Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Jun 1978

Vol. 89 No. 7

Northern Ireland: Motion.

Dr. West

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes the present political impasse in Northern Ireland.

The motion is in my name and in the names of Senators Martin and Hussey. Senator Hussey will second the motion and Senator Martin will exercise the right of reply of the proposer at the conclusion of the debate.

This is a suitable opportunity at which to debate what is in the best sense of the term a non-political motion. It is down in the name of three Independent university Senators. It is deliberately stated so as not to put the Government or any political party in a corner in terms of stating a policy. This is important because, at present, the three parties in the Republic are in the process of reviewing their policies. I look on this debate as an opportunity for this House to influence the review of party policy which is going on in this country at the moment.

There is currently no political forum for debate in Northern Ireland. There is little sign of discernible movement on the surface of the Northern Ireland political scene, whatever happens underneath. Current policy in the Republic would seem to be to press the United Kingdom Government to establish a political forum for allowing political development in Northern Ireland; to seek a declaration that Britain wishes to see Ireland harmoniously united and to obtain a guarantee against total integration of Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. Current British policy would appear to be to do nothing to rock the boat before the coming general election; to do a deal with the Unionists at Westminster with a promise of bigger representation in order to ensure their continued support and, as far as one can project into the future, after the general election to continue to do nothing. In a way, one can see why this is the British policy. There are few votes to be obtained from radical reappraisal of Northern Ireland policies by the United Kingdom. The last British politicians who made a constructive attempt to get to grips with the Northern Ireland situation and do something radical and produce an initiative were Mr. Heath and Mr. Whitelaw who was at that time the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They could not be said to have gained politically from their attempt to move politics along the road that it should be going in the North. Seeing that there is no sign of a statesman of the stature of a de Gaulle on the British scene at the moment, someone who, when it becomes apparent that the current policies have failed, could take the bit into his own teeth and radically change them, we are faced with a continuing period of direct rule for Northern Ireland. This could go on for a considerable time and we will just have to grin and bear it.

I would like to look at the North after ten years of upheaval and the first thing to say is that the Provisional campaign has failed in its two main aims, the first of which was to drive Britain out of the North of Ireland and the second one to persuade the Northern Protestants to join an all-Ireland—socialist or nonsocialist—Republic. I am not against Britain's eventual exit from the North but how anybody who knows anything about the situation on the Protestant side could fail to see that an attempt stemming entirely from the Roman Catholic side of the population to drive Britain out by force could be interpreted in any other way but as an attack on the Protestant section of the community I fail to see. I think that we now know enough from the history of the Northern Protestant to know that he is not going to be coerced into anything he does not wish to be coerced into by force. I quote from Horace Plunkett's remarkable book Ireland in the New Century which was published in 1904. He was a Unionist MP at Westminster who had the happy knack of consistently talking and even voting against his own party in Parliament, a behaviour much to be commended by an Independent—such as myself—but not by his party. Consequently he only held his seat for eight years. Plunkett had two very remarkable achievements. He is, of course, the founder of the Irish Co-operative Movement and secondly he established the Recess Committee in 1896 which led to the setting up of the Department of Agriculture in this country. Plunkett had very interesting views on the politics of the time and he had this to say, quoting from page 86 of his book, to the Nationalists of his time. He asks Nationalists: “Is the Unionist part of Ulster to be coerced or persuaded to come under the new regime? To those who adopt the former alternative my reply is simply that if England is to do the coercion the idea is politically absurd”, and he goes on to say that:

Those who know the temper and fighting qualities of the working men opponents of Home Rule in the North are under no illusion as to the account they would give of themselves if called upon to defend the cause of Protestantism, liberty and imperial unity as they understand it.

I think the situation is just like that today. Anybody who thinks the Northern Protestant can be coerced by force is absolutely wrong. The attendant violence conducted with this aim was bound to fail. On the other hand, the political history of the past ten years shows some encouraging features. First of all, there was the emergence of a constructive political party on the Roman Catholic side, the SDLP, replacing the old style of aggressive nationalism. On the Protestant side there is evidence of movement by certain groups of people, first of all, under Captain O'Neill, then under the late Brian Faulkner and still later under Mr. William Craig, from an entrenched position to a position where they perceived what seems to me to be the self-evident truth of the Northern Ireland situation, that politics is about deals and ultimately a deal must be done between the two sections of the community in Northern Ireland, a deal concerning the form of Government that is to obtain in the North, a deal which would have majority support, in both sections of the community, for a form of Government in Northern Ireland that, to me, is what the problem is about. In that situation I believe that both the Dublin and West-minister Governments would fall over backwards to support any administration in Northern Ireland which had the backing of majorities in both sections of the Northern Ireland community.

A majority of the whole population of Northern Ireland comprised entirely of one community supporting a Government will not do, there has to be majority support for a system of Government in Northern Ireland where a majority of the Roman Catholic section of the population and a majority of the Protestant section of the population back up this form of Government. That is what has to be achieved and to this extent it is an internal Northern problem.

The question is: can such a form of Government be achieved while Northern Ireland retains its current relationship with the United Kingdom? My guess is no, and I say no because on the occasions, such as in Sunningdale, where a certain measure of agreement has been forthcoming a sufficiently powerful group of Protestants has been able to hide behind Britain's coat-tails and, protesting loyalism, to nullify such an agreement. Britain's only sanction to this is withdrawal. Britain could try to impose such a solution by force but I do not think that Britain would succeed in coercing the Northern Protestants and I believe that the extended use of British force to obtain support for the solution would have ultimately led to British withdrawal.

However, I think that the situation is not without hope because there are a sufficient number of people on both sides of the community who, I believe, realise that a deal has to be done and that deal has to be done inside Northern Ireland and the question is how do the external forces, particularly the two Governments involved, act so as to encourage this coming together, which is what is the basis of the solution to the Northern problem.

Looking towards the future my feeling again is that British withdrawal from the Northern scene is inevitable. I do not think that this means Irish unity in the sense that we normally use the term. In fact, Irish unity can mean very many different things to different people. I would not worry about the number of Parliaments in this country. There could be one, two, three or more provided the people of the island agree on them. I would say that we had reached a considerable amount of Irish unity if we could just get one single soccer team into the World Cup. We could not do worse than some of the other nations involved and this is not as unpolitical a statement as would appear on the surface because the Northerner has a deep identification with the game of soccer.

It is, to my mind, something important that should be worked at, and a coming together in this area could mean a great deal where it counts with the people on the ground who bear the burden and the heat of the day, the people in the Falls Road and in the Shankill Road. However, I do not want to dwell too much on that. I think that there are other encouraging signs, looking into the future, which may allow for this movement together in Ulster. As far as I can see into the future, total integration into either the United Kingdom or the Republic has to be ruled out because one section of the community in Northern Ireland has a veto on integration into the UK and the other has a veto on total integration into the Republic.

I believe that both sections of the community will continue to exercise this veto and if people are politically blind enough to go for total integration in the UK and it becomes some sort of reality I can only see continuing trouble in the North. Equally I think that a blind grab-all attitude by the Republic, which I do not think the Republic any more adopts, wanting to take over Northern Ireland would lead to the same trouble on the opposite side of the fence. I am sure the Northern Protestants would resist and I am not sure that they would not be right. It is not a question really of right or wrong; such resistance would be inevitable. We need to work in a wider context and in a federal context and I would say there are hopes for a federalist or regionalist solution to the Northern problem, or at least the beginnings of a solution and the federation may be a federation of the British Isles and Ireland inside a wider federation of Europe. It may be a European federation, but it does seem to me that the last quarter of this century is going to be marked by considerable changes on the European map which will show an increasing tendency towards regionalism. I believe that the present national boundaries inside Europe are artificial, to a large extent, and as the European economy and European defence policy becomes more integrated that these boundaries will tend to change and more natural ethnic or linguistic units will appear. We have already seen signs of this with Catalonia in Spain and the Basque region achieving more autonomy, but it is a good deal more wide spread than this.

I think that devolution or autonomy or independence—there are all sorts of grades of this regionalism or federalism—will become more widespread. I think it will spread to the two parts of Belgium, the part inhabited by the Flemings as opposed to the part inhabited by the Walloons, to Friesia in Holland, to Alsace, to Britanny and Normany and, of course, to Scotland and Wales. There is certainly going to be some sort of autonomy for Scotland and Wales and these other regions which will appear on the map of Europe in the last quarter of this century.

It would seem to me, therefore, that it is not unrealistic, it is perhaps somewhat futuristic—to talk of Northern Ireland as a special region and Northern Ireland is not a region like any part of the UK. It is not uniformly a part of the UK, it is a region with its own very distinctive characteristics. The Scots and the Welsh may well argue their own case and they may well be right. They have regions with their own special distinctive characteristics and it does seem that what we should be doing is, in a sense, to push Northern Ireland rather further away from Dublin and Westminster than it is at present because it is only if the Northern people work out their own fate that they can hope to form good and healthy relationships with this part of the country and with the rest of the United Kingdom.

I think that the present relationship with Britain is an unhealthy one. If you really press the Northern Protestant he is more suspicious, at the moment, of Westminster than he is of Dublin. What we should do is to work so that the coming together which is the key to the solution should happen inside the Northern context. Whatever you call it, whether through independence or autonomy, regionalism or federalism, this gives a context which can encourage this coming together and we should regard Northern Ireland as a political unit and encourage the Northern people to take a grip on their own political situation.

The prophets of doom in the twenties who gave the Republic no chance of existing as a unit, either economically, socially, politically or in any other way have been proved conclusively wrong. I would not prophesy that Northern Ireland could not, given support which is more forthcoming now than it was in the twenties from neighbouring countries and institutions such as the EEC, very well exist as a unit if this agreement had been achieved.

In this federal spirit we need to build up Ulster's self-confidence and to get the people of Ulster to realise that they are never going to get a square deal until they take the situation essentially into their own hands and they will not be allowed take the situation into their own hands unless there is agreement between the two sections of the community.

The Governments in Dublin and Westminster do hold a veto on the situation and the veto will ensure that there must be this sort of agreement, otherwise no internal political institutions will be developed. I do not think it is beyond the wit of the Ulster man to devise a system of Government which would be agreed by the two sections of his community. The question is whether it can be done within the present context of the Northern relationship with the UK.

Regarding present Government policies, I think it is important that Northern Ireland does not become a political football at election time. Regrettably it seemed to me during the last election here that it was kicked around again, I think unnecessarily, and I would like to say that it seems to me as an Independent that there is no difference in security policy between this Government and the Coalition Government nor could there be because no Irish Government that is worth the name could allow subversion to go on inside their own territory. No Irish Government is going to allow private armies to operate within or from its territory. We have got to take Northern Ireland out of the are an at election time. We have got to emphasise that the same thing happens in the United Kingdom. It seems to me there is a scramble to keep the Northern Unionists happy before elections, leading to deals being done at election time which is going to put of long-term political development for short-term political gain.

I would say that the parties in the Republic, while they are reviewing policy in Northern Ireland, should not do it in a disconnected way. I think that it is a good idea that this sort of discussion goes on and allows for a levelling out; it allows people to look at other viewpoints and to examine them and then to adjust their own views. We must take the Northern Ireland problem out of our election situations and ensure that the same is true in Westminster. I think that we ought to continue vigorously to pursue the policies of co-operation which have been outlined, without any details being given at the meetings at heads of Government. I am very keen on this co-operation. I would like the Minister for State to say quite clearly and put it straight down on the line whether this co-operation is actually going on or whether it is being held up bureaucratically either in this country or in Belfast or Westminster. I know that in previous attempts at co-operation there were bureaucratic hold-ups and bureaucracy can, when it wants to, tangle things up so that the co-operation never gets off the ground.

I think this co-operation is tremendously important. There are a very wide range of issues on which North and South can co-operate without raising too many political hares. I should like the Minister of State to be specific about this co-operation. Is it actually going on or are we being codded like we were before? Certainly, there were great political statements about co-operation before and the bureaucrats "banjaxed" the plans. Where the actual hold-up was I am not absolutely sure but I do know that they did not get very far down the line, they just became paper proposals and that was as far as they went.

Regarding extradition, I do not think that a constitutional change would be possible while there is still considerable suspicion, and more evidence in today's papers, that suspects are being maltreated in Northern Ireland while there is suspicion—well founded in the minds of the people here—that those who are being dealt with by the RUC are not getting a fair deal. But in a situation in which there was agreement on a form of Government, this problem would disappear and the extradition situation can be reworked. Also, it would be possible to change Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution again when agreement has been achieved in the North.

Finally, I would just like to say that for all of us, individuals or institutions, there are very many ways in which we can further understanding with Northern Ireland. I would particularly like to commend the recent experiment of the Belfast Telegraph and the Cork Examiner in sharing feature writers for a week—two from the North and two from the South—and to publish simultaneously in the two papers. That is the sort of thing that can really help us to understand our Northern brethren and help to bring the communities closer together and to achieve the harmony that we look for.

Mrs. Hussey

In seconding this motion I am aware that in 15 minutes one must be very brief and just give an outline of a certain kind of thinking. The political impasse which exists obviously is very much connected with the British general election in the not too distant future. I am glad that this has not inhibited us from this very important discussion because continuing clarification of the minds of people in this part of Ireland is very important and may contribute to helping the people in the North of Ireland as well.

I put my name to this motion because one of the main reasons for my having sought to enter politics was the tragedy in Northern Ireland. I have a deep conviction that now nationalism is no longer possible or valid as a political ideology; indeed I do not know if it ever was. I say that when I am fully aware of the very deep emotions which such statements may engender in other people and indeed aware also of how easily these emotions can be aroused.

With great respect, I think that historical analysing and historically going back should be put out of our minds so far as possible and that we should come to grips with the situation as it is today. The reality today is that in Northern Ireland people are separated from each other by fear, mistrust and ignorance. This situation also puts barriers in relation to economic, cultural and social co-operation between the two parts of this island. The result of this is frightful waste, lack of progress and stagnation in many areas. The primary consideration should be for the people but the people are suffering. We have a considerable responsibility to consider how we might approach this subject. We are inclined in this part of Ireland to avoid the major issues. It is illogical and regrettable that there should be calls for the British to remove what is described as their negative guarantee. That is the other side of the coin of Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. One requires the other. I would also deprecate the interpretation of the result of the election of 1977 as showing the overwhelming desire of the Irish people for unity. That is neither an accurate nor a warranted interpretation. One could say that the results of the 1977 election showed that the Irish floating voter was going for things which had nothing to do with the unity or otherwise of the country.

I regret also the statements being made in the name of the Irish people that the Irish would pay a very high price for unity. Unity means many different things to different people. Such blanket statements are to be regretted. What a great many people want primarily is that there should be a unity of minds and purpose among the people of Northern Ireland. In Dublin and in Westminster for a great many years we managed to ignore a great deal of corruption and intolerance in the other part of this country. This was followed by massive upheaval. We should keep in mind the fact that we have a long hard road in front of us of bridge building and of very generous compromise if we are to retrieve a very tragic situation. Bullying tactics on the part of politicians in any part of this country or in England are a direct encouragement to the men of violence.

I should like to echo Senator West's remarks in the European context. We are all Europeans now. The one lesson that was in the minds of the founders of the EEC was that a viable economic unit is not necessarily a political unit. That is one very strong lesson of the EEC and one we should keep in our minds. In my view a line on a map does not matter if the people on either side of that line are living in dignity and in peace and are able to live their lives as they wish. We have a situation, as Senator West has said, where very suspect acts are being perpetrated in the North by people who should know better. We should encourage the courts of our country and the European courts to continue to stamp out any kind of violence and corruption where it occurs. But I would say also that at the same time we should really set about founding a special institution which would look for and investigate every possible area of co-operation between North and South. This should be a very broadly-based institution and should undertake to exclude political pressures from their work and should follow the areas of economics, the infrastructures which we require for exchanges of trade or tourism, cultural exchanges, the arts and not leaving out the very important area of sport which is quite important.

If, in the course of time and in the course of our European involvement, these political lines do fade away because our children or our children's children will find that they are totally insignificant, it will be regarded as perfectly natural that ancient wars should be forgotten, that they have no meaning. At this moment I would say that we should try to work towards a situation where instead of glaring across an imaginary divide at people in another part of this country, we should try to turn around and look together in the same direction.

Professor Conroy

First, I should like to welcome from the Government side this motion by Senator West and his colleagues. I am delighted that we are giving time for the motion, and it is only fitting and proper that this first Independent motion should be on a matter of such crucial importance to all of us. Senator West's introductory speech was one which was not only very interesting but contained obviously a great deal of knowledge of the situation and of the sections of people involved. It was obvious also that a good deal of work had been done. We appreciate that.

We should try now to look to the future. We have had much sadness, much tragedy and much misery in the past in both parts of the country but let us be calm, turn our eyes towards the future and see what we can do for the future that would be to the benefit of all the people living in this small island. I should like to emphasise reconciliation as far as possible rather than condemnation. There is so much that we could rightfully condemn but let us today as a part of the process of looking forward try to think in terms of reconciliation, of working and living together and indeed of taking a positive approach in which we build on our very many mutual interests and indeed mutual aspirations, North and South, of the many things which we genuinely and deeply share in common on this island, rather than dwelling on the differences. There are two traditions or whatever you wish to call them, but even within those traditions there is a vast variety of shading of meaning and of difference. So let us think instead of our common traditions, our common cultures, our common interests and of the very practical points which we have in common, North and South, for example, in such matters as the development of new industry. This is absolutely vital to us whether one lives in County Fermanagh, in County Cork, in County Clare or in County Antrim we must have a positive, active approach to the development of new industry and by virtue of our geographical situation, North and South, this must be basically an export-orientated industry particularly suited to the needs, abilities and qualities of all our people. Equally well we have again, North and South, this very major agricultural base. This is a common interest which we all share in, which is not the situation in the major island of England. English interests effectively economically are in many ways very different basically from our interests in the South or indeed from the interests of the people in the North, whether one is talking about the minority or majority community. It is time we woke up to these realities.

