Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1974

Vol. 78 No. 10

Northern Ireland Situation: Motion.

Dr. West

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the critical situation in Northern Ireland and requests the Government to outline its policy of reconciliation and the steps it intends to take towards a political solution.

I have great pleasure in proposing this motion because, as I pointed out in the debate on the Order of Business, I feel that we are failing in our duty if we do not, as the Members of Seanad Éireann, have frequent reviews of the situation in Northern Ireland and of our relationships with that part of the country. I find that the last debate on this subject in this House was in August, 1971. That seems to be too long a gap between these two debates. However I am grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging to take this debate and I hope it will be a worthwhile debate in which we look forward rather than backward.

The Dáil debate last week was indeed a worthwhile one. I would not agree with many of the commentators who felt that the same old shibboleths and myths were being trotted out. This was not the case. It gave a clear indication that we are moving away from the era of slogans for vote-catching, of words without deeds, and we are beginning to face the realities of the situation. We are developing a real sensitivity towards the difficulties of the Northern problem.

As I see it, the feelings expressed by the Government and Opposition reflect two strands of thought which are current in this country at the moment. The Government, through the Taoiseach and through the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, pointed out that Irish unity was at present out of the question and that moves or warlike noises made by the Republic in that direction could precipitate sectarian civil war. On the other hand, the Fianna Fáil Party, through the spokesman and Leader, Deputy Lynch, underlined the aspiration to Irish unity by consent— a non-violent aspiration to unity—and claimed that the Government were not doing enough to persuade the minority in Northern Ireland of the rightness of this aspiration.

My belief is that most people in this part of the country share both these feelings and the sum total reaction would be a combination of the proportions in which they hold both feelings. The debate has done something very important in that it has underlined a difference in emphasis which was blurred up to this. Most people have mixed feelings about the Northern situation. Most citizens of the Republic aspire towards Irish unity. I certainly do; I think most people in this House would like to see a united Ireland. But the Loyalist Ulster Workers' Council strike has sharpened our perspective. We now realise that a relentless pursuit of unity by any means whatever will inevitably involve Northern Ireland and the Republic in sectarian civil war.

The problem that the politicians face is the problem of formulating a policy— I am talking now about politicians in this part of the country—taking these aspirations into account and also facing up to the realities of the situation. The realities, of course, are the fall of the Executive, the collapse of Sunningdale, the temporary disappearance of the power sharing arrangement, resumption of direct rule from Westminster, the prospect of a further British election and further Assembly elections and the attempt to work out some new administrative structure for Northern Ireland. I do not intend to go into a detailed analysis of why I think Sunningdale failed but one of the clear reasons for its failure was the exclusion for whatever reason of Loyalist leaders like the Reverend Ian Paisley. It could be argued that he excluded himself but it is not as simple as this. Let us not feel that the Reverend Ian Paisley, for example, is the most intransigent of Loyalist leaders; I heard him in Westminster making a statement that if the South were prepared to change its Constitution he would look at the whole situation in a new light. It is interesting —talking about the Reverend Ian Paisley—to read of his violent interjection when the Minister for Foreign Affairs paid a visit to Northern Ireland to consult political leaders. Mr. Paisley felt that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should have worked through the British Foreign Office. Of course the Reverend Ian Paisley had been down here two days previously opening a church, participating in an all-Ireland organisation of which he is the undisputed leader. Presumably he did not consult the Hierarchy, the Church of Ireland bishops, or indeed our Department of Foreign Affairs. So, the Reverend Ian Paisley is a politician par excellence and he is prepared to negotiate when conditions are right. I am not so sure about other Loyalist leaders. Personally, I would not rule any of them out. The situation will be negotiable when the conditions are right.

Some of the other realities in the situation, in fact, have been spelt out by Mr. Paisley's erstwhile associate—I am not sure whether they are closely associated now—Mr. Desmond Boal. In various statements he has underlined very clearly the Northern majority's fear of the position of the Roman Catholic Church in the Republic, the fear of a takeover and the fear of ultimate Roman Catholic pressure on the Northern majority. In an article published in January, 1974, in the Sunday News in an interview with Stephen Preston he also predicted a break of the link with the United Kingdom. He was the first Protestant leader who put this down in black and white and said that they were faced with this situation; it was ultimately going to happen and they should be there to work out the best deal for themselves. That is the sort of negotiable attitude we should be looking for. In an interview in the Irish Independent—a two-day interview on May 10th and May 11th—Mr. Boal further outlined the fears that the Northern majority have of takeover by a Roman Catholic-dominated southern Administration. I think that most of these fears are groundless but that is not the point. The point is that they do have these fears and that we still exhibit great insensitivity towards the Northern majority feelings.

It was exemplified to me in an advertisement which appeared in the Sunday Independent of this week when readers were invited to subscribe to a Roman Catholic Church being built at Knock, which I think is a fine objective, but the church was being dedicated to the Blessed Virgin as Queen of Ireland. I think this sort of thing exhibits great insensitivity. I object to a Queen in this country whether heavenly or earth bound. I do not believe in that sort of royalty and a Northern Irish person reading this advertisement—a church being built to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Ireland—could not fail to be upset and disturbed by the fact that the Blessed Virgin was termed Queen of Ireland in this context. I complained to one of my Roman Catholic clerical associates about this and he said to me: “Do you think that before this church was opened the Blessed Virgin had been consulted?” I said: “Probably not” and he said: “In any case, if she had she probably would not be interested in the post at this present moment in time. Could you blame her?” This is just a point to illustrate our insensitivity to the feelings of the Northern majority and this is one of the things about which we must educate people in the Republic. The Northern Roman Catholics are well aware of this problem.

To suggest lines of action for our Government I would like to divide the political and other aspects of our life into three spheres—the political sphere, the economic sphere and the cultural and educational sphere—and regard them as non-overlapping spheres of activity, although of course they certainly do overlap in many ways. The first thing to do is to recognise the current impossibility of constructing all-Ireland political institutions. Since direct rule is only an interim procedure and integration with Westminster has been ruled out by the majority of the British people and the British Parliament, we are faced with the remaining alternative which means giving some degree of autonomy to Northern Ireland. There is then the question of degree. How much autonomy does Northern Ireland get? I would argue that Northern Ireland should get a considerable degree of autonomy and I would say more autonomy than it had under the Stormont regime but that this autonomy should be underwritten with guarantees to both communities by the Westminster and the Dublin Governments.

There should be joint responsibility for any new Administration in the North. We should press for this. There are many times when the interests of Westminster and Dublin coincide. There are many times now and there will be many times in the future when the interests of Westminster and Dublin will diverge and I worry that our Government do not put their case sufficiently strongly when this happens. We have only to think back to the previous Government's problem when Mr. Heath told Deputy Lynch that the Republic had no business interfering in Northern Ireland affairs. That was ridiculous and the previous Government, to its credit, had that situation rectified and got a recognition by Westminster of the fact that we are involved.

There are two dimensions to the Northern Ireland problem. There is an Irish dimension and there is a British dimension. But there is a very crucial difference in these two dimensions. The difference is that while Britain wants to lessen its responsibility for Northern Ireland we should be working to increase our responsibility. I do not necessarily mean political responsibility, but of course we hope that political responsibility will also ultimately come. We should press for considerable autonomy including a governmental setup in Stormont with control over security for the North. I would give them security provided this is underwritten with guarantees to both communities in the North and these guarantees would include guarantees on civil rights, on the system of power sharing, and there would be the right of joint intervention by the UK and the Republic if these guarantees were not fulfilled.

We should go further than this. One of the great fears that Northern people have—and quite rightly—is the withdrawal of British financial support. Financial support should come jointly from both Governments and the respective proportions should be phased over an agreed period. At first I would just make it a strict proportion. I would not talk of a phasing out or of a phasing one way or the other; but if we are going to talk about Northern Ireland in any realistic way, then we should crudely put our money where our mouth is. We should bear some of the subsidy to Northern Ireland and we should also then have a right of economic sanction. Economic sanction is one of the most important and obvious ways of bringing a recalcitrant North to heel if that is necessary. It is interesting that the Ulster Workers' Council strike inflicted a most serious defeat on the British Government. Probably this could have been avoided if the British Government had acted quickly enough, certainly after a few days. It is well known that in the early days of the strike and when the strike was being mooted most of the Northern politicians, the Loyalist politicians who later on jumped on the band wagon, were opposed to the strike. If at that stage the British Government had acted with some spunk the strikers would really have been put to the test. This strike, when it succeeded, represented a considerable victory for the Loyalists over the British Government. It indicated a clear rise in the temperature and extent of Ulster nationalism on the Protestant side. This rise in nationalism, I believe, is just a reflection of a true situation because the Ulster working-class Protestants have an Uncle Tom attitude to Westminster and this is not just my own observation. Considerable bitterness is expressed by working-class Protestants towards the British, much more than towards the Republic in the current situation. I think this Ulster nationalism is a true reflection of a feeling that has been there for some considerable time.

I have proposed that a considerable degree of autonomy, including control over security, should be given to the new Northern Administration provided that the Administration is underwritten by both our Government and Westminster. Many people have talked about the possibility of sectarian strife and calling the United Nations into the conflict. To me that would be the ultimate defeat. It would mean that we had a conflict between two groups of Irish people in which Britain was also involved and that the British and Irish Governments and the Northern people could not sort the situation out for themselves. Once you bring in the United Nations they are there "for keeps". I believe that while Britain is there, there is always a chance of improvement. It is most important that our Government press the British Government, not for a statement of intent to withdraw so much as for a statement of her long-term aims. We should press Britain for a declaration of her long-term aims on the Northern Ireland situation. That is very important and I believe it will put the whole situation in a new context.

