Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1954

Vol. 44 No. 3

Audience for Six-County Representatives—Motion.

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann requests the Government to initiate proposals for legislation in the Dáil or in the Seanad to provide that all elected parliamentary representatives of the people of the six occupied counties of Ireland will be given a right of audience in the Dáil or in the Seanad or alternatively requests the Government to submit this question for the decision of the Irish people by means of a plebiscite.

In moving this motion, I am conscious that it is very necessary to give definite reasons for proposing it, because a similar motion has been defeated in the Dáil and it was stressed there again and again that even one reason that could afford a hope that the solution of partition towards the solution of partition would cause the Government to accept it. Consequently, I have thought out my reasons carefully and I advance them as clearly and as cogently as I can.

First of all, I advance the reason that the moral force of this resolution would have a tremendous effect in unoccupied and in occupied Ireland, because it offers an alternative to Irishmen who are at present forced into the position of having to take an Oath of Allegiance to a foreign monarch and to a foreign Constitution, an Imperial Constitution, in order to represent their constituents. This, remember, was once the case in the Twenty-Six Counties and it caused disunity here. References were made in the Dáil debate to the fact that the Nationalist representatives in the North were disunited. No wonder; when an Oath of Allegiance was forced upon us here, there was disunity here. That disunity largely disappeared only when the Oath of Allegiance was abolished. Therefore, I would appeal to those who supported the view in the past that taking the Oath of Allegiance to a foreign monarch was a bitter pill which had to be swallowed in order to serve one's constituents at all, to support this motion because it will help to overcome that objection. I think they are certain to realise from their own experience that it would remove a definite cause of disunity in the Six Counties just as it formerly removed it in the Twenty-Six Counties.

I would appeal to those who assisted in abolishing that Oath of Allegiance to support this motion. They must realise that in this respect the problem of Nationalist representatives in the six occupied counties is the problem that those men themselves faced here and faced for the sake of unity. I would appeal to those who had nothing to do with the acceptance or rejection or abolition of an Oath of Allegiance in the Twenty-Six County Parliament, to those who without being concerned in these things are now reaping the benefit, because they can be democratically elected to a free Parliament without taking any such oath I give them credit for being unselfish enough and altruistic enough to want to extend this freedom to the Nationalist representatives of the Six Counties. I do not think it could be argued that there is no moral force in a resolution designed to counter the immorality of forcing an oath to support an Imperial ruler and an Imperial Constitution upon Irishmen who are opposed to both. That is why my first argument is on the moral force of this resolution. That moral force is bound up with my next reason for proposing the motion.

The motion, to my mind, represents a correct use of or an attempt to use correctly, existing democratic institutions to extend the principle of democratic rights to Irishmen at present denied those democratic rights. Now, much of my ammunition here is provided by An Taoiseach in the Dáil debate and I would like to quote one or two phrases. He talked of "flagrant breaches of elementary justice,""the mockery of democratic institutions,""distorted electoral areas,""denial of the right of peaceful assembly." He said it is our duty and our right "to expose these abuses and to rouse public opinion against them at home and abroad." He said further: "We in the Fine Gael Party and in other Parties which now form the Government, made it absolutely clear to the young people that the ways of living for Ireland and working for Ireland were through the democratic institutions." In short, his main argument, on this point of democratic institutions, was that proper democratic representation and procedure is denied in the Six Counties but is operating here. I say that it is very difficult to show how the young people can be convinced of what he hopes they will be convinced about, if we deny Irishmen, laid under disabilities in one part of our country, the use of the democratic institutions flourishing in another part of the country. It is very difficult to see how better we can expose these abuses to which the Taoiseach referred in the Dáil debate than by saying to those representatives in the six occupied counties: "All right, you are denied a democratic hearing in Stormont; we will give it to you here in the Dáil or here in the Seanad." As for the young people, possibly like myself some of the Senators present attended that Dáil debate and they may have raised their eyes to the gallery and may have seen the number of young people who were interested in the motion proposed by Deputy McQuillan. I think they would have noticed, too, their disappointment when the motion was rejected.

Thirdly, this is a practical measure. There is no constitutional barrier in the way of its acceptance. Some years ago in a Dáil debate the Attorney-General gave it as his opinion that there was nothing unconstitutional or impossible about giving a right of audience to Six County representatives. I was surprised when the Taoiseach referred to constitutional and legal difficulties against it, but this does not particularly affect the matter, because he went on to say.

