Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Oct 1981

Vol. 96 No. 1

Constitutional and Legislative Review: Motion.

Mrs. G. Hussey

I move:

That Seanad Éireann notes with approval the views expressed by the Taoiseach in the course of an RTE radio interview on 27 September, 1981, on the desirability of creating within this island conditions favourable to unity through a reconciliation of its people and towards this end of undertaking in this State a Constitutional and legislative review.

The Taoiseach, in waiving his right to introduce this motion to the Seanad, has indicated his wish to hear the contributions from all sides of the House before making his own intervention. I am sure that all Senators will welcome this compliment to the House.

It is indeed a privilege and personal pleasure for me in my first speech as Leader of the Seanad to ask this House to approve of the views expressed by the Taoiseach in his interview of 27 September. It is certainly appropriate that the Seanad should be chosen as the forum to inaugurate a debate, which I hope will have the greatest possible benefits for all the Irish people. The present membership of the Seanad is, as it has been in the past, representative of a wide section of Irish society. It contains men and women who are often free from obligations to constituents in small geographical areas, it has a tradition of independence of outlook and openness of views, which I hope will be fully maintained in this debate. It contains members of the major political parties and also those who owe allegiance to no party. I hope that, in this debate, we may all be regarded as "independent" in the best sense of the word.

Because of the very nature of the Taoiseach's appeal it must transcend all narrow boundaries of party allegiance, religious conviction and sectional interest. We are speaking today as Irish men and women. If there were ever any doubts about the need for the Taoiseach to have spoken as he did, they must have been dispelled by the strong and varied responses to his remarks.

He has been accused by political opponents in the Republic of being in some way anti-Irish. But look at the reactions of those Irishmen who have no political capital to make out of criticising another Irish politician. The SDLP and Alliance Parties have welcomed his words: leaders of the minority Churches in the Republic and the majority Churches in Northern Ireland have welcomed them too. Even a staunch Unicnist like Mr. William Craig castigates some of his colleagues for the lukewarm response they made to what he saw as a generous and courageous lead by the Taoiseach. The widow of Brian Faulkner, a man who tried in his way to break old sectarian moulds in the North, has welcomed them too. Before him, Éamon de Valera led the people in the way he thought we ought to go.

However, I am happy to pay tribute to Mr. Jack Lynch's intentions when he said, in the context of constitutional change and Northern Ireland, at a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in, I think, 1972:

If there are nettles to be grasped, we will grasp them.

The subsequent decade of terrible violence is, of course, the reason why he did not proceed. In 1967 a Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution recommended changes in Article 3 — changes which would have profoundly altered its tone and meaning. It is enormously to his credit that the present leader of the Opposition party in this House was a signatory to that decision, along with five other prominent members of his party.

It is a measure of the failure of violence and the bitterness it engendered on both sides that the report of that Committee has progressed no further in the 14 years since its completion.

Times change. They have changed more in Ireland during the sixties and seventies than any time since the foundation of the State. It is not only desirable but necessary that we examine the relevance and value for the 1980's of parts of our Constitution and sections of our laws.

If the main public response in Ireland to the Taoiseach's appeal has come from the Protestant and Unionist communities, that is because among them exists the greatest fear and suspicion of the type of society we have in the Republic. Their fears and suspicions may not, we feel, be entirely reasonable, but they are nonetheless real, as anyone who has taken the trouble to talk to them will know. W.B. Yeats articulated this fear of sectarianism when he said in this House in 1925, referring to the prohibition on divorce:

I think it is tragic that within three years of this country gaining its independence, we should be discussing a measure which a minority of this nation considers to be grossly offensive... we against whom you have done this thing are no petty people... we are the people of Burke, of Grattan, of Swift, of Emmett, of Parnell.

The tone is strident, the complaint exaggerated, but the fear was there. Twelve years after he spoke those words, the "grossly offensive" measure which he referred to was enshrined in Article 41 of the Constitution, where it remains.

The Taoiseach struck a responsive chord in the minds of more than politicians and religious leaders. Ordinary citizens of this country have been heartened and pleased that at last we have a leader who will lead. Not since the time of Seán Lemass have we had a Taoiseach who will replace pious aspiration with real action.

If the 1922 Constitution was replaced because Mr. de Valera thought another one more suitable for the uncertain thirties, why should there be any howls of outrage when, nearly 50 years later, we propose to examine the 1937 document? The tradition of self-examination and self-criticism is a praise-worthy Irish characteristic. None of us likes criticism from a foreigner, but have we become so complacent in our independent State, that we cannot tolerate constructive criticism from within? Our greatest writers of this century — Joyce, Stephens, O'Casey, Yeats and Shaw — have all been critical of the limitations of Irish society, as they saw them. Have they abased us in the eyes of the world, have they made us ashamed of our people?

The attitude that says "We are fine and society is fine, we hear no evil, nor do we see it", is the attitude of those scornfully termed "the Castle Catholics" in the early years of this century, those who wished to maintain the status quo. It was in defiance of such stultifying complacency that Parnell, Griffith, Pearse, de Valera and Collins acted, inspired by the ideal of a New Ireland, each in the way he saw best.

That state which does not grow declines. We must not fear finding faults. We must throw off the blinkered vision, the backward glance, the blind adherence to old forms. Shaw said in 1928:

We can recover our nerve only by forcing ourselves to face new ideas, proving all things and standing by that which is good.

One point must be made clear. We do not seek change merely to cajole or seduce in some way the Northern Unionists into a United Ireland. As the Taoiseach said in his radio interview, he has observed this State grow into the sort of State of which Tone and Davis, fathers of true Irish Republicanism, would have been ashamed; a State imbued by the ethos of one church, the church of the majority who live in this part of Ireland. Remember Tone's words about what he wanted:

"To unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of all past dissensions and to substitute the common name of Irishman in place of the denomination of Protestant, Catholic and dissenter".

Have we, in this part of Ireland, abolished the memory of past dissensions? Have we not rather compounded the political partition that the British established, with an attitude of further partition, separating ourselves even further from fellow Irishmen by institutions and laws that were repugnant to many of them?

All of us, no matter what our political convictions, are guilty. W.T. Cosgrave's public morality laws of the twenties were as blatantly sectarian as parts of Mr. de Valera's 1937 Constitution. If the Civil War split us, we have been united ever since in perpetuating a blinkered opposition to necessary reform either out of fear of the episcopal crozier, or latterly, by making the excuse that reform would have validity only in the context of a united Ireland.

If reform and change would be good for us Irish men and women in the context of a united Ireland, then it is good for us here at present. Conversely, reform, as Unionist reaction to the Taoiseach's speech has shown, can only help to break down the psychological border of suspicion, ignorance and misunderstanding that exists between the two parts of Ireland and our different traditions.

What areas of sectarianism or denominationalism spring to mind? What reforms can be brought about? The difficulty here is that the fragmentation of our society is often based on the intangible. A person's name, the school he went to, where he works, where he lives, can often bracket him as different. He is a Protestant; he is a Catholic; he is a Jew. Barriers go up.

Why are there hospitals of different religious denominations in this country, and has this led to a reaction so that some hospitals will employ nurses of a particular religion only? Is there any sectarianism in our adoption practices? Has the Irish language been used as a lever against Protestants unwilling to study it? Is the present Family Planning Act couched in language of one denomination? How much have the Department of Education over-facilitated the religious orders in the setting up of new community and comprehensive schools? Why are the community's national schools still divided along religious lines? Why has there not been a proliferation of Dalkey and Bray-type school projects? Has the Gaelic Athletic Association, that powerful, noble and historic body, fallen into the trap — so easy and so widespread — of confusing Irishness with membership of one church?

Of course, the respective churches must be assisted to provide education for their members. Where would we be today without education by religious orders? It is not the job of the State, nor her legislators, to enshrine in the Constitution or laws of this country the ethos of any one church or denomination.

The review of the Constitution ordered by the Taoiseach and the laws that will be reviewed in the coming months and years should be approached in a constructive spirit. Whatever our views are of individual reforms, to oppose even an investigation into possible areas of reform is unworthy of any state which has confidently managed its own affairs for 60 years.

I have said that the Taoiseach's proposal to review our laws and Constitution is necessary for the well-being of our own State. It is doubly urgent because of the Northern Ireland problem. It is not only a tragic dilemma for the people of Northern Ireland. We feel the very serious effects to our whole economy; to our tourism, which suffers repeated blows year after year; to the investment of foreign industry in this country — we will never know the extent to which that has been deflected; to the massive security bill which this violent undercurrent in our society faces us with. All of these are direct and heavy burdens on the progress of this State, caused by the present political impasse. It is time that every new avenue was explored because so many have failed. It is too easy to ignore the problem or describe it as a "diversion".

Most important of all, the Nationalist community and the Unionists in the North are Irishmen and Irishwomen. The Preamble to the Constitution states that we, the people of Ireland, "take unto ourselves this Constitution". For whom did that Constitution speak? Were one million Irish people of the Unionist tradition in the North consulted in its drafting? Are we speaking for them in the Constitution when we speak vauntingly of the "re-integration of the national territory"?

Most of us in this part of Ireland would welcome an Ireland united in allegiance and ideals. But what have we done to help move towards that day? Have we not unwittingly, perhaps, helped to confirm the worst suspicions of those who shouted "No surrender"? The fact that we, speaking in the Upper House of the Oireachtas, ask these questions, may help to allay these suspicions. By giving a lead it may also help a new generation of Northerners to move away from the extreme sectarianism which was such a feature of their society.

Our common links with Northern Ireland do not need to be enumerated. Let me just mention one thing that has united Irishmen, North and South, for many centuries; our love of the catch-cry, the emotive phrase, the ringing denunciation. How does an alternative sound? A common purpose, united aspirations, a new Ireland? It sounds very good to me.