We have on this island what I consider—and what I think most people North and South would consider—to be a very ridiculous division of a small island and it is one which I think is inimical to both communities in the North and inimical to the communities here in the South. It is a very artificial and ridiculous division. I speak with some slight personal knowledge because up to the 1920's one side of my grandfather's farm was in County Fermanagh and one side of it was in County Cavan, divided by a small stream, but overnight effectively so many acres became part of the North and so many acres part of the South. That sort of division, as I know from my own personal knowledge, and I am sure as Senator West knows, too, was ruinous for the people living on either side of that artificial Border. Perhaps at first it affected to a greater extent the people on the southern side of the Border and that also, even then, affected people on the other side, regardless of whether they happened to be Catholic nationalists or Protestant unionists or whatever. It was against their better interest. Now, perhaps, the boot is slightly on the other foot in that the balance has shifted and things are, relatively speaking, slightly better for those on the southern side compared with those on the northern side of the Border, particularly those in the farming community. Perhaps we do not fully realise this in the South. But the situation is still inimical to the common interests of both sides.

We, on this side of the House have made it very clear that we believe in the unity of this island without any ifs or buts about it. We believe that this unity should and must be based on agreement and, here, I wholeheartedly take Senator West's point. Obviously one cannot in any sense speak for the other side of the House, but I should hope that this is something which could be shared as a common national aspiration, irrespective of policy. I genuinely believe that most people in the South wish for unity and that they wish for it by consent. They have expressed this fairly clearly on many occasions.

In 1978 we have a rather different situation. Let us move away from the twenties and from what happened 50 and 150 years ago and consider the situation as it is today. The simple facts are that economically the southern economy, as Senator West has said, has developed far beyond any expectations that could have been hoped for at the time of Partition. Again, I say this on a totally non-partisan level. In very simple but striking terms, as recently as 1965, despite the development of our economy, our gross domestic product per head was about three-quarters that of Northern Ireland. Last year it was virtually equal. Our economy is growing very rapidly and has every indication of continuing to do so. I am talking in general, overall long-term parameters. It should be a matter of grave sadness for all of us on this island that the Northern economy is not growing. There has been an appalling change in the economic situation of such basic Northern industries as textiles and shipbuilding. There are tens of thousands of people, of Irish people, out of work. Unfortunately, and sadly, the Northern economy is stagnating and, basically, linked to another totally inappropriate economy, it is likely to continue to stagnate. It is, inevitably at the moment, the backwater of the economy of the United Kingdom, with various subsidies rather reluctantly given at times but whenever there is a conflict of interest between what is suitable for London and the English consumer and what is suitable for Northern Ireland and the interests of its people—be it the majority or the minority community—London and the English consumer take precedence.

Again, in 1978, we have the EEC situation which we have debated in this House before. Taking it vis-á-vis the North, perhaps we do not fully realise the opportunities and status which we have in the EEC or taking the converse of this, there is an absence of status and of opportunity for the North. Effectively they have no voice or say in regional policies involving the North. They must accept what the London Government cares, at that moment, to think about. The Northern Ireland communities have virtually no say in this. In the European Parliament they will have only three seats compared with 15 here. There is no EEC office in Belfast. They have little or no say in what is probably the major economic determining force of the seventies and eighties.

Although we are a small country, in political terms we have our sovereignty. We have respect and status throughout the nations. We have our feet under the table at conferences where it matters. Unfortunately, whatever little influence the North is able to bring about is fairly miniscule; it is perhaps a question of a few MPs voting one way or another, isolated, only occasionally consulted and then in a most contemptuous manner. Effectively, the North is being run, not as a part of England, as is Yorkshire or Lancashire, but with a Minister there resident in virtually the colonial condition and with just as much attention being paid to the needs, wishes or desires of the community.

I would agree very much with Senator West regarding coercion. There is no way in which you can get a peaceful, happy solution by coercion. We in this party have made it very clear that there is no way in which we believe that the majority community should be coerced. Equally so, and let us make this absolutely clear, there is no way in which the minority community should be coerced. I am one of those who believes that we have a great deal to do in establishing communication with the majority community. But I am also, as I would hope we all are, very conscious of the needs, aspirations and wishes of the minority community. Let us not forget them. Basically their interests and those of the majority community in the long run are very similar.

There is no way in which we can ignore the fact that effectively the responsibility in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the de facto power in Northern Ireland and that is the London Government. We have made our attitude very clear and it is time we asked the London Government to adopt a slightly more responsible position and make clear their desire that a harmonious relationship be established between the two parts of the island, a relationship to which they will give definite backing.

There are, however, practical steps which we in the South should be taking, one of which is on the basis of understanding and learning a lot more. I agree with Senator West that there are many institutions which could be used for this purpose and let us use them in a genuine and honest manner. Also, in our legislation, we should always bear in mind the implications for the North. When we have policies, such as "Buy Irish", let it not be a Twenty-six County "Buy Irish" campaign. Let our appropriate semi-State bodies and others be told: "Buy from the Twenty-six Counties if you can but, if not, buy from the Six Counties". In other words, let us buy Irish in the most general sense of the word.

In conclusion, let me make very clear that we absolutely and totally condemn violence. The only people who suffer by this are, by and large, the innocent. But let us make it clear also that there is no way in which force will end the cycle of violence; it only feeds the fuel and means that the cycle continues. We must get together and discuss matters and the ultimate solution will be unity by consent and agreement based on reconciliation and on our common mutual interests.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The motion asks us to note the present political impasse in Northern Ireland. No one will deny that the motion accurately describes the present political situation there. Everyone in this House is perfectly well aware of it, and a vast analytical literature of a serious kind has developed with regard to its causes and possible solutions. The motion speaks of political impasse and in its terms focuses one's attention primarily on political statements or political silences.

The political problem involves clearly two Governments—this Government and the United Kingdom Government— and it also involves two communities living together side by side in a territory which is part of this island. I suggest to this House that the role of the two Governments in finding a solution is and must be directed solely towards what will bring about an increase in understanding of the two communities, a reduction primarily of the fear which divides them.

The only structure of a political character, in a future we want to think about, which can emerge in Northern Ireland is a structure which can be variously defined—it is difficult to get any language which does not stir or upset some sensitivity—a structure which is joint, devolved, power-sharing or whatever, but whose survival depends upon the will of the two communities in support of it. The minority in the territory, part of the majority in the island, destroyed Stormont and the majority in the territory, the minority in the island, effectively destroyed the political structure created by Sunningdale.

So that I may move quickly from it and make the point in case time should prevent me from doing it, the only contribution which I would see as being useful for the British Government to make, would be in the bringing about of understanding, the lessening of fear and creating conditions in which the choices of a political character would be freer, that is a commitment of support by the majority in the territory for a choice which involved any relationship, federal, confederal, or unitary, which in my judgment is almost unthinkable as a real solution. If they choose to leave the United Kingdom—to have a new entirely different relationship with the United Kingdom—the financial support at present available to the territory and jurisdiction in question would be maintained. Without that support the choice is not really a free one for many of the citizens of that territory. The vote they are being asked to give involves too great an act of disinterest, quite apart from the emotional difficulties to be overcome.

So much for the action I would look to the British Government to take; what should we do?

I would like to say—speaking from the Opposition Benches it may be felt more sincerely that if I were speaking from the Government benches as I should have done 12 months ago—there is very little thought behind the commentators who call to the Dublin Government for what they call meaningful political initiatives and solutions. There is much we can do and much we can abstain from doing. I would agree with what has been said by Senator West—perhaps not in the language he used—that the survival, the legitimacy of this State alone makes it true that the parties in this House are agreed on the necessity for the maintenance of the security of this State. I mention that because this security co-operation, this working together between the forces on both sides of the Border, is a positive thing which has been done, is continuing to be done, must continue to be done and which is necessary if we are to reduce fear and make the conditions of political choice freer, and if we are to reduce suspicion and make our own expression of aspirations expressions of desire to serve peoples, and not expressions of desire for territorial conquest.

The territorial division on this island may have been the most unhappy result of history, but it is a deposit of history, and complaining about what somebody's grandfather did or did not do does not remove the fact that he did or did not do the things in question. History is over in the sense that it is irretrievable. What it has left behind is part of the problem that we have to solve. History has left this island with a territorial division. If we are saying that it is unity by consent, we are saying that that border is not going to go until it is agreed it should go. We have to follow from the statement that it is to be agreement by consent. We have to follow the logic of that. Involved in the logic that we depend upon consent, is that we are also obedient to rejection. Hence I find the requirement of a British declaration to withdraw quite contradictory to that proposition. The implication for the Northern majority is that if the British withdraw they will be forced back on their own defences. It was expressed by a six to one majority in a recent poll that will only seek political structures that are agreed by all the people.

We have shared history, shared interests—which Senator Conroy referred to and which I would have liked to develop—shared traditions, obviously shared problems, a shared disgrace of 2,000 dead and with it a shared need for peace, and a shared threat to civilised institutions. We may have to recognise more explicitly than has yet been said to change in the direction of national policy implied in the acceptance of the proposition that there is to be a solution by consent only.

Mr. E. Ryan

In our efforts to find a solution to the Northern problem, a good deal of damage was done during the past four or five years by the fallacious argument put forward by at least some members of the Coalition Government, that is that the views of the Unionists were sacrosanct and must be accepted once they took a stance on any subject, such as power sharing or the Sunningdale agreement, and that that was the end of the matter. This argument was put forward on a number of occasions both directly and by implication. It was not only an entirely fallacious argument but a dangerous one.

The views of the Unionists must be considered and must be given respect, and in so far as is possible every effort must be made to meet their point of view and reach agreement with them. This does not mean that their views must necessarily be accepted, and it certainly does not mean that their views must be accepted to the exclusion of all other points of view. In the first place it must be realised that there are other points of view, not only in Dublin and Westminister but in the six Northern counties. There are various other parties in the Six Counties, and the views put forward by the Official Unionists and the Loyalists are supported by even less than 50 per cent of the population, as has been borne out by recent polls.

Leaving aside for the moment the various points of view in the Six Counties which are entitled to as much respect as the Unionists, the Unionists must realise that the Six Counties are not self-sufficient and they cannot afford the luxury of dictating exactly what the political structures of the Six Counties should be. They are part of a political entity. They give their allegiance to Westminster, and Westminster in turn pays them support of sums which have been estimated as something in the region of £500 million per year. Westminister provides them with armed forces which fairly regularly suffer serious casualties, are killed or are wounded. The Government, the parties and the people of the United Kingdom are entitled to their point of view. They have on many occasions during the past ten years indicated that they believe the solution to the northern problem lies in some form of power-sharing, partnership or participation, whichever particular phrase one likes to use. They are the people who, from the financial point of view, are paying the piper and are entitled to call the tune to some extent. Those who profess loyalty to Westminister are not entitled to ignore the views of Westminister as they have done.

The people of the Republic also are entitled to their point of view. This was often denied by northern politicians, but this is now well established as a result of discussions, meetings between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in Westminster and notably by the fact that Mr. Mason came to Dublin recently to discuss matters of common concern, it is now acknowledged that the people in this part of the country are entitled to their point of view in relation to northern matters. Whether that is admitted or not, one realises that geographically the Six Counties are part of this country. In many respects the people there, even the Unionists, have far more in common with the people in this part of the Republic than they have with the people in Great Britain. We are entitled to our point of view because the violence and the economic disruption which has taken place there in recent years has affected us and is deeply felt by us. Consequently, we are entitled to express our point of view and to do our best to reach a solution to the problem.

The fallacious argument seems to be, if one analyses it, that the views of fewer than one million people in the North are to be preferred and accepted without question rather than the views of the other 50 million people in these two islands. This argument flies in the face of all statistics, economics and indeed common sense. The important thing is that it is a point of view which will certainly not lead to a solution of this problem. This point of view has contributed in recent years to the violence, to the economic decline and to the hardening of attitudes of the Unionists in relation to the options which are open to a solution.

In dealing with this very complex problem there are some certainties. One can regard it as certain that the Stormont type of government will not return. It can be regarded as certain that the United Kingdom will not attempt to integrate the Six Counties into the United Kingdom. It can be regarded as certain that the present position will not, and cannot, continue forever—some change will take place. On the other hand, what are the options? There are probably three: there will be some kind of partnership, participation or power-sharing within the United Kingdom; there will be some kind of independence in the Six Counties; or there will be some form of united Ireland or federal Ireland. Perhaps we should use a different phrase and talk about a Thirty-two County Ireland. A united Ireland has connotations for the people in the North. It suggests conquest and taking them into this part of the country. That is not what we have in mind. What we could talk about is a Thirty-two County Ireland in which all parts of Ireland can work together.

In regard to the options which I suggest are open, the first, some kind of power-sharing arrangement within the United Kingdom, would have been acceptable to the people of this country when it was first attempted, but the more extreme Unionists would not have it. At this stage I doubt if it would have the support of the people generally because support for it is waning. This is another example of what has happened many times in the history of the country—too little too late.

Independence is another option but I doubt if it is realistic. It could function for a time. The idea would be that the United Kingdom would give financial support initially, but in the long run I do not think a Six County State would be viable and able to carry on indefinitely. If power-sharing or participation is not acceptable within the context of a United Kingdom arrangement, then it is unlikely to be acceptable in an independent state and, without that, the whole arrangement could not work.

The third option is a Thirty-two County United Ireland. There is increasing conviction among people, not only in the South but also in the North, that that is the only long term solution. That kind of a solution, obviously, would have to be reached by agreement and with the consent of all sections of the community in the North. The views of the Unionists would have to be met in so far as it was humanly possible. There would have to be comprehensive safeguards. It would have to be a genuine partnership. It must be quite clear to the Unionists and to those who opposed the idea of a Thirty-two County Ireland in the past that they are no longer wanted in Great Britain. What is more important, it must be quite clear to them that they can no longer really identify with Great Britain. When it comes to identifying themselves, to looking into their own souls, I think the majority realise they can identify more easily with the people of the Republic than they can with the people of Great Britain.

If they made the effort to view the future in that way then I think they would find that they could identify. Certainly they would be made far more welcome by the whole of Ireland than they are at present in Great Britain. Time is running out for the Unionists in the sense that at this stage they could make an agreement, they could discuss and negotiate for a Thirty-two County Ireland on very generous terms. The more that the United Kingdom indicate that they are impatient, are losing interest, that they no longer want to be burdened with the Six Counties the less strong bargaining power will be as far as the union is concerned.

This is the time for them to move. This is the time when they could get the best bargain. Fianna Fáil have urged the United Kingdom in their 1975 statement to encourage unity in Ireland. They have asked the British Government to encourage the unity of Ireland by agreement in independence and in a harmonious relationship between the two islands and to this end declare Britain's commitment to implement an ordered withdrawal for her involvement in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.

I just want to read that from the statement. There is no talk in that of "troops out". It is an encouragement to the Unionists to begin to form their own structures within Ireland. It talks about urging the unity of Ireland by agreement. The purpose of that statement was to encourage the Unionists to begin to look at the options of a Thirty-two County Ireland and a commitment by the British Government that if the Unionists did so and if new structures began to emerge that the British Government would be quite happy to disengage from their position in the North of Ireland.

That was the purpose of it. Fianna Fail's policy is to endeavour in every way to encourage the Unionists to look at the option of a Thirty-two County Ireland. Until this process begins the North will experience I believe cycles of violence and economic stagnation but, most important of all, they will fail to avail of the potential for peace, progress and prosperity which would be inherent in an Ireland in which all the people of Ireland work together in harmony.

Mr. Harte

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I may be more confused when I finish than I am when I start because I have had a very personal experience of living with some of those people. I served in a regiment for over nine years with a very substantial number of Protestant people and I think I got to know their attitude. I also shared the war zone in Europe and in the Middle East with them and I spent a year and ten months in a prison camp associated with them. I knew their mentality then. I do not know what it is like now but I feel it has not changed much. However I am not saying I have any solutions to this problem.

Throughout the political crisis in the North of Ireland the attitude of my party has been based on fundamental beliefs, one being that the preservation of life was of paramount importance irrespective of what policies one might bring in. Therefore, we considered that all initiatives should have this fact taken into consideration. We have always gone on record as condemning violence. We did it unequivocally and irrespective of the source it came from. We believe that the unity of the Irish people remains our party's basic objective but we recognise that it can only come about, by the majority consensus. We are a little saddened because we believe that progress in the North by the two communities has been deliberately blocked, deliberately, by the taking on of two vetoes, the veto on the question of unity and the veto on the question of power sharing. We still believe that power sharing is the most effective way to deal with the problem in Northern Ireland. We hold firm to that conviction despite the continuance of the violence, the wrecking of the power-sharing initiatives of the past and the wrecking of the several attempts that have been made to put forward initiatives since the collapse of the 1974 arrangement.

I believe that the gap has widened on the question of power sharing. I believe that it is still the only way forward. I believe that policies based on any other principle are doomed to failure. We are struggling to facilitate the aspirations of both communities and this is not an easy thing. How do you offer safeguards to the majority? Do you tell them that they would be better off in becoming a minority in an all-Ireland situation? If you do that then how do you explain to them that they will be better off in a minority situation? Can we really say with conviction that Britain is finished with Northern Ireland? Can we really make observations that they would be better off out of it? They might make a statement but that still would not prove that they would want to sever their links with Britain.

In Britain itself there is no outcry amongst the people to have Britain let go despite the terrible effect it has on some of their young people who became soldiers and suffered. There is no consuming desire on the part of the people of Britain to let go of the whole of Northern Ireland. We still have large-scale agitation on racial discrimination and various other things in Northern Ireland but the absence of agitation for Britain's withdrawal from England is rather disturbing in one way because of the effect it is having on Britain. In another way it is rather sad to think that the people in Britain do not really understand the situation and that in fact it would be better if Britain were not in occupation in Northern Ireland.

