublin and London.

The Taoiseach

I have very little to say by way of reply. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said and I hope I have taken careful note of the constructive contributions of different Deputies. I might repeat that my thesis in this debate has been simple and consistent. I believe the meeting in Dublin was constructive and significant. I am satisfied that the process initiated at that meeting and outlined in the communiqué will be of great benefit and importance in the future.

I do not need to repeat the main elements of the situation as I see them: the need for Deputies and others to look primarily at the communiqué and what it states and the emphasis in it on the need to find a way forward towards peace, reconciliation and stability. I single out for special mention the reference I made to the role of the political leaders in Northern Ireland, the special, important role I envisaged for them.

Unfortunately, I found Deputy Cluskey's contribution more than usually depressing. He devoted his remarks not to the constructive aspects of the communiqueacute;, not to the forward-looking elements in it, but to endeavouring to set up some imagined disagreement between the British Prime Minister and me. Even if such disagreement had existed, which I firmly state does not, would there be any great advantage from the point of view of the situation in emphasising and underlining it? There would not. I thought it more reprehensible when Deputy Cluskey devoted a considerable part of his contribution to seeking to create out of the air some disagreement. I state categorically that no such disagreement exists.

I want to refer Labour Deputies particularly to the firm wording of the communiqué. There could not be anything more definite or straightforward. The communiqué outlines a clear, positive process. That process involves studies, not vague indefinite studies but studies on particular subjects of vital importance. The process whereby these studies will be undertaken has been outlined. Those studies will be followed by special consideration of them at a further meeting.

That is clear-cut, definite, positive, but above all it is a process, not a final position. It now falls to us, Irish Government, British Government, parliamentarians and officials, to carry that process forward. There is not an obligation on anyone going into the process to agree with anyone else taking part in it. It is inherent in the whole concept that people would go in with different priorities and with different emphases in their minds on different aspects. If there was agreement in advance on where the studies would go and what the outcome would be, there would not be any need for the process.

It is precisely because there is a good deal of complexity and confusion in the situation which exists in the relationships between the peoples of those islands that this process of studies followed by special consideration of their outcome is being embarked upon. I suggest to all those who are frantically searching for disagreement and discord arising out of one of the most harmonious and constructive meetings ever held in this country between British and Irish Governments, that they should look elsewhere. I asked at the beginning of this debate that this House would not waste its time seeking out discord but rather concentrate on the constructive elements of the communiqué, as I readily admit the Leader of the main Opposition party has done.

There is no confusion whatsoever about the wording of the communiqué. It is a clear-cut, positive communiqué with precise and meticulous wording. Is it suggested that this disagreement, this confusion, arose out of subsequent interpretation of the communiqué by different people? If so, I reject that. I want to repeat what I said to Deputy Harte, that I never once used the words "confederation" or "federation" nor did I ever use the word "constitution". I have in my press conference and since confined myself to talking about exactly what is in the communiqué. I want to quote again with full agreement something the British Prime Minister said. I listened to the British Prime Minister on television and I am reasonably clear that what she said was "that we are exploring the possibility of seeing whether we can give some form of institutional expression to the unique relationship between our two countries so as to achieve both peace and stability and improve relations". My recollection is that the British Prime Minister used the words "exploring the possibility of seeing whether we can give some form of institutional expression to the unique relationship between our two countries". I fully agree with that.

I do not believe that there is any room for anybody to suggest that there is disagreement between us on what the communiqué said, the process the communiqué initiated or on any other matter arising out of it. There has been some attempt to correlate "institutional" and "constitutional". The constitutional position of Northern Ireland is one matter. I do not deny that is a matter of enormous importance and significance to me. I do not for one moment suggest that I do not avail of every opportunity that offers itself to me to talk to British politicians and anybody else that I have an opportunity of talking to about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Every person in these islands in the political arena should be concerned with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. A number of initiatives have been brought forward by the British Government in regard to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.

We are concerned in this particular communiqueacute; with institutional structures and the possibility of creating new institutional structures, which would contribute to the objectives which we have in mind. I do not believe there is any room for ambiguity about that and I do not believe there is any case for suggesting that there is something indeterminate about it. Politics is concerned with political institutions and those studies will be concerned with institutions. That is very important work. The studies and the subsequent discussion of the outcome of the studies represents an important political process which I am quite certain will be of great value and importance in the future.

I do not want to follow Deputy Harte down the various avenues he travelled but one thing he said struck a reminiscent chord in my mind, when he suggested that Fianna Fáil were changing their policy by virtue of what I outlined here this morning. I recently came across a quotation from the founder of Fianna Fáil, Eamon de Valera, who said in Dáil Éireann on 7 November 1940:

Now, as I have said, we want friendly relations with the people of Britain, as we want friendly relations with all other peoples, but we naturally want them with Britain because Britain is the nearest country to us on the globe. We have many relations of various kinds which make it desirable that the two peoples should live in friendship.

Mr. Harte

What does that prove?

The Taoiseach

It proves that the philosophy of Fianna Fáil in this particular area is unchanged and unchanging.

Mr. Harte

Very pious platitudes.

The Taoiseach

I have not very much to add by way of conclusion, but to those Deputies who have made constructive contributions I express my appreciation and to those who have seen fit to take another line I express my disappointment. I reiterate what I said in my Ard Fheis speech earlier this year, that I believe that the Northern Ireland problem had to be raised on to a new plane. I repeated that again this morning. I believe that the meeting in Dublin Castle went a long way to establishing a firm process whereby this long outstanding problem can be raised to a new plane and hopefully, brought to a successful conclusion.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 11 Dec 1980

Meeting of Taoiseach and British Prime Minister: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1980