While we try to build a new Ireland in the Republic we should, where possible, encourage many links, formal and informal, between the people of our country. If we are serious in our desire for unity, we can all do something about it. Seán Lemass went to Stormont and opened and era in Northern Ireland relations. It is just as important that links be formed between the ordinary people of both traditions, those whose minds and hearts must accept change before they can live together. The Taoiseach's proposals point us in this direction.

We can hardly fail to be aware that we are living in a young country. We have a new generation of Senators and Deputies whose duty it is to reflect and to lead the idealism and lack of prejudice of the young people of Ireland, qualities which are, I know, shared by many of us who perhaps are not quite so young. There is a need for the Constitution and the laws of this State to reflect the changes that all of us can see around us.

Those who live outside the Republic, perhaps especially our fellow Irishmen in Northern Ireland, may not, through culpable or forgiveable ignorance, realise just how much we have changed in our attitude during the past ten years or so. A new spirit of tolerance, the realisation that the legislators must legislate in the interests of all our people, must now be put into practice.

In the medieval context a crusade has been defined as "an aggressive movement against public evil". This is not the spirit of the Irish crusade the Taoiseach wishes to lead in the eighties. Our crusade is a long-awaited movement towards Irish unity, a movement whose momentum cannot be sustained merely by the approving nods of Irish citizens, or an occasional letter in the morning papers. Unity in Ireland, to which all of us aspire, must be, first and foremost, a unity of minds and ideals enshrined in a Constitution and in laws for all the people of Ireland.

I hope that we in this House are magnanimous enough to follow the lead the Taoiseach has given. If we do then, "we the people of Ireland" in the words of the Constitution, may be proud to live in a country which really does cherish in our institutions, as well as in our aspirations, all the children of the Irish nation equally.

Mr. Ferris

I second the motion. I should like first to concur with the Leader of the House in her comments about our appreciation of the signal honour conferred by the Taoiseach on the House by his presence during the debate on this motion.

An Cathaoirleach

I am very slow to interrupt the Senator, but the practice has been for Government motions to be moved and their seconding assumed. It would be contrary to the practice and procedure in the House to have two substantive speeches before the Opposition had a chance to come in. I would ask Senator Ferris to formally second the motion.

Mr. Ferris

This may have been the normal practice but Standing Orders permit a motion to be proposed and seconded in the House. I am quite sure that, as this is not a Private Members' motion, ample time will be allowed for everybody to debate it properly. My party are signatories to this motion and we feel we have the right, in seconding it, to speak formally to it.

Mr. E. Ryan

I move the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"solemnly declares its support for the Constitution of Ireland and the assurance it contains for the dignity and freedom of the individual and the attainment of a true social order;

repudiates the Taoiseach's deplorable and unfounded allegations of sectarianism in our laws and in the administration of our affairs;

condemns the Taoiseach's divisive statements which have damaged the cause of a united Ireland based on reconciliation and a respect for the many different traditions in this island;

re-affirms its conviction that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution express the unalterable aspiration of the great majority of the Irish people to the unity of Ireland."

Before speaking to the motion, I should like to congratulate the Cathaoirleach on his election to his present position. He has served a long apprenticeship in this House and he is certainly a very suitable person for the position. I assure him that we on this side of the House will give him every possible co-operation in the future. I should also like to congratulate Senator Hussey on her appointment as Leader of the House. I hope the proposals she will make to the House from time to time will usually be ones which we will find it possible to accept but I am sure it will not always be possible for her to do so.

Finally, I should like to welcome the Taoiseach to the House in his present capacity. He was, of, course, a Member of this House for a number of years. He is an old boy of the House, and I assure him that he is always welcome in this House either in his present capacity or in his former one. I assure him that he will always be welcome, even though we may not always be able to accept the views and proposals he puts forward.

It is indeed to express our opinion on views put forward by the Taoiseach that we are here to discuss this motion. I have to express again my genuine concern that we should be asked to discuss this motion without being in a position to read the transcript of the interview which was given on RTE. We got the transcript this morning but some of us got it at a very late stage. I do not think any of us had an opportunity to read it completely through; certainly we did not have the opportunity to ponder it or consider the ramifications of the views which were expressed in it. Therefore, in attempting to talk on this motion we will be seriously handicapped and I do not think we will be able to give the proper consideration or due regard to the very important points which were made by the Taoiseach in this interview.

However, the proposal in the motion refers to a constitutional and legislative review and the Taoiseach referred on a number of occasions in the interview to the necessity of introducing a new Constitution. It was not merely a question of amending a few Articles; he referred on a number of occasions to the desirability of a completely new Constitution. I do not believe there is any necessity for any amendment of the Constitution at present, but even if there was a necessity for an amendment, even if a case could be made for a number of amendments, then I would be arguing that only such amendment as seemed to be necessary should be passed. There should be no question of doing away with the present Constitution and introducing a new one. The Constitution which was introduced in 1937 has served us well for more than 40 years. In spite of the criticism which it received in the early stages most people now would admit that it did serve us well, that it protected the rights of the citizen, provided a guideline for social legislation and that in many ways it was of tremendous help to the growth of our democratic system, the growth of our political system. It would be wrong of us to talk about abolishing the Constitution and introducing a new one. It has protected us, it has protected our citizens, it has protected our institutions and we in this House owe it to that Constitution that we should protect it when it now seems to be coming under fire.

It must be appreciated that the Constitution is not merely a book of rules, that by looking in the Constitution we can fully understand what is in it, the important principles and decisions that have been made in that Constitution. It is impossible to understand the Constitution without referring to the many legal cases and Supreme Court decisions which have clarified and interpreted the Constitution as time went on. Some of these interpretations and clarifications were necessary due to the efflux of time. Some were necessary because there were a number of different ways of interpreting the Constitution. These interpretations have taken place over many years and our Legislature and courts have now very important guidelines as to what is permissible under the Constitution. It would be folly to abandon the valuable code of constitutional law and practice which has been built up over these years and to introduce a new Constitution and have to build up these interpretations and practices again.

The apparent enthusiasm with which the Taoiseach proposed on a number of occasions that the Constitution should be scrapped and a new one introduced is a totally misplaced enthusiasm. If this is one of his new brooms it is one which we can very well do without.

The Taoiseach referred repeatedly in the interview, in so far as it is possible to refer to the interview, to sectarianism and gave the impression that it was rampant in this country. That is not an unfair impression of his references to sectarianism. He did not merely pick one or two cases, but gave the impression that it was something that was widespread, something that had been not only permitted but in fact encouraged by our Legislature, by our people and by our institutions. Instead of giving examples of sectarianism he merely confined himself to two examples and had to go back 50 years for one, and that was long before the Constitution we are talking about was introduced. The second example he gave was about the recent Family Planning Act. The record of his party on this subject is so ludicrous that he was very unwise indeed to take it as an example. In any event the impression that sectarianism is widespread is quite unjustified. By throwing it out and doing nothing to substantiate the claim the Taoiseach did a great disservice to the country. The examples he gave suggest very much that he was scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to find something as an example. If there are other examples and if he can go into more detail to show that sectarianism is, in fact, a serious aspect of our life and institutions, he should give us some examples of what he has in mind. I do not doubt that there are some examples of sectarianism but they are by no means as widespread or as important as he suggested in his interview. The Oireachtas over the years has gone out of its way to ensure in the Bills which were introduced that sectarianism was not an aspect of them. It has gone out of its way as far as possible to ensure that sectarianism was not present in our laws, institutions and way of life. If this is not so, and if the position is as bad as the Taoiseach suggested, why has he not done something about it long before now?

His party have been part of three unforgettable Coalition Governments. They were in power on three different occasions. They had every opportunity to get rid of some of these examples of sectarianism. They had the responsibility not to introduce any Bill that could be described as sectarian. In view of the fact that they have been in power on three occasions and in view of the fact that Fine Gael have been Members of these two Houses during all these years why was something not done? Why were these examples of sectarianism not dealt with or brought up in debate? Why were not Bills introduced to get rid of these aspects? Why were Bills introduced by Fianna Fáil not resisted and opposed by members of Fine Gael if they were considered to be sectarian?

It is impossible to accept this sudden enthusiasm, this sudden concern about sectarianism in view of the fact that nothing has been done during all these years by the Taoiseach or by his party in relation to what now seems to become a burning issue and something of which we should all be ashamed. I do not believe that this state of affairs exists and throwing it out in the way the Taoiseach has done has done a great deal of harm. One could dismiss these views if that was the end of them but the fact is that these views will be quoted with enthusiasm by those people who have been saying in the past that sectarianism existed in this part of the country, by those people who oppose any question of a united Ireland, by those who resist any effort that we have been making in this part of the country to achieve reconciliation eventually to arrive at a united Ireland. A great deal of harm has been done and it will become increasingly clear in the future just how much harm has in fact been done.

In so far as it is possible to know from a very brief reading of the transcript, from reading the papers and so on, the Taoiseach in referring to a new Constitution or amendments was talking in particular about Articles 2 and 3 and about Article 41. It can be argued that Article 41 is an example of sectarianism, although many would regard it as a much more fundamental Article, as an Article which was protecting not the views of a particular religion but our social order, our way of life. But in any event, even if it could be argued that it was sectarian and should be amended, I would suggest that the removal of this Article would of itself achieve nothing because the views of the people of this country are so strong on this question that it would be futile merely to amend this Article or delete it until such time as there is a broad consensus as to the kind of law which should be passed to deal with the problem of the breakdown of marriages. This is something to which we can apply ourselves. This is a very genuine problem. It is something we will have to discuss in the future but until such time as there is some measure of agreement, some solution, some way of dealing with this problem, merely to amend Article 41 would of itself serve no purpose.