I feel that Britain is withdrawing gradually, by stealth, as Mr. Boal calls it. We should press hard for such a statement. We should state our aims clearly. One of the important things in the Dáil debate was that our aspirations and the differences of opinion came out absolutely clearly. We should press the British Government hard for a long-term declaration of her aims in Northern Ireland. Once this has been made it would help to put the new Northern Administration in its proper context.

When one advocates a policy which one hopes the Government will follow, it is also worth while reflecting on what we have done in the last 50 years that has affected the Northern situation. The two most important things we have done are that we have created a stable political system here and developed our economy to an extent that without subvention from Britain we can say we are on a par with the economic state of Northern Ireland. I think these things should be put clearly because there is a myth in Northern Ireland that people in the South are poorer, less well-off, less well cared for than they really are. This gap has been closing swiftly in recent years. We should not be afraid to blow our own trumpets on these achievements. They are very considerable achievements but we should spell them out clearly.

There are some important things we have not done: we have not really exorcised the fear in Northern minds that the Roman Catholic Church exerts a pervasive influence in southern society. The Legislature and we in this House are to be blamed for this situation. If one looks at the three important moves —and legislation is involved in all these moves——

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister is obliged to go for a division in another place. It is up to the Senator speaking to decide whether to continue or not. If he wishes, the debate can be adjourned.

Dr. West

I should like the debate to be adjourned until the Minister comes back.

Business suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.40 p.m.

Dr. West

Before the adjournment, I was saying that, to our credit, we had constructed a stable political system and had made considerable economic advances but that we had not really tackled that problem which gives rise to the Northern view that the Roman Catholic Church's sway still holds over our social thinking. It is interesting to note that of the three important legislative moves in this direction which have been made recently—the abolition of Article 44 of the Constitution, the change in the law regarding the importation of contraceptives and the change in the adoptive law by which couples of mixed religions can adopt children—the non-contentious one was made by the Legislature, and then through referendum, but the other two were made in the courts. We have Bills—one was discussed this afternoon and another is coming up—to regularise the situation. That, to me, is ridiculous. It is about time the Legislature took its responsibility seriously and got going on these things.

I spoke earlier about the three relevant spheres of activity. In the political sphere, we will have to stay separate from the North and they will be separate from us for a considerable time. In the economic and social spheres we should promote integration and co-operation as much as we can. In many of the activities in these two spheres all-Ireland institutions already exist and there is a particular need for them now as a result of our entry into the EEC. In the political sphere our job should be to develop an Ulster identity and to do what we can to build up that identity. We cannot have peace and stability in this country without first having peace and stability in Ulster. We all wish to see the Unionists withdrawing from under the Westminster umbrella and taking part in our Irish institutions, but it is unrealistic to hope for this unless at the same time there is a withdrawal by the SDLP from Dublin's ambit. If I were a Northern Protestant I would be worried to see the SDLPs frequent consultations with the Dublin Government. I regard the SDLP as a party of the bravest and most talented men in Irish politics. Because they have this talent and bravery they should stand on their own feet and work inside the Ulster context. We cannot expect Unionists to cut themselves away from Westminster unless the SDLP are prepared to look at things more in an Ulster context, at least for the time being. I would hope that ultimately this would result in all Ireland accommodation, but for the moment we should concentrate on developing Ulster's identity and do everything we can to forward the establishment of a just system inside that province.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to second this motion and to welcome the opportunity which it gives us in this House to discuss the position, not only in the North of this country but in these islands. If we try to discuss or assess what is called the problem of Northern Ireland out of that context, we are not going to come up with a balanced, realistic conclusion.

Before going on to carry out that assessment I should like to remind ourselves—if we need reminding—that we are talking about the lives, jobs, relationships and even the dignity as human persons of the people living in this whole geographical territory, more critically those in the North, but also those in this part of the country and in the neighbouring island. There is a very grave responsibility on all politicians at this time to get away from slogans, rigid formulae, vested positions and party manoeuvring in order to bring about a political solution which may require compromise on all sides but which generates an atmosphere of peace, security, dignity, and guarantees the possibility of living without fear, intimidation or discrimination. We must do this in a framework where nobody has to give up their political aspirations provided they do not try to impose those aspirations by violent means on others. I feel that this is a very delicate balance which must be achieved. I do not believe that it is beyond our imaginations or our energies. We will be condemned by future generations unless we get down to it much more seriously and with much more desire for concrete and positive results.

It is legitimate to start with the collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement. It is obvious that we now have to go back to the drawing board again and build up a new relationship, confidence and balance. We must create a new, and hopefully more lasting, political solution. As I listened to the debate in the other House last week I was impressed with the degree of consensus about why the Sunningdale Agreement failed. I think this is important. It was generally conceded across the board in the Dáil by Deputies who adverted to it that the Sunningdale Agreement had not offered sufficient reassurance and attraction to the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland. Even that very admission is at least a constructive starting point to building up another solution.

What disappointed me however, in the debate in the other House was the failure by any of the people who spoke to relate the problem to the particular overall political and economic context in which it must be considered. At this point in 1974 the economic and political situation has changed very dramatically in the United Kingdom. Therefore the capacity within the United Kingdom either to pay a great deal of attention to the Northern problem or resolve it with strong measures may not be there in the same way in which it might have been there, if the political will had existed, even a short time ago. That country is faced with a serious economic crisis. It is faced with a political instability which it is unaccustomed to in that it has always prided itself on strong political parties, on a strong two-party system. This system is under challenge at the moment and the problem is aggravated by very serious labour relations. All of this is extremely relevant to assessing the degree to which there is the capacity, the energy and the focus of attention on Northern Ireland which we think are necessary to cope with the very serious situation there.

We must realise, in a very sober mood, that self-interest is a strong motive when a country is in a state of crisis and that self-interest has a very narrow ambit when the situation is as serious as it is in Britain today. This may result in less ability to stand up against a disenchantment or even an emotional feeling by the British public generally that they want to pull out of Northern Ireland.

From this overall context I should like to turn in more specific terms to statements made from Dublin. We proclaim that we are agreed that all of us would like to see "unity" on this island. Yet very few politicians define what is meant by unity, and very few qualify in any way the precise formula by which they would like to achieve that unity. This is an enormous pity because in the absence of clarification it is legitimate for somebody looking at the situation in the South to point to an unchanged position—an unchanged position of assertion of territorial jurisdiction over the whole island and an unchanged position in projecting an overall political context here and the image of a country where the majority religion prevails in our laws, our education and our practices to an extent that must be a deterrent to those not of the same tradition.

I do not think that we can continue this and still expect that others will regard us with goodwill. We cannot go on talking about aspirations and unity unless we are a great deal clearer about what we mean by unity. I, for one, do not see or desire unity as a takeover by the South or as an assertion of territorial domination or even jurisdiction. Not only do I have to state that firmly but I believe I must try to persuade my fellow politicians—the Members of this House—and members of the Government who are in a position to take steps on it, to state in a much more concrete way than has been done that the concept of Ireland is not a concept of domination from the South as the single way in which there can be the fulfilment of any aspiration or national aim for unity.

Therefore I would support Senator West in his outline of the necessity for building up the unit of Northern Ireland, of creating there a stable society which can operate in normal terms in building up its economic and political structures.

In this context, it is time we put a strict limit on when the all-party committee on the reform of the Constitution bring in their report, that we put a limit of a few short weeks on that, or else that we disband that all party committee.

Dr. West

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Robinson

Because that committee are the greatest excuse for doing nothing about the constitutional position. We ought to be ashamed of the fact that it has been allowed to drift on month after month so that we have an excuse for not taking any positive steps. My own view is that it was a mistake to leave something as important as constitutional reform in the hands of an all-party committee of politicians because their perspective is very often too narrow. The time scale in which they work is often far too dilatory and they do not have the broad perspective to understand the necessity for constitutional reform, not just in areas such as Articles 2 and 3 but in a much more general sense to give us a different framework in which to devise laws which provide for better family law, better educational structures, better trade union law and all sorts of other reform right down through the structure.

As well as introducing necessary reforms here on a much more serious scale than we have done, I believe that the time has come to look for a major assessment of the possible implications of the military, political and economic withdrawal by Britain from Northern Ireland. This is something which has only been discussed superficially in the British popular Press and hinted at from time to time here, but preferably not talked about openly in case it might encourage popular opinion on this.

I would prefer to see a very detailed assessment of the consequences of each type of withdrawal. Taking them separately, regarding the consequences of military withdrawal, I think that it could be very beneficial if a phasing down of military presence in Northern Ireland could be achieved in a constructive way, because it would reduce very substantially the level of violence. We ought to be much more imaginative in responding to the very genuine and heart aching fears of the minority population as to how they can be given some form of second guarantor, as to how there can be some neutral buffer, some way in which they can be given confidence in the situation that they will not be overrun or invaded in their Catholic ghettos.