However, the desire is not there with the British people. One wonders if the question of asking for a withdrawal means anything at all at this particular time. I am not saying that it eventually will not mean something but at this particular time it does not seem to have any great effect. If by some miracle Britain decided to make the declaration of withdrawal there would be a frightful bloodbath overnight, and it would not end there. My view, having lived with these people having been very close friends with them and having shared detention camps with them, is that they would neither surrender to Britain nor to Ireland. They have very strong beliefs in their Protestant heritage and they will not in my opinion yield to either the appeals of the Republic or the appeals of Britain. When we are making the argument about power sharing it seems to me that it might be the only way to keep up the agitation in that direction. That might eventually get through. I am more concerned that at the moment there is a disernible movement away from the principles of power sharing by the Northern Protestant political leaders and in fact in Britain. In the Republic in recent times there seems to be an inadequate expression on the question of power sharing initiatives.

I feel, despite what I said about attitudes, that it is the only possibility that holds out any hope. It is the only way that you can have a basis of working towards unity. We owe a great debt to the moderate leadership in Northern Ireland. Ireland appears to me to have been moving away from putting the pressure on to Britain to maintain the earlier and more evident support that they showed for the principle of power sharing. I think we have contributed to lessening the value of the moderate leaders of the minority in the North of Ireland. We have lessened their stance as a political force in the North of Ireland because it is clearly discernible that there is a move away from this.

We must make up our minds to get back to trying to influence Britain to be more expressive on the matter of power sharing principles and to put the pressure on them in such a way that they will put forward initiatives. Obviously initiatives have got to be very carefully thought out and they have got to think ones out which will not tend to make the majority of political representatives become more entrenched in their attitude. I am very concerned that the right moves are made. For example if the initiatives appeared to deny the right of veto on the issue of national unity to the Unionist majority I fear that that would create violence on an unprecedented scale. I have strong feelings that that could happen. If the aspirations of the minority were to be denied in any initiatives we could see a stepping up of the violence possibly to the same extent or degree as I fear would happen if things went the other way.

However, if power-sharing initiatives are taken again and if we succeed in getting Britain to take them again we will have to be careful on this question of veto because the Unionist majority took on the double veto. I think every party was willing to give them the veto on the question of national unity, but on the question of power-sharing they have no veto but they took it on themselves. As long as they do that the question of long term peace and stability will diminish. It is our view that the British Government have a sovereign responsibility in Northern Ireland and they are the only people who can break the present deadlock. They are the only people who have the power and authority to do so and to get an acceptance of power-sharing.

We should start putting the pressure on them again to do so. There is an onus on us to shake the British Government out of their own inaction. I have no hesitation in mentioning that the SDLP were a terrific help in the very early stages of violence in Northern Ireland at bringing about some sort of stability. I believe that we are letting the SDLP down. They spoke for the minority. Until their voice is heard again in Northern Ireland I cannot see any hope of stability or any sort of justice coming to the North of Ireland.

I sincerely believe that the big dilemma for us all is that we all want to settle the matter. There is none of us quite sure how we go about it. I do not think any of us have a monopoly on how the thing can be solved. I feel that we are dealing with people who I know from experience are rather entrenched in their attitudes. I have no evidence to show me that in recent years, despite the violence and so on, that mentality has changed much. Therefore I think we may look to a long and difficult road ahead. Nevertheless I think the nearest way to it is to put the pressure on again about the question of power-sharing.

Mr. McGowan

I, like other Senators, welcome the opportunity here of saying a few words on this motion. That is easy to understand and recognise. It is more difficult for a Member of the House from the Government side because we have Government policy and Government statements, we have our Minister. Most of us on this side of the House are absolutely at one. We believe that we have a very active Minister for Foreign Affairs and we have a very active Minister here present who has connections very close to the Northern situation.

I should like to offer a word of advice—maybe that is pretty hard to do—to those who are contributing to this motion and to any further debate on the situation as it stands today in Northern Ireland and, even with respect to my colleague here—to forget about the Library, leave the books and the history to one side, forget about what Lloyd George said, forget about all the theory that has been written by people who are far removed from the scene as it stands today. I say that because I realise that a lot of people who feel that they are very intelligent and have something to contribute, very eloquent people, know very little of what is happening on the ground. I certainly do not claim to be an authority but I speak as an Ulsterman. I speak as a Member of this House who has to drive 60 miles through the Northern troubles to get here and after I say my few words, whatever sort of a contribution I make, I have to drive another 60 miles back through the troubles to my place of residence. That is a good guidance for me to keep my feet on the ground and to try to be as practical as possible.

There are many misconceptions by very learned people about what is happening in Northern Ireland. I have a line of thought which I think is shared by many people today who find themselves caught up in the troubles of Northern Ireland. First, I have a clear vision of how Northern Ireland was created. Britain was largely responsible for having created the situation in Northern Ireland. That was many years ago and they were different circumstances. I will be excused if I refer to the situation in terms of Protestant and Catholic. It is not applicable in Dublin but, unfortunately, we use it the same as Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. We use it in that context of Protestant and Catholic and I think, unfortunately, that it is the language that has to be used in referring to the situation of Protestant and Catholic as it stands.

I come in contact with the Protestant Ulsterman very often in the course of business. I hope to attend a cattle mart on Monday when 70 per cent of the people will be Protestants and I will be working with them. I know that the Ulster Protestant is basically a businessman. Originally, when Northern Ireland was partitioned from the rest of Ireland, it was done with incentives by the British Government. As my colleague rightly said, they were days of difficult economic problems in the whole of the country. The Ulster part of Ireland was then the best developed because it had the linen industry, which was booming throughout the world, the shipbuilding industry, the aircraft industry and engineering industries. There was a major incentive for the Ulster Protestant to tie his allegiance very closely to Britain.

That situation has changed drastically now. Most of us who are involved can see that. I say with a great degree of sorrow that Britain after creating Northern Ireland has stood back now, especially in the last ten years, and allowed Northern Ireland to be torn to pieces. The whole economic structure of Northern Ireland is wrecked. I could give many examples of this. The hard-headed business Protestant is now moving out. I am glad to say that many of them are moving into the South, into my own county, Donegal. It is unwelcome because the price of land in my county has soared as a result of a large number of northern Protestants coming in and buying land in County Donegal. We have to take a broader view. That is only happening because in the past the same Protestants actually fled from the South and went to the North or Britain because they feared that their economic interests and traditional interests would be served only if they were safe in Northern Ireland. The hard-headed businessman or Protestant in Northern Ireland sees that there is a change of scene.

It is very easy for me to recognise that most of the industries that were there and sustained in the North have now changed their base. Many of them have moved to the South. Some of them have moved to County Donegal. Not too long ago we had one of the major yarn and linen industries move into County Donegal and established there with very substantial Government support. They came and apologised and said: "You do not mind if we do not have an official opening". I will not identify the firm for good reason. This would, in fact, be very bad for us in the North in regard to the remainder of our business which still exists there. This is absolutely clear evidence that the economic base in the North is, unfortunately, crumbling. I say that out of criticism because the British used the North, used their ports, used the economic part of the North for as long as they could and for as long as it was necessary. While Ian Paisley is not making a contribution to the future and a peaceful solution in the North, he recognises—maybe it is because he is making such a noise—that Britain is on the way out. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the way they are withdrawing. It will not be in the best interests of Ulster. Britain has a very heavy debt to pay. Many of us see at close range exactly what Britain is leaving behind. It is like the old castle that was built up and is now left as a derelict building. Britain has a major responsibility, apart from the ones that are most easily seen. She has a major responsibility to the people of Ulster. I hope that we will remind her of that and that she will be made to pay fairly dearly for the blunder she made in creating Northern Ireland in the first place.

Britain states occasionally that she would like to see politics working in Northern Ireland. I do not believe this, because there has been no initiative whatsoever. After the disbanding of the Assembly in Northern Ireland the members of that Assembly were allowed to drift into limbo. It is my personal knowledge of many of the elected members of that Assembly that they have now found themselves almost out of existence economically. They have starved them out. How can anybody take Britain seriously when she says she would want to see politics working in the North, that she would look for new initiatives, that she would hope that the Northern situation would be solved by Northern Ireland men. At the very same time she withdraws the salaries the elected members of that Assembly had. All of us know what happens to a man in public life, a politician. He actually becomes dependent on it; it becomes a way of life. No matter what his salary and travelling expenses are, he has certainly many ways of spending that salary many times over. Those that were elected members of that Assembly in Northern Ireland were head over heels in debt. They have been starved out. Those who represented the minority were hit hardest. They have scattered in all directions to find themselves jobs, a way of earning a few bob. How can anyone say that Britain is looking for a political initiative in Northern Ireland? She has killed the possibility of a political initiative in Northern Ireland. It is very easy for me to see that. If she was serious she would have sustained those who put everything they had into trying to make politics work in the North. She has not done that.

In my contribution I should like to avoid recriminations about what has happened over the last number of years. But I find it very hard to speak on the troubles in Northern Ireland without referring to those who contribute, who are very anxious to make a speech, very anxious to look at how the stenographer writes it down and run down to the printing rooms and see how they will appear in print tomorrow. It will not make much difference in my future, politically how this speech comes across, whether it gets a flash on television or two lines.

I am certain of one thing. I would have liked to have seen Senator Cruise-O'Brien in this House because I am absolutely convinced of one thing, that he has contributed largely to the troubles and to keeping them going. He has recruited more people into the Provisional IRA and got them more support than any single person that ever stood on this island. I am absolutely convinced of that. He alienated those that would be supporting the minority in Northern Ireland. He took hope from them completely. This can be borne out because even in Dublin he attacked Fianna Fáil until he got them an unprecedented majority in the city of Dublin. He alienated those that would be hopeful of a united Ireland one day. With all his writings and all his contributions I would rather have seen him doing what he was appointed to do, and that was to try to improve the telephone service of this country.

Most Protestants in Northern Ireland are convinced that we will have a united Ireland. A period of ten years is a safe sort of time to give. I am convinced that many Protestants in Northern Ireland know that it is in their best interests in the European context that we should have a united Ireland. The Protestants in Northern Ireland are looking for a lead from Dublin. They are looking for a lead from Britain. The hard-headed Protestant is absolutely convinced that it is very much on the cards that this country will be united and that it would be folly to allow the problems and the troubles of Northern Ireland to take precedence over the progress that we should be making.

I have thought very seriously about the many theories being put forward by various people. These people say that 54 per cent of the 12-year-olds in school are of Catholic persuasion, that they will have the votes in the future, that the balance of power will swing and that the Catholics will be in power. Even though there is discrimination in jobs and discrimination in regard to the allocation of houses, in 12 years' time that 54 per cent will have the voting strength that will automatically solve the Northern Ireland situation. This is a totally wrong line of thinking.

I disagree totally with Senator Harte, who said he believes that there will be a blood bath. It is about time we stopped saying that. There is no danger of the Protestants and the Catholics of Northern Ireland slaughtering each other. That argument is old hat and I want to stop it being used, because it will not happen. I could not say that and drive with absolute confidence and security without an armed guard through every part of the North. There is no danger of a slaughter. These are only fanatics who have been incited by those who are using them for their own political advantage.

Finally, I would call on the IRA to give the people of Northern Ireland a breathing space, to give the children of Ulster a chance. The IRA are largely responsible for the present situation. They have failed completely. A generation of children in Ulster have had their future impaired and destroyed. Give the Ulster people a chance to solve their own problems. I would ask the IRA to stop hostilities and give Ulster a chance. I hope the Minister will pursue the initiative that has now been taken on the communications study on the Border counties. Let us stop talking and let us make a practical contribution. The Governments in Dublin and Westminister now have this study. I would ask the Minister to show that we can do something constructive, and that would be better than all the talk that we could carry on here for a month.

Professor Murphy

I agree with what Senator Eoin Ryan said that of course this House has every right to discuss a motion like this and of course the attitudes of this Government must be considered in the Northern Ireland situation if only because we are immediately involved and have been involved over the last ten years. Apart from the mercifully few tragic incidents involving death and injury to the citizens of this State, there has been the considerable impact on the economy, the considerable rise in the cost of security—and something else perhaps that is often referred to. One of the side effects of the Northern troubles on this State has been to make this State more conservative, more reactionary. There was, I think, in the 1960s a certain opening out, a willingness to consider new social and economic departures, new departures in, let us say, in the kind of society we want.

One of the regrettable impacts of the Northern troubles has been to drive us back into ourselves and to make us more reactionary and more conservative. It is very much our business. Yet popular attitudes would seem to belie what I am saying. Because in so far as popular attitudes can be measured, if you use the conversation in the pub measurement, if you eavesdrop on average conversations, if popular attitudes can be measured in polls, then it would seem to me that our people here in the South are ambivalent, confused and apathetic about Northern Ireland—and we should not be. It is the duty of the Government to face up to that fact.

The "Panorama" poll, which was published on the 8 May last—the programme on television which I am sure you have seen—disclosed considerable confusion of this kind. For example, 65 per cent declared they were against any constitutional change—with specific reference, I take it, to Articles 2 and 3—but against any change in southern Constitution and society, 65 per cent, and yet 76 per cent believed that Northern Ireland should decide its own future. This kind of contradiction perhaps is, I think, reflected also in Government policy. I will come to that in a moment. One of the sad things about these polls and one of the sad things about talking to people is that so few take the trouble to visit Northern Ireland, and the "Panorama" poll again confirmed that. So did the investigative articles which were carried simultaneously in The Cork Examiner and The Belfast Telegraph on the week beginning 1 May.

This fact is brought out, the lack of interest, the lack of physical contact. I regret to say that the further south one goes, the more apparent that is. So, this popular attitude would seem to give the lie to the clichés frequently uttered by our leaders and that is that there is a deep-seated aspiration to unity on the part of the Irish people. Was it ever there? If it was I do not think it exists now. My own reading of the historical perspective is that there was a complacent assumption in late 19th and early 20th century Ireland that this country was one nation, that there were, admittedly, some bigots in the north-east but they would come to see reason at some stage. That period of complacency was followed by a sentimental urge to recover lost territory, the kind of phenomenon, to which political scientists give the name erredentism. That, in turn, was followed, from about the early seventies, by nothing short of rejection. That is the popular mood at the moment.

Speaking after the "Panorama" programme, the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed the hope that the British Government would give a lead to the Northern Unionists and the phrase he used was: "Surely Northern Ireland Protestants would respond to leadership". It is far more pertinent for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be giving a lead to our people in the hope that they will respond to leadership.

That, of course, raises the question as to what is Fianna Fáil policy. It is regrettable that it is only now, apparently, after ten years of troubles that any kind of a significant committee is being set up to consider this. I remember when the President, Dr. Hillery, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, was sent galloping off complaining to the various embassies all over the world about what the bad Brits were doing to our boys in Northern Ireland. I said at that time that even then Fianna Fáil should have had a blueprint, a plan, a policy. We are still very far away from that. There has been considerable Nationalist rhetoric since the election. There have been rows and reconciliations with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There have been speeches by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and other Government Ministers but in the heel of the hunt it is still difficult to say what Fianna Fáil policy is. The manifesto gives expression to a pious aspiration. It simply repeats the phrase "united Ireland," which refers to the 1975 document.

British withdrawal, or even British encouragement to unity, unification by peaceful means, are nothing but clichés. What are they in any case but negative preconditions? They do not constitute policy. So, beyond that one looks in vain. The speech made by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs at the Cambridge Union on 7 November last is typical of this kind of earnest and unexceptionable type of sententious utterance with no solidity at all behind it.

Mr. D. Andrews

I did not see the Senator there.

Professor Murphy

I was not invited, I am not important enough yet. So, it is all right for Senator Ryan or indeed for the Tánaiste to say that Unionists will find us not ungenerous. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said the same thing. Senator Ryan urges the Unionists that now is the time to sit down and talk and that they will be generous and will go very far, and so on. But what do the Unionists want? Are there Unionists interested in this kind of approach? I am glad to say there are, not so much Unionists as, perhaps, Northern Protestants. People like John Robb, interviewed in The Irish Times yesterday and John Laird, interviewed in The Irish Times today, are asking what we are going to give them. They are, in short, looking for the blueprint now, not as a result of bargaining. So where is the policy and what is the plan?

I would like to express my satisfaction about certain things that have happened recently. The level of violence in the North has, by and large, decreased and we must all be grateful for that. The new departure in Irish-American attitudes is something which must be credited to the Irish-American leaders and to Government Ministers both in this and in the last administration. It was a long uphill struggle to convince the Irish-Americans that their money was being diverted to the wrong purposes. But it is paying off. One hopes that the generosity which marks Americans and Irish-Americans will be diverted, in a better Ireland, to constructing positively a new Ireland. But there is a limit to what the Americans can do, to what the British can do. Things are not going to change enormously after the next general election in Britain, irrespective of the kind of administration there and the size of the majority. There is little that the EEC can do, no matter how we evolve politically, with respect to Senator West. No matter what new kind of federal structures, no matter what new arrangement of boundaries occur within western Europe, we are still going to have this problem because it is completely independent of things like boundaries.

There is no outside help going to solve our problem, no deus ex machina. John Mitchel, a gentleman whose opinions I do not otherwise share, said a very significant thing in 1848 when Irish nationalists were disappointed by the politicians of the second French Republic who said that they sympathised with Irish freedom but real politics meant that they must not offend the British Government. John Mitchel bitterly said: “We thank Monsieur Lamartine for telling us that we must rely on ourselves.” We must rely on ourselves in this situation. The Taoiseach has every right to comment on Northern Ireland and in this I agree with Senator Ryan and dissent from Senator Conor Cruise-O'Brien. But that right carries with it grave responsibilities. There is no right to pontificate in vacuo or to utter sententious and meaningless phrases about peaceful unification. The right involves the obligation to say what kind of Ireland is envisaged on British withdrawal, on British encouragement to unity.