As regards Articles 2 and 3, I would like to comment that these Articles and the comments that have been made in the papers, and the debate, in so far as there has been a debate, seem to be lumped in to these Articles in the Constitution which are sectarian. Of course these Articles have nothing whatever to do with sectarianism. The Taoiseach was right in suggesting that Fianna Fáil would not agree to a referendum to delete these Articles from the Constitution. There are many reasons why we adopt this attitude. First, we would resist this — and it is not the most important point — because there is nothing to be gained by deleting these two Articles. We would make no impression on the people whom we hope to impress, the people who we hope will talk to us about the future of this country.

The day after the Taoiseach gave his interview we had comments from Mr. Paisley, Mr. Molyneaux and several others, all of whom immediately dismissed this proposal as being of no consequence to them, as being none of their business, as being something that they had no interest in. Therefore, deleting these Articles will certainly not make any progress or be any help at all in reconciling the people in the North with the people in the South. A good example of making this kind of amendment was the amendment of Article 44 some years ago — the one having special reference to religion, to the Catholic Church. That was an Article mentioned often by Unionists, but from the time the Article was removed there was no further reference to it and in so far as there was any comment it was the same kind of comment, that it was of no interest and of no consequence whatever to the people in the North. The same would apply to the deletion of Articles 2 and 3.

That is not the most important aspect of our objection to this proposal. It must be remembered that there are other people in the Six Counties besides Unionists and very often when we talk about reconciliation, when we talk about the problem of achieving a united Ireland, when we talk about ways in which we could meet the people of the North half way, have some kind of compromise with them, we speak as though everybody in the Six Counties was a Protestant, was a Unionist, was a person who held the views propounded by Mr. Paisley and Mr. Molyneaux. We should always remember that 35 per cent or more of the people in the Six Counties are nationalists. They are people who have entirely different views. If we introduced an amendment of Articles 2 and 3 would the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh or Derry, most of whom are nationalists, who believe as we believe in a united Ireland, thank us for solemnly amending the Constitution to the effect that the counties they live in are no longer part of Ireland? Would they thank us for abandoning them and abandoning their claim to be Irish citizens? Have no doubt about it, that would be the position. It is the only possible interpretation that could be put on a proposal, or a referendum deleting Articles 2 and 3.

It is good to think about the attitude of the Unionists and consider how we can have reconciliation with them, but in doing what is proposed we certainly must do something which would be totally abhorrent to those other people in the Six Counties who are very strong in their feeling that there should be a united Ireland, that there is an Irish nation and they are members of that nation.

The Taoiseach has referred to Tone and Davis and has asked what their attitude would be to the present situation in Ireland and to our views on certain matters. We should consider also not merely Tone and Davis but the millions of men of no property who down through the centuries fought and died for the concept of a free and united Ireland, for the survival of the Irish nation. They fought and usually they lost, but as long as the claim was continued, as long as they fought, as long as they claimed that there was an Irish nation which deserved to be united and free, then the concept and the claim were maintained. What would all those people over the centuries think of what we are being asked to do, namely to delete Article 2 of the Constitution, to say that it is no longer our aspiration and belief that, and I quote Article 2:

"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas"?

We would in effect be saying that Ireland now consisted of 26 counties. It would be extraordinary if we, the free people of this part of the country, for no good reason and under no threat of violence or any of the things which our forebears had to put up with, should be asked to concede voluntarily what countless generations of our ancestors defended with their lives.

The Taoiseach said that this amendment of Articles 2 and 3 will not be made because Fianna Fáil would not agree to it or support it. It is correct that Fianna Fáil will not support it, but he is being less than fair to the members of Fine Gael and Labour. I think he underestimates their patriotism, their sense of history and their political commonsense in suggesting that it is only Fianna Fáil who are opposed to the deletion of Articles 2 and 3. I am perfectly certain that thousands and thousands of supporters of Fine Gael and Labour throughout the country would not support the deletion of these two articles. Indeed, I believe many members of these two parties in this House today are far from happy with this proposal. Be that as it may, the Taoiseach is correct in saying that Fianna Fáil will not support this crusade, this proposal to reject and abandon those people in Ulster who share our concept of the Irish nation.

Let us stop just for a moment and consider what would be likely to happen it Fianna Fáil did support this proposal. If we supported the other two parties, if we said we would support it in a referendum, I am quite certain that in spite of the support and recommendation of all three parties hundreds of thousands in this country would not vote for the proposal. Many people would oppose it no matter what recommendation they got from any party and they would be a very sizeable minority if, in fact, they did not turn out to be a majority. Further, almost certainly in these circumstances the opposition to the proposal, the public feeling on it, would be seized upon by some of the extreme parties, Sinn Féin and others, and they would lead the campaign to save the Constitution and the nation. They would portray the three main parties as parties who would betray the nation. Whether or not the amendment was passed these extreme parties would attain a new status, a new strength as defenders of the Constitution and the nation and the strength they would attain certainly would not be used in the interests of this country. So, far from this proposal or suggested amendments helping to bring a new era of peace and conciliation, the net result would be new divisions, new bitterness throughout this part of the country as well as the country as a whole. That is something we should ponder on and not lose sight of even if it should ever transpire that Fianna Fáil were to support this crusade, but I assure the House that this will not occur. This problem and the scenario which I have sketched will not take place. Fianna Fáil have no intention of supporting the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 for the reasons which I have mentioned. We see no reason at the moment why it is necessary to amend any portion of the Constitution and we continue our aspirations and our beliefs that this country, Ireland, consists of all of this island of Ireland and its territorial waters. We shall continue to strive to reach that goal by peaceful means, by negotiation and ultimately, we hope, by agreement and consent. In that way we will achieve our aspirations and not by the proposals which are made by the Taoiseach. Fianna Fáil will not be joining the Taoiseach in this crusade.

Mr. Leonard

I second the amendment proposed by Senator Ryan. I would also like to express my concern at the way in which this motion was brought forward as a result of a radio interview. This is the first sitting of this new Seanad and it is an abuse of the House to bring the matter forward in this manner, especially when you have the Taoiseach claiming that he would hope that the Seanad would have more worthwhile functions. He had many ways in which he could have brought this forward. We received the transcript of this speech only a few hours ago. The Government Information Services would have been the proper channel for such a pronouncement to which he attached so much importance but which he feared would be successful. If people could put down a motion that the Seanad either notes or otherwise views expressed in radio interviews, there would be motions on the cattle market report or something like that.

The Taoiseach's statement was very indefinite because he did not announce it through the proper channels. It was very imprecise, very woolly and it gave the impression that he was covering his tracks for the future. As one who comes from the Border counties and was a member of the Opposition during the term of the third Coalition Government when the Taoiseach was Minister for Foreign Affairs, it makes me wonder because he was very quite and very mute during those years. We had at that time Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien who was the authentic voice of the then Coalition Government on all pronouncements on Northern Ireland. We had him propounding the two nations theory and it was never denied by anyone in the Coalition Government.

I remember on one occasion an incident relating to incursions, when I tabled a parliamentary question and it was taken by Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien because the present Taoiseach was not there. He was the man who made those statements. I do not remember any major statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on that occasion. He did, admittedly, days before the 1977 election when he came down to Monaghan town, make a rabble-rousing speech which was not very well received. He came to try to woo a section of the people and I wonder if this is a repeat performance or are coming events casting their shadows before them? Even since he made the speech we had people here claiming that it is a personal view. This Government, in their short term of office, are noted for personal views.

On 29 May 1980 in the Dáil we debated the Taoiseach's meeting with the British Prime Minister. It gave us an opportunity to hear a statement and to debate Northern Ireland. There is one similarity in the press report of the Taoiseach's speech recently. He was quoted in The Irish Times of Monday, 28 September 1981 as follows: “I'm afraid that one of the problems in this is the other political party, Fianna Fáil. So few of them have been willing to go North and talk to the people.” It was similar to what he said at column 1076 of the Dáil Official Report of 29 May 1980:

This lack of contact with Northern opinion, especially on the Unionist side, has been a feature of Fianna Fáil as a party and, of course, the Taoiseach is no different from most other members of his party in this respect. This has been one of the great weaknesses of Southern approaches to the Northern problem for half a century.

I refute that because I claim that most of the approaches in the region around the Border were initiated by Fianna Fáil. I stated that further in the Official Report in replying to his accusation at column 1112 where I said I welcomed his visit and that there was not sufficient movement between here and Northern Ireland at political or any other level. I rejected his accusation that Fianna Fáil were not in contact with the people around the Border. I stated on that occasion that he had two Ministers from Border counties and that while I was deeply involved in cross-Border economic co-operation I never saw any of their work in that field.

County councils each sent two representatives to those talks. In County Monaghan two Coalition chairmen of that county council did not even attend those meetings and he told us then and now about all the contact that he and members of Fine Gael had with the people of Northern Ireland. I refute that completely as one who has been in constant contact with them since I came into Dáil Éireann and prior to that in 1973. I created many initiatives to ensure co-operation between the two communities especially when we entered the EEC when there was an opportunity to avail of funds from the regional fund. When the present Taoiseach was Minister for Foreign Affairs there were numberous Dáil questions regarding funding for arterial drainage and at all times we were getting negative replies. He certainly did not make the effort to secure the funds from the EEC that the Fianna Fáil Government did in the period following, from 1977 onwards.

After the 1977 election one of the first things that the then Taoiseach did was to get in contact with the British Government and set up a civil servants' committee which examined all forms of co-operation. Following that they examined the fields of tourism, agriculture and industrial development. They examined specifically arterial drainage because the rivers in that area formed a border. There was a real problem getting co-operation regarding drainage.