"If Lord Brookeborough and some of his colleagues expressed the smallest desire to have a right of audience in the Dáil ... we could immediately take steps to amend the Constitution or to pass any necessary Act in five minutes to let them come down here."

Therefore, there is no practical constitutional difficulty in the way of granting a right of audience to Six County representatives.

I say in moving this motion that there is a practical advantage as well as a moral advantage. It is that urged already in the Dáil by speakers of various Parties, by Independent Deputies, by Labour and Clann na Poblachta Deputies. It is the practical advantage of providing a democratic link and a means of continuous discussion with the Six County representatives upon legislation affecting the Six Counties, as much Dáil legislation is bound to do. It has the further practical advantage of helping to end disunity among the Six County Nationalists.

I will try to anticipate some other objections that may be raised to this motion. I take it that some of the objections raised will be those argued in An Dáil. I was not impressed by the Taoiseach's objections. He first stated his willingness to welcome Lord Brookeborough and he went on to say that he would not welcome Nationalist representatives. His reasoning, though somewhat difficult to follow, may be followed by the Minister for External Affairs. In case it is, I wish to make these points.

First of all, the Taoiseach argued that there was disunity among the Nationalists and that, therefore, they should not be given right of audience, but there is also disunity amongst the Unionists whom he is prepared to welcome. We frequently read in the papers of these Unionist splits. If we give right of audience to all representatives of the six occupied counties, there is a hope that some of the discontented Unionist members may turn up to state their grievances against other Unionist members. That would be the beginning of the wedge that would be hammered in the Unionist Party before very long.

Secondly, it was argued that no single member of the Six County Parliament had written to the Taoiseach since last June, when Deputy McQuillan's motion was tabled to ask him to support such a measure. I should like to point out that Mr. Liam Kelly has been elected by his constituents on the understanding that he would sit only in a Republican Parliament. He is now here, I am happy to say, and he will be able to tell the Seanad whether my view of conditions in the Six Counties is right or wrong. Mr. McGleenan was elected by his constituents in South Armagh on a similar undertaking that he would take his seat only in a Republican Parliament, that he would abstain from Stormont. Still more recently, Mr. McAteer has written to the Taoiseach asking to be heard on this question of the right of audience. He has been turned down on the basis of the Dáil discussion which involved the Taoiseach saying that he had not heard from any Six County representative asking for right of audience.

Thirdly, it was argued that if the Nationalist representatives were admitted to An Dáil they would want to become Deputies and, having become Deputies, they would advocate the use of force to end Partition elsewhere. The Taoiseach stated that there was perfect freedom within the State to advocate a war policy in a constitutional way. This, I think, is very confused. First of all, there is no evidence whatever that if Nationalist representatives are given the right of audience they will wish to become Deputies. Certainly, if they are democratically elected and democratically entitled to advocate a war policy in a constitutional way, how can they be denied the right of audience on the basis that they would then seek to exercise a democratic right?

Above all, I cannot understand the objection made by the Taoiseach when he said there was a danger that, first of all, the representatives would want to become Deputies and, having become Deputies, they would interfere— that was the word he used—in the politics of the Twenty-Six Counties. That, I feel, like certain references made to Northern Ireland, displays a Partition mentality. These are not outsiders intruding or interfering or asking to intrude or to interfere with the affairs of the nation. They belong to the nation and if they are denied justice in one part of the country we can at least offer them justice in another.

Deputy de Valera's cranky query as to what was the point of people coming in here to discuss Partition reflects the same mentality and tends to produce the impression of vested political interests on this side of the Border who do not want any interference with the status quo. This proposal is a practical one and none of the objections made to it already can stand analysis. There is no constitutional objection to it and it does offer certain practical advantages.

I come to my last reasons. First, why was this raised in the Seanad? The Seanad is often denounced as a place where the crack of the Party Whip can bring Senators to heel as in An Dáil. I do not believe that. I do not know, as I have not been long enough here, but at least I am giving Senators credit for the ability to make up their minds and vote according to their own consciences. When it came to a vote in the Dáil, the Party Whip was cracked and Deputies walked into the Division Lobby not in accordance with their consciences. Here is a chance of showing that we can take an independent line upon a motion.

