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.