I remember a debate in the Dáil when we were told that money could not be made available from the regional fund for arterial drainage. After one of the first meetings of the EEC committee they decided to go to Brussels. It was an all-party committee. We had discussions with various commissioners. At that meeting I outlined the position regarding economic development and the importance of arterial drainage and that it should be included as a project for which to secure grant aid. Signor Giolitti, Italian Commissioner of the regional fund gave an assurance that it would be sympathetically considered. We have a situation now that following the study which has been carried out of that particular region that it does qualify for aid under the EEC regional quota and non-quota funds. It did not qualify for aid when the present Taoiseach was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Leader of the House mentioned a meeting yesterday between groups from the Northern SDLP and I would again quote from the Official Report, column 1076 of 29 May 1980 where the present Taoiseach said:

I am glad to have been able during my period as Minister for Foreign Affairs to establish contacts with Unionists as well as to re-establish links with minority leaders which appear to have lapsed for several months in late 1972 and early 1973 because of divisions that existed then between the Taoiseach of the day and his Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It would be very interesting to know the views of yesterday's delegation. I did not notice any statement or newspaper report of that, but may not have closely enough examined the newspapers today. Many people in Northern Ireland do not concur with the views of the present Taoiseach.

Senator E. Ryan covered a lot of ground and made a very strong case for no change in our Constitution. The present leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, is quoted, again in an Irish Times report, as saying:

Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution could not be used by anyone to justify violence. Those Articles were a simple expression of our national aspiration to unity.

It was wrong of the Taoiseach to make play with emotions in that area at this time. The report continues:

Those Articles would, he believed, be supported by Tone and Davis, who were now so popular with the Taoiseach...

He continued:

Fianna Fáil had not accepted a recommendation from a committee that the constitutional claim to Northern Ireland be reworded. The Article did not represent a threat to anybody. Fianna Fáil was committed to the national aspiration and he would not be prepared, in advance of a major new political structure for Ireland as a whole, to change the Constitution in that regard.

By using the words "in advance of a new political structure" Deputy Haughey implied that Fianna Fáil were willing, in different circumstances, under different structures, to examine the situation, as they always have been. However, now is not the time and the Taoiseach did not do a good day's work for the country there. He is on dangerous ground and has not, and will not have, the support of the majority of Irish people.

Mr. Ferris

In supporting the motion proposed by the Leader of the House, I am sure that I represent the opinion of a large section of progressive thinking people in this island that an undertaking by the Taoiseach of a constitutional and legislative review is a welcome and long-awaited step on the road to the eventual unity and reconciliation of the people of this country. I specify progressive thinking people, because any comments I have heard on the proposals for the amendment represent an attitude which has been adopted here for 60 or more years that what we have is good enough, that everybody else must accept it, that we are right, that there is no need for change and that we should put our head in the sand and ignore the present changing times and changing circumstances, economic and otherwise. I reiterate that progressive thinking people would welcome a review.

Any changes arising from a review will be a matter for further debate. In setting this review in train we must acknowledge and respect the Constitution, which has often been quoted since its enactment in 1937 as the upholder of the rights of people in Ireland. Unfortunately, if we examine the Constitution we realise that legislation has not kept pace with the Constitution. Article 45, 2(i) of the Constitution, dealing with the principles of social policy, specifys:

That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

What solace has that section for the throngs of unemployed whom we have inherited from the past Government — 130,000 people on the unemployment and dole queues?

I am pleased that our party leader, the Tánaiste, has initiated, and hopes to have in legislation before Christmas, the National Co-Operation Bill and Youth Employment Guarantee Bill which will do something constructive towards ensuring that that section in the Constitution will have some relevance for people who do not want unemployment or dole, but who, through their occupations, hope to make reasonable provision for themselves.

Subsection (iv) states:

That in what pertains to the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.

What relevance has that when we consider our banking institutions and when we look at their vast profits? What solace is in that subsection for our farming community when 10,000 farmers partaking in a programme of farm modernisation have been squeezed by the banking institutions, disregarding the welfare of the people as a whole?

Section 4 states:

The State pledges itself to safeguard with special care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan and the aged.

All those unfortunate sections of the community are still with us. Despite their defence of this Constitution, Fianna Fáil have, for a long period in Government, failed to initiate legislation that would ensure preference for these underprivileged people in this State. We have the pious pleadings of a Constitution without the commitment of a Government to support it. Fianna Fáil make promises for short electoral gain, spend and promise money, money which is not allocated by this House or the Dáil, on projects for short-term political gain, when in fact we need that money to ensure that hospitals and our social services are on a par with those of our neighbours in Northern Ireland and Britain.

These Articles of the Constitution are, in themselves, of tremendous benefit as they set down principles of government, but for years they have been ignored.

Article 40, section 1, states:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

What rights have institutions of the State and their various statutory bodies throughout the country conferred on our physically disabled people in the year 1981, although we pay lip service to what we should be doing for the disabled? How accessible are public buildings to physically disabled people?

I contend that these Articles are of the utmost importance, but I feel that in the past legislation has not kept pace with them. Article 41, which has been quoted by Senator Eoin Ryan, deals with the question of marriage, a question which initiated a debate on comments made by Deputy M. O'Leary, Tánaiste, on radio and television and at party meetings. Let us be absolutely clear as to what we are talking about. Article 41.3.1º says:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

What a wonderful section that is, because everybody in this State must have a commitment to the protection of the institution of marriage and protect it against attack. Unfortunately, marriages have been subjected to attack. Whether for economic, health or other reasons, many marriages have irretrievably broken down. I would go so far as to say that the church, particularly the Catholic Church who have a moral responsibility in this field, have stated — and it has been handed down to those who believe in God — that marriage is a sacrament and must be protected. The Church has recognised that there are problems and has been more progressive than the State in this field. It has recognised that there can be annulments, that marriages never take place, but it does not recognise that children born of those marriages can have legal problems of inheritance, or the right to legitimacy.

This State has put its head in the sand. It recognises that if people are wealthy enough they can go to another country, establish domicile and get a divorce and then it will recognise that divorce. How hypocritical can we be when we say this Article cannot be looked at or reviewed, that we cannot take into consideration the thousands of unhappy couples who through no fault of their own have found themselves in this legal dilemma in which they are unable to sort out their children's problems and their children's children's problems?

Those who wish to amend this Constitution have been accused of advocating abortion. I categorically refute that my party, or any political party in this country, advocate abortion. I resent the "holy Marys" who say that people who talk about reviewing or looking at constitutional amendments are permissive. Let us be honest with ourselves and say that if a person's religious affiliations are strong enough, making something legally right does not necessarily make it morally right. That does not ignore the problem before us and this State had better face up to it or we will be accused of being sectarian. We are being accused of being sectarian in this area because divorce under any heading has been disregarded, unless one can afford to live in England or elsewhere.

Senator Eoin Ryan's amendment pays particular attention to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, which are fundamental to the Fianna Fáil Party. I would like to remind the Senator that the Labour Party, founded by Connolly, is the oldest political party in this country, and its constitution has sections that are relevant to Articles 2 and 3. In other words, we claim in our constitution, and rightly so, that we are a republican party. That does not mean that we cannot at some date in the future, with an interest towards reunification — which is what true republicanism is all about — sit down and review these Articles if their revision will ensure that we cannot be accused of being sectarian.

Article 2 has been mentioned. It says:

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

The opening words of Article 3 say:

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

If we are consistent and are looking for a re-integration of our national territory, we should be able to prove to our Protestant neighbours that we are prepared to enter into dialogue. If our national territory is re-integrated, and if right follows right, there could possibly be no objection to a review of Article 3 because the whole island would be integrated as one territory. Then the people, North and South, would welcome the principles enshrined in Article 2, that is, that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland.

I admit that when we revised the Constitution the removal of Article 44 which gave preference to the religious aspect, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, made relatively little difference to the Protestants in the North. It would be a most welcome sign if a positive attitude towards political institutions, which would ultimately lead to a reunification of this country was forthcoming from all of us, North and South, who are involved in this political debate — not alone the revision of our Constitution, our laws and enactments, but the possible political structures that could be set up in the North in the interim period so that nobody would fear that a million people would be bombed into the sea against their will.

The Taoiseach said he also intends to have a legislative review. Other Members of my party in their contributions to this debate will mention specific areas of legislation that need not alone review but amendment, such as the 1908 Children's Act and the present concept of illegitimacy, which must be taken into consideration. The Taoiseach said — and this I welcome particularly — that he passionately believes in a united Ireland and that he hopes he can bring public opinion with him and recreate the concept of republicanism in Ireland, the genuine and true republicanism which we inherited. I welcome also the fact that the British Labour Party have come out in favour of a united Ireland. Over the past two days our party leader has had discussions with Michael Foot and promised that we in the South are progressively moving towards a review of everything that is repugnant to our neighbours to ensure that any legislation or any review of the Constitution that may be forthcoming arising out of these discussions could convince our people and our brethren in the North of Ireland that we mean what we say when we advocate, through the various sections of this Constitution, defending the rights of all our citizens equally, irrespective of their religious belief.

The programme for Government for 1981-86 initiated and approved by the two parties now in Government states:

In all that it does this Government will be concerned to achieve peace, security and justice for the people of Northern Ireland and to achieve an agreed solution to the problem that has divided the people of this island.

The review now in progress will have that effect on the thinking of broadminded people not alone in the South of Ireland but in the North of Ireland as well. I welcome the Taoiseach's initiative in introducing it into Irish political debate at this time.

Mrs. McGuinness

The motion before the House calls on Seanad Éireann to note with approval the views expressed by the Taoiseach in his broadcast interview on RTE. In some ways I share the reservations of Senator Ryan about approving of a broadcast which many of us perhaps did not hear or did not hear fully and of which we have got the text only very recently. In any case, it is rather beyond this to give a blanket approval to all the views expressed by the Taoiseach in that interview. For this reason, although I heartily support the idea of a review of certain aspects of the Constitution, I do not propose to vote in favour of this motion.