Let me say that I am not impressed by the recent talk on federation. Éamon de Valera long ago flew that kite. What he suggested was that the Northern Unionists should transfer to Dublin the powers which then rested in Westminister. Perhaps what is meant today is not that kind of devolution but a federal parliament between the two parts of Ireland. But I am totally against it, subject only to my approval of any agreement the people in Northern Ireland may come to. It should have the agreement of us all. The federation of the two existing States would only perpetuate the unpleasant and undesirable attitudes in both of them. They would effectively remain a Protestant State and a Catholic State.

People like Canon Eric Elliott and John Robb and so on, are already telling us that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution are offensive. There is no way in which anyone with any common sense can interpret Articles 2 and 3 except as a territorial claim by this State on the other State in the context of a confessional Constitution, which gives it added offence.

Irrespective of what happens in Northern Ireland, we must create a different kind of society. Let me put it like this. Suppose Catholics and Protestants are trying to come together in the North, the Protestant image of the Catholic is very much influenced by the kind of Catholic State he sees in this part of the country. That is why it is important that our leaders should renounce the confessional State and do it boldly and defiantly and disown the Paisleyites in our part of the country. The question of class has not been fully discussed here.

Anyone who visits Northern Ireland knows that the real oppressed are those who live in deprived areas. The middle classes by and large survive and will accept any political problem. But the hatred and bigotry is tied in with unemployment, deprivation and fear. We have to reject the sectarian nationalism we have been living with for so long. Have we the will to put anything in its place?

Thomas Davis was the source of much of our vision of nationalism and much of our confusion because he did not think out what was really meant by Irishness. Professor Beckett has said about him:

Davis's ideal of a nationalism transcending differences of religion, class and ancestry, and appealing equally to Irishmen of all traditions, did not die with him, and it has often been held up for admiration. But those who have professed this ideal have failed to recognise, just as Davis himself failed to recognise, that its realisation would involve the negation, not the fulfilment, of the past history of Ireland.

The most important Irish question is: have we the will, the courage and the vision to undertake the Herculean task of reversing the historical process?

Mr. Brennan

I had intended making an extremely rational speech and, perhaps I will, after I digress for a moment. I was somewhat infuriated by Senator Murphy's intellectualising of this situation. Today is a great day in the history of Seanad Éireann. It is a day on which we can all seek to find a solution to this terrible tragedy that has been with us for so long. It could be the turning point in the seriousness with which this House is taken by the Irish people and by the elected representatives in the other House. Senator Murphy's contribution to this House was extremely mischievous. He has given a lot of food for propaganda to the British establishment once again. We are trying here to get a constructive answer out of this and this kind of contribution is not helpful.

I take him up on one thing. He was talking about looking for this blueprint. We are all looking for an answer. That is one of the purposes of this debate and the Government are not washing their hands of their responsibility in this. The policy of Fianna Fáil is clearly made out in the 1975 document.

Professor Murphy

It is not a policy.

Mr. Brennan

It is a policy document of 1975. It is the Fianna Fáil policy. We believe also in the creation of a new Ireland, encouraging Britain to declare its interest in its ultimate withdrawal from that part of Ireland. We believe in taking practical measures to help cross-Border relations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his recent tour, made our position abundantly clear to the people in Northern Ireland. The recent visit of the Taoiseach to American also added to Government action in this area; and the general pressure on the British Government for the past few years by Fianna Fáil, particularly in the last 12 months, has once again put the Northern Ireland situation back on the political stage of this country where it rightly belongs. For four years we had total silence and now I am personally pleased and delighted that the Northern Ireland tragedy is up again for discus-Borde sion by the Irish people. Silence is no substitute for a policy and that is why we are discussing it. In my view there was nothing constructive in Senator Murphy's contribution to this House and I am sorry that he took the attitude he did. I have here the Fianna Fáil policy statement. Perhaps Senator Murphy would read it.

Professor Murphy

Calling it a policy statement does not make it a policy statement.

Mr. Brennan

Where is your policy statement? This is our policy statement, and when we see yours we can look at that too.

The failure of the 1920 settlement has been the core of the tragedy. We must look again at that 1920 settlement and ask ourselves what went wrong. We must ask ourselves whether it is realistic to hope that lasting peace can ever be built within the framework of that settlement. The answer to that question must be that there is no permanent solution. No lasting peace can be found within that framework. It is right that we should state that fundamental belief openly and without equivocation. It is right that those in this island, North and South, with whom we have to work, should be in no doubt where we stand in this matter. It is a fundamental difference of approach and should be spelled out as often as possible.

During the past six years a number of attempts have been made, and many recipes have been tried, all of which have failed to make Northern Ireland a viable political entity. Now, with 2,000 people dead and 20,000 more seriously injured, the time has come to call a halt and to recognise that all of us whose objective it is to build peace in this island should sit down and work towards a new kind of Ireland. While I recognise that people of all traditions have valid and legitimate basic positions from which they cannot depart we must always be willing, particularly at this time, to listen to and talk to those whose aspirations differ from our own aspirations. We must recognise that their beliefs and their wishes carry equal weight with our own. If we start from that position I believe that we can make progress in this tragedy. The Taoiseach's recently set up committee to advise on aspects and forms of unity is clearly pointing the road in this direction and is once again publicly emphasising that the only way forward and the only form of unity is a unity by consent. The purpose of that committee is quite clear and I wish it well.

I would ask the British Government to help and encourage the Irish people to join together and, through negotiation and discussion, to search for the formula that will establish a united and a peaceful island. The British bear a heavy share of responsibility for the tragedy in the first place. Now is the time for the British Government to work with the Government in Dublin to sort out this tragedy once and for all. I would ask the Northern people to take a close look at Britain and ask themselves if the British political parties are being honest with them. Can the average Northern Ireland citizen say that there is evidence of Britain's genuine interest in the welfare of the Ulster people? At successive party conferences Northern Ireland affairs receive scant attention in Britain. At successive general elections the British people are told that Northern Ireland is not an issue in this election. We ask the Northern people to consider whether this attitude would prevail if the tragedy of the last ten years was taking place in Manchester or in Devon or in London itself. The old slogan "Ulster is British" may be used to the advantage of one party or another in time of political need in Westminister, but is there any real evidence to show that the welfare of the one-and-a-half million people is anything other than political expediency? It has been political expediency for far too long. If this took place on the mainland of Britain it would be a different story.

The most important parties to this tragedy are those who live in the North of Ireland and those who live in the Republic. The real problems of Ireland will not be solved until Irishmen North and South can create institutions which command the support and the respect of all of us who live in this island. This will only be done, not through the gun, not through the bomb, but through normal political activity and the free consent of all participants.

Now more than ever the political climate in Northern Ireland is undergoing a change. The Northern Ireland public are tired of violence, of threats, of the political vacuum. They are ready now to consider a substantial if not a major political breakthrough. This is noticeable particularly on the Protestant side. There does not appear to be much chance of that breakthrough before the British election. This is a pity and the British Government should look at that situation before the election if they really care about the problem.

I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that, when we talk of Irish unity and a 32-county Ireland, the South does not wish to take over the North. The South does not wish to dominate the North but rather to sit down with those in the North and to work out with them a new Ireland with guarantees which will be freely negotiated and which will encompass all our people. These would be written into a new Constitution if necessary. We do want unity but we want it by agreement and we want it by consent. We do not want to dominate our Protestant friends but to live with them in a new Ireland. I believe the British too, in a strange way, favour Irish unity. I should like to read into the record of this House the views expressed by Lloyd George in 1921.

An Cathaoirleach

This morning the Seanad agreed to adjourn for lunch from 1 to 2.30 p.m. The Senator has at least four minutes left. If the House agrees he could be allowed to finish, if the Senator so wishes.

Mr. Brennan

I should like to read into the record of this House the views expressed by Lloyd George in 1921. I do this to show that even after the 1920 Act the British Government were thinking in terms of ultimate Irish unity. I believe that this document has not come to prominence before. It is an historic document and for that reason, with your permission, Sir, I wish to read it into the records of Oireachtas Éireann. The reference is National Library Micro-film P6432 British Cabinet Papers. Craig wrote to Lloyd George suggesting two separate Parliaments for the island and Lloyd George's lengthy reply contained the following items. He said:

The creation of two systems of national government in these islands is sufficiently beset with dangers and difficulties. His Majesty's Government have determined to face these difficulties for the sake of peace at the heart of the Empire, and the ultimate unity of Ireland....

He goes on from there to say to Craig:

Your proposal would stereotype an unnatural frontier, drawn on religious lines, by giving it the character of an international boundary. Partition on these lines the majority of Irish people will never accept, nor could we conscientiously attempt to enforce it. It would be fatal to the purpose of a lasting settlement on which these negotiations from the very outset have been steadily directed.

At another part of that letter Lloyd George stated:

In our opinion by far the more satisfactory of these [two options] is that Southern and Northern Ireland should be represented in a Single Parliament for the control of essential common interests.

There have been various statements and indications from the British Government since that historic letter. We have had talk of Irish dimensions as recently and as formalised as the Sunningdale Agreement, which fell later. We have asked the British Government to encourage the eventual unity of Ireland. It appears to me that there is still a significant feeling in the Government in Britain and among the people of Britain towards the unity of Ireland. If one lays this alongside the fact that there is a mood of change in the North and, that they are beginning to believe that we do not wish to take over the North but rather to work with them then, the future for this island is indeed optimistic. I want to reiterate what my colleague, Senator Conroy, said in his excellent opening address, that now is the time for London to speak, now is the time for London to act, that, as the days go by, more and more people die. It is quite clear from what has been said in this House today right across the board that the British Government have a major part to play in the eventual solution of this tragedy. Too many people have died for us to take this situation lightly.

It is a great day for Seanad Éireann that we can discuss this matter openly and frankly and between us try to find a solution to this shocking tragedy. One thing is emerging and that is that we are all saying bluntly that there is a major obligation on the British Government to get off that egg, stop hatching it and do something about it because the lives, the hopes, and the futures of too many people in Northern Ireland depend on their action. If they take that necessary action the people in both Houses and the people of the whole country generally will not be found wanting with a generous response.

Business suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. W. Ryan

I wonder whether the House would agree to reduce the time for speeches to ten minutes because there are quite a number of people anxious to get in on this debate. If we continue with 15 minutes per speaker it will not be possible for them all to get in.

Mrs. Hussey

As one of the movers of the motion I would agree to that.

Mr. McCartin

I will agree to it in the circumstances but we are making a major concession because we have got in so few speakers at the moment and a lot of people have already had the opportunity to contribute for 15 minutes. However, I will not object to it but it is not the ideal way to do things. It must have been known before we started how many speakers were proposing to make contributions.

I intended from the outset to make the most rational speech that I could on the subject and not to be drawn away from my own thoughts by observations that were made by people who spoke before me. I have more views on this than I would be able to put into a ten-minute speech and I am sure that is the case so far as most people are concerned.

I was annoyed by the attitude of Senator Brennan who, in replying to Senator Murphy earlier on, made the statement that what we had was a monumental silence or something to that effect for the last four years on the subject of Northern Ireland. Certainly talking on Northern was not what the members of my party were best at but useless, unnecessary statements of policy were not regarded within our party or by our supporters as the most constructive approach to the whole subject. It was unfair to make a statement of that kind in view of the fact that for the four years we were in office the man who was Minister for Foreign Affairs worked harder than any person who ever represented the interests of this country in his efforts to bring about a solution in Northern Ireland and to promote attitudes of reconciliation and understanding. Up to his time no other representative of the people of this State ever made so many visits to Northern Ireland made so many contacts with people in a position of power or with representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. At no other stage in the history of our State was there closer co-operation between our Department of Foreign Affairs and all shades of opinion in the Six Counties.

Therefore, it is unfair and unjust for anybody to suggest that four years of the National Coalition were marked by inactivity, carelessness in their approach or lack of concern for the problems in this area. Our present party leader is probably on record more often than any other public figure in the State for the constructive comments he has made on Northern Ireland. An eminent political scientist and author, Mr. John White, commented that the only author of any significance who stated the nationalist case and is on record for doing so was Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald. As a member of the European Community and in all his efforts and negotiations on behalf of the people he represented he never left out of consideration the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. This is genuine dedication towards achieving a solution. It is not flag-waving or drum-beating. Deputy FitzGerald worked for a greater representation for them in Europe. If Mr. John Hume has been nominated today and stands a reasonable chance of being elected to represent that constituency in the European Parliament, a lot of the credit for this must go to Deputy Garret FitzGerald. His efforts are an example to all politicians who follow him and to all future Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

Senator Brennan said there was a lot of silence. Unfortunately, I would say, too much silence and too little said of what was actually being done. I had the experience of meeting a close associate and friend of mine who meets farmers from Ulster. Those farmers, in speaking of the problems of farmers in Ulster and the manner in which they were being treated by Britain as a member of the Community, stated that "the only person to whom we can look for genuine representation of our case in Europe is Mark Clinton the Minister from the Irish Republic". Nobody heard or saw Deputy Clinton drum-beating or flag-waving but he made a genuine contribution towards reconciliation in drawing the attention of the most conservative group of people in Northern Ireland, the farmers in Ulster, to the fact that here in the Republic we did not want to annex them or take them over or demolish them and all they stood for but that we were genuinely willing to help them without any strings attached.

Other Senators who are not present today were attacked for some of the things they said in the past. Many of the Senators who are present today but who were not present when subjects like this came up in the past five years would do well to read possibly the newspaper reports but certainly the records of the House and study carefully what was said from these benches when we were in Government and see if they recognise in the approach of the Opposition at that time, the same party as is speaking on the subject today. If one were to go into the council chambers in rural Ireland and read the provincial press one would not understand or recognise that these were the representatives.

Whatever may be said of Senator Dr. O'Brien, who is not present today, there is one thing that I admire and that is that he said the same things when in Government as he is saying today in opposition. I may disagree with where he puts the emphasis, but I admire his consistency on this subject. If there is a muted approach on this side of the House to the subject the Government will understand that we are here to help them in every effort they make to bring about peace and reconciliation. We are behind them in every effort to damp down the subject and to put the bigots and the extremists into the background. We will help them in any way we can to find a solution.

Someone made the point today that many people had spoken on this subject who had never put a foot in the Six Counties and who avoided the area as if it were mined all over. I am one of the Senators who comes from an area quite close to there. Like Senator McGowan I come from an area where, if the Border was not there you would not know whether you were in Protestant Ulster or in Connacht. We have the same kind of structure and traditions. We have the same kind of Protestant people living among us as there are in Fermanagh and Tyrone. A lot of people give expert views and express concern sometimes without having an intimate knowledge of the situation. I think the differences between ourselves and the people of the Six Counties are exaggerated out of all proportion. The traditions between the ordinary rural people in my area and the people in County Fermanagh would be hard to distinguish. I cannot see that there are different traditions or divergent views. I cannot see the sort of serious differences that people talk about. We have the same traditions. Socially, we enjoy the same traditional music and song. You would not recognise one from the other. On some of the more basic issues, I do not believe that changing our Constitution with a view to convincing the Unionists in the North will be very successful. I think we ought to change our Constitution if we believe it should be changed for the moment but we will not impress the average Unionist by changing it. Regarding such questions as divorce, contraception and so on we must remember that when there was a division in the House of Commons on the question of abortion, every representative from Northern Ireland voted against the Bill, with the exception of one who was not present. To hear some people talking down here you would think the average Protestant in Ulster could not envisage himself living in a society that did not have divorce but the average Unionist in Northern Ireland is not concerned about divorce. He does not wish to divorce his wife. Neither does the average wife there wish to divorce her husband. I think that if you had put that border around Cork city 50 years ago and built up a state and given powers and privileges to a certain number of people you would probably find it hard to remove it today.

Dr. West

We would have taken over the whole place.

Mr. McCartin

There are a number of things we can do about it. Somebody mentioned the "Buy Irish" Campaign. We have never shown any concern for the people of Northern Ireland. Of course we should include goods and services from Northern Ireland in our "Buy Irish" Campaign and I have heard a public representative talk about a united Ireland, engage in flag-waving and drum-beating and then come to a local authority meeting and propose a resolution that we should ban concrete and gravel and such commodities coming from Northern Ireland. That is the sort of inconsistency that we have been guilty of.

The Senator who proposed the resolution did not come up with any sort of formula for a solution but let us for a change ask ourselves what we can do. Let us ask ourselves and our neighbours how many of us intend going on holidays to Northern Ireland this year to meet the people of Northern Ireland, to communicate with them on a genuine basis. There are steps the British Government can take. I do not suppose it is realistic for me to try to enumerate the possibilities now but if the British Government are genuine in their intention that the two parts of Ireland be given an opportunity to co-operate more closely, to find at least one area on which all Ulster would agree and where the interests of all Ireland could be served, they should agree to a common green currency, the green £ for the people of the Six County area and for ourselves. This would eliminate smuggling and the imbalances in trade and would bring about a situation in which the farmers of Ulster could enjoy a higher standard of living, a higher income and at the same time we would have established a common interest. I regret that there is not more time available to me to allow me develop the subject further.