There should also be a very detailed assessment of the consequences of political withdrawal as much for the United Kingdom as for the overall position in these islands. Let us remember that one of the great challenges facing Britain at the moment is the urge for devolution. They have the demand for power from Scottish Nationalists who are likely to gain substantially in the next election—possibly in the autumn—who are using the attractive argument of claiming the oil to be found off their shore as reinforcing a case for their own self government. This must be relevant to the British Government's attitude. It is in this broader political perspective that we ought to assess the possibility of a much greater move for devolution within Britain, and relate to it the possibility of political devolution of power to Northern Ireland and a severance of all links except membership of the Commonwealth or some link of loyalty to the Crown.

Finally the question most in need of study is the possibility of British economic withdrawal. Those who proclaim with most confidence our aspiration of national unity never really do their homework on this aspect, or examine the extent to which the Northern state is a viable unit. We have never examined the extent to which we in the south have the possible resources to help create in this island two viable units and discussed the question whether within the United Kingdom there is any political will to continue either on a temporary or long-term basis the economic subvention which maintains a viable unit within Northern Ireland. None of these questions should be left for behind-the-scenes discussion but should be examined clearly so that we know at this point what are the alternatives because never have the problems been more serious nor the apparent political options fewer. The fundamental reason why we do not have a very broad choice of options stems from the overall context that I was outlining earlier—the economic crisis facing Britain, the lack of political cohesion there and the very real domestic problems which must be and are occupying the best brains of Britain at the moment. Northern Ireland is further down the scale of priorities than we perhaps appreciate. Not only is it further down the scale but it is a further drag on an already serious situation, and as such is in danger of being treated in a fashion which tries to get rid of rather than to solve the particular problem.

It has been stated that the Catholic minority are of the opinion that in the present situation too great an attempt is being made from Dublin to pacify, to appease and to open up links again with the Northern majority, so the minority are in danger of being sold down the river. Perhaps this is because they foresee the possibility that the political package which may emerge in the next few weeks or months could include an offer by the majority of power sharing with other groups or parties provided that the parties concerned do not hold aspirations contrary to the aspirations of the majority, in other words, that they do not hold nationalist aspirations.

It is very important, as I said at the beginning, that the political package which emerges is sufficiently flexible to allow both majority and minority to participate in power. I believe that this is negotiable, that it is possible, with the economic and political pressures that can come to bear on those in Northern Ireland, to insist on power sharing between majority and minority and to insist that this can be done in a context which does not require denial or undermining of the aspirations of those who participate. Also, a much more conscious effort must be made to reinforce the idea that any nationalist aspirations that are held by the minority in Northern Ireland are of the more flexible kind which I hope are emerging here—not a concept of Southern domination or of a takeover, but an aspiration for co-existence between Irish men and women on this island in viable units which offer the basic protections of peace and security, of respect for the dignity of human persons and of absence of discrimination and terrorism.

Again, I think it is possible to devise various ways of protecting against discrimination and of challenging any evidence of discrimination in jobs. I am thinking of the possibility of what has been called a bill of rights, some written constitutional guarantees enforceable by the courts which will help to counteract allegations, well substantiated allegations of discrimination and protect against intimidation and injustice to the minority.

I appreciate that my allotted time in contributing to this debate has come to an end but I would ask the Minister to what extent the Government here are prepared to make a more conscious effort to make it clear that even when we talk about an aspiration of unity that we are not talking in any sense either of a territorial or a political takeover from Dublin and that that aspiration is compatible with building up, reinforcing and bolstering a Northern unit where the people in that Northern unit manage their own affairs.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not intend to delay the House very long. I merely wish to say a few words. First, I should like genuinely to compliment both the proposer and seconder of the motion for the manner in which they addressed themselves to it. Secondly, I should like to comment—and I am sure this has not escaped the attention of other Senators—that although this motion was put on the Order Paper a little more than 12 months ago its wording is just as topical today as it was then. It asks that Seanad Éireann notes the critical situation in Northern Ireland and requests the Government to outline its policy of reconciliation. There were reasons why the motion was not proceeded with at the time it was first put down, but all of us will remember that in those days the situation in the North of Ireland could be and was aptly and correctly described by the proposers of this motion as critical. Now, 12 months later, the same description can be applied. One way or another throughout the last five years there has been a situation which could be described as critical for most of that period in the North of Ireland.

All of us will agree that the situation which has developed in the North now is possibly more critical than it has been at any other time in recent years. Speakers from all political parties can, without any degree of false modesty on the one hand or churlishness on the other, pay a tribute to the work that was done by two Governments which culminated in the Sunningdale Agreement. Most of us who have been in politics in this part of the country for a number of years prior to 1972 or 1973 probably never expected to reach a stage in the history of the North of Ireland that in our lifetime we would see such a measure of agreement having been achieved as was achieved at Sunningdale. I am not one of those who believe that it is in anybody's particular interest to cry over spilt milk. While obviously it is necessary for the Government here and for the British Government, as well as groupings in the North, to examine the reasons for the failure in Sunningdale I very much agree with the point of view that it is so much water under the bridge now——

Mr. Lenihan

Hear, hear.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

——and it is the task of the present Minister and Government in the situation which meets them to see what can be done in that situation. Having said that, and that would be generally my approach to it, I think it is true to say that it certainly presents to me how desperately harmful and diabolical in result has been the violence in the North since Sunningdale. Everyone would accept that if coincidental with the setting up of the Executive in the North there had been a cessation of violence, there would not be any shadow or question of doubt about the success of the Executive and that we would have known in a comparatively short time, within six months of the setting up of the Executive, that we could all feel, North and South of the Border, that the direction of this country, North and South, was set on a path where there would be a spirit of co-operation, or partnership and above all a degree of peace in this country that we have not seen for some time. I do not say it was the only cause of the failure but I think an important cause of the failure was the fact that the violence continued and that that degree of support which it was necessary for all to give on the setting up of the Executive was withheld by those who indulged in violence. That is water under the bridge. It has happened. It is a pity it has happened and the blame must be laid at the door of those who indulged in violence, particularly in those particular circumstances.

I realise, and I have no doubt that Senators in the Fianna Fáil party realise, how difficult and how delicate must be the task facing the Minister and the Government at the present time. I think it was Senator Robinson who adverted to this, I realise too, and I think it is important that we should all realise it, how very easy it is in this kind of situation for words that are spoken or actions that are undertaken by Government Ministers to be either misunderstood or misinterpreted or possibly misconstrued. Obviously when the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for example, went to the North and met Loyalist leaders, there are grounds for misunderstanding and misinterpretation in that very action. Talk of selling out and so on is the kind of talk that might easily come to the surface. It is only responsible to point out—and I am doing it deliberately because I am convinced, whatever about anyone else —that it is in the national interest and that it is in the long-term interest of the country North and South that we in this part of the country should try not merely to achieve but to maintain a bi-partisan approach to the problem of the North throughout.

I do not know whether Members of the Opposition feel that there has been sufficient information or sufficient consultation with regard to the North. I have always found personally that the Minister for Foreign Affairs in particular is a very forthcoming individual and I have no doubt that any kind of consultation which he can undertake and which would assist in smoothing any difficulties in the way of a bipartisan approach or full understanding from all sides of the House of the difficulties involved will be undertaken by him. I regard it as of the utmost importance nationally that that kind of approach should be undertaken and maintained. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that it has not been maintained. I think it has and I think it is due to the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fianna Fáil Party generally for us to say just what the situation in this respect was when they were in Government.

Personally, I was attracted to the suggestion made by Senator West as a possible "solution" would be too grand a term for it—field of exploration: the idea of having some joint guarantee of the rights of both sides in the North underwritten both by Westminster Government and the Irish Government here in Dublin. I imagine that that is the kind of exploration or the kind of suggestion that the Minister and the Government would welcome. It is difficult to talk about the North. It is difficult to suggest solutions. Many of us can see the difficulties. Perhaps we do not see the other person's difficulties as clearly as we can see our own and maybe that is one of the difficulties in the whole tragic history of the last five years in the North and indeed going back well beyond that.

I feel it is important, and I know that this has been urged time and time again by different speakers and by different Ministers, that in so far as we can do it we should try to get to know the people in the North on both sides and we should try to encourage the people in the North to get to know us because it is only if we can remove fears and suspicions that we will be able to get anywhere. It is the duty of any Government here who are to be true to the desire—not merely the traditions but the continuing desire generation after generation of the Irish people—to have as one of its basic national aims the achieving of unity in this country.

I have no doubt that that is the mind and the spirit of all political parties in this country but I do not think anyone can be faulted for recognising the fact that while the aim is there—and all of us must work as best we can, whether it be quickly or slowly, towards achieving that aim—there must first of all be the stage where gradually barriers of suspicion and division of one sort or another are broken down. We must enter into an era of partnership: partnership presupposing power-sharing in the North, partnership between ourselves and the North to let the people in the North on both sides get to know us and to let us get to know them. It is only after some kind of era of partnership of that sort that one can really feel that a situation has developed where unity of hearts and of minds, which is the only true unity which we would have in this country could occur.

I share the view—and I do not think this has been confined to one side or the other; it has been expressed eloquently by speakers in the Fianna Fáil Party as well as speakers in my party—that mere geographical unity without unity of minds and hearts is merely shallow, hollow unity. It is no good either for the North or the South. We must try to achieve that kind of spirit of unity which will be preceded by some kind of working in harness, working in partnership, and if we achieve that eventually—it may not be in our day—we are tilling the ground on which can grow real unity between the people of this country North and South.