On the other hand, on reading the amendment I cannot help feeling very much surprised at the "deplorable and unfounded allegations of sectarianism" that are to be repudiated completely, because one cannot but admit that there are aspects of sectarianism in our society and also in our Constitution. Therefore, for this reason I could not support the amendment. I propose, while supporting a review of the Constitution, not to vote on the motion before the House.

I have said that I feel it is excellent to have a review of the Constitution but this does not necessarily mean that I feel the present Constitution should be abolished. We should not, for all our criticism of certain aspects of the Constitution, get away from the fact that basically and in the main the 1937 Constitution has served this country well, has stood up against the test of time and to the many tests put to it in the High Court and the Supreme Court over the years. There is no doubt that there are certain parts of the Constitution which I and many other people find to be either mistaken or objectionable. I am not only referring to the matter of divorce here or, indeed, only to the matter of Articles 2 and 3, whatever one's views may be on these. I will refer later to one or two other aspects which should be reviewed. Nevertheless, we should beware of throwing out the baby with the bath water, beware of losing the way in which our present Constitution has supported human rights and has been used through the courts of our land as a guarantee of human liberties.

I must point out that where questions of constitutional law have been brought to the courts there is no way in which the Supreme Court judgements on these could in any way be described as sectarian. We have only to look at cases like the Ryan flouridation case, the case of Byrne v. Ireland which established the right of the citizen to sue the State — something which was not allowed against the Crown under British law — the Magee case on family planning, the Murphy case on equality of taxation, the various cases on bail and so on. All these have shown the flexibility and the possibility of development of our present Constitution. One of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, the principle of the unenumerated human rights contained in the Constitution, which allows for further development and which may allow for development of matters like the right of privacy and so on in the future, is something which we must retain and which is of the most vital importance.

However, it does seem very clear that to a large extent the social and family provisions of the Constitution, as contained in Articles 41 and 42 in particular, were coloured by the Roman Catholic social thinking of their day. That is perfectly understandable; that was the current social thinking of the time. As Senator Hussey has said, life changes and society changes and I might even say that the thought of the churches can change over a period of 40 or 50 years in the matters of community and society. Certainly, in these aspects of the Constitution a review is desirable.

The Taoiseach's interview has been discussed and debated very much in terms of sectarianism and of pluralism and in terms of the relationship between our State here and Northern Ireland. Firstly, we must remember that primarily our Constitution is for this State now and we must be sure that the pluralism and the non-sectarianism we are looking for is the best thing for us here and now, as well as or even apart from what effect it may have on Unionists or non-Unionists in Northern Ireland. It is here and in this State that we wish to create a totally non-sectarian and a truly positively pluralistic society where all citizens are regarded as full Irish people and as equal before the law and before the whole administration of this State. The reference to divorce, in particular, should not only be thought of in terms of a sop to the Protestants of Northern Ireland. It is here and now in this State, not just for Protestants but for human beings, that we need the ability to introduce a legal end to the marriage contract.

When we are talking about Protestants let us use the term "Protestants", let us not use euphemisms like the "majority" in Northern Ireland and the "minority" in Southern Ireland. I deprecate and find it hurtful to be referred to continually as a minority whereas I am extremely proud to be referred to as a Protestant.

The Taoiseach has spoken in terms of sectarianism and this has been totally rejected in the Opposition amendment. As one of the few Protestant public representatives in the Oireachtas I must refer to this aspect. Are we now sectarian and have we been sectarian? Now, it is obviously true that we are not in a major way. Generally speaking in everyday life we do not behave in a sectarian fashion, there are not major discriminations in the area of employment, there are not discriminations in the area of public housing, there are not the various discriminations which were — and let us admit it — practised over 50 years by the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland. This is, perhaps, why they are now reaping the armed men that sprang up from the dragon's teeth which they sowed. That is not so of this State, but there is no doubt that many Protestants feel that the social aspects of the Constitution and of our law are heavily influenced by Roman Catholic thinking and that in some ways this makes Protestants outsiders in our State.

During the course of the last Seanad, when we had the debate on the Adelaide Hospital, I referred to this aspect of our health provisions and the way in which religious aspects were influential in our hospitals. After I made that speech I got more reaction from ordinary grassroots Protestants throughout this country than I got on foot of any public statement I made on any subject at any time. People telephoned, wrote and offered support, saying that it was time that somebody had said this. The terms of the letters they wrote to me indicated that there was a considerable hidden undercurrent among the members of the Protestant churches that they were in some way afraid of a type of sectarianism and a type of discrimination against them. We would ignore this at our peril.

When we run through the history of our social legislation — the divorce provisions, the family planning provisions, the struggle over adoption, the mother and child scheme fight, our educational system and so on — can we really and sincerely say that there has been and that there is no sectarianism in the sense of legislation and administration being influenced by the views of one religious group? The divorce position is very typical of it. Many of the arguments in this debate have been cast in terms of the common good. Senator Ryan did this again today when he was talking about the support of the family and the common good rather than about the actual issue of divorce. When we alone in Europe, along with Malta, Andorra and San Marino, are left with no divorce legislation, can we seriously say that it is not because of the views of the Roman Catholic Church that we have got this provision in our Constitution? Of course it is because of the views of the Church that there is such difficulty about it. Is this not a form of sectarianism? Should we not look at a Constitution that contains this?

One or two other Articles also merit review and among those I would put Article 41.2.1º which refers particularly to the position of women and in which it is stated that:

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

It goes on:

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

It is true that many people might feel that this was an excellent aspiration. But it is also true that no one has made any effort to make sure that in fact mothers who suffer from economic necessity are not forced to work outside the home. One really wonders how a mother who is forced to clean offices at night because she happens to be a widow would fare if she took a constitutional case to assert her rights under this Article. What I would object to in this is the classing of women as a separate variety of human beings. I would like to see any review of the Constitution treating women and men as human beings and as citizens and not making particularly special references to one class or the other.

Article 42 in its dealing with education and Article 41 in its dealing with the imprescriptible and inalienable rights of the family seems to me to exalt the rights of the parents generally as opposed to the rights of the children. I would like to see in a new Constitution some consideration of enunciating the rights of the child in a balanced way along with the rights of the family and the rights of the parents.

While our Constitution is primarily for us here and now, we must all remember that virtually all of us, if not quite all of us, wish for the ultimate objective of a united Ireland and of a Constitution which would speak for all Irish men and women. It is rather strange, and other Senators have spoken of this as well, that some of the people who are most insistent on their wish for a united Ireland are the people who want to hold on to the more sectarian aspects of the Constitution. One wonders what kind of a united Ireland these people want. Senator Hussey quoted Senator W. B. Yeats in the previous debate on divorce which was heard in this House and I too would draw attention to some of Senator Yeats' remarks in this context. On page 92 of The Seanad Speeches of W. B. Yeats he said:

It is perhaps the deepest political passion with this nation that North and South be united into one nation. If it ever comes that North and South unite, the North will not give up any liberty which she already possesses under her constitution. You will then have to grant to another people what you refuse to grant to those within your borders. If you show that this country, Southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North. You will create an impassable barrier between South and North, and you will pass more and more Catholic laws, while the North will, gradually, assimilate its divorce and other laws to those of England. You will put a wedge into the midst of this nation. I do not think this House has ever made a more serious decision than the decision which, I believe, it is about to make on this question. You will not get the North if you impose on the minority what the minority consider to be oppressive legislation. I have no doubt whatever that in the next few years the minority will make it perfectly plain that it does consider it exceedingly oppressive legislation to deprive it of rights which it has held since the seventeenth century. These rights were won by the labours of John Milton and other great men, and won after strife, which is a famous part of the history of the Protestant people.

We ignore that kind of feeling among Protestants, North and South, at our peril. Our Constitution must be prepared to reflect the views of all Irish citizens. Surely it is important to note that in many ways we have created the wedge which Yeats speaks of, and we should try to put an end to it. I support the creation of a constructive pluralism and true equality in this country, a State and a Constitution for women and men alike, for Catholic and Protestant alike — in other words, for Irish citizens. It is in this spirit that I support not an abolition of the present Constitution but a heart-searching and a positive review of its provisions.

Professor Dooge

It is good to have the freedom to speak from the floor of this House again after eight years. For the last four years I was in voluntary exile and for four years before that I was subject to the geasa to which you Cathaoirleach have submitted yourself today. I am also happy to be talking in a debate which suits this House, its nature and its composition. This interesting debate is bringing home to us the difficulties of moving from thought to action. All parties represented here have made clear beyond doubt their condemnation of violence as a political weapon in relation to Northern Ireland and have expressed their determination and aspiration for Irish unity by consent in terms of "a union of the hearts and minds", to use one of the earliest and most apt expressions of this aspiration. When we seek to go forward from such a basic agreement we find divisions opening up. Some people want to go in one direction, some want to go in another; some want to go quickly, some want to go slowly; and some do not want to move at all. That is what we are faced with in this debate. It was said, perhaps just as a debating point, that the debate was getting off to an unfortunate start because the transcript of all that the Taoiseach said — the full text — was not available to members until shortly before the debate.

Mr. E. Ryan

It was not a debating point.