I should like to say further that this motion provides a means of ascertaining people's wishes because it has been argued already that the measure would not be a popular one. Well, at least the motion gives us a chance to find out by a plebiscite. It was either Deputy Desmond or some other Labour Deputy who said in the Dáil that the issue was not beyond doubt in the country itself. I believe that. I believe it is not beyond doubt in the country. I believe there is a great volume of opinion swinging behind our allowing Six County representatives to express their views here. We may take it for granted that they will not simply give us rhetorical speeches about Partition. We have had enough of these.

Finally, I appeal to the Senate which, after all, was altruistic enough to help to elect Liam Kelly, to show that the members can rise above Party and act as Irishmen. They can remember the words of Tone. They can remember the ancient and what is to a large extent the modern ideal of Irishmen, to abolish the memories of past dissensions and honour the common name of Irishman.

I wish at this stage formally to second the motion and with your permission I reserve my right to speak later.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will observe that there are three amendments to the motion in the name of Senator Sheehy-Skeffington. Senator Sheehy-Skeffington will move these amendments now and a discussion on the amendments will be taken in conjunction with the discussion on the motion. If necessary, at the conclusion of the debate a decision can be taken on the various net issues raised by the Senator.

On a point of order. I presume that if there are divisions they will be taken separately on each amendment apart from a division on the motion itself?

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

Should that be necessary.

I accept, of course, the ruling that my speech is to be made now in proposing the amendments, since it would be impossible really to speak upon the amendments and not upon the motion itself. While making my main speech now on the main issue, in proposing these amendments, I should like, nevertheless, to reserve, if I am permitted to do so, under Standing Order 29, the right to speak at the close of the debate in reply, if I desire to do so I am in the hands of the Chair. I do not insist——

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

I should like to inform the Senator that the Chair has given attention and anxious consideration to this matter. It rules that the closing speech will be made by the Mover of the main motion.

I accept the Chair's ruling. I now beg to move these amendments. Amendment No. I is to delete the words "six occupied counties of Ireland" and substitute the words "Six Counties". Amendment No. 2 is to delete the words "in the Dáil" where it secondly occurs. Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete all the words after "Seanad" where it finally occurs to the end of the motion.

The object of these amendments is to simplify the motion and, in my opinion, put it into a form in which it would be unreasonable to vote against it. My contention is that it is not at present in such a form, for three reasons. I will deal with amendment No. 3 first. I consider that this, and I submit it for your consideration, is not a matter for a plebiscite. If the Dáil decides by 100 votes to 21, and after a discussion in which all Parties took part, to reject such a measure, I suggest that the size of that majority is such as not to justify the whole procedure that would be required for a plebiscite. I am in favour of representative Government, and unless you have a very close vote on an important issue, I do not think that a case can be made for a plebiscite, and that is the point of my third amendment.

The second amendment follows on the result of the debate in the Dáil, and since the Dáil has rejected this suggestion, it seems to me to be more fitting if you were to invite the Northern representatives to the Seanad. The Dáil has specifically stated that they do not want to hear them. I feel that it would be more suitable for us to say, if we want to: "We would like to hear you." Also I think, in addition, that it can be properly said that we are more a deliberative and consultative Assembly than the Dáil, and it might be more fitting in general that if they are to be invited here they should be invited to this House.

The next amendment I want to deal with is in fact the first of my three proposals, and is the one which I think will give rise to an amount of discussion. I want to explain why I want in the motion the words "Six Counties" instead of "The Six Occupied Counties of Ireland". The meaning of the word "occupied" could only mean occupied or held against the will of the inhabitants of the area. It would be true, I think, to say that certainly two counties of the six—Tyrone and Fermanagh—are in fact so held. They never asked to be separated from the rest of Ireland. They have consistently voted in a majority ever since with the nationalist point of view, which means joining with the South of Ireland. I think it could quite legitimately be said about them that they are occupied or held. Some would hold that other areas of the remaining four counties, such as Derry City and one or two others, are occupied. It is not, however, true of the whole area, the whole, either separately or collectively, of the four counties, and consequently this "occupied Six Counties" is a phrase used as a propagandist cliché and emotive phrase, and is not in fact a true description of the position.