Mr. Lenihan

I take the view that this matter must be settled in our time. The very seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves is developing its own momentum towards engendering serious thinking on the part of people in this part of Ireland, the Northern part of Ireland and in Britain, about how people in this island must live together. If living together on this island can be translated into Irish unity that is fundamentally what the basic national aspiration on the part of people who comprise the majority in Ireland have always believed in.

In the situation in which we find ourselves, serious and all as it is, serious thinking because of the seriousness of the situation will engender its momentum in the direction I mentioned. I would not go along with the pessimistic view of the situation that it will not be settled for another 100 years or the pessimistic notion engendered by one Government Minister—not the Minister present—that we are in a potential civil war situation. This pessimistic word-making will certainly not benefit the present situation. What we want—and we all agree fundamentally—is a union of hearts based on peaceful political methods which would enable all the people in this island to work together. It is not either a short-term or a long-term practical proposition for the two parts of this island to work out their prospective destinies in isolation. That does not make sense on the practical level, on the administrative level, on the political level or indeed on any level.

When one looks at the population of this island and sees our future developing as it is within the European Community of nations and a population involving over 250 million people, the whole idea of having two separate administrations, two separate political entities in this small island does not make sense on the most rational of grounds apart from any other emotive ground.

In the present situation the important matter is to look around at the options that are open to us. It is important to seek out possible avenues. First of all, the Sunningdale Agreement is gone. Power sharing was there before Sunningdale. The Sunningdale Agreement only confirmed it. As I said in the Seanad last December, the whole notion of building an edifice of power-sharing through the Sunningdale Agreement— and a lot of the excessive publicity that attended that Agreement—was a big mistake. I am not saying that now as a result of the collapse of Sunningdale; I am on record as saying that I thought the edifice established at Sunningdale and the whole publicity attendant on it would cause serious trouble.

This brings me to a central point in the argument I am going to state here The North of Ireland Protestant Unionist is a hard-headed sensible individual. It was utterly futile to present a Sunningdale package that meant one thing as it emanated from either Mr. Heath or Mr. Faulkner and another thing as it emanated from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The people of Ireland could by switching buttons get totally different messages on their television screens. These people are not people who can be taken lightly. These are honourable, honest people. The North of Ireland Protestant is one of the finest species in the world. I think he was treated in a very cavalier manner by people selling an ambiguous paragraph in the Sunningdale Agreement, when on one hand he was told that the Sunningdale Agreement contained nothing in regard to Irish unity and by switching knobs he could hear Mr. Cosgrave and the Minister for Foreign Affairs saying that in no way was our constitutional position being abrogated. However that is water under the bridge. I am only mentioning it in the context that in any future arrangements regarding the North of Ireland we must be honest and straightforward and totally above board and that we should not in any way renege on our national aspirations. We will get far more respect from the North of Ireland Unionist Protestant if we state out position categorically. He understands what our position is, we understand what his position is and from those respective positions we can negotiate and deal and make arrangements for common and mutually beneficial interests.

I regard—and I am sorry for reducing the debate to a personal level to some extent, but I am only going to refer to him in a ministerial context—the activities and the word-spinning of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at the present time as being positively disastrous in this respect. I have the utmost respect for the Taoiseach and for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I believe that if government is to function properly the Taoiseach should speak on this matter and speak categorically as the democratically elected Leader of our people and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs as his executant in the sphere of foreign affairs and North of Ireland matters where they impinge on his office should be his spokesman also. The remarks consistently being made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs have introduced a highly divisive, explosive and dangerous element into this whole debate on Northern Ireland. To be specific—and I reiterate what I said—to command the respect of the North of Ireland Protestant Unionist we must be straightforward about our stand and our stand is that we believe in a united Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Protestant Unionist does not agree with that attitude. We take our stances, adopt our attitudes and from there we can negotiate about huge areas of economic and social co-operation, huge areas that can bring us together in a common way, immense practical fields of common endeavour without in any way withdrawing from our respective stands. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs continues on the line he appears to be taking and continues with the sort of untrammelled freedom which, apparently, he is being given by the Government— I do not know whether he has been given this untrammelled freedom to speak away from the area of post offices and telephone exchanges to embark into an area that is totally one for the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—if he continues to speak as he has been speaking in that area and in that area he is attempting to dilute what are very firmly held national aspirations by the great majority of our people that path is fought with very grave divisive dangers.

I think I am expressing the view of 99 per cent of the Irish people, Irish nationalists, who seek to achieve the unity of Ireland by consent and based on respect, when I say that if he introduces a further divisive element by seeking to ply and to project the notion that nationally-minded people in this island should in some way abjure and renege on their very dearly and faithfully held aspirations, then that is introducing a very divisive element which has not existed heretofore in the decent-minded national thinking on the part of the great majority of our people.

In my view it is totally wrong that we, at this stage, should start a debate among ourselves that can only be divisive, start a debate among nationally-minded people as to whether we are right or wrong in regard to our historical traditional affiliations, whether we are right or wrong in regard to very fundamental beliefs as far as the great majority of us are concerned especially when this matter is not relevant; especially when the hard-headed sensible North of Ireland Protestant Unionist knows well that these are deeply held views and he respects us for having these deeply held views.

Why the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should then seek to indoctrinate or inculcate in nationally-minded people the notion that in some way it is perverse to regard Irish unity as a legitimate aspiration is a matter that is already causing great concern to the SDLP—the North of Ireland. Mr. Paddy Devlin has spoken out today on this matter. These are the representatives of the national majority within the Six County area, the politically and democratically elected representatives of the national majority within the Six County area, are at the present time gravely upset—I have this information personally, apart from what has been published on Mr. Devlin today—by the present trend of the Dublin Government's attitude and particularly the attitude of the Minister I have mentioned who has no responsibility whatever in this particular area.

What I am saying is that we have a very serious problem in this island— the problem of accommodation between the national majority who regard unity as an aspiration and the national minority, the Protestant Unionist minority in this island, who do not regard Irish unity as a legitimate political aspiration. We have that division which is quite clear. Responsible people in each of the two groups abhor violence in any form. They represent the great majority of people in the two groups. People on the extremes in each of the two groups are pursuing violent methods to achieve each of the legitimately held objectives by the majority of responsible people in each group.

In that situation it is quite clear that it is the duty of the leaders of public opinion in this part of Ireland to ensure that there is a coherent attitude on the part of the national majority and that the national majority pursue a coherent policy of achieving the basic political national aspiration of our people by legitimate political means and by peaceful means. In the interim period— before we think we can fulfil those legitimate objective by political means— there is a wide area of mutual co-operation with our hard-headed sensible Protestant Unionist brethren who may not and do not agree with our view of national unity. The less we say and talk in the future about historical and traditional formulae and attitudes the better. We should recognise the reality for what it is—that there are two categories of people who have two different political aspirations. Having accepted and recognised that, let us not try to create a further division within the national majority that will only introduce further divisiveness and, indeed, switch the national effort into a totally nugatory and arid area of debate and discussion.

In practical terms we can do certain things. We can get down to practical projects in the regional context between west of Bann and the North-West and West of Ireland. We can get down to practical, regional, economic, technological and planning projects. We can initiate discussions and draw up a list of projects within the whole area I have mentioned that has no political connotation and no area of political content. I should like to know has any initiative been taken in this area? There is a massive area for fruitful co-operation in regard to the common working of the common agricultural policy North and South, in regard to regional policies as they emerge from the EEC, in regard to drainage and industrialisation. In any area one cares to think of there is enormous scope for mutual economic and social projects. A full list of these projects should be drawn up and discussions initiated straightaway with the responsible economic and social ministries.

We could have in the area of Derry, for instance, something approximating to what we have in Shannon Airport— an authority on the lines of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company— covering both sides of the Border, an economic and social development in what is a very depressed area on both sides of the Border. We should move towards an all-Ireland court and forget about this nonsense of extra-territorial jurisdiction—move towards an all-Ireland that would guarantee, as has already been suggested by Senator Mary Robinson, a basic bill of rights, basic guarantees in regard to human rights. We should start thinking in terms of human and individual rights, in terms of social and economic progress and in terms of the co-operation that can be developed in this region.

Indeed Mr. Basil McIvor and the Leader of our party took up the whole question of integrated education at primary level as yet another area where there could be common ground by pursuing an education policy based on the community school principle which has been abandoned by the present Government. I am very proud to have been associated with it as Minister for Education. It was the only practical measure ever adopted in this countr toy ensure that education really crossed the barriers of class and religion.

We find the present Government have dropped the community school project, which is working excellently in County Dublin and in various other parts of Ireland. Deputy Jack Lynch said that having education right across the board irrespective of class or creed was a practical way, though admittedly a long-term one, in which one could make very real progress.

I should like to say that at this juncture all the options should be looked at. There is no point in harping back to the Sunningdale Agreement. It has failed and is gone. We want to see some sort of situation evolving that will make economic and social development in all of the island possible. We do not want to see economic and social breakdown. The first stage is that we should get talking on practical economic and social matters. The next stage is to keep all options open in regard to what the future political and administrative structure should be. Power sharing, as it was in the Executive and Assembly before Sunningdale, is one objective. Mr. Desmond Boal's proposal is another idea, even though I recognise the weakness that it did not incorporate power sharing as such, but it envisaged an all-Ireland structure.

What should not be disregarded is the fact that people other than the present political parties who form the Executive and who are in Dáil Éireann might also be considered, or their representatives, who will sit around a table and discuss future developments. A totally open mind at this stage is all important. If there are representatives of what used to be regarded as extreme groups, be they of the orange extreme of the green extreme, can be persuaded to renege violence and to sit around a table and talk, they also should be brought into whatever discussions are proposed in order to evolve the political and administrative structures of the future.