Professor Dooge

Let us be quite clear. Senators should look at what the motion says. The motion does not ask for blanket approval of every sentence or every word of what the Taoiseach said. It asks for approval of his views on "the desirability of creating within this island conditions favourable to unity through the reconciliation of its people". That is what the motion seeks approval for. What the motion seeks approval for is not every comment or every example, well chosen or ill-chosen, that the Taoiseach used when under questioning by a radio journalist. It seeks approval for his general proposal for a review and for his proposal that towards this end we should undertake a Constitutional and a legislative review. Members of this House may have been in doubt as to what the Taoiseach said but on Monday and Tuesday of this week I spent two very busy days talking to Congressmen, Senators and political journalists in Washington and they had no doubt about what the Taoiseach had said. They had no doubt whatsoever that what we had here was a call for a real movement from a confessional to a pluralist community in this State. Being people who are either legislators or experts concerned with the running of the Legislature of a pluralist community they were certainly interested in what had been said because they took the clear message and they were interested above all in what were the chances of its success.

Senator McGuinness said she cannot give blanket approval to all that the Taoiseach said. I am not so sure I can do that myself. I hope I would score a fairly high mark but neither the Taoiseach nor the motion is asking for blanket approval of all the things that the Taoiseach as a person might ask to be changed in this Constitution. What is asked for from Senator McGuinness and other Members of this House is approval for the process itself, approval for the idea of review.

During my visit to America I was concerned with the work of General Assembly of the United Nations. There all the world problems were paraded before the members. These problems were in ways so different but yet when one listened to the ideas that were being proposed by those seeking peace in Southern Africa, in the Middle East, and all the other trouble spots, there seemed to be a clear pattern in the suggestions as to what the way forward should be. Three points emerged. Firstly, the necessity to take a firmly based initiative which would provide for movement forward, that something must be done in order to free the logjam. This came up again and again in discussion on all these problems. The second discussion on all these problems. The point which came out clearly in all these discussions as to when we can get movement; was what is necessary? It came through clearly on every occasion that a necessary ingredient of success in all these problems is a mutual recognition of the opposing points of view, perhaps only a conditional recognition that would serve to keep the conversation going, perhaps a recognition that says: "I will for the moment take this one short step at the same time you take a short step and then from our new positions we will look again". This is the great flaw in what Senator Leonard said. He said: "maybe we will be prepared to move but only at the end; we are prepared to take the last step but we are not prepared to take the first step". That is a sure way of ensuring that nobody takes a step.

The third thing that was talked about in regard to all these problems, and has been talked about for some time — maybe it is jargon but it expresses something real — is the necessity for what are called confidence-building measures so that each side can go forward with confidence in one another. Whether one is dealing with the disarmament conference in Madrid, which has been stalled for so long, or whether we are dealing with our own problem in Northern Ireland, unless we have confidence-building measures so that each of us can have more than the pitiful amount of confidence we have in each other at the moment we will make no progress.

The Northern Ireland problem has its own history. It has its own complexities, its own difficulties. Like most of the other problems that are of serious concern in the world it arises over a conflict between two communities of different origins and different traditions. It is the same sort of problem. The detail, the very accents in which it is argued may be different but the fundamental problem is that of conflict between two human groups. If it is to be solved we need the same skills in order to find a solution, the skills that will be needed to find a solution in the Middle East, in Southern Africa, in Afghanistan, in Kampuchea. What are these skills? One could list them, but no matter what list one made of the skills required one would have to include understanding, patience, imagination, insight. These are the key to the way forward. These tools must be used in order that we can have initiative that will start a movement towards solution. They must be used to create a mutual appreciation of present attitudes and they must be used to build confidence. Looking at our problem here such a process must operate within these islands so as to encompass the various complex relationships involved. There must—if we are to have any chance—be understanding and reconciliation between the two communities within Northern Ireland. There must be understanding and reconciliation between Northern Ireland as a whole and ourselves. Let us not underestimate the extent to which the minority in Northern Ireland has drawn apart from us. We must have understanding and reconciliation between Northern Ireland and ourselves and we must have understanding and co-operation between Ireland and Britain.

This is the context of the Taoiseach's initiative. Let us remind ourselves of what it is aimed at. As I mentioned at the outset, it is "the desirability of creating within this island conditions favourable to unity through the reconciliation of its people". Many things are required if this objective is to be achieved. The second part of the motion before the House mentions only one. If I may be forgiven for using a mathematical term, there is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one that we make progress and this is the undertaking in this State of a constitutional and legislative review. There is no suggestion that this would be sufficient for success. The suggestion is that it is necessary. It will not do the whole job for us, but without it the job would be hardly started, never mind completed.

Let us be quite clear what is being asked. The proposal that is before this House calls for no specific changes in the Constitution or in legislation. We are a long way from discussing the details of these either for decision by this House or for decision by the people. It asks for no final judgment on the choice between present versions of the various Articles of the Constitution and possible alternatives. Rather are we asked whether a review should take place at all. Let us realise the seriousness of saying no to such a review, as Senator Eoin Ryan appeared to say in proposing the amendment here, when he said that he was prepared to accept every Article in the Constitution in its present form. I think I am representing what he said at one passage; I noted it because, knowing him, I was surprised.

Mr. E. Ryan

At the present time.

Professor Dooge

This means, as has already been indicated, that we should accept the position that our law, the fundamental law which is the Constitution, should not take account of the passage of time or of the inevitable development that characterises all human society. Adaptation is the key to the survival in the biological world. That is why we as a human race are here today. We have found out, over the past 20 years painfully perhaps, that adaptation is the key to survival in economic affairs too. It is equally true that adaptation may be the only key to survival in terms of political life.

We had our first Constitution in 1922 with many subsequent amendments, and we had the Constitution of 1937 with its subsequent amendments. In 1966 the late Seán Lemass considered that after 30 years this Constitution should be subject to a thorough review. He set up, with the concurrence of the other parties, an informal all-party committee to review this Constitution. Indeed, in the second half of its work — after Seán Lemass had resigned as Taoiseach — the committee had the very great benefit of his views as a member of the committee on the nature of the Constitution that was appropriate for this country. This committee never completed its work. It produced an interim report in 1967, never produced a final report and, as far as my memory serves me, there are some expenses for coming up from Cork which I have never been paid. In paragraph 8 of its report the committee said:

This review of the Constitution has, however, in our view been well worth while, and we hope that similar reviews will take place after suitable intervals in the future.

Except for a few, the recommendations of that committee were not considered and not acted upon. Now, 14 years later, we find ourselves asking what is to be the suitable interval of review. Are we going to keep putting this off? Is the time never right to review our Constitution? If we take a good look at it we will come to the conclusion that the time is long overdue.

In the debate on the settlement of our affairs here, which form the basis of our first Constitution, it was said that it was no more a final settlement than we are a final generation on this earth. The 1922 Constitution was never intended to be a final settlement. Why should we say that any Article of the 1937 Constitution, or any law, is a final enactment immune from all amendments? Let us be clear here about what is being said if we reject this appeal for a review process. Let us distinguish between maintaining our nationalist position and maintaining the entrenchment of that position in certain forms. The amendment which is being put forward from the other side of the House speaks of "an unalterable aspiration of the great majority of the Irish people to the unity of Ireland." We can accept that there should be no change in that aspiration. We are not asking in the motion before the House and the Taoiseach never asked — and I have read all the transcript — for an abandonment, an alteration of the aspiration. But it is possible to take the position that there should not be a change in that aspiration without going on to imply that Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution, as presently written, are themselves unalterable.

Altering the terms of the Constitution does not imply an alteration in the aspiration. In fact, the interim report of the committee of 1966-67 was able to reach a unanimous agreement on what that committee thought might be a more appropriate form of Article 3 of the Constitution. With your permission, a Chathaoirleach, I would like to quote from the report which is Pr. 9817, issued in December 1967. In paragraph 12 the committee says:

We have given careful consideration to the wording of this provision. We feel that it would now be appropriate to adopt a new provision to replace Article 3. The wording which we would suggest is as follows:

1. The Irish nation hereby proclaims its firm will that its territory be re-united in harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen.

Section 2 goes on to deal with the "pending" question. I do not want to argue about whether those words were really that appropriate in 1967; still less do I want to argue whether they are appropriate now. What is important is the fact that nine Deputies and three Senators, as individuals — that is what we were at that time — were able to agree on two things: first, that an amendment was desirable; and, second, that this particular form of words was appropriate at that time. It is a pity that that was not acted upon at that time. I do not claim that it would have had any magic effect but I think we would be in a better position today if it had.

It is perhaps a reflection of the divisive effects of the events in Northern Ireland over the past 12 years that Senator Eoin Ryan and myself, who agreed in 1967 on this form of words, are apparently no longer in a position to reach agreement on this point. This is for me a matter of sincere regret. It indicates to me that perhaps the first step towards seeking the reconciliation which we all want with Northern Ireland is to seek reconciliation among ourselves. I said at the beginning it was as we moved from the question of common aspirations, common agreement about the renunciation of force, common agreements about looking for peace in Northern Ireland through peaceful means, that as we try to move forward from this most welcome agreement we find ourselves once again in difficulty.

The first task we have then is perhaps to see what is the nature of these disagreements. That is why I think this debate is valuable and how we in the Seanad can really make this a debate of real value. The first thing we can do is to try to avoid the trap of a false agreement. That would be terribly dangerous because we might do, as we have in this country so often in the past, come to an agreement on a form of words, each of us meaning something else by those words and then when it comes to the implementation we have our divisions once more.

The first thing we want in this debate is for each of us to come forward with an absolutely frank statement of what we believe. Let there be no wrapping it up. Let us come out and say frankly what we think on this particular issue. If this is to be valuable it must be accompanied by a genuine effort to understand one another. It is good practice for us if we can manage this because this will be the ultimate road towards unity. Those of us who are heirs to a common tradition here, because we emphasise different parts of that tradition, will find it easier to make these frank statements, to understand one another than we will when, hopefully, having got ourselves to an agreement we can go forward to our fellow Irishmen in Northern Ireland and we can have equally frank statements with them and, I hope, equal mutual understanding. Then we will be on the way to the realisation of our common aspirations.