Mícheál Cranitch

I can still remember quite vividly the first time I saw an Orange procession in Belfast. The first thing that struck me was the excellence of the music played by the band. I remember a band that had an enormous drum and I may add an enormous drummer and on the drum was a splendid picture of King Billy crossing the Boyne. It occurred to me how incongruous was the whole thing. Perhaps the people in that procession did not advert to the fact that the Pope of the day had the Te Deum chanted in Rome as a thanksgiving for the victory of King Billy. Then the bands came along, one band played excellently, “Three Cheers for the Red, White and Blue.” The next band played “Let Erin Remember”. There was incongruity right through. If we look at the history of the Six Counties and of the extraordinary events that led up to its founding we find incongruity right through. Then we have had the bigots right along the line from Cooke, through roaring Hannah who seemed to have one idea in their heads—that the Catholic Church was the scarlet woman, that the Pope was anti-Christ. The influence wielded by those people down to the present day, when the ring master is the Reverend Ian Paisley, is enormous. They are mob orators. They can condition people into believing practically anything and they can instil into their hearts the most dreadful of all emotions, that is the emotion of fear. A person in dread or in terror or in fear is likely to do anything or say anything. But thank God side by side with these people you have a splendid body of Protestants who unlike the bigots are sincere Christians. They are genuine Christians who are true to their faith, to their own religious traditions and practices, who believe in the Almighty God and life hereafter, who believe and follow the Ten Commandments of God. It is to these we should be addressing ourselves in the hope that they will be able to do something to deal with those bigots in their midst. The more contact we have with those people the better for all concerned. I agree with Senator McCartin as far as that point is concerned. The more contact we have socially and economically, in business, music, sport, art and culture, the better. I can with great pleasure recall the many enjoyable days and evenings I spent playing with traditional fiddlers from the Six Counties. We were absolutely one. They had the same feeling for the music as we had. We appreciated them and they appreciated us. One feels very sorry when one meets them because by and large many of the people in the Six Counties are hungering for an identity. They are not British and they know it. They are Irish in their hearts. Recently I have noticed among them a certain amount of jealousy inasmuch as we have taken up a very proud position and a very proud stand in the Parliament of Europe. Though we are a small nation, we are looked up to and our voices are listened to. More that the British we are in a position to help our brethren in the Six Counties, irrespective of whether they are Nationalists or Unionists. They are all Irish.

If I may come now to the group that have the biggest say in the solution of this problem. That is the British Government. The British Government brought about partition by the 1920 Act which was subsequently reinforced by the Act of 1949. Reference was made earlier to Articles 2 and 3. In this context I should like to mention what de Valera said to Lloyd George as far back as 1921. Mr. de Valera said that as regards the question at issue between the political minority and the great majority of the Irish people, that must remain a question for the Irish people themselves to settle, that we could not admit the right of the British Government to mutilate our country.

Our country was mutilated. There was a contrived majority so that the Unionists' vote would carry the day in the largest possible area. Divisions were made accordingly to ensure that majority. Sooner or later in the ultimate solution the British must go. The sooner they declare that intent the better. They need not go tomorrow or the day after, they need not go in five, ten or 20 years but the sooner their intention of going is made clear to all concerned the better and the better for the British people themselves. I am sure the British people would welcome that.

Some years ago the present Taoiseach said in the Garden of Remembrance that it would take nothing from the honour of Britain or the right of the majority in the North if the British Government were to declare their interest in encouraging the unity of Ireland by agreement in independence and in a harmonious relationship between the two islands. When that is done we can sit around the table and, taking everybody's wishes into consideration, decide on a form of government, be it federal or otherwise, that would satisfy everybody. But in the meantime there is something else that the British Government should do immediately. In the name of common Christianity they should desist from any further torture or ill-treatment, the kind of thing that has been going on for some time in the North in spite of the decision and the ruling of the court in Strasbourg.

There is ample evidence in the Amnesty report to be published next week of what is going on. Last Monday I heard Father Denis Faul saying on radio that this ill-treatment is going on, not alone in Castlereagh Barracks, but also in Omagh, Derry and other places. He said that physical and mental ill-treatment of subjects takes place as a matter of policy. That is an awful indictment of Britain. The sooner this is got rid of the better. In The Cork Examiner of Tuesday 6 June in the leading article (i) under the heading Another Indictment, there is the following paragraph:

The latest report by Amnesty must be gravely embarrassing to Britain, which had given assurances that all such activity would cease, and which is now seen to have reneged on these assurances. London's expression of outraged innocence at the time when this country took an earlier case to the Court of Human Rights is now seen to be completely spurious and the plea that the Irish action of the time was unnecessary is seen to be empty. The fact remains that in spite of the British assurances to the contrary, ill-treatment is still continuing, possibly on a lesser or perhaps better concealed scale than heretofore, but nevertheless continuing.... Past experience suggests that those responsible will not be disciplined, and that all that will emerge is another useless set of assurances about future action. If that is to be the case, Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Mason must be told, bluntly, that nobody believes them any more; that they stand completely discredited.

The time is at hand when Britain will have to take cognisance of these things play the part that they could play. If that is done with the co-operation of our friends in the Six Counties and ourselves, we will have a happier and a better island to live in.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this motion. The question of Northern Ireland has always been a great problem not alone to the people in the Six Counties but I suppose to the people in Great Britain and indeed to those in the Republic. We are in a position, as far as I can see, where many people are not pulling their weight.

Obviously for electoral reasons the British Government, with a general election in the offing, are not going to take the type of stand that one would expect them to take. Secondly, there is a majority in the North who are very well insulated. Some of them believe they are a race apart. Thirdly, there is a minority in the North who strive for a united Ireland. May I go on record here as saying that, so far as I am concerned and indeed the other people in Fine Gael, we have a natural aspiration to unity. Today there has been a unanimous approach by all people and all parties as to what we are really looking for. It is a matter of playing around with words as to exactly what we are looking for and how we will get it.

I took particular notice today of several speakers who were either talking about regionalisation, about a federal solution, about a 32-county Ireland or about partnership or participation. It all basically amounts to the same thing. At this moment it is not realistic to expect that Northern Ireland will be integrated with the Republic in the short-term. There are many many reasons for this and we will not go into them now in the short time at our disposal, but certainly the aspiration that we would one day either control or be very closely associated with that area is very important.

It is important, too, to record that, by and large, this has been the approach of Fine Gael. Senator Eoin Ryan and Senator Brennan would give the impression that Fianna Fáil were the only people who hold this type of aspiration. If any one man played his part in ensuring that we got to know the Northern Protestants, to know their aspirations and their fears it was certainly the leader of our party, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, during his time as Minister for Foreign Affairs. His visit to the North was not a "flying" visit. He walked up and down the various roads and spoke with all the various committees. I have no doubt that his understanding of the situation at the time bettered the relationship between the two sections.

My personal belief is that the overall position in the North is not as bad as some people would lead us to believe. Perhaps violence generally is decreasing, not as quickly as we would like it to, but it is not as sharp or at as high a level as it was a few years ago. It would appear that the Provisionals and the Loyalist extremists are being isolated. They are not as active as they were.

It is important, whatever be the solution, that a climate be created where there is respect and dignity for human life. A fair number of people, particularly in England and in the Republic of Ireland, are somewhat apathetic if the problem does not physically hit themselves. The problem always with violence is the retaliation aspect of it. We would be less than human if we did not react to the killing or the maiming of a relative or close friend. Until such time as there is a cessation of violence we have very little hope of getting people interested in a political structure. I am glad that the tide seems to be slowly favouring the moderates of both communities in the North.

There was a significance, although not spoken about too much nowadays, in the collapse of the Loyalist strike a few years ago. Had the strike been successful, the clock would have been put back. However, it now would appear that the working population, in particular the Protestants, will not be led by some of the bigots who were at the head of the campaign at that time. The recent surveys being carried out would show that there is moderation in the air. Senator West said this morning—and this is a very good point—that several parts of the world and, indeed, parts of the United Kingdom itself, are now talking about federations, self rule, regionalisation and what have you. It should not be anything new to the Government in the United Kingdom to hear Northern Ireland talking about this subject when Scotland and Wales are pounding on their doors.

The next thing in our favour at the moment is our involvement in Europe. The EEC commitment will mean an awful lot. If one is to take the commitment of the USA at its true value it should be significant if the time comes when alternative sources of finance might be needed. Another very good reason why I think we might be on the right road is that, unfortunately, the Northern economy is literally in ribbons. The old saying of the people of the North was that "Whatever about joining you, we certainly could not join you on an economic level because your country is not doing so well". Now both sides have levelled out and the balance, if anything, is probably in our favour. That is one obstruction out of the way.

One could not let the occasion pass without mentioning the cowboy antics of people like Ian Paisley. While there is a certain level of support for a chap of his character, it is very hard to talk common sense into anybody like him. I believe he is beginning to lose a fair amount of the ground and support he used to enjoy. I had occasion over the years to have direct dealings and links with the young farmers of Ulster when Macra na Feirme used to hold several competitions in both parts of the island. I formed the opinion that if you could remove the politicians you would have a fair chance of solving the problem. It is not that easy I know, but there were grounds for that opinion some years ago, among the younger people we were dealing with. They could not see anything too wrong with the way we carried on our affairs in the Republic, provided their tradition and aspirations, as they saw them, were looked after.

That brings me to a very important point. I always think the British Government are less than honest when it comes to the question of Northern Ireland. Take the question of the green £. That would benefit the farmers of Ulster if they were involved in the same green £ negotiations as the Republic. I have no doubt that privately most of them, even the strongest Unionist farmer, would have to agree with that because on a monetary level he would be getting on better. I have no doubt that were it not for the insincerity of the British Government we would be on the road to having a monetary system that would take into account the problems facing farming in the Republic and in the North. I will believe the British Government are committed to Northern Ireland when I see them seriously negotiating a green £ for all the farmers of Ireland. I have no problem visualising two traditions being amalgamated, provided we have a great deal of co-operation and dialogue with those people, as Senator McCartin was saying earlier. Provided they find us sincere in our ways and in what we say, I have no doubt that the next time we are debating this matter we will be further on the road to having our neighbours more closely associated with us.

Mr. Mulcahy

I think it was Fintan Lalor who said that if you are going to have a federation you have got to establish the differences before you federate. We certainly have a problem of difference. It is difficult to categorise the groups of people between whom the difference exists. They may be categorised as Nationalists, Unionists, Protestants, Catholics, property owners, the unemployed and so on. Certainly differences exist which give rise to a problem today and which for us come home very vividly in terms of the deaths of people by violence. That is the symptom of the problem. The differences giving life to us is what I will be hopefully about in the few moments available to me in this debate. If differences exist and we can define them, can we accept them? My basic thesis is that we have no choice but to accept them and, having done that, to move forward on that basis.

Much has been written about this problem. I am sure Senator Murphy, if he had time, could give us a literature survey of the more important works; I certainly could not. But anything I have read has obviously influenced me. One book I have read is by Senator Cruise-O'Brien, States of Ireland. I find it a good book, even though at times it annoys me as much as it entertains or informs me. One of the things I find good about it is that it illustrates how certain people can, because of their family background, come to influence the course of nations. In the case of Senator Cruise-O'Brien, he had the advantage of grandparents who were deeply involved in shaping the way this country has developed.

Another family which had an influence on the way this country developed was the Churchill family. We all know that Lord Randolph played the Orange card to suit himself and the evolution of the political situation in England. At a later stage Winston Churchill took a hand and he, among others, said we would have to have a unified Ireland. What worries me about these family influences is that sometimes the products of those families seem to think that countries were invented for them to play with, that it is part of their destiny to do so. They must be careful; they were not. Countries emerged and all people have equal rights.

In order to understand the situation in which we find ourselves and to understand these differences I mentioned, we have to understand ourselves first. That would bring me to looking at myself. I have no grandparents who were involved in the shaping of the emergence of this country. Coming as I do from a very ordinary family, with one grandparent who came from Garryowen in Limerick and another who came from Sheriff Street in Dublin I am product of whatever system the dreamers, the men of vision in the 'twenties and earlier, had in mind. I speak Irish. I like Irish music. I have a profession and now I am privileged to be a Member of this House. All this came about because some people in the earlier part of this century had a vision that it was possible to develop a new type of middle class in this country and it has happened. Whatever feelings I have and whatever views I have are as a result of that policy, rightly or wrongly.

Senator Murphy at the end of his speech mentioned something about the Herculean task of reversing some trends. I do not know his exact words but that is how I interpreted them. I am proud to be able to stand up here as a product of that system and again referring to my good friend Eorascáil, be able to read into the record of this House through the Irish language:

Ní raibh ach dhá phointe sa cheistneoir a raibh tromlach na bhfreagraí diúltach ina dtaobh:

This is a result of a survey carried out in Europe into the attitudes of young people. It goes on to say:

Ar mheán, ní chreideann ach 44% de na daoine óga gur rud tábhachtach nó úsáideach é an creideamh.

Again as a result of the same survey: Mar a dúradh cheana féin, tugann an staidéar seo chun suntais nach tábhachtach le haos óg na Gearmáine, na Fraince agus na Breataine cúrsai náisiúnachais ach go bhfuil dearcadh "oscailte." Eorpach acu.

I used that to show that we could have debated this issue in Irish today if we had wanted to. The substance of what I said is that the young people of Europe are not interested in nationalism and are emerging not to have that much interest in religion. Their outlook is European, if they have an outlook at all. Are we thinking about a problem that may disappear if the young people of today are saying, or will say in a generation's time—I do not think this problem is going to be solved within a generation—that they are not interested in nationalism, except in the sense of maybe a larger system like Europe.

I found Bríd Ní hUallacháin's contributions on the Northern Ireland situation in The Irish Times interesting. One figure that came up, and I did not realise it, was that of all the children under 15 years of age in the North, 50 per cent are Catholics and 50 per cent Protestant. Are we trying to solve a problem that eventually may solve itself? Maybe it is not timely to do it now. I am inclined to say that we accept the differences; we accept the fact that somebody like myself wants to be the kind of Irishman I was brought up to be, and we accept the fact that somebody in the North wants to be linked to the UK, and we want to find some way of living together with that acceptance. Neither of us should want to give our aspirations up at this point.

If I had any principle that I would like to bring forward, it is that we should do without slogans and move in that direction. Slogans plastered across history and on the walls of both sides of the Border are responsible for much of the blood we have around us today. We need to build trust, that is the policy— build trust—between two peoples who are basically different, essentially different in their aspirations, whatever about their likings for music or sport or the way they work. There is an essential difference in aspirations and the value systems are different as a result. They are enshrined in the categories of religion and the religious values are transmitted from generation to generation and we will live with them whatever they are as they emerge at each point in time. Build trust. I was delighted to see the circular that came around about "Co-operation North" with its 15 points of friendship. Movements like that deserve to be supported.

I see some hope in the EEC role. Perhaps there is a possibility that some group under the direction of the EEC, or an individual of the EEC operating in the cross-Border schemes, could bring about an increased understanding, particularly at economic and social level. One thing is certain, violence will not disappear until the IRA see no point in it or until they have no resources to carry it out. But trust can get rid of all of that. The principle I see is: no slogans; build trust.

Mrs. Robinson

Like other Senators I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate on Northern Ireland, and I commend the Independent Senators for having pressed for time for this debate. The motion notes the "political impasse” in Northern Ireland. It would be misleading if this suggested that nothing is happening or nothing is changing in Northern Ireland, because one of the problems is that the sands are shifting all the time, there are imperceptible changes and there are some changes which we must be very concerned about and which we must monitor very closely. I would not like political impasse to be seen as indicating rigidity, no change. This very complex situation is changing imperceptibly all the time.

I want to highlight three aspects of the situation in Northern Ireland. The first relates to the basic issue of the political future of both parts of this island. The second relates to the degree of political development in this part of the island in the past ten years; and the third relates to the challenge to the general community here in a very broad context, including the significance of the European Community dimension.

On the basic issue of the political future of both parts of this island, we in the Labour Party see a long-term future in a socialist framework with an emphasis on the enormous potential of this island; an enormous potential to feed and clothe, to house and to maintain, a population of five to six million. In that context we acknowledge the legitimate aspiration of each part of the island for a substantial degree of self-Government. We see this obviously as a long-term future, but it is also something which we would bear in mind looking at the short-and medium-term options, possibilities and room to manoeuvre in relation to Northern Ireland. We believe that when our peoples have understood and related the socialist approach and philosophy to the needs of this island there will be a possibility of using this framework and dimension to allow people to grow together and to restructure the political framework and the economic and social parameters of their lives. For that reason we would not press for, or emphasise, a territorial claim such as the formulation contained in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, but we would prefer instead to offer a different political framework, shared concepts and a shared approach to the ordering of the economic and social life and that these shared common political aspirations would bring us closer and help us to grow together and provide a future for our children.

In this context also we accept that you cannot force or compel the majority in the North to join with the South, either in a single political unit or in a federal framework, against their will. It is in this sense that the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Frank Cluskey, has said that we accept the reality of a political veto by the Northern Unionists over political unification of this island, because we do not accept that you can compel or force people to join in a political framework which they oppose and will not accept.

Equally, we would be very concerned about any trends in the political situation in Northern Ireland which would attempt to move solely in an integrationist sense to integrate further Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. We would be concerned specifically at the recommendation by the Speakers' Conference, and the acceptance of this, that further seats at Westminster be given to representatives from Northern Ireland. This is not to say that Northern Ireland has not been under-represented in Westminster, but if there is a step to increase the seats for Northern Ireland representatives in the Westminster Parliament without a parallel and balancing development, this would have to be seen as appearing to be integrationist, integrating Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom and would, therefore, cause concern to the Labour Party in their desire to see the building up of a future socialist framework for the peoples of this island. It is a step which should not be allowed to go unbalanced by a further deepening of the political base in Northern Ireland itself. Specifically, there should be strong pressure for a developed power-sharing administration in the North. I know there is quibbling about the use of the term "power-sharing". The political objective is to have a degree of involvement of majority and minority in both the responsibilities and the establishment of priorities in local government within Northern Ireland.

The present situation is one where, with a British general election on the horizon, there is a risk that the majority voice there will carry much more weight than the minority viewpoint. It is important that our Government emphasise that it is unacceptable to have one-sided integrationist moves that are not paralleled with and balanced by moves to ensure the building up of a basic self-government within Northern Ireland in a regional devolved Government.

My second point—with which I shall have to deal very briefly—is the striking lack of political development in this part of the country in the light of ten years' experience of human misery, death and destruction in Northern Ireland. The only thing we have done of any constitutional consequence was the removal of the special position of the Catholic Church from Article 44 of the Constitution. We have not even made that a reality in the rest of the Constitution and in our laws. We should face collectively our shame in that matter. We have not been prepared to take any significant steps in our own society to make us the kind of pluralist society which would be attractive to the people living in the other part of the island.