The true position is, if you talk about the six counties, that there is within these six counties something like 62 or 64 per cent. of the inhabitants who desire to remain joined to the United Kingdom. I believe that that fact is not universally recognised. I know the arguments and sympathies with which that will be met, that we, as the Irish nation, have the right to decide as a nation. Nevertheless I hold that the people of the Six Counties, "the Occupied area", as a majority have voted for the position, and to suggest that it is held against the will of the inhabitants of that area is not substantially true. What it is true to say is that it is held against the will of the Irish people as a whole; that this area was part of Ireland as a whole.

My main intention in suggesting this matter is this. If we really do want, as I take it the proposers of the motion do, to invite all the Northern representatives here, Unionists, independents and so on, in addition to the Nationalists, we must realise the position. We may not believe that they will come if we decide to invite them, but I suggest that it is not a good preliminary to the extension of an invitation to them to spit in the faces of the Unionists first, and to tell them that the only reason they are there at all is because of British power.

I think that it is quite true that if both Unionists and Nationalists were to come down here, the gap between the Twenty-Six Counties and the Six Counties would be appreciably narrowed. Would that be the case if we invited the Nationalists to come down alone? That seems to be the more likely event if we pass this motion and the Government initiates legislation, though it is possible that occasionally Independents, or even independent Unionists, might come down. However, suppose that only Nationalists came down, would it serve any useful purpose at all? It might, on the contrary, be even widening the gap between the two peoples. On balance, and I think it requires careful thought, I believe that such an eventually would be a good approach. I believe that an invitation couched in moderate terms would be a good one. How are we to know if it is feasible, technically, for us to say to the representatives of the North-Eastern counties: we will hear you? I would say that from the realistic point of view, I am not convinced that a real purpose would be served by hearing them, but I do not find it in myself to say that no purpose would be served.

I would say that it will be up to these representatives of the constituencies in the Six Counties who do come down, if any, to see to it that their speeches are of such a kind that we do not find ourselves in the position of saying secretly: "Thank Heaven for the Border."

I would now like to address myself to the main motion which I hope, for the reasons I have given, to see amended and improved. I would issue a warning at this juncture to point out that I have not a little to say. The aim of this motion I take it is not merely to embarrass the big Parties. I take it there is the general intention, as Senator McHugh has told us, to be constructive and that this is not just a piece of political manoeuvring, to cause embarrassment. I take it that the aim of the motion is to provide at least a step towards the ending of Partition, and I would say if it were a generally accepted step—but it is not in my opinion and I propose to develop that later—it would be a considerably better step than organised murder by political forces arising out of such methods.

Hear, hear.

First of all, might I say that I do not believe that Partition is the most important problem in Ireland to-day. I believe that it is a secondary problem. I do not think that it is a primary problem at all. I believe that the whole issue of Partition is merely something that is being shamelessly used by Irish political parties to evade the more important problems of poverty, living conditions, disease, housing and education.

Having stated that, I recognise the fact that Partition is for us a problem, but what special methods have been put forward or what suggestions have been made for the solution of the problem? I think that there are three possible remedies: the first is the method of physical force; the second, the method of mutual agreement, and the third is the method which consists of taclking the Irish problems of poverty, disease, education, and seeing to it that there is a just distribution of wealth: tackle these problems and let Partition settle itself in the future.

Before I examine each of these three possible remedies, I should like you to look at the situation in partitioned Ireland to-day, north and south. In the north what is the position? What is the position in the Six Counties? As I see it, and I think everybody will share my view, there exists in the Six Counties a very great degree of political and religious discrimination. There is no question about that: that Nationalists and Catholics in the Six Counties are discriminated against. That goes not only for the politically active, the organised, those who may be in Parties. I would say it is almost universal, that this discrimination on a big or small scale exists. I shall take a few examples. You have, in local elections in the Six Counties, a ratepayers' restricted franchise. The British Labour Government, I think in 1946, altered the law, which had been long since altered in this part of the country, whereby you had to be the occupier of a certain holding in order to have a vote in the local elections. Stormont, which boasts of a step-by-step policy, took action to see to it that their law was not brought into line with British law. By so doing, they opted out of the United Kingdom, and they refused to allow British writ to run, by refusing to have what would seem to be a common element of democracy: universal franchise in relation to local elections.