For my part let me say that I am firmly in favour of periodic reviews of our Constitution. The review of 1966-67 was stillborn as a result of concentration on certain issues such as voting methods and certain party political bickering. The lapse of a further 14 years has probably reduced the relevance of many of the actual recommendations. I would not advocate at all going back now to the 1967 report. If in 14 years some of the these proposed amendments are no longer appropriate or no longer relevant how less relevant may be the 44 year old Articles of our Constitution?

There is a real need for a new initiative on Northern Ireland. There is a need for confidence building between all groups in this country. There is a need to respect the sensitivity of all the important groups. All these needs point clearly to the need for a review of the Constitution. That is all that is called for. In my personal view it points also to the need for revision.

I suppose it is a sign of age when people start quoting themselves, but I want to quote myself before concluding this contribution. In 1969 the two Houses of the Oireachtas came together in a joint session to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the first Dáil in 1919. I had the honour on that occasion to speak for Seanad Éireann in my capacity as Leas-Chathaoirleach. I want to quote something that I said on that occasion. It is taken from the report of the Joint Session of 21 January 1969, columns 417 and 418. The quotation is as follows:

Gach glúin dá dtagann, bíonn dualgas stairiúil dá gcuid féin le comhlíonadh acu.

Each generation has its own historical task to perform. This generation has got to make up its mind what is the historic task of our generation. It is not the essential winning of freedom; it is not the setting up of the institutions of State; it is not the setting up of an economic life which gives us the degree of economic dependence that we have. Surely the task of this generation, the only task that ranks with the tasks undertaken and largely successfully accomplished by previous generations, is to achieve the last great reconciliation of Irish history. That is a task worthy of a generation. It is a task we should face as a generation.

Let us look back at what was achieved. Let us look back to the 19th century. Let us look back at the achievement of Davitt and Parnell together, two men of widely different origins who won us the land of Ireland. The son of a Mayo peasant and the son of a Wicklow landlord could come together and win that battle in their time. Gaps existed then. Gaps existed in 1913 between the middle class who formed the Irish Volunteers and the working class who formed the Citizen Army. But they could come together and achieve what they saw as the task of their generation.

Is the gap so huge between our fellow Irishmen and fellow Irishwomen in Northern Ireland, who in their very exaggeration of their case and the very hyperbole of their denunciation of us show their Irishness? Is it beyond this generation? I do not think it is. It is not something to be accomplished overnight in a swift campaign. It is a matter that we will have to do slowly and with great patience indeed. We must, as part of this process, create the conditions that are favourable to unity. It is my belief — this is why I support this motion and why I support what the Taoiseach said in his radio interview — that a necessary part of these conditions is a review of what we are doing, a look at ourselves, a self-examination, an examination of political and national conscience here. This cannot be neglected. Neither should the outcome be prejudged, whether we will conclude that what we need is minor amendments of the Constitution or major amendmends to the Constitution. Perhaps it is simpler to start over again. These are all things to come out of the process. The road to unity will, let us not deny it, be long and rough; but, if we do not start out, we have not chance of getting to the end of it.

Mr. Fallon

As a junior Member of the Seanad you will understandably agree with me and support my view that I intended to bide my time, as it were, before speaking in the Seanad, but because this topic is so important I consider a contribution should be made at the earliest opportunity.

I was lucky that I heard the Taoiseach's comments on that particular programme as I travelled to Galway and although it was not easy to digest it fully as I drove, nonetheless I was shocked to hear some of the things the Taoiseach said. I was equally shocked the next day because Senator Gemma Hussey made it clear that this was the Taoiseach's own personal attitude. I felt when I received this notice of motion that it would be far more appropriate if we were asked to note the view of the collective wisdom of the Government or indeed even of the Taoiseach's party. Senator Dooge has referred to the fact that the Taoiseach calls for no change, but we are asked in this notice of motion to note with approval the views expressed. I believe this is tantamount to a changed situation.

Much of the debate obviously centres on Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 reads:

The national territory consists of the while island of Ireland, its islands and its territorial seas.

Many people will say this is a claim, and it has been suggested that it was in some way or other a claim, but it is not a claim on anybody or on anything. In my view this is a statement of what many of us regard as the factual position. It simply sums up the historic nationhood of Ireland as understood by all Irishmen and Irishwomen over the centuries. It still is so understood by the vast majority of the Irish people.

Article 3 reads:

Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

In that particular interview the Taoiseach invoked the name of Thomas Davis. He appeared to associate the name of that great Irishman with the scheme to abandon our constitutional statement of Ireland's status as a 32-county nation. When Davis voiced the hope of a nation once again he certainly had no such idea as Dr. FitzGerald's in mind. Davis's noble idea was enshrined in the Constitution which Dr. FitzGerald wants to abandon in the absurd belief that he will hasten Irish unity.

I read some of the statement the following day and was surprised to find that one of the paragraphs reads as follows:

If I were a Northern Protestant today I cannot see how I could aspire to getting involved in a State which is itself sectarian in the acutely sectarian way Northern Ireland was, in which Catholics were repressed.

The Taoiseach

On a point of order, that is an error. Words were omitted——

Mr. Fallon

I accept that. Nonetheless, I was in some way offended at Dr. FitzGerald's suggestion, and which indeed has since been echoed by people who should know better, that the South should be apologetic about our attitude to and our treatment of our fellow citizens who happen to have religious beliefs different from our own. If such statements came from some major representatives of the Unionist establishment in the North, it might be hailed by us as a long overdue recognition by that faction of 60 years of sectarian injustice and repression of the minority; but coming from the elected leader of the Republic it is some way wrong. It is wrong because it is clearly unjust and untrue as the record will show.

Since our Constitution was enacted in 1937 two of our six Presidents were of the minority religion. Their religious beliefs were never called into question when they were elected. It is known that Jews have been Mayors of Dublin and Cork. One would love to be able to mention the name of a Catholic Prime Minister of Northern Ireland since 1922, or of a Catholic Lord Mayor of Belfast. In the Republic we all know what is being done here in the matter of housing, jobs, our way of life. The Protestant people are respected and loved and are our greatest friends and to suggest in any way that there is sectarianism is, in my opinion, completely wrong. It was wrong also of Senator Gemma Hussey today to suggest that the GAA is in any way tainted with the sectarian brush. This is one of the greatest slights ever bestowed on that great amateur organisation.

The problem of stability, peace and harmony on this island will not be solved by tinkering with our Constitution. I do not know why we should be afraid to say what we are. Senator McGuinness said she is a Protestant and proud of it. We are native Irish: I am native Irish and a Catholic and proud of it. Will changing the Constitution make any difference? What happened when we changed Article 44 — that was the special place of the Catholic Church? We all know it did absolutely nothing for unity. Unionist spokesmen in the North said that it would make no impression whatsoever. I believe in the various symbols we have, our flag and National Anthem, but if tomorrow the tricolour were replaced by the Union Jack and if "God Save the Queen" were played instead of our National Anthem — and heaven forbid that would happen — it would not make the slightest bit of difference.

At this moment we are wasting our time debating this problem. If there is to be a referendum it is my view that the depth of feeling on this aspiration to reunification would mean an over-whelming vote against deletion of the Articles.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I call on Senator Robinson, since we have many new Members I would like to remind the House that Members of the House are always referred to as Senator. Likewise, the Taoiseach of the day is referred to by his title rather than by name, and similarly for Ministers. I do not like interrupting Members, especially when they are making their maiden speeches but I hope they will remember what I have said. I call Senator Robinson.

Mrs. Robinson

I welcome the debate on this motion and I do so particularly in the spirit in which it was interpreted and perhaps clarified by Senator Dooge. It is very much in that spirit and approach that the time spent in this House discussing the motion will be a very valuable and constructive exercise, and not as some had feared an academic exercise.

Not for the first time I regret that debates in this House are not broadcast, because unfortunately the reporting of the debates and differences of views expressed in this House will necessarily be subject to selective and condensed reporting by the press reporters in the House. That is a pity, because selective reporting sometimes can distort a debate; sometimes a single sentence or a phrase can be distorted, and a good deal of what has been said from different approaches on either side of the House can be lost. Therefore, I hope that copies of the debate will be more widely circulated.

I listened with particular attention to the contribution of Senator Eoin Ryan. I must confess I was very saddened when I received the draft Order Paper and then the yellow copy which contained the amendment to the motion. It appeared to me to epitomise an attitude of "no surrender", "not an inch". It looked to me like a regression from the approach that had been adopted by individual members of Fianna Fáil and who are still in positions of seniority in that party. They were members of the all-party committee in 1966-67 to whom Senator Dooge referred and from whose report he quoted.

Therefore, I regard the amendment, which may have been tabled for tactical reasons, to be a regression because it appears to suggest that there is no reason to have the Constitution examined, that there is no intention on the part of the elected representatives of the largest political party in this part of the State to engage in any serious discussion or debate on the Constitution. I hope this is only a tactical manoeuvre taken for the sake of putting down an amendment to the motion; I hope it does not reflect a genuine hardening and a regression of approach to the very serious issues which we are discussing.

I welcome the fact that we are discussing these issues because at this stage it does not mean much more than that: it only means that the Constitution of this part of the island is on the table for discussion. It has been striking that when one views the degree of change, trauma and suffering that has taken place on this island, not all in the northern part, in the last decade, so little attention has been paid to the Constitution which, after all, represents a selection of the basic laws which govern the State; it has been striking to see the amount of discussion on the constitutional framework of the other part of the island calling for radical constitutional change, radical differences in the apparatus of the State, in the sharing of power and in approaches to the institutions there. The contrast has been striking because the institutions in this part of the country have been relatively clear from domestic or external scrutiny.