My third point—which I would like to have developed—has been touched upon by other Senators, and it is the need for a much broader base of involvement and general co-operation by the general community here, business interests, trades unions, schools, sporting clubs and so on. There are some useful co-operative endeavours at the moment involving State-sponsored bodies and private industry, unions and other groups, but I have been struck—other Senators have also mentioned this—in visit to Northern Ireland and speaking to people who used to go there in the past, that there has been much less mobility in the past ten years between North and South. It has gradually declined, but I think it is beginning to build up again. If we are serious about the kind of political aspiration to which we pay so much lip service there is a general duty, not just on the politicians but on the people of Ireland, to increase dramatically the degree of mobility between North and South.

Lady Goulding

I am grateful for the chance to take part in this debate. I would not have taken part if it had not been for Senator Harte who gave me the courage to come forward and speak. Like him, I served in the British Army as a private, a non-commissioned and commissioned officer. As well as that I have some knowledge of the Northern Irish people as one of my sons is married to a Presbyterian in the North and another married to a Catholic in Dublin. Also, I have been fortunate enough to work with many organisations in the South who are endeavouring to do what they can for peace in the North and the South—to name one, Peace Point.

Talk of religion in the North now does not follow. It is immaterial at the moment in the North whether one is Catholic or Protestant; one either wants violence or does not want violence. If one is a violent person one will be violent. This is the thing we in the South must attempt to stop in any way we can, politically, and if not politically, we must try to do it as individuals, one meeting the other. We have met many people in the health field from the North in the South, both civil servants and people in voluntary organisations. We talked. Talking is going to take the longest time to get anything. Unity to me is a dirty word. We must not use the word "unity". We must have an agreed Ireland. We must have an Ireland together. In the North if you use the word "unity", they do not like it. Somebody who is better at semantics than I must come forward with a different name for unity. I think that is very important. I was going to say a lot about the EEC but other Senators mentioned it.

I would like to mention, as one of the Senators has, America. I have just returned from there. Everyone will be very pleased to hear that in America they want to help us in every way they can. I have been travelling there for the last ten years, year after year, and they are now thinking of helping us to integrate instead of unify. We are helped in America by many Irish people working there, one of whom is Tony O'Reilly who works in a big firm. He set up the Ireland Fund and we should be grateful for that.

I would like to say a lot but it has already been said and I will not take up the valuable time of the Seanad. This is a-very important day for us in the Seanad because we have been able to discuss the North-South situation. I am very sad to see so many empty chairs here. We, as Senators, have a chance to discuss what is the most important thing in Ireland today and yet we are not all here to listen to and join in the debate, if we are lucky enough to be given time.

Mr. Howard

It is virtually impossible in the ten minutes available to do justice to this national subject which is of very great importance. I welcome the opportunity of joining in this very constructive and very positive discussion. I will confine my observations, because of the time factor, to identifying in my mind those parties who have an obligation to play an important part in finding a solution to the impasse we have in Northern Ireland. There has been a marked measure of politeness during the discussion. Some Senators have said that we should forget the past and that we should forget history. If we are to lay responsibility, at least in one quarter where it rightly deserves to be laid, we cannot totally ignore history.

We must realise that were it not for an Act of the Imperial Parliament in Westminster 59 years ago the problem we are discussing might not exist today. I believe the thinking behind that decision, which divides what was one island and one nation and attaches part of it to the United Kingdom, was not based on what was best for Ireland or best for the people of the area concerned. The primary consideration there was to ensure that this territory with the ports of Derry and Belfast would be available to defend the north-western approaches to Britain in time of war.

Britain was prepared to use that part of our country for her benefit at that time. Over the years since and indeed in the past year or 18 months, when six votes are vital to maintain a Government in office in Westminster, we can see how our people in that part of the island can be used. There is an obligation on the British Government to play a significant part in finding a solution to a problem that they were responsible for creating. We also have a responsibility to play our part in finding a solution, to eliminate the tragedy and destruction that has prevailed there in the past ten years.

I fully subscribe to the idea that whatever solution is eventually found must be one based on the consent of all the people involved. I reject any attempt to coerce people into a solution or into an Ireland that will not be acceptable to them. Senators have spoken of the options available to us at this time. The options mentioned were power sharing, independence for the North or a united Ireland or perhaps better still, to express it as Senator Goulding did, an agreed Ireland. I believe that the solution to this problem lies within the framework of a Thirty-two County Ireland. If we are to have an agreed Ireland it is necessary for us to realise that there are certain things that we in the South must do. We must recognise that the main obstacle to an agreed Ireland is the existence amongst the majority of the Northern people of a feeling that values, traditions and cultures dear to them, would be at risk if the ties to the United Kingdom were weakened or removed.

There is an obligation on us to assure them that these traditions and these values would be protected and guaranteed in an agreed Ireland. The people I refer to are people whose roots are in this country for many generations and they have made a significant contribution in the industrial, commercial and sporting life of the Thirty-two Counties. As other Senators have said, I believe that they are proud of their homeland. Many of them in the sporting field have defended its good name in many corners of the world.

We must regard them as genuine fellow Irishmen. We must accept also that in addition to the cultural and traditional reservations they may have, until recently there were also economic factors which might not attract them to an association with the rest of Ireland. Times are changing and I am satisfied that the developments we see today in the context of the EEC in cross-Border co-operation and even in co-operation by the churches means that the day is steadily approaching when many of these objections will no longer be valid.

We should now be preparing the packet we can offer these people in a Thirty-two County context. We should be spelling out the type of political institutions that could be available, the safeguards we could provide and the framework within which we can all work together in peace, harmony and co-operation towards a better and prosperous Ireland. We should guarantee that the traditions that are dear to them will be preserved and protected in an agreed Ireland. We should work to get them to realise that they can play a valuable part. That is the only way by which we can have stability, progress and peace for the future. We have never satisfactorily embarked on spelling out these conditions before. I again emphasise that we should now engage in that exercise and spell out what in our mind is the precise role that the Ulster majority could play in an agreed Ireland. We should quantify this and sell it to the best advantage, bearing in mind that if we continue on the road we have been on, we will not realise the peace and progress that is necessary. I am confident that, when the time comes that we have to negotiate on these matters, the Government and people of the Republic will have the courage and the generosity to meet the requirements of that situation.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Andrews)

First of all, I should like to congratulate the proposers of the motion, Senators Augustine Martin, Gemma Hussey and Trevor West for affording the House the opportunity to take stock of the present situation in Northern Ireland. I should also like to commend the contributions to the debate which were characterised by the deep interest and concern which I know motivates the deliberations of the various Senators in this regard. I hope that those, wherever they may be, who argue that we in the South know or care nothing of the problems of Northern Ireland will read this debate and take note of the insight and compassion which inspired so many of the interventions. This commitment to reason and restraint is, of course, in keeping with the best traditions of Seanad Éireann, which can only have been enhanced by today's discussion.

The motion asks Seanad Éireann to note what it refers to as the present political impasse in Northern Ireland. It is certainly true that there has been very little movement in the political sphere over the past few months. I do not think however that we should allow ourselves to become discouraged by this lack of progress. It has always been recognised that the work of fashioning an enduring settlement will be a slow and lengthy process.

I believe that it is more important to ensure that we are advancing in a direction which is likely to lead to long-term peace and stability than to seek short-lived temporary solutions which fail to address themselves to these overriding needs. That has been one of the threads that has run through the various contributions made by the Senators during the course of the discussion on this very important subject—the need not to seek out and achieve short-lived solutions but to seek out long-term solutions. I believe in that context I am re-echoing what has been stated, very responsibly and very reasonably here, over the past number of hours.

The Government over the past month have sought to pursue a number of complementary objectives. Firstly, and most immediately, they have worked to ensure that the absence of agreement between the political parties in the North on a devolved partnership or power-sharing Government for the area did not lead to an abandonment of the precondition of participation by the representatives of the two traditions. As a result of discussions which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself, in this humble role, have had with the British Prime Minister and British Government Minister, the Irish Government are satisfied that there is full agreement with the British Government on this most vital issue.

The Government are satisfied from assurances which they have received that British policy does not include the option of integration of Northern Ireland with Britain. The British Prime Minister has said that there is not a scintilla of movement in this direction. During the course of his recent visit to Dublin Mr. Mason re-echoed that commitment once more. The Government hope that the British Government will in the near future again attempt to get a discussion under way between the parties on the basis of these agreed principles. While there is a never a wholly ideal time for launching such initiatives, previous experience has shown that excessive timidity serves to strengthen rather than weaken the position of political groups who are unwilling to compromise.

In seeking through their contacts with the British Government and with representatives of both communities in the North to quicken the search for a political settlement, the Government have also sought to provide whatever assurance is necessary of our determination to secure agreement by peaceful means and by such peaceful means alone. I think it is worth repeating that particular principle in our policy—that we wish to secure agreement by peaceful means and by such means alone. Not only have we as a people abjured violence, but we have pledged ourselves to work tirelessly within the law to ensure that our territory is not used as a base from which violence can be visited on the people of Northern Ireland. In recent times the Government have been pleased to note the indications of a greater understanding of our commitment and an acceptance of our effectiveness in this regard on the part of those in the North who in the past have expressed doubts on this question.

The greater appreciation of our bona fides in this field facilitates progress in another direction to which the Government atach importance, namely, cross-Border economic co-operation. Senators will be aware that this was one of the matters discussed at last September's London Summit, following which it was announced that a comprehensive review of the opportunities and arrangements for economic co-operation, with particular reference to Northern Ireland, would be carried out by a joint steering group of officials of the two administrations. I am very glad to say that the findings of this review will be made public within a week or so. That will be some encouragement to those Senators who mentioned, with compassion and commitment, the very point I have just made. The findings of this review, which will be made public within a week or so, were endorsed at the meeting in Dublin on 5 May between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Frank Judd.

One of the major recommendations in this report is that a study should be carried out of the development potential of the Erne catchment area based on the undoubted possibilities for useful joint action in the fields of tourism and, by definition, drainage. We were able to announce on 5 May that there would be an early application for EEC funds with a view to getting the study under way as expeditiously as possible. I can again confirm, for the information of the Senators, that the necessary discussions are being urgently pursued with the Commission in that regard. We also reviewed the arrangements for continued monitoring of developments in this whole area and agreed that the joint steering group would meet again later this year to review various developments.

Our common membership of the European Communities would in any event ensure that we were made more fully aware of the interdependence in the economic and social spheres between the North and South. That is giving expression to what a number of the Senators have said during the course of this debate. The process of harmonising our policies with the requirements of Community legislation has posed similar problems in many sectors both North and South. By keeping each other informed of our experiences in these areas we can ensure that these problems are tackled more effectively and that for the future due account is taken of our common interests at the policy formulating stage.

In this context Northern Ireland suffers rather badly in comparison with the South by virtue of its less than adequate representation in the various institutions of the Communities. Direct elections to the European Parliament will provide a certain measure of relief, but for the foreseeable future the decision-making process within the Communities will remain heavily weighted in favour of the national Governments. In this situation many people in the North are already telling us that positions taken up by Irish Ministers are very much in line with their interests. Quite apart from the economic implications of Community membership I should like to think that exposure to political activity in an arena where wider concerns than those which have traditionally prevailed in the North are at work would encourage those Northern politicians, who have in the past pursued an isolationist path, to consider their future in a broader European framework.

The expansion and developments of contacts in the economic and commercial spheres is, of course, useful in helping to promote a higher standard of living for those working and living on both sides of the Border. It also serves another and, I believe, a higher purpose simply by virtue of the stimulus which it gives to personal contacts between ordinary people North and South. I should also like to add my voice to the call again made by Senators in connection with the traffic between the North and South, the traffic of personnel, the traffic of citizens. The more interchange in both directions, the better. I believe from my own experience that we in the South have been found wanting in this regard. There are far more people coming from the North to the South rather than going from the South to the North. I would add my voice to the appeal made by Senators in that regard.

The promotion of cross-Border contacts at official level must, if it is to be effective is dispelling suspicions and in creating an atmosphere of trust, be accompanied by a much greater effort on the part of individuals and organisations, North and South, to get to know each other. This is perhaps, as I have already said, an area where we in the South are somewhat more at fault than those in the North. Sports clubs, church associations and cultural groups have counterparts on the other side of the Border which should be sought out.

Those of us who are already involved in such contacts can testify to the warmth of the welcome with which they will be received. I was glad to hear Senator Trevor West, the respected Senator from Trinity College and others mention the efforts in the field of soccer football. I have been calling for the coming together of the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland in the interests of soccer unity and I will continue to make that appeal.

Here is an interesting facet of the type of co-operation which can develop. Both the secretariats of the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland have been having meetings in Belfast on the one hand and in Dundalk or Dublin on the other. This is the kind of co-operation that Senator West had in mind to break down the barries of suspicion. I welcome the opportunity to comment on what the Senator said and I thank him for giving me that opportunity.

During his recent visit to Northern Ireland, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was warmly received by people of all shades of political opinion, The friendliness of the reception was no less marked on the part of those of the Unionist tradition. I am convinced that the more we get to know each other and the more confident and trusting our relationship becomes the more conscious will we become of the intertwining strands of our common heritage. We will come to realise that we are simply too alike to live forever divided on this small island. The Government believe that all who share in the political responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland have a duty positively to promote policies which will assist the development of reconcilication. For this reason the Government have sought the British Government's support for their policy of working to bring together in peace and harmony all of the people of the island under political structures which would be agreed and decided upon after free negotiations.

Let not anyone in the South be so foolish as to think that such a settlement will merely require sacrifices on the part of those in the North. Not only will we be required to show "the colour of our money", we must also be willing to show a spirit of tolerance and compromise in solving the range of social, legal and constitutional issues which will be up for discussion. There will be those who will say the cost is too great. I would ask them, by way of reply, to explain their view of the acceptable nature of the status quo to the relatives of the almost 1,900 people who have been killed and the 20,000 people injured in the current cycle of violence. The intensity of the current cycle should not allow us to forget that almost every decade over the last two generations has seen some manifestation of violence.

In the course of this debate, there has been criticism of Government policy and tactics in relation to their handling of the Northern Ireland situation. Indeed, much of the value of these occasions lies in the constructive and helpful way in which the criticism is presented. There is, however, another type of criticism outside the House which has been and continues to be damaging to the achievement of the objective which most of us genuinely and sincerely wish to attain. I refer to the approach of those who present, directly and indirectly, by implication and by innuendo a distorted version of Government policy which is recognisable to most people in this part of Ireland as distortion but which is not always recognised by those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere as such.

We can take good care of the impact which a distortion of Government policy has on the political domestic scene. I regret the necessity but, in view of the disproportionate amount of publicity it received and the unrepresentative nature of the point of view which it represents, I must mention the role, which is a form of foul play, being practised by Senator Conor Cruise-O'Brien in this regard. I might put on record in the House that I regret his absence from this debate. I noticed that he was here last week, when it was presumed that the Northern Ireland debate would be raised, but now he does not find time to come here to take part in this very important discussion.

Mrs. Robinson

That may not be very fair.

Mr. D. Andrews

I would like to put it on the record of the House. I am entitled to take the point of view that he is a plaything of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I would like to protest. Senators of the Minister's party are perfectly well aware that he has an engagement outside this country, outside this Continent, this week.

Mr. D. Andrews

He is using the Seanad selectively. However, the electorate have an opportunity of delivering their judgement on all of us in Dáil Éireann every few years. Senator O'Brien was left in no doubt about one electorate's views of him just under a year ago. Like most Irishmen I am, however, concerned when Senator O'Brien—I think I am entitled to say this—maliciously represents the Irish Government's position abroad as he did, for example, at a lecture in a university in Paris no later than May 13 last, or as he does through the columns of the British newspaper over which he presides as editor-in-chief. Most of all, of course, I am concerned at the effect in Northern Ireland of what he is doing, the area which has to bear the brunt of the suffering. By continuing to drip-feed the mythology, the bigotry and the hatred, Senator O'Brien, whether he intends it or not——

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

The Minister said "maliciously".

Mr. D. Andrews

——ranks with the forces of extremism rather than with the forces of moderation. To take but one instance, I noticed that in an article in a recent issue of that excellent magazine The Crane Bag he referred disparagingly to what he called the low intensity aspiration towards a united Ireland. “Low intensity aspirations”, he wrote, “feed low intensity operations and cost lives”. Elsewhere in the same article he presents Fianna Fáil strategy as Dublin appealing to Britain to “hand over the Protestants”. He also refers to what he calls the apparently simpler strategy of bombing and burning “the British, and the Protestant settlers along with them, out of our occupied Six Counties” and then goes on:

In practice the two strategies, while independent of one another, are complementary and mutually sustaining. The statesmen also drew sustenance from the lethal actions they deplore.

Everybody here knows, of course, that Fianna Fáil, in Government or in Opposition never asked anyone to hand over the Protestants, and Senator O'Brien is, I suggest, fully aware of the frequent references of the Taoiseach and members of the Government to our objective of achieving a coming together of the Irish people, by peaceful means, by negotiation and by consent. Senator O'Brien's distortions do not carry weight here. But think of the sustenance which the Rev. Ian Paisley and his followers—one of the major obstacles to any political progress in Northern Ireland—derive from a malicious distortion which has an Irish Government asking for the handing over of the Protestants. Indeed I would go so far as to say that if Senator O'Brien did not exist, the Rev. Ian Paisley would have had to use his fertile imagination to create him.

I would also suggest to Senator O'Brien that the best contribution he could make to the present difficult situation is to confine his creative imagination to situations which do not involve death and destruction. The Senator is entitled to his views on Northern Ireland and is at liberty to present them anywhere he wants and as amusingly as he wishes to do so. I do not deny him that right; I cannot deny him that right and I would not deny him that right. However, I would ask him to leave it to us to present our point of view and I can assure the House that we will continue to do as we have been doing, in a spirit of construction, sympathy and understanding.