I am asking the Government at the present juncture to keep a totally open mind on the situation and above all else to avoid any divisive statements that will cut a trench down through the basic national aspirations that bind the national majority together. This is all important and fundamental. The main way in which that can be achieved is by asking the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to concentrate on posts and telegraphs; let the Taoiseach concentrate on being Taoiseach and let the Minister for Foreign Affairs concentrate on being Minister for Foreign Affairs. My final advice is to keep that gentleman on posts and telegraphs work. A lot of Irish people would agree with me in regard to this at the present time and in the present context.

Mr. Lyons

It is no doubt important that this motion should be debated here this evening. I do not know if the fact that the number of Senators present is so small indicates anything in relation to the motion but I wonder if the debate has contributed much towards the solution or the paths to be pursued to find a solution or if it points the way to a solution of the problems in relation to the Northern part of our country. The suggestions being made are that certain lines should be pursued. Senator Robinson posed the question of the situation that would arise if the British troops were withdrawn, if the spoon-feeding by the British Government of the Northern economy stopped, and if this country had subsidised the North to the same extent as the British have in the past. These are the realistic things. These are the things that should be examined but who is going to undertake this study?

The Irish Government have been advised by Senator Lenihan to do certain things, to keep their options open, while he apparently stands on the same ground as he did 20 years ago by wrapping a green flag around him and saying: "Unity, a Republic for all Ireland". That gets us nowhere. Senator Lenihan's non-contribution to this debate was terrific and terrible—that we are adopting today the same "not an inch" stance as Northerners such as Craigavon and Carson. We here in 1974, with our toe in Europe and attempting to get ourselves settled into a European situation, should not be talking in the same Republican strain as the IRA and the people who support them were talking. This is now a mature Parliament, with long years of self government behind it. It is appalling that we should be taking this attitude today.

Mr. Lenihan

The Senator must have been asleep. That is not what I said. It was not on that line at all.

Mr. Lyons

Senator Lenihan for the most part was complaining about the non-clarity of the Sunningdale Agreement and also that a certain Minister of the Government had been making statements that appeared to undermine the whole situation from one point of view. The theory was that by attempting to pacify the majority in Northern Ireland by making this type of statement he was undermining the national aspirations. I think that is cod. Any Minister of State is entitled to make statements as a Minister. I am sure Senator Lenihan when he was a Minister he did not send his script to his former leaders before he made a speech down the country. There should be no necessity for him to do so and no necessity for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to submit to his leader every script that he has and every word that he has to say in relation to the situation in Northern Ireland.

All of us are concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland. All of us know that there could be a doomsday situation and we might as well face the fact. Senator Lenihan seems to think that if you do not talk about a certain situation it will go away. The fact is that it has remained there for a long, long time. Another fact is that the supposed Republicanism we have has not contributed in any way to the solution. The solution is just as far away now as ever it was, if not further away. The attitude of stating your position and let the other fellow state his position is not the kind of attitude that brings people together in an attempt to bring about a political solution.

Everybody knows that a long time ago the late Mr. Lemass, as Taoiseach, made approaches on the economic side. He made a great breakthrough in economic co-operation in relation to many things including, for example, the electricity supply between this part of the country and the Northern part of our island.

The onus is on the British to make the declaration to solve or attempt to solve this situation. Nothing which can be said in southern Ireland is going to solve it. On the one hand we have people who say Deputy Cosgrave's speech at this place or some other place is a sell-out of our brethren, our kindred, our Catholic friends in Northern Ireland. If he says something else he is called a hardliner. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether it is the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or any political figure who makes a political speech, it can be misconstrued or misinterpreted for many reasons.

The media, or particular individuals attached to the media, may for one reason or another prevent publication of statements made by the Taoiseach or Ministers. This does not help in the present inflamed situation. I do not know if anybody on any side of the House can say at this point in time what exactly the approach of the Government of Southern Ireland should be towards this situation. I will be intrigued to hear what the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks should be the approach.

I know that the evaluations asked for by Senators Robinson and West and the examination of the situation as they have outlined it can be fruitful, perhaps not in solving but at least in aligning and delineating a position, so that the problem can be clearly seen and a solution attempted. I agree with Senator Lenihan that making wild statements about the situation will not help and that our Northern friends would have more respect for us if we did not sell-out. But there is a tremendous difference between placing your toe on the line and saying: "Here is where we stand" and saying: "We are prepared to meet you if we can find a formula that must suit you as well as us." Such a formula would mean that we would not adhere strictly to a line or that, if they trod on our coat tails, we would have the same battle as we had in 1912 or 1920.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs may be able to throw some further light on the situation as he sees it. I hope that he will do so for the benefit of all of us here. I have talked about this problem with many people. I have talked with people from the North, people from the South, people living close to the North and people of all shades of political opinion. They seem now to be stymied. Nobody is able to say: "Go and do this and you will get results." Nobody is able to say: "The attitude should change this way or that way and you will get results." I should be delighted if the Minister were able this evening to shed some light on the situation as it stands at the moment. The contributions made here will be of very little help.

Mr. McGowan

I feel that by discussing the problem here we may not contribute very much. There has been so much said about this difficult problem that it is hardly likely that we can achieve very much here. When the discussion ends and we go home for the night, I do not think the people in the North will be any better off or that they will sleep any sounder in their beds tonight. It is important. There is an obvious drift. It certainly is one which the people in the North can see. There's a drift in Government policy to the point where there is no Government policy. This is crystal clear to anybody living in the North. I do not mean that you can come out with a Tricolour in your hand and try to stuff it down somebody's throat. There is no sane person in this island advocating this type of policy at all.

Dr. West

There are a lot of madmen.

Mr. McGowan

There certainly are. I agree with you. Nevertheless there is an absence of any policy whatsoever. The speeches and contributions being made are undermining the position of the people in the North who are fighting for their political survival. Our contributions are most unhelpful to them at the present time. If our contributions are unhelpful we should refrain from speaking.

I come from quite close to the town of Strabane which is one of the areas which has had its share of trouble. We have magnified out of all proportion this Protestant-Catholic situation. The problem is not as serious as we are led to believe. There is a political struggle in the North. The astute, shrewd, hard business people involved in politics in the North are using this situation to establish themselves for as long as they have dominated the scene in the North. They are using the troubles of the present time to put themselves solidly in power. Conceding every aspiration encourages them further. The Dublin Government are a laughing stock. I am not a hardliner but that is the picture as it is seen by those in the North.

Our Government and Ministers should spend more time in Britain. Britain has had 800 years of democracy. The British Ministers are panicking now, as they are learning of the troubles in the North. They have learned about their troubles in Africa and around the world before now. We have competition now with Ministers in Britain from both Government and Opposition. It is late in the day. Britain has to pay a very big price for what she has inherited in the North. It is up to them to come in and solve the troubles in a way that will bring lasting peace to this island.

The type of discussions which are taking place at the moment could not seriously be considered. I would hope that we would have some definite policy on the North. I am not saying that we should have a militant policy but that we should not abandon our aspirations and our hope that soon the people who now strongly oppose the unity of the country will see the sense and the value of coming together and uniting our country as one economic unit to fight for all of the people in the island and to fight for a better living for all of us in Europe.

I would urge the Government to press home on the British Government the need for them to give massive aid to the North to repair the damage that they have done because of their involvement over the years. Anybody who looks at the situation can see this as their greatest contribution. We have to impress on Britain that they have inherited this problem, but they created it and they have to put it right.

One of the practical steps we can take is that we can immediately start the economic system working, that is, that we can have complete free trade between North and South. We do not want to wait for phased development within Europe. We should have free trade right away between North and South.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

We have, as from the day before yesterday.

Dr. West

You are late.

Mr. McGowan

I am glad if that means that the economic and commercial border is automatically removed. The psychological border will go fairly quickly. The political Border will be the only remaining border. The political Border does not make sense because this island cannot afford mini-Parliaments at every crossroads. The total population, North and South, is small when one thinks of the 200 million people in Europe. We cannot afford a Department of Agriculture in Belfast and a Department of Agriculture in Dublin. The economy is being wrecked by duplication of administration. It should be pointed out that it is an advantage to come together and give recognition to all the people. The Protestant population are certainly a very useful people to have involved in the future development of this country. We should welcome them in a way that would not abandon our aspirations for a united country down here. Nobody will ever abandon that. It is only a red herring to say that the country will not be united. If we wanted to be fanatics we could count 54 per cent of the population at school as Catholics. If we wanted to talk like that those are the sort of arguments we would put forward. We could say that in eight years the Catholics would vote themselves out of the North. I would not for one minute support that argument.

I would hope that the so-called hardline Loyalists in the North would see the advantages. We could do a better job by pointing to the major advantages that there are for us if we joined together, North and South, to work out an economic structure here. Britain should help us without our begging them to do so. This is so because of the disruption and all this trouble caused by what their leaders have done in the past.

We should avoid sending Ministers, without naming them, to the North to undermine the political situation for the minority and their representatives down here. That is what we are doing at the present time. We are embarrassing them, undermining them and making it impossible for them. We are strengthening the hardline Loyalists every day we make a concession and every time we say we will abandon our Constitution or any part of it. This is our attitude. We do not seem to have any policy. We will abandon every aspiration we have and we will make it impossible for those people to survive politically. That is the point that we are missing at the present time.