The other matter is the example of the Mater Hospital, one of the biggest and best hospitals in Belfast, a hospital which I have been through, and which compares very favourably indeed with many of the hospitals in this part of the country. In the British House of Commons, when the various health measures were being introduced, it was found necessary to introduce a section dealing with Northern Ireland, which seemed to some of the Irish members there, to contain dangers. So it was that on the 27th June, 1947, Mr. Mulvey proposed an amendment to a clause which was being discussed. The amendments was as follows:—

"Provided that where the character and the association of any voluntary hospital are such as to link it with a religious denomination, all necessary attention should be paid in the general administration, and in the making of appointments to the board of management to preserve the character and the associations of the hospital."

That amendment was in fact almost word for word a repetition of Section 61 of the English Health Act, and of Section 60 of the Scottish Health Act. Mr. Chuter Ede said in relation to that:—

"As far as the amendment is concerned, I understand in North of Ireland the Government desires to follow Section 61 of the English Act which incorporates the principle enunciated in the amendment. I hope, with that assurance, my honourable friend, the member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, will withdraw the amendment."

Mr. Mulvey did in fact at once withdraw the amendment, on that understanding. When it came to the implementation of what was virtually a promise by a British Minister in the House of Commons, Stormont went back upon the word tendered on their behalf, although Mr. Connolly Gage had spoken in the House of Commons on the same occasion, and had supported the interpretation offered by Mr. Chuter Ede. Despite that fact, Stormont went back on that, and decided to operate a discrimination against the Mater Hospital, such as was not operated against similar hospitals with religious associations in Scotland.

There is another point in relation to local elections, and that is the often-mentioned gerrymandering. There is no question, and one does not have to prove it here, that local elections in the Six Counties have their constituencies so arranged that a minority of the electors, in a great number of areas, have a majority of the seats on the councils. I would say at this juncture—if I may say so in parenthesis— that I think there is perhaps a misunderstanding and ignorance among many well-meaning people, as to just what has been done by gerrymandering in the North. I would say that it applies almost entirely to local elections. It is true there is a very odd constituency such as Derry City, where it applies in relation to general elections, but if a fair vote was taken throughout the Six Counties, without any alteration of the constituencies, or under any system you care to devise that would be regarded as normal, the results of the general elections, either for Westminster or for Stormont, would hardly vary so much as two or three seats. I say that here, because I get the impression, in discussing this with many people, that they think that Lord Brookeborough is Prime Minister at Stormont simply by reason of of fact that he has rigged the elections, whereas in point of fact the pro-English majority in the Six Counties, taken as a whole, is certainly not less than 62 per cent., and perhaps several per cent. higher.

There are other things which I think should be mentioned in speaking about discrimination in the North—for instance the banning of the use of the Irish Tri-Colour—which seems to me to be a small and petty measure. I am familiar with the kind of defence that is put up for it, but it seems to me that the banning of the flag is indefensible. It seems to me the more indefensible, as I remember occasions upon which mere speech was banned in the Six Counties. I remember as a small boy going on a visit to Belfast with my mother, to my grandfather, who was an Ulsterman. She was served with a notice of expulsion at Belfast station, because she was a "dangerous person" for the well-being of the Six Counties. She was not, in fact, going up for political purposes at all, though she frequently did so both before and after the Deportation Order. I remember, some members of the House may remember, that she spent many weeks in Armagh Jail in 1933 for the crime of speaking the truth, as she saw it, in the home county of her late husband, my father.

Consequently, this banning of free speech, and banning of flags and processions, and so on, quite unnecessarily in my opinion, constitutes a form of discrimination, and therefore in the Six Counties as we look at them to-day, there is a deep, genuine, and perfectly understandable feeling of frustration on the part of the Nationalist and Catholic section of the community. They are kept out of, or kept in a small minority on, the local councils, corporations, Government boards, commissions, and so on. They are, in short, excluded from the councils of the community; their opinion and their advice is not wanted, and the Government makes no bones about indicating that fact to them. By a variety of discriminatory techniques, they are prevented from playing a part in the affairs of the community proportionate to their numbers. This is unjust; it is indefensible, and it is highly dangerous, because from such frustration springs resistance and violent measures, of which I personally cannot find myself approving.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until Thursday, 25th November, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share