To be fair to him, he is here at any rate, Senator Murphy from Cork had the courage to come along to present his point of view from the rarefied atmosphere of academia. Senator Murphy's contribution was to tell us that Fianna Fáil have no policy on Northern Ireland. All I can say is that he should come down to earth occasionally and listen to what we are saying and look at what we are doing, have been doing and will continue to do. We know where we are going and we are out in front, providing the leadership and the direction which the electorate expected when they gave us an overwhelming mandate at last year's elections.

Professor Murphy

Would the Minister tell that to John Robb?

Mr. D. Andrews

I would be delighted to meet John Robb and I would be delighted to meet anybody to discuss any problem in relation to what has been discussed here today. Once more I thank the Senators who proposed the motion and the House for giving me the opportunity to comment on the responsible and reasonable contributions made during the course of five hours.

Mr. Markey

I was about to commence by saying this debate has rather an academic tone about it rather than a political one, which I thought it should have had from the very first instance. I regret that the Minister in his concluding remarks brought such a personality note into the whole debate. I think I must start on that basis.

I regret his references to Senator Cruise-O'Brien. I have had occasion to disagree with Senator Cruise-O'Brien on many matters on which he has spoken, but I give him credit for one thing: he has been consistent since the commencement of the troubles in Northern Ireland. On every occasion on which he has spoken he has not veered one iota from his convictions on the situation there.

I must go back to the debate which took place in this House a couple of years ago when the Members who are over there were over here and spoke in vastly different tones from what they have said today. It is regrettable to me that a debate which should have a very political note about it should have such a softly, softly, hush-hush tone about it from so many of the Government speakers. Had they been showing the same consistency as Senator Cruise-O'Brien has shown in regard to those troubles in Northern Ireland, at least they would have re-echoed the sentiments which they expressed a couple of years ago in a similar debate in this House.

I am sorry about the rather academic wording of the motion. As I said, the matter we are discussing has such serious political tones. It should have been presented as a consensus of the House and in much more serious and positive manner than simply to say "That Seanad Éireann notes the present political impasse in Northern Ireland”. To me that is completely inadequate, particularly when you look further down the agenda paper and find that the same Senators have submitted other motions in which they use the words “views with concern”, “deplores the situation” and so forth. I should have preferred it if they had said in their wording of the Motion, either that Seanad Éireann deplores, or views with serious concern, the present political impasse on Northern Ireland.

I emphasise "on Northern Ireland" rather than "in Northern Ireland". It seems to indicate to me that all the solutions should arise within that small territory. The solution to it lies both with the British Government and the Irish Government, first, middle and last, and not with anybody else. It is all very well to talk about reconciliation in social terms and economic terms and even in recreational terms, but without some form of political reconciliation it can be all in vain.

The Minister commented on two aspects which the present Government he said had concentrated on since they came into office—to ensure that power sharing has not been abandoned and that the option of integration is a non-starter. He spoke about cross-Border co-operation talks. Have we gone through so much not only in the whole Thirty-two Counties of Ireland in ten years of deaths and violence and has this part of the country gone through so much in economic cost and even loss of life to have so much made of such little basics, which were there from the outset of 1968 and 1969? Even the present British Prime Minister acknowledged in 1969 that there would have to be some form of power sharing. After ten years must the Government make so much out of insisting that power-sharing should not be abandoned and that the option of integration is a non-starter? Heaven behold the furies of Hell that would fall on the present Government if they were to depart one iota from either of those two issues.

As for cross-Border co-operation, we have been talking about it for the last 30 years and we will have to continue to talk about it. That is not the basic issue before us. It is the question of a political reconciliation. Social or economic, reconciliation would become part and parcel of political reconcilation. Pressure must be put by this Government on the United Kingdom Government. Although many of the things the Unionists in the North say annoy us there is no point in our chaffing at all times at what the Unionists may say. Even if they come within a united Ireland they will continue to say those things which annoy us and we must accept annoyance from minority segments in an overall 32-county situation.

Why are the Government not pressuring the British Government into making the Northern Ireland problem an important issue in the forthcoming British general election? Even Parnell made an issue of home rule in British general elections. Yet this Government seem to stall on that point, to back away from it as if more or less there was an agreement between this Government and the British Government that the Northern Ireland matter should be left until after the British general election, say in October of this year.

With the Government of the day rests the responsibility. The Coalition Government went across to negotiate a Sunningdale settlement, and all that was wrong with Sunningdale was that it came before its time. If it was presented in the same form or in a slightly varied form at the present time I have no doubt that what has happened in Northern Ireland in the past four years since the Sunningdale agreement was negotiated could well have had a far different outcome.

There is one thing I regret about this debate. It has been academic when there should have been more fire in it. It would have had a far greater effect on the British Government had this House "noted with serious concern" the present political impasse on Northern Ireland rather than just to say that we note the present political impasse in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lanigan

A useful exercise has been engaged in here today in this debate on Northern Ireland. The question of whether there is a political impasse or not seems irrelevant.

An Cathaoirleach

As quite a number of Senators wish to get in on this Members should make their contributions even shorter to give everybody a better chance.

Mr. Dowling

How will they get in? I have offered several times.

Mr. Lanigan

I will be brief. I do not think anybody on the Nationalist side should be apologising for holding nationalistic views in the Seanad Chamber or in any other Chamber. I do not think the Protestant people in the North should be in any way inhibited in holding their viewpoint. In political terms, unless we can get a coming together of the separate viewpoints we will not get peace in the North or the type of unity we all want.

The type of unity I look forward to is not political unity; it is a unity of mind, a unity of heart and a unity of ideals. I want the people in the North to be able to live with us without having to worry about the IRA coming in on one side or the UVF coming in on the other side blowing up my children or their children. The children of Ulster should be given a chance. The children of the entire island should be given a chance. Every time there is a bombing or a person killed in the North the number of people affected increases. There is no way a parent can forget the death of a child or a child can forget the death of a parent. There is enough carnage here and in the world at present without the artificial situation of people thinking that by bombing or looting they are going to get the political impasse solved. I do not think the people in the Republic should make any apologies for our aims regarding the people in the North. We do not want to take over the North or to take over Northern Protestants but we would like to live on this island in unity with them and to develop it for the good of the people, whether they be in the North or the South.

Senator Markey said that the people in the North are very businesslike people and that business is one of the things they live for but they should consider what the situation would be if there were no Border. Economically speaking, I suggest that the country would be much better off, North and South. The question of whether we should be pressurising Great Britain to do something in this election year is legitimate but I do not think it will have any effect. The last speaker told us that Parnell worked hard when in power but forgot that Parnell was working from within the British House of Commons; he was not working from Seanad Éireann. We are told that there will be a bloodbath if Britain withdraws but I disagree with that concept. The question of withdrawal has never been mentioned as something that would occur overnight. There would have to be prior consent by everybody on this island before the British could withdraw.

The effects of violence on both sides of the Border have been extreme. I see it in my own family. I never heard anything about violence when growing up except to play cowboys and Indians. However, my children of five or six years of age, if I mention Belfast, will tell me that it is a place where they shoot, rob and kill. They see this on television every night. That is all they know about Belfast. Unfortunately, they are in the situation where violence is now part of their lives. It will be very hard to get that type of violence out of their lives.

We must have a union of minds and forget about political unity for the present. There is a need in the long-term for political unification but if we can get together with the people of the North and discuss their needs and our needs in a rational manner we can solve the problem. A lot has been made of the fact that we do not go over the Border often enough and that is true. How many Members have ever addressed their opposite numbers in political parties in the North? There has been much talk about the use of sport and I think it can have a unifying effect but the history of divisions in sport suggests that this will not even happen. At present we have the IABA and the Ulster Boxing Association in dire straits over the problem of Dublin boxers refusing to travel to the North to take part in competitions because they consider it too dangerous. In athletics we have the BLE, NACA, and the Northern Ireland AAA and they have not come together in years. In rugby, to a degree, there is unity and, hopefully, that unity will continue.

It has been said that Irishmen, Ulstermen or whatever one would like to call them, when they go abroad say that they are playing for Ireland under our national flag and enjoy doing so. Members of other sporting organisations in a Thirty-two County context also enjoy it. I hope this type of unity will spread. I would like to see more teams going North to play Northern teams and more teams from the North coming down here. I would like to see members of our political parties going up North and meeting, not members of the parties of the same viewpoint there, but the opposing sides there. If that happened we might get this unity of mind together rather than unity in terms of political solutions.

Dr. Whitaker

I am disappointed that the increasing time constraint means that one has to put coherence and completeness out of the picture. Indeed, one must discard one's notes. I want to thank the initiators of this most opportune debate and then say a few disjointed things. The first is that, in the "double minority" complex of Northern Ireland, there is no political solution possible which is repugnant to either minority or to either of the sovereign states. This rules out both forms of integration and it means that the assertion of rights must give way to the preeminent need to find a way, and it must be a compromise, in which the two sections in Northern Ireland can put aside their shared fears of domination and discrimination and live together constructively and at peace in a political framework acceptable not only to themselves but also to us and to Britain. If the three parties were able to agree on the fundamentals of a conciliatory solution of this kind our influence in bringing it about would be greatly strengthened.

My main theme is to call for a softening of rigidities on all sides. This is essential if any compromise is to be found. The Taoiseach did well recently in the United States to make it clear that the mere withdrawal of Britain from Northern Ireland would not of itself unite Irishmen and women divided, as he said, by a legacy of bitterness, mutual fear and distrust. Rigidities have to be softened also on the British side. I made the point elsewhere that the guarantee so often given to the majority in the North that they will be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom as long as they so wish is too one-sided. It needs to be complemented by a detailed statement by the British Government of what exactly they meant by the undertaking they gave at Sunningdale to the effect that if in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland the British Government would support that wish. I ask what exactly does that mean? Everybody in these islands is entitled to know what it means if there is to be any option open to the majority in the North to decide between the certainty of staying in, if they so wish, and the conditions on which an alternative Irish solution is available to them.

On the question of rigidities, I have argued elsewhere that we should be cautious about getting committed to permanent power sharing. It is only an intermediate objective; proportional representation is a much sounder basis for a viable democracy in Northern Ireland. There are dangers involved in a too prolonged recourse to power sharing. I accept it is necessary for a time but if it were to be too prolonged it would nullify the role of an Opposition and would carry with it, I think, the risk that a Government crisis would bring down the whole Constitution. Let us put that in its proper perspective.

If we are seeking an intermediate solution it involves compromise. It involves of course, and rightly, a large measure of self-government for Northern Ireland. This, I think, should be based on two essential conditions: one, a form of representative or shared Government for a time, leading back fairly soon to majority rule in a proportional representation system; and two, a Constitution which guarantees proportional representation and basic rights and enshrines the concept that each side in effect must obtain the consent of the other to any major change.

That form of self-government and, indeed, this high degree of independent status for Northern Ireland is, I am convinced, the only way one can hope for a genuine approach towards unity in Ireland. Unity will best come from a shared responsibility in Ireland between Irishmen, perhaps under a federal system of government of the whole country. The approach towards federalism, which can have very small beginnings—say, with EEC affairs, even relating only to agriculture to start with—as time goes on and by agreement will come to embrace other things in which we have shared interests of a very high degree: energy, communications, development of natural resources, health and even cultural, sporting, artistic and other matters.

I am appealing for a softening of rigidity in the political approaches to what must be a compromise, and I am also supporting the Senators who have advocated that we continue to try to show, through our friendship and respect for the Northern people, our willingness to create for them attractive conditions for an Irish alternative to membership of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lambert

I speak as a regular visitor to Northern Ireland during my lifetime, most of which has been consciously or unconsciously devoted to bringing groups together from the various communities in sporting, cultural and business matters, but, I must admit, avoiding politics. I no longer can do that. Realising during a visit to Belfast two weeks ago, that this debate was to take place, I observed more closely the impressions of the people I met. I formed a personal view that, objectionable as the political impasse may have been to many parties, it has allowed the ordinary people to come out of their polarised attitudes and to resume a more normal mode of living. People seem to have got weary of politicians and their various extreme stances and are groping for a grey area of compromise, with everybody giving a little. I sensed a growing interest towards negotiated independence which I am sure many Senators here would hope would lead to a federal solution at some time.

Enormous progress has been made through local church communities in the North, which is proving that reconciliation lies at the grassroots level in building confidence in people to meet other people of different persuasions and to get their trust. Peace Weeks are being held in various towns throughout the province and much work is being done on the ground in small groups working quietly. I do not know whether Senator Hussey is aware of Peace Forum, which was formed in 1976. It does not attract the emotional publicity of the Peace People. Peace Forum is an organisation made up of bodies such as Peace Points, Good neighbours, Action for Peace, PACE, Community of the Peace People, Ulster Quaker Peace Committee, Corrymeela, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Women Together, Witness for Peace, and two recent members, Pax Christi and Irish Justice and Peace Commission. Peace Forum is teaching men and women of all persuasions that they have a say in everything that is involved in human life. As its name implies, it is trying to draw these organisations together. Few people are aware of the enormous progress that is being made to strengthen mutual understanding. So there is hope for the future. If we can support these forums in the North there is hope for flushing out some of the violence.

During the recent impasse, as far as individual relations are concerned, there has been a more receptive climate for co-operation and for making contact on the economic, social and cultural fronts—in other words, anything but political at the moment. Political comment raises people's temperatures. The fact that there was a low-key reaction to the visit of our Minister for Foreign Affairs in my opinion was not only a compliment to him personally but to the deep concern of our Government, which is so often misinterpreted.

Though the Coalition made valiant efforts to achieve a greater understanding by going North among the people, the flamboyancy of the people involved tended to get identified in Northern minds as predictable stances and to detract from the sincerity of their motives and provoke counter-reactions. A most important step that has a favourable impact on all our communities was the first-ever meeting of our two Arts Councils in Belfast. I was very proud, as a Member of Seanad Éireann and as a member of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, to be among the hosts who welcomed our Arts Council to the first-ever joint meeting, something which can result in considerable benefits to the cultural welfare of our island as a whole. I hope to develop this theme in another debate.

Cultural action is an obvious binding force, and whatever political views one holds and whatever the political future may be, the public are discovering some of Ulster's traditional culture. One must admire the broad front in which the Northern Arts Council are embracing the whole facet of community relations. They have a positive drive to sponsor living—and I stress "living", because we are still sponsoring dead artists—artists, poets, painters, writers, actors, musicians, who are focuses of national pride. Through them we in the Republic can also discover a wider identity.

I feel that enormous progress can be made through RTE beaming further into Ulster. RTE have a great opportunity to take the Northern programmes and learn something of the Northern Ireland entertainment.

I have something to say about the "Buy Irish" Campaign because the harmonisation of policies and rates in the North stand in the way. There is the British cheap food policy. The Northern housewife looks cynically at prices in the South and until those matters are resolved we cannot get closer on the economic front.

Mr. Dowling

I am more depressed now than I was when I came into this House this morning. I feel, in an important debate like this, every Senator should have the opportunity to express himself fully. I have great sympathy for those who had to curtail their speeches and those who had no opportunity at all of speaking.

I stand here today as one of the first free born generations of Irishmen to reach maturity. As such I have very strong views on many aspects of the problems under discussion. I would be less than honest if I were to say that I would be prepared to depart from my principles in order to obtain some arrangement in regard to Northern Ireland. I would hold to the values dear to me and to many people here.

Many of the problems that exist today stemmed from violence and the brutality tolerated in the North over the years. I fully subscribe to the views expressed by Senator Eoin Ryan in regard to the problems and their ultimate solution. These problems have been referred to by Senator Lanigan and others though they were not able to develop their points fully and effectively. We do not want any "con" job. It is important that we do not allow British Prime Ministers to "con" the Irish voter into a false sense of security. People must know exactly where they are going and vote accordingly.

Many people have been quoted here. Lloyd George and others, who were "con" men where Irish political affairs were concerned. They may have been all right in their own Parliament but the fact is they never did anything to assist us and British politicians are the same today. I served this nation honourably in arms. I respect the right of every individual fully and effectively to express himself. The only thing I am concerned about is the violence that has been perpetrated by political "hit men" and by paid assassins. That cannot be too strongly condemned. We have paid assassins brought in to disrupt the lives of many Irish people. I hope the ballot and not the bullet will be the effective solution in the future. We must make it clear that men of courage, men who speak out such as the politicians in the North who have spoken out and who have been threatened time and again, will be listened to by the responsible sections of the community. I hope that the day will soon come when the people who are subscribing to the assassination squads will see the folly of their ways. People have subscribed to and assisted by their statements the pursuit of the terrible tragedies that have occurred. Finally, I want to protest at a situation here where Senators are not given the opportunity of fully and effectively expressing themselves in a debate of this nature.

Mr. Jago

We will probably be asked why we are debating this subject here at all. In certain quarters it has been said it is none of our business, that we are a foreign country and so on. It does not take very much to counter that. We are connected with the North through many organisations throughout the whole of the Six Counties and all the Churches of this country. Therefore, we are entitled to speak on this subject because of the effect of what happens in Northern Ireland on our lives down here and because of what will happen in the future if there is any change in the structures in Northern Ireland.

I had talks recently with Northern Ireland hard-headed Protestant businessmen and their attitude is that one day we will be united but not before hard negotiations and on their terms. That is the impression I get of the way that people are thinking up north. Therefore that will be the final stage. In other words, we will be negotiating with the Six Counties on behalf of the Twenty-six Counties, but there will have to be representatives of the Six Counties who represent all the people of the Six Counties. The problem is how are we going to bring that about. On the other hand we will be representing the Twenty-six Counties in negotiations and therefore we will have to show to the people up north that it is worth while both economically and culturally to join with us. When that time comes they will look at the culture of Britain and the culture of the Twenty-six Counties and we will find that we are closer to them in that respect than they are to Britain. That is what we will have to work towards. We cannot have a situation economically that will worsen their position and we cannot have a situation culturally that will be unfavourable in comparison to Britain. The difficulty is how to get to that stage.