It is well-known that the Sunningdale talks, but for the stand taken by the SDLP, would have ended in one day, not in three. I do not want to dwell further on that, but I certainly would hope that——

Dr. FitzGerald

I wish you would. This is a new piece of mythology.

Mr. McGowan

We should take a more practical line and one that would be seen to be useful. We are not getting any credit from the hardline Loyalists. We are doing damage to the minority in the North by our present policy.

Mr. McCartin

I should like to join first of all with Senator M.J. O'Higgins in complimenting the proposer and seconder of this motion on the genuine concern with which they approached the subject. I was particularly pleased to hear Senator West, a member of the minority here, speak in the manner in which he spoke. He spoke in a low key, which is only fitting at a time like this, and he was imaginative in places. I was interested to hear Senator Lenihan start off by saying that this problem must be solved in his lifetime. Of course, he could mean a number of things by this, such as what his lifetime is expected to be and what a solution to the problem is. This question of "must be solved" could do with some explanation.

This House is not being crowded out by all the Members here. A majority of the Members of this House realise the gravity of the situation at the present time. We have heard a generation of Irish people speak passionately and enthusiastically about this problem and it has not brought us any nearer to a solution. When I hear Senator Lenihan say that this problem must be solved in his lifetime I think of people who said that over the past 50 years. Some of them went into retirement and others passed on, and still the situation is no nearer a solution than it was when they first made their announcements 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Perhaps if they had been less passionate and less enthusiastic we might in fact be nearer to a solution at the present time.

As somebody who comes from what I describe as the Northern part of the country—as near as one will get within the Twenty-six Counties to Protestant Ulster—I believe that the division between the Catholic and Protestant sections of our community is definitely exaggerated in many quarters. I agree this much with Senator McGowan. I have lived all my life amongst my Protestant neighbours. I have never found any deep basic difference of opinions or attitudes between us and the way in which we should live or conduct our day-to-day affairs. I have never seen very much evidence of the divergent traditions we hear so much talked about. We can meet and have our discussions on education, religion and many subjects. In fact before the question of the Contraception Bill came up here for discussion some months ago I made a point of discussing it with my Catholic and Protestant neighbours. I found the reaction to be the same from both sides of the community. I found that we have lived together for 300 years and many of our beliefs have rubbed off on each other. We enjoy the same music and pastimes. We have the same attitude to life. We work our farms in the same manner. I think we have far more in common than the things that divide us. It is my personal observation that if we were to disagree on anything we would probably find the point of disagreement would be on the question of the partition of Ireland. The majority of the Protestant people in the Northern part of the Twenty-six Counties would uphold the right of the Protestant people of Northern Ireland to maintain the partition of Ireland. I suppose we would probably recognise their power to do that.

I believe that, as Senators in this House we cannot make a very big contribution to the solution of the problem. There are some suggestions that we could make. Looking at the situation over the past 50 years the things that were most "hankered" after by the Unionist minority in the Twenty-six counties were the economic advantages of the people in the Six counties. These were the things which were considered the attractions to being part of the British set-up. I never heard any other arguments advanced in my own locality by my Protestant neighbours for the continuation of the situation in the Six Counties other than that it was economically advantageous to live in that area. I think that this is a key to an easing, if not to a solution, of the problem.

Bigotry in the Twenty-six counties found expression in the power of one community to deprive the other of a house and a job. To me it is as grievous to see a Protestant out of work as to see a Catholic out of work or to see a Protestant without a house as a Catholic without a house. We have a political situation where you can identify the people of one political set-up by their religion tag. I do not believe that religion or tradition was essentially a part of the problem. We have a political party in the Six Counties which is more important as a political party than a religious majority. They see the advantages of power and patronage, they have become entrenched. I believe that if you had drawn a line around six counties around Dublin or Cork and created the same situation you would find it as difficult to solve that problem at the present time as it is to solve the problem in the North-eastern area of this country.

I believe that on the economic side it is a pity that when the countries of Europe are breaking down barriers and coming together this situation should have developed in Ireland. If we had had a little longer we could perhaps have used the power of the Economic Community to help us to solve the problem there. I believe that even now as Members of this Community, when the present economic difficulties and the problems of inflation of the Community are overcome—and I am confident that they will be—this community of nations can go a long way towards helping us with a solution to the problem in our country. I believe that if we have great industrial expansion and plenty of housing in the Twenty-six Counties or the areas of the Twenty-six counties which are close to the Border, you will find employers rushing to pick up the best talent rather than choosing between Catholic and Protestant or between political or religious affiliations before providing people with jobs or giving them the opportunity to fill a vacancy. This, to my mind, would be the most important front on which to tackle this problem.

I rely on our Government, and particularly on the Minister for Foreign Affairs with his economic expertise, to use his influence in the Community to find in the generosity of our European partners some assistance towards a solution of this problem. I believe it could be found within the economic might of the European Community. I do not think it would take a great effort on their part to contribute to a solution of this problem which is grave but is small in the European context. Of all the political problems confronting Europe at the present time, this must be the nastiest.

On the other hand, I believe that the question of education is relevant to the subject before us today. Religious teaching in our schools and the question of segregating people according to religion at national and secondary schools is important and deserves some mention. I would assert that it is primarily the duty of the churches and the parents to teach their children their particular religious beliefs and on the other hand, I can see that you can have a strengthening and enlargement of faith and christian knowledge by taking either Catholic or Protestant children to a school of their own religious denomination and having their education given to them with a particular religious bias. That is all that is on the credit side.

On the other side, I believe that while desegregation in education could go a long way to solve the problem in the North of Ireland I certainly do not pretend that I believe that it has contributed to the problem. I do not believe that it has made any significant contribution to the problem there but I believe that the abolition of the religious segregation at schools could go a long way to solving it. I think we are denying the young people, the future generations, of the opportunity to meet and work together and get to know each other in those impressionable years. If you send children to the same school, they learn at the same desk and play in the same playground and it will be very difficult for somebody to tell them in a few years time that they are different from the children who sat in the desks beside them at school; that there is a basic difference in their nature or in their outlook. I believe that we could give the lie to much of the falsehood that has been presented to young people by a small number of dangerous-minded people who have sought to make their own political gain out of misleading young people into believing that there is some irreconcilable differences between a Protestant child and a Catholic child who grows up in Ulster.

We could have religious teaching in such schools. There is a vast field of common christian religious knowledge that could be imparted by lay teachers or religious teachers to children of the christian churches without any conflict over important principles in either church. This could be a long-term solution or perhaps not such a long-term solution when one thinks that 20 years is a short period in the history of any country. None of us should be so impatient as to want to see a solution in a year or six months. I think this is going to be a long road and we must prepare ourselves for it. There is nothing to be gained by seeking to impose short-term solutions. We must be very patient.

I would like to come back to the question that has been raised about some of our Ministers who have made statements recently or given their views. I believe that sometimes the media will seek for their own particular purpose to highlight particular aspects of a speech that somebody makes; to draw out one particular sentence and seek definitions and explanations with a view to making an exciting headline or to make it appear that there is a difference when in fact they could not find a difference. I believe that if the leaders of our two parties were brought together—the Leader of the Coalition Government, the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, and Deputy Lynch—in the privacy of an office with a neutral chairman, it would be found that deep down they believe the very same things about the eventual solution of this problem.

I think that the emphasis has been put on different lines and different sentences which they mention but I believe sometimes a man can be almost too honest for people who like to hold to an old belief in the hope that somehow or another they can make it come about by believing in it. Other people want to be brutally honest and say what they see is the truth and I do not think anybody should blame them for this. I think there is agreement between our major parties on the basic principles of the solution to the problem before us and I think that people who seem to create visions where none exist are being irresponsible at the present time.

A solution to the problem cannot be defined. As I said at the outset, that is why these seats are not full of Senators waiting to make important speeches on this subject. We all realise that this is a long road which lies ahead of us. We all hope for a period of peace and stability in which the people of the Six Counties of Ireland will sit down together and work together and evolve back into a proper democratic process, and that eventually all the people of Ireland will come together in the sort of union that is important—a union to provide jobs for everybody, houses for everybody to meet everybody's hopes and ambitions for themselves and their families. Whether we call it a republic or whether it is a community of nations or whatever it may be is not as important as the quality of the life which we will enable the individual to live in this country of ours comprising northern Ireland and southern Ireland.

Professor Quinlan

I welcome the opportunity provided by the Seanad for the somewhat brief and responsible discussion on the motion. Even though the motion was tabled 12 months ago, it is still, unfortunately, more relevant and more difficult to discuss it today than it was at that stage when we could afford to be more hopeful. However, I think we can look at just a few points and, taking the policy of reconciliation which we all believe in whether as Irishmen or as Europeans or as citizens of the world, we see the necessity for this at all levels.

In this we need to promote to the fullest extent possible contact at all levels, whether cultural, educational or political. Indeed, I, for one, applaud very much the efforts of our political representatives to talk with various sections, various influential groups and people and to get to know one another. That should be seen in the hopeful and helpful spirit in which these difficult tasks are being undertaken and I think that at the outset there is agreement here and in Britain on the necessity for some form of power sharing in the North. That is what we seek desperately. In seeking that we can look at the glorious experiment that, unfortunately, appeared to fail. We find that its base was too narrow. It represented at the outset quite a majority view but that was whittled down and therefore there is a necessity in trying to reconstruct power sharing, to persuade others of our citizens or parts of some of the other parties to see the logic in this.

Therefore the people who share with us in the North the ideal that power sharing is necessary cannot for one moment doubt the motives of our Minister or any other public people in going to talk to people who today do not subscribe to the ideal of power sharing. Obviously, we shall talk to them and try to get them to see that we are genuine and that we desire reconciliation. We want them to see that the power sharing which began there had none of the dangers for them that they conjured up. Therefore everybody at this side should see that those making contact with people who do not share that ideal of power sharing at present are doing a type of missionary work. It is difficult work and it should be neither misunderstood by critics or opponents, nor should it be misunderstood by the parties in the North who gave such a fine example of building the first attempt at power sharing. In fact, I think they are realists. They proved they are realsists by the work they did over the past 12 months and the difficulties they encountered. Therefore, as realists, they should see quite definitely the role of anyone here talking to those whom they are trying to get to see power sharing in a real and helpful sense.

To that extent then, I think we should promote every contact possible at all levels. When we talk of power sharing, it means power sharing, not domination of any one group by another. Therefore I return to something that I alluded to here a few times before, that is, that we should begin to set an example here, not merely for the edification of the North but for the better government and the better development of our own community. I am not edified by seeing, after the recent county council elections, that where one party gets a majority of one they grab everything. That is as wrong for the Coalition as it is for Fianna Fáil. It is wrong nationally and it is showing to the North that we may be preaching power sharing to them but we have not got the fundamentals of power sharing here. Also, it was wrong —I do not know what the obstacles were—that Deputy Lynch was not present at Sunningdale just as we now regret that some people in the North, outside of the group who attended had not been induced to attend. Certainly, from our standpoint here I could never understand—and I speak as one quite sympathetic to the Coalition or at least sympathetic to the necessity for and the healthiness of a change of Government in any democracy—what prevented Fianna Fáil in the two or three years before the change of Government from having a proper bi-partisan policy on the North and regular relations with the then Opposition. I also cannot understand now why the Government have not a much more explicit and a much more regular relationship with the Opposition in trying to fashion a common policy on this very delicate subject, thus preventing recriminations in the newspapers. These are seized on and distorted out of all proportion by those who live by the hundred words they write.

I appeal to the Minister: can anything be done about it? Can we get down to power sharing here? Can we show an example? When the present government were in Opposition they realised the necessity for that. They must still realise the necessity for a committee system of sharing and a committee system of pooling our resources. The days of the 18th century politics of Them and Us are gone, thank God. We have to fashion the future here. I call on the new Government, which is just a little over a year in office, to let us see action on this front.

While we were all together on the Opposition benches we pined for committee systems and so on. I am still calling for committee systems. I find that the former Ministers have very quickly shared that view and are very genuine in their desire to see it established. What is holding us back? We are Irishmen; there is very little dividing us? Why can we not get on with power sharing in this part of the country? Surely that is the greatest example we can set to our brethren in the North.

I should like to take one or two other points. I will not venture very far in this. I should like to promote contacts at all levels, cultural, social and educational. I know of dedicated groups here who are trying to do that in some of those fields. I am speaking particularly of a committee which has its headquarters in Cork, the Committee for Human Rights in the North. They have done very valuable work. Many of the people concerned in it are colleagues of mine at University College, Cork. I know how genuine and balanced they are in their approach. They are bringing groups of children from the North for holidays here. They are taking them from both sides of the divide. They try to get both sides balanced. They have not got any real help either from this Government or from the previous one. Financial help for such groups should be made available quite readily once the bona fides of the groups are established. They are doing our work; it has to be done at all levels. There is nothing better than this type of exchange between the North and here. It enables the people there to see that the life we lead is not as it is represented by the Northern extremists. They will see that it is a regular, democratic, life pattern and one which, if they experience it for a short while on an exchange basis, they cannot but appreciate. I would ask encouragement for all such groups.

In regard to the money that England spends on Northern Ireland—and that is quite substantial with the continuing disturbances—could there be some type of a resettlement opportunity offered? If there are groups whose present position cannot be improved from the outside, if it is lack of employment or something else which could come within the label of discrimination or denial of rights, would it be possible to have imaginative resettlement opportunities open to such people from both sides of the divide whether they are Catholic or Protestant both here and in England? That, at least, would be the minimum that we could expect to provide for people if we cannot help them where they are. If some want to leave we should try to help. That obligation would be on all of us—to try to help them to a better life.

A death blow was given to the Executive by the Westminster elections last February, a death blow given by the straight vote system. As it turned out, 11 out of 12 is a massive victory, but expressed as a percentage it is only 50-50. Had proportional representation been available such a lopsided and misleading result would not have occurred. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty in having one system of election pertaining to Britain and another to the Six Counties. England is not tied, as we are, by a written Constitution. Under our Constitution, if the Government saw fit and if the electorate assented to it I cannot see why it could not be ruled that election would be either in groups of one seat or ten-seat constituencies. It should be possible to legislate in Westminster that the fundamental consideration is representation, in other words 12 members set down as representing the North. These are selected in England on the basis of single seat constituencies. I cannot see what the difficulty would be in legislating that these would be selected by treating the North as one constituency with the transferable vote—in other words, proportional representation. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me as to whether he can see any difficulty. If it could be done, it seems it should have been part of the Sunningdale Agreement. The damage the other system could do should have been obvious then. On the reverse side we have the very healing influence that PR exercised on the Assembly elections in the North. There had been the situation where 11 out of 12 were elected for one viewpoint with the straight vote. If Westminster elections are held in the autumn, as appears likely, and if there is another endorsement of 11 out of 12 it will consolidate that position very much whereas if that were under PR the most that would happen would be that the anti-Sunningdale or the anti-power sharing group that would emerge there would at most get half the votes. I would ask the Minister to see if anything could be done about that even at this late stage because it would ensure that those of like views would be brought together and by the changing vote would reinforce one another. Put in the straight vote—that damnable system—and it sunders apart those that are closest together, those who are fighting for the same pool of votes. It is essential, if at all possible, to avoid a repetition of what happened last February.

Mr. Markey

I could not agree with those who have said that not much will come out of this debate. Already it has shown one decided difference from the debate which was held in the other House last week. That has been the contribution from the Independents in this Chamber, particularly, Senator West, Senator Robinson and to a lesser extent, if he does not mind me saying so, Senator Quinlan.

In a debate on Northern Ireland one has always to be suspicious what contributions come solely from either Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour, because those parties had their origin in the traumatic events which confronted this nation 50 years ago and there is always bound to be, as it were, some overspill of that trauma into any contributions made at the present time.

There was some mention earlier that now is the time for serious thinking. That comment is a praiseworthy one and is to be welcomed. It was also said that we should be honest towards the Northern people in future agreements and in future negotiations with them. This was said as a criticism of the Sunningdale Agreement. I would take up the first part of that criticism, namely, being honest towards the Northerners. It is only right that we should be honest first of all with ourselves when we discuss Northern Ireland. I see nothing wrong in starting a debate among ourselves as to where we go now and in the future with regard to the problem in Northern Ireland and the future of these Thirty-two Counties. It is right to have a totally open mind on the matter. We have seen where the events of five years have led us. We have seen Sunningdale collapse mostly through the intransigence, one might say, of extremists of both sides.

Therefore when one asks for serious thinking and for being honest towards other people it is only right that we should, first be honest towards ourselves. There is no harm in questioning where we have been proceeding for 50 years, where it has led us and whether now we should not halt and re-think the whole matter over. This is not to say that we depart one iota from any aspirations. The people of Northern Ireland, the majority of peoples have their own aspirations. We have our aspirations. We cannot just stand gazing at each other across a Border. We must go out and try and make contact with each other. We must see where, at least, we can have some reconciliation with each other. The most encouraging movement of the past week has been the contact made by our Minister for Foreign Affairs with members of the parties in Northern Ireland. There is an old saying that it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. The latter instance is not so far remote, and we cannot dismiss it; it is certainly preferable that we should talk to each other in an effort to try and delay such a horrible happening.

As I said at the beginning, contributions made by the Independents in this debate are the most noteworthy. It is on their contributions that I would like to concentrate because, as I said, party contributions can at times be influenced by the very origin of those same parties.

As Senator Robinson said, lives are at stake. Let there be no doubt about that. It is high time we got away from slogan throwing, from party political point making and from even party political manoeuverings. Senator Robinson asked that perhaps we should define unity. It is high time that we did so. James Connolly once asked "What is a united Ireland to me if it does not mean a united people?" Perhaps there is much more in that statement than we have been inclined to accept over the years. Maybe we should look again and see what he really meant. I could not agree more with the sentiment that if constitutional changes need to be made according to our own thinking then it is high time we faced up to that challenge and met those constitutional changes face on and not be delaying them because by doing that we are playing into other people's hands.

There is not much that one can say which perhaps will bring the Unionist majority peoples in the North nearer to us in the near future. There is much instead that we can do and by even going and talking to them we are contributing to a certain extent towards a reconciliation, which is the first prerequisite of any final settlement of any problem.