At present we have an impasse which we are discussing, that there is nobody there to speak for the North. The North is there because of unilateral British action and any solution must come from Irish action, representative of Irish and by Irish. I am not clear how this can be brought about. The impasse is there because the Unionists will not sit down with the minority because of the different views they hold. There are different views. There is our view on what we see as the final solution. We believe that the only solution is a united Ireland. There is the minority view which agrees with us. We have the Unionists' view and they are entitled to that view. But one can never get over the impasse until somehow or other there is a truce for the time being. That is what we have to aim at initially, a united Northern Ireland. We have to help Northern Ireland to unite to be in a position to bring themselves back from the position in which they are at present through the direct control of Northern Ireland by Britain. They may not speak or act for themselves. It is the responsibility of Britain to create the structures and to bring Northern Ireland back into the position where they can. We should all agree to put our aims aside for a period for the purpose of uniting the people of Northern Ireland and, at the end of that period, Northern Ireland will decide for itself. It is up to us to see that the right decision is made.

Mr. Kennedy

When we speak of Northern Ireland we are disposed to lapse into pessimism or even despair. If anybody feels inclined to take that attitude perhaps he would remember this pertinent fact: the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, through the northern committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, have completely endorsed the campaign for a better way of life, initiated by congress and every Member of this House and every Irishman, north and south of the Border, should give full support to that campaign, based as it is on the contention that peace is a prerequisite for tackling the grave economic and social problems confronting the North.

In fostering that campaign the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have gained the full support of a host of organisations inside and outside this country. We have won the full support of the European Confederation of Trade Unions. We have won the support of the ILO. We have won the support of the British Trade Unions Congress and of a host of trade union and other bodies scattered throughout the world. We have received support and backing on a worldwide basis. Although the workers of the South also support this campaign I am not quite so certain it has the full and active backing of our own Government and the previous administration.

I have no way of confirming it, but I believe whenever our Government, any Government, meets Mr. Mason of the British Government, they talk in terms of the unity of Ireland and the political problems of that unity. But they do not talk in terms of the full support given to economic policies by workers in both North and South. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the previous and present Governments have concentrated on this one aspect, the unity of Ireland.

It is a good thing that the Government should continue to request from the British Government a statement of intent in terms of both communities, but it is more important that the Government should give full backing to the trade union campaign which is supported by all trade unionists in the North and in the South. I suggest that the next time the Government meet Mr. Mason or the British Government they should make it an all-party delegation, which should include all political parties in this part of the State, and they should concentrate on this occasion and on future occasions, in backing the campaign of the congress for a better life for all.

Miss Harney

I congratulate the movers of this motion for giving us an opportunity in Seanad Éireann of discussing the most important political problem that has ever faced this country.

Ireland is a small place and it is sad to think that, less than 70 miles from where we now meet, the values the civilised world holds dear are flouted and the politics of Parliament have given way to the coercion of the gun. There is no doubt that the vast majority of people, North and South, want to live in peace and harmony but, sadly, the activities of a tiny minority of extremists on both sides of the community fence have ensured that this wish is far from fulfilment. The blight of fear that has followed in the wake of the assassin and the gunman has spared no home, no family, nor any individual in Northern Ireland.

But if we ask ourselves what is Ireland, we may be able to come to some sort of a solution as to how to tackle the problem. Ireland is not just a piece of land; neither is it a flag to which we owe our allegiance. It is purely and simply a people of varying traditions and backgrounds. So when we talk about uniting our country we are talking about uniting the people who live in Ireland. Unfortunately, the reality of the Irish division is to be found in the separated communities. What is patriotic to one is branded as treachery by the other. We must look forward to the day when a common patriotism will suppress the sectional loyalties of orange and green.

The principal objectives of Government is to ensure the living standards of its people and to provide a degree of social justice and Christian harmony within a democratic political system. That, unfortunately, was never the case in Northern Ireland and until such time as we find a political settlement that is fair and just to all sections of the people there, we will never have peace in this island.

We cannot over-estimate the role of integrated education in removing the real border of fear, prejudice and distrust between our people. We cannot expect a genuine reconciliation if we perpetuate a sectarian-based system of education. For too long in Northern Ireland somebody got a job or a house simply on the basis of religion. If one was a Catholic one lived in one place and one went to one type of school; if one was a Protestant one lived somewhere else, one worked somewhere else and one went to a different type of school. Until the people of Northern Ireland can respect each other and live together there will never be a solution to the Northern problem.

I am disappointed that Senator Conor Cruise-O'Brien, who has a deep interest in this problem, is unable to be here today to debate the motion. If Senator Cruise-O'Brien was here, one question I would like to ask him is why he continually highlights all that is evil in his fellow Irishman rather than advancing all that is good?

An Cathaoirleach

It is now 4.45 p.m. and I must ask Senator Martin to conclude the debate.

Dr. Martin

There are only two speakers left in the House and it is very undesirable that they should have sat through the whole five hours without getting an opportunity to speak so I would be glad to yield them a few minutes.

Miss Harney

I would like to thank Senator Martin for allowing us to finish our speeches. Senator Cruise-O'Brien's references to Fianna Fáil as continually beating the old green drum and so on are things that grab headlines but they do not make much sense and they do nothing to further the cause of Irish unity. Unlike Senator Cruise-O'Brien, I believe that the Irish people are a constructive nation and they would not resort to violence too easily. Unfortunately, the vacuum created by the inadequacy of political solutions will continue to be filled by the bomb and the bullet so long as compromise and negotiation fall victim to entrenched political attitudes. Together, we as legislators, must try to build a type of Ireland that is a pluralist one, one which will be richer for the full participation of our different traditions. It must be a tolerant Ireland, tolerant in religious and constitutional matters, free from bitterness, bigotry and bloodshed.

My generation, the younger people North and South of the Border, will strive to build that type of Ireland but we, as legislators, must give them the lead. It is up to us to ensure that the people here can be brought together to live in peace and harmony and that all of us can have a decent standard of living in this very small country.

Mr. Donnelly

I would like to thank Senator Martin for very graciously conceding valuable time in this case. We have been able to have a particularly positive, constructive and different debate here today than we could have had a year ago. A year ago we would have had to deal with allegations and misrepresentations, not just of Fianna Fáil policy, but of the policy and the attitudes which are held by the vast majority of the people here.

The general election emphatically answered those points and it would be presumptuous to reiterate them now. The fact is, we had a decisive ruling by the people a year ago and they were able to discriminate in the degree in which they dismissed the previous Government, discriminating against those who were particularly associated with the misrepresentation of the traditional attitude of the vast majority of the people here towards its social and political development.

There are three essential elements in working out the political structures and the approach which should encompass all the excellent ideas that have been put forward here today. Responsibility rests with the British Government, with ourselves and with the elected representatives of North of Ireland when they reemerge and hopefully they will, reemerge very soon. The immediate responsibility rests with the British Government. Reference has been made repeatedly to the obvious fact that they intend to do nothing until the British general election has come and gone. It hardly seems four years since we heard that very same being said. We should note that the statement and the communique issued by the Taoiseach following his meeting with the British Prime Minister was encouraging and showed a realisation of the situation in the North and a responsible attitude by the British Prime Minister.

Britain continues to shelve its real and immediate responsibility in this matter because the situation in the North does not threaten the existence of the British Government regardless of how that Government may be composed. If the deaths, destruction and violence which have taken place in the North over the last eight years had taken place in Britain there would be something like 50,000 people dead and nearly 500,000 people wounded. If that type of death and destruction and maiming had taken place in Britain arising out of a political and a social cause there would be no question of leaving a solution until after the general election. The ability to hold a general election itself would be threatened. The political institutions in Britain, the British themselves, would be threatened by that fact. I emphasise Britain's responsibility because to get it moving they must take immediate action and take a creative and courageous decision.

What we seek is a political system which will ensure fair representation of the various political opinions and will ensure fair participation in the executive decision making. That is the structure which is absolutely essential if the administration in the North is to have the support of the vast majority of the people in that area. That is where Britain's immediate responsibility lies. At that stage there is a tremendous opening for areas of co-operation where no point of principle is ceded but where there are distinctive mutual advantages in the areas of cross-Border co-operation and particularly in the areas where the European Economic Community can assist and strengthen the ability to co-operate economically.

At the moment the regional fund is being divided into two sections. The second section will be fairly small but it is a section which is not based on regional quotas. It is specifically designed to assist in Border areas. This is a tailor-made source of funds for the situation which exists in the Border areas because no place north or south has suffered more than the Border areas because of the existence of Partition and because of its continuation. This co-operation can continue indefinitely with an almost infinite number of opportunities for extension. There will also be ample opportunity for both administrations here to examine how they may co-operate beyond the economic level. This would be on a basis of step by step mutual negotiations. Unification, by definition, means an evolved negotiated system. It involves a peaceful orderly transition to unification. Violence is contradictory in terms when we consider ways of achieving unification. Unification cannot take place nor can any meaningful progress even begin except in circumstances of harmony and peace and in that sense the vast majority of the people in this State who believe in unification are advocating a policy of peace which will maintain and give a basis for permanent peace. That step by step negotiation, those areas of co-operation, are effectively the implementation of what has always been a basic democratic republican approach to the problem. Republicanism is what it has always been, something that belongs to the people. It is essentially democratic and a truly democratic system cannot endanger any tradition in this country, north or south.

Dr. Martin

As a framer of the motion with Senator Hussey and Senator West, I would like to defend what Senator Markey characterised as the rather academic posture of its formulation, that is that we merely note the impasse. That was quite deliberate. We did not wish to make it a polemical motion. We wished to make it as neutral as possible. We had hoped that the debate that would arise would be reasoned and calm and compassionate as the Minister for State has already described it. Our expectations have been richly fulfilled by the debate. I see no reason to regret that we made it a neutral rather than a pointed or a polemical motion. I would also like to thank the Minister for State for his patience and for his obvious interest in the entire debate and for his thoughtful presentation on the subject of Northern Ireland and our attitude towards it.

I would like to state my own views on it first and fulfil the role of winding up the debate. There is no hope of summarising it. If I were to try to wind up the debate in any kind of formal way I would lose all opportunity of saying anything on my own behalf and notorious for my modesty that I am I do not propose to let that opportunity lapse.

I should like to make a formal proposition first and I am the first to make it today even though I think it was in a sense implicit in what many of the Senators already said. The time has come to draw up a draft constitution for a united Ireland, to publish it and to offer it for commentary to the political parties and for the ordinary citizens of both North and South and indeed of Britain. Ideally this draft constitution, this proposed constitution, should be an all-party document. It should be a very brief document. It should be largely a Bill of rights in which basic rights were allowed. That would answer a number of needs at the moment. One of them is a constantly reiterated one. I go North a little myself and I speak a good deal to Northern Unionists. One of the things that they are saying now—they were not saying it before but they are saying it now—is that in the South we put nothing on paper. They were not even bothered about what we thought a few years ago but they have come that little bit closer. The phrase that was used twice by two different Ulster Unionists is that "Lynch really has put nothing on paper" and I do not think they will be swayed by drawing attention either to the Minister of State's speech today, lucid and reassuring as it was, or indeed to the 1975 document of the Fianna Fáil Party. They want something a little more formalised than that. If this constitution could be put up for discussion it would focus a good deal of attention and help to clarify the minds of what everybody has in mind or what everybody would have in terms of aspirations or in terms of a vision of a united or Thirty-two County Ireland.

I disagree with my colleague, Senator Murphy, who says that we should abolish Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. I consider that profoundly impractical because to do that you would have to put it to a referendum of the people of the South and that would raise hackles in all kinds of extreme places. It would make of the whole issue an egregious football as has happened in the past. I do not think that tinkering with the Constitution here and there will impress anybody in the North any more than the removal of Article 44 had any kind of real impact. The Constitution we have at the moment is perfectly suitable to our needs. It is not nearly as theocratic or as disgraceful a Constitution as it is being held up to be. In fact it has proved to be a very good Constitution recently on the whole issue of contraception when the Magee case went to the Supreme Court. It was discovered that embodied in that document which had been characterised as being Catholic and ignoble was the means to have recourse to a liberal decision in that particular matter.

In other words the Constitution, while it may not be good for all time, will do for the moment. It would be much better to frame a draft constitution which we would undertake to implement in the case of a United Ireland or something approaching that. I appeal to the men of violence of every side but particularly to the IRA to cease their violence. I hope they are not immune to pleading. The violence has obviously been bankrupt and at the moment it seems that there is light on the horizon. The last time we had a debate in the Seanad on this subject—and here I support Senator Donnelly—the air was radioactive with violence, with mythologies of four green fields, with a sort of republican ideology. One could almost hear these things throbbing even though they were being repressed and although it was a restrained debate.

Today there has been no sense of that kind of tension. We have moved into a different phase and it is in the background of this different phase that I put forward that positive proposal because the time has come to try to focus the attention of Northern Ireland Unionists on ourselves and indeed on the possibilities of the future. Part of the background which is relevant to the putting forward of that is of course the whole democratic background which has come up for so much discussion of late. I mention merely two points—both of which have been already mentioned or at least glanced at—but one implacable fact seems to be that the population of the North in the year 2000 will have a majority of Catholics. Side by side with that is the quoted statistic which appeared in The Irish Times of yesterday that the 15-year olds in the North are 50-50 as between Catholic and Protestant at the moment. There is an implacable and it seems an inexorable movement in the North demographically which suggests that if the Northern Unionists do not move now history will overtake them. They will have the humiliation of being outbred by their Catholic fellow countrymen. Of course that would be a very bad solution to the problem. It would be much better if that situation were anticipated by enlightened politicians anticipating it in terms of enlightened organs and structures of government and of agreement.

I agree with Senator Whitaker when he says that there is the interim notion of power sharing which is in a sense a kind of an artificial form of Government but probably essential as a half-way house here. That is probably essential but I do not see it as being absolutely essential. Against that background it would be possible to interest the Northern Ireland Unionists—the more enlightened of them—to think in terms of this situation.

The other point which I thought was brilliantly made by Senator McGowan and made by Senator Conroy is the fact that our economy is not great but that it is obviously better at the moment than the Northern Ireland economy. It is becoming visible, even to the most blinkered of Northern Unionists, that the general standard of living in the South is at least comparable to that in the North at the moment if not better despite the fact that in the North they are getting something like £1 million a day in terms of subsidy. That is another kind of fact. These are the kind of facts that always have been canvassed in the past when we have discussed the possible coming together of the two sides of the country and the two communities. These are the kinds of facts that do appeal to Northern Ireland Protestant businessmen. The instances given by Senator McGowan about people moving across the Border to the South and of course the general background of an EEC horizon all provide the rhetoric for a very sensible kind of approach towards the problem. It is against that background that the cross-Border traffic which is so desired by Members on every side of the House is another essential part of it.

The situation has improved in respect of artistic, tourist, economic and social co-operation. More new people have gone North since the trouble began. That raises the question that was raised also by Senator Whitaker. I presume that what he meant when he referred to the Sunningdale Agreement and to that rather cryptic statement that if in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland the British Government would support that wish. Would they support that wish with applause or with money? I presume that is the question that was in the Senator's mind. Would the British Government for instance so support that wish as to continue for at least a limited amount of time their subsidies towards Northern Ireland while a united Ireland began to form? It would be very interesting to know what do the British Government mean by that or do they still mean it. Obviously if such a radical change as we envisage could be achieved by some kind of persuasion it could not be achieved if those subsidies were suddenly withdrawn. I presume that the intentions of the British Government would be to keep those subsidies going until a stable, political and economic situation had been achieved.

What I am saying in these final few remarks is that at this particular moment in the history of the Northern Ireland problem there is a very great opportunity. The opportunity has come out of exhaustion. That is a remark that was made by John Laird today in an interview with Renagh Holohan in The Irish Times. It is also interesting that John Laird said we need something on paper. What do we need?

With regard to the entire situation and the setting up of forces against this possible situation where there is a cessation of violence, you will need to be able to reactiviate the political life of the province. What has happened in a way is that people, through exhaustion, have provided what looked like a temporary peace. If we could have that copper-fastened by a cessation of violence by the IRA or a declaration of that kind it would be possible that new political structures could evolve. It is even more urgent that this should happen because one of the inevitable results of direct rule has been the emasculation and the starving of the best political energies and intelligences in Northern Ireland. I am thinking of parties like the SDLP and the Alliance Party, people who have really poured an enormous amount of creative energy and intelligence into the creation of structures there and who have really had the ground pulled from under them by the dissolution and collapse of the power-sharing executive and Sunningdale. It has meant that they have been politicians without a brief and without a salary. If they sink from sight—and necessity could force them to—within 12 to 18 months it would be a great pity because they have the experience and have lived through the heat of the day. When the hostilities have ceased there will be a great opportunity for initiative. The initiative should be very large and energetic and creative. I say this against a longer-term vision. At the moment there is a cessation, or there seems to be something like it, and we will keep our fingers crossed. Exhaustion and apathy have taken the ardour out of the military initiative. That is only a temporary situation. Since the founding of Northern Ireland there have been cycles of violence. At the moment we are talking about a delinquent generation in Northern Ireland that have been reared of violence. It is unthinkable that that violence will not, after a long rest, come to a head again. In other words, if the trough is not exploited, if we do not take advantage of the trough, we will be hit hard and powerfully by the crest when the wave rises again.

It is against that background that I would make an appeal to the Minister for State and ask that he convey it to the Government. I appeal to them and to the other political parties here to do something imaginative and startling like setting up an all-party committee to draw up a short constitution concentrating on human rights which would be guaranteed for all in the event of an agreed united Ireland some time in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.15 p.m. on Thursday, 8 June 1978 until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 June 1978.