Northern Ireland today stands at a watershed position, as it were. Britain is reassessing where Northern Ireland stands within the United Kingdom. Even people in Northern Ireland itself are beginning to reassess where they stand. Perhaps this is an opportune time for this state to proclaim how much it has advanced since 1922. It has advanced from lying on the ground to a position where we can negotiate as a sovereign independent Government and go into the EEC on an equal footing with England. That is no mean achievement. At this moment, when there is a reassessment both at Westminster and in the North of Ireland, I think our standing up and proclaiming to one and all what we have done and what we are capable of doing—the record shows what we can do for ourselves—is something that might perhaps have a certain attraction for the people of Northern Ireland. It may register minutely at the moment but if it registers at all it is worth doing. We should not, as it were, lie under a bush and be in any way hesitant or dilatory about shouting aloud what great progress we have made in 50 years. We have much to be proud of and we can offer much to people.

There is not much that any of the political parties can say which will add to what has already been said. I repeat that this debate has been noteworthy because of the contribution from the Independent Members. If they represent the bulk of people out there who have no party affiliations to Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour, if they are saying what the bulk of those people are thinking, there is much we can learn from them in this debate, and I think that we can go home tonight and think on what they have said.

Mr. Harte

One of the extraordinary things I find about the debate is that there is running through it much talk of policy. I do not know how one can draw up a policy for a situation that is chaotic. That is exactly the situation we are in at present. Somebody called the Sunningdale experiment a policy, but I believe that in a situation of chaos all one can do is to improvise. This is the most we can hope for having regard to the background, the attempts by everybody to put forward suggestions, the rebuffs, the attitude of the UWC, the total perspective of what caused a certain situation and what the effects were. In a situation from which one is trying to draw something concrete and trying to find some ordered way of moving forward, it is a bit ridiculous to say that it is possible to have a policy. A policy means that you have a set objective, that you have a way of reaching that set objective and that, if there are impediments in the way of it, those impediments can easily be overcome. Of course that is not the situation in regard to the Northern troubles. It will not do anybody any good to go back over the whole historical background and start pointing the finger at those who were guilty of such-and-such a thing.

The contributions here tonight represent a genuine attempt to steer clear of that type of thing. For that I am very grateful. I believe that the SDLP and the other members of the Assembly who tried to make a genuine effort at getting institutions going, even though I still believe that those efforts were improvisations to deal with a situation, deserve all credit for their courage and intelligence. That should be placed on the record of this House. I do not share the view that the reason the Assembly fell was the lack of political experience on the part of the SDLP. Any of us who have heard them debating and who paid attention to the situation realise the total grasp they had of the problem in the North of Ireland and could appreciate the difficulties they were up against. We should go on record as thanking not only those people but also anyone else in the Assembly who helped them or encouraged them towards whatever they thought they might have realised out of it.

When speaking of policies, how do you draw up a policy to replace fear with faith? I do not know how one could go about that and I have no solution or suggestions to offer on it. After Partition, when the police force was set up in the North of Ireland it was based on the idea of protecting the people against armed subversion. When there were some small outbursts of IRA activity they felt it necessary, and genuinely so in their own minds, to use repressive laws. I believe they were stimulated by fear. On the other hand, matters were easy enough for us on this side of the Border because our police force was based on a peaceable approach to matters.

Again looking at the fear situation, here we are with two incompatible aspirations. Something has been thrown into the middle of it in the sense of people talking about an independent Ulster but I do not think that is the truest way to express it. There are people using this as a means for political gain. I do not think they genuinely believe that an independent Ulster can be a viable proposition. However, we have these two incompatible aspirations and no matter which way you jump—if you jump in one direction by saying that we will pursue objectives in order to realise a united Ireland—you are immediately going to instil fear into the majority in the North. Once they know the overtones are there and once they know of our aspirations they realise that they would become a minority in an all-Ireland context.

Senator Quinlan says we can demonstrate to them that they will have no troubles but I wish to relate something which might be considered as an extraordinary thing to crop up in a debate like this. It concerns my experience in two areas of dealing with people in the North. I was born into a Dublin Catholic family and I joined the British Army in 1937. From the day I joined it until the end of the war in 1945 I never had a Catholic friend. All my friends were Protestants from the Shankill Road, Sandy Row and other Protestant areas in the North. I was in a prisoner-of-war camp with them for two years. We debated on end about different things. Those of us who were from this part of the country sang the songs that suited us and they always sang "The Sash My Father Wore" and the other songs they are renowned for singing. However we never lost our friendship. If we went out on the town and an Englishman said anything to us we were all Irishmen and the Englishman was gone for his tea. That was the end of that.

The reason I am stressing this point is that when we talk about policies I get a little confused about trying to deal with things that to me look irreconcilable. About 15 years after returning to Dublin I visited Belfast and was walking towards Sandy Row when I saw one of my friends from my army days. He called to me across the street, we embraced, went into a pub in Sandy Row, had a few drinks and then we went to the Newtownards Road where we met a few other friends. It was on a Friday and my friend offered me a meat sandwich. My wife was with me at the time and I told my friend that I did not eat meat on a Friday. He reminded me that he remembered the time I would eat anything on a Friday. At the same time his son arrived in the house and said: "Have you been to the Lodge?" Here we were, blood brothers up to our neck in all sorts of activities, having been in prison camps and various war zones, back in a so-called civilised country and here was my friend back with his children and going to the Lodge and here was I back in Dublin telling my children that they should be getting ready to go to sodality. How do you deal with a situation like that? In any situation in which I discussed the question of whether they wanted to be part of an all-Ireland unit the fear was always there that they would in an all-Ireland situation be a minority. I explained that there was nothing to fear.

With reference to the trade union movement over the past 26 years, we are a united body and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have drawn up a very wonderful document on ways of dealing with the problems of the North. Even Jim Larkin succeeded in marching Orange and Green together, including policemen. Despite that, even in the debates we had with the trade unionists and which I have had over the past 26 years and everything we shared together, none of them has yet satisfied me that they are happy that everything would be all right for them in an all-Ireland context.

This is the reality of the situation. We have all seen that force does not work. Some of us believe that we should give up trying to persuade them. I do not share that view because I have always believed in trying to persuade them no matter how long it takes. I do not think we should depart from that course.

For that reason I would endorse a lot of what has been said here today by Senators Robinson, West, Markey and others. We must try and keep up the persuasion. Regardless of which way we go about it, whether by integrated education, economic expansion, or by setting up joint committees of people from both parties, without any legal backing, we still must remove fear and replace it with faith. This is a tremendous task but we should not forego the idea of persuasion.

We all condemn those who are responsible for bombings. They wreck any hope we have of a peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland problem. The extremists believe that to start talking in terms of sanity is a departure from the norm rather than the other way round.

Because I have had so many friends in the North, some of whom I have lost touch with, and because of the great brotherhood I have shared down through the years with these people, I am frustrated and disturbed that I can contribute so little. All I can say is that the people who are trying to solve the problems should get every encouragement, especially in relation to establishing some sort of institutions.

There should be no doubt about all of us coming together. We have come together on the question of the men of violence. We should continue to condemn them but remembering that we cannot remove fear instantly and replace it with faith. Many of the missionaries would be able to explain that better. They have been going around the world for years. I know a particular group who have only succeeded in penetrating into 1 per cent of Ireland in 100 years.

We can make all sorts of suggestions but the Northern Ireland problem is not one that can be dealt with in the way we would deal with an industrial, social or economic problem—by looking to parliamentary machinery or arbitration boards to remedy it. That is not the case. We have got to place our trust in somebody. So far as I am concerned, the SDLP are the answer. Whatever the all-party committee may throw up, whatever constitutional changes we can make, whether we have a look at Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, whether we can move towards encouraging faith without violence, so long as it is intended to be constructive I do not think any of us should jib at it. If it means subjugating our own views, every Irish person has an obligation to do so. I would urge everybody to subjugate their own views today. Certainly I have other opinions. But I am prepared to subjugate a lot of the views I hold in the interests of the realisation of the proper approach—I do not say the proper achievement—in an effort to bring some sort of order and sanity into the Northern situation. I wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs and all others involved the best of luck.

Mr. Deasy

Need I say that there is no short-term solution for the problem which confronts us as regards Northern Ireland? Possibly a blood bath might bring about a short-term solution. I do not think that anybody in his right mind would suggest that such a thing should take place or could take place. The collapse of the Executive, which was working so well, was a great disaster. All credit is due to the politicians who tried to make it work while discredit must go to the thugs and murderers who caused its collapse. For the first time since this island was partitioned there was a real hope that both communities, in Northern Ireland and the country as a whole, could be reconciled. The bombers of the IRA, the UDA, the UFF, the murderers and gunmen more than anybody else brought it to its knees. Eventually the thuggery, fear and intimidation of the Ulster Workers' Council finished it off. These points are historic. But they cannot be repeated often enough so that we can look to the future and try and avoid the calamities which have occurred in the past. We must start afresh and try and form a new Executive a new system of power sharing which will be acceptable to the majority of those Unionists who reneged on the Unionists who tried to form a workable Executive. It is not going to be easy. But, we have excellent men in the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to help in this task.

Senator McCartin was very much to the point earlier this evening when he spoke about long-term solutions. The solution is going to be a long-term one. Segregating educational establishments is not a help. This is a point which was brought to the notice of the public in a forcible manner for the first time some months ago, by Mr. Basil McIvor, who had responsibility for education in the Northern Executive. Let us give credit where credit is due. It was re-emphasised shortly afterwards by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Lynch. It did not get proper examination or proper coverage. Praise was not given when it should have been given by people in high places in this country, in particular the Hierarchy.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.00 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4th July, 1974.