Therefore, it might have been helpful if bodies outside the country, for example those concerned with the protection of human rights, who have looked at the state of constitutional laws as they operate at present in Northern Ireland, had also become interested and spent some time examining the Constitution and laws in this part of the island. We might thus have been helped and enlightened and informed by the views of objective outsiders about the state of our Constitution and our laws.

I welcome the debate as a significant step. The Constitution in this part of the island is now on the table for examination and discussion and I look forward to the constitutional and legislative review that has been promised.

At the same time I share one important aspect identified by Senator Eoin Ryan when he made the case that the Constitution had served us well. He referred to the important body of case law, of jurisprudence of the High Court and the Supreme Court in fleshing out and making real the provisions of the Articles of the Constitution. Senator McGuinness also referred to this important part of the texture of our Constitution. Though I share the recognition of the importance of that work I think it is a continual process which can go on either under an amended Constitution or a new Constitution.

Indeed, we have had experience of that in the constitutional cases which have arisen out of actions beught before 1937 which interpreted provisions of the 1922 Convention and which are still cited in court as being of relevance to constitutional actions that require interpretation of some of the provisions of the 1937 Constitution. In other words, I do not think that we will sacrifice or necessarily jettison the rich texture of constitutional jurisprudence which undoubtedly has been a very important factor in allowing the 1937 Constitution to grow and develop.

In that regard, I should like briefly to quote from a case in 1976, an important constitutional case, which sought to secure the right to representation and to legal aid for juveniles before the courts because not to do so would have denied them the constitutional standards of fair procedures. If one looks at the text of the Constitution one will not find reference to any constitutional standard of fair procedures. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court was able to read into the terms of the Constitution these necessary standards, and this has had a very important bearing on the procedures for defendants before the courts and as a basic standard on which even administrative measures can be judged. In his judgment the Chief Justice, having referred to the Preamble, and to the language included in the amendment tabled by Fianna Fáil, the "assurance of freedom for the dignity of the individual and the attainment of a true social order", said:

In my view this Preamble makes it clear that rights given by the Constitution must be considered in accordance with concepts of prudence, justice and charity which may gradually change or develop as society develops, and which fall to be interpreted from time to time in accordance with prevailing ideas. The Preamble envisages a Constitution which can absorb or be adapted to such changes.

So there is already in the text of the Constitution some capacity to adapt, a recognition that the Constitution must be interpreted as a living document, that it must be interpreted in the light of social changes. Therefore, even when we talk about the present Constitution we are not talking about some holy writ; we are not fundamentalists in some southern State of the United States who must not change in any way any clause or phrase in the Constitution which is in itself capable of adaptation to differing conditions.

However, obviously there is a strict limit on the extent to which the Constitution can evolve and be adapted and it is necessary to recognise the political and legislative responsibility when that happens. It is not for the Supreme Court to try to overstretch the existing provisions of the Constitution or to try to exercise some sort of judicial method to ensure that the Constitution will respond to modern needs. That is a political and legislative responsibility. It is a responsibility of the Government of the day and it is a responsibility to which we are in the business of addressing ourselves in this House during this debate.

Before I come on to consideration of the Constitution in this context, I should like to refer to the different levels at which one can talk about amendment of the Constitution. I will begin by dealing with it on a slightly lighter level. There is provision in Article 25.5 of the Constitution for the Taoiseach from time to time to call for an updating of the Constitution. Article 25.5 provides:

It shall be lawful for the Taoiseach, from time to time as occasion appears to him to require, to cause to be prepared under his supervision a text (in both the official languages) of this Constitution as then in force embodying all amendments theretofore made therein.

It also provides that a copy of every text so prepared when authenticated by the signatures of the Taoiseach and the Chief Justice, shall be signed by the President and shall be enrolled for record in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court and then it will be the official text. Again, in case of conflict the Irish text would prevail.

The Taoiseach is a very welcome visitor in this House today. I should like to make a plea to him for an updating of this Constitution even before we come to any decisions about whether or not we will amend it. This is necessary. People who purchase a copy of the Constitution still see contained in it a recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church. They would have to refer to the amendment slip to know that we joined the European Community, that the voting age was reduced to 18 years and that there was a change in the provisions relating to representation in the university panels for the Seanad. An updated text of the Constitution should be widely available at every level, including in schools and in other places where a debate may be held on its provisions.

However, there is a slightly more serious point I should like to make in this context. Even if the text is updated to conform to the amendments we have made to the Constitution, the actual text of the Constitution still will not mean what it means, if I may put it that way. There will still be provisions in the Constitution which do not mean what they say they mean. An updating of the text of the Constitution still will not modify, for example, the provision of Article 15.2, 1º, which provides that "the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas." We know that is not strictly true any more. We know you have to read that section together with the constitutional amendment on joining the European Communities for an understanding that the Oireachtas is not the sole law-making body, that the European Community institutions, in the Council and the Commission, can make laws which are directly applicable in this State.

Similarly we know that the provisions of Article 28 which says the executive power of the State shall be exercised exclusively by the Government is not so any more. Executive power is shared to some extent with the institutions of the Commission and Council of Europe in Brussels. Article 34 which says the Supreme Court is the final court is not true in all circumstances either because there can be an obligation on the Supreme Court to refer a question of interpretation of EEC law or the treaties to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. That, in a sense, is an academic point. It is made together with the point about the capacity of the Constitution itself to evolve, to show that we are not talking about a fixed immutable Constitution. We are talking about a basic instrument of our society, an instrument which sets out a selection of the basic laws of that society. It is always, and should always be, open to constructive review, to updating, to adapting to changing circumstances, and to scrutiny.

The point has already been made — and it is one I feel very strongly about — that since this Constitution was adopted in 1937 there has been very major development in this country, very major change. We now have a young growing population. Our country has undergone very considerable economic and social development since the people adopted the 1937 Constitution in a plebescite. In particular, and this is the central focus of the debate, we are a country and a people who have seen the most extraordinary divisions and the greatest degree of suffering to families, to individuals, destruction of property, destruction of places of work, and hate and emnity in our island. Indeed, we have become internationally famous for the wrong reasons. We have a reputation, unfortunately, as a country which figures regularly in the international press for the wrong reasons.

It is against that background that we have a duty to look at the Constitution from the perspective of whether it has contributed or may in any way contribute to divisiveness, or forms in itself any kind of barrier to the development which is aspired to by the political parties in this part of the State, the peaceful reconciliation of the peoples of this island, and ultimately a united Ireland. Again, it is not just a question of being able to point to specific sectarian clauses or Articles or laws but whether it is possible to say that the Constitution may have contributed to divisiveness on this island, and how we approach that and whether we have an open and fair mind in assessing it.

This approach to the Constitution was adopted in 1972 by a committee on which I had the privilege to work. If I may emulate Senator Dooge, and show my own age, I should like briefly to quote a passage from the report compiled by the Irish Theological Association reported in the issue of The Furrow of June 1972. It may seem a somewhat strange reference, but I do not know if it was reported in any other source.

The passage I want to refer to is on page 369 and it summarises the approach of that Working Party and what stimulated the compiling of that report. The brief of the Working Party was to look at our Constitution and laws and to identify what parts of them could be considered to be divisive, could be considered to cause tension and to prevent confidence building up between different traditions, and to be a barrier to development on the island both internally in the South and to development in both parts of the island, North and South. Under the heading "Principles of Approach" the report goes on:

Behind the common name of Irishmen lies much diversity. There are differences of attitudes to Ireland, often fundamental, between the generations, between the geographical regions, even between members of the same Church. The most obvious differences, however, arise from the variety of religious denominations. In the Republic the numerical strength of the Roman Catholic Church does not prevent the voicing of opinion by the Protestant minority and the smaller minority of non-Christians whose home is here. Diversity of denominational tradition shows itself in many ways: in historical perspectives, in social characteristics; and especially in the understanding of contemporary questions touching the moral order.

It has been argued in recent years that the Constitution and laws of the Irish Republic contain elements which favour one tradition above the rest. The substance of this allegation may be open to dispute. The fact that it continues to be made by and on behalf of the religious minorities indicates at least that these provisions are divisive, that they drive a wedge of suspicion and grievance between Irish citizens of different traditions. This can only be deplored. No Irishman in Ireland should feel less at home than another. No one should be impeded from obeying the honest prompting of his conscience, provided alone that it does no injury to his neighbour's rights. No one should be required, as a condition of citizenship, to endorse a basic belief or tradition which he does not share.

The committee adopted an approach to the effect that where you have a background such we have in Ireland, where you have the amount of human suffering and misery that you have, there is surely an obligation to ensure that the Constitution and our laws do not contain divisive elements within them. It is not a question of the majority in this part of the country agreeing that these are divisive; it is a question of acknowledging the real fears and apprehensions and that these could be removed by an openmindedness to aspects of the Constitution. The report goes on to recommend a number of changes. One of these has taken place — the removal of the special position of the Catholic Church — but the other significant recommendation was for the removal of the prohibition on divorce. I should like to come to this issue.

Despite my welcome for this debate and my interest in seeing that it moves out from both Houses of the Oireachtas and is a wide debate in our community, I am deeply concerned that it does not become so wide-ranging and diffuse that we are all talk and no action. There is some danger that the debate will take different courses where at one level we are talking about sectarian elements, at another level we are talking about Articles 2 and 3, but we are not doing anything. It is essential, and I shall be pressing for this in any way I can, for action to be taken on the single substantial issue in the Constitution which hurts at the moment in this part of the country. We must bite the bullet, to use that rather crude way of putting it, of prohibition on divorce. Whatever about the other elements of the Constitution and whatever views we have on them, they do not actively contribute in the same way to the pressure, strain and suffering of families in the State as does the absolute prohibition of divorce.

I hope that the Taoiseach in his contribution to this debate will make it clear how the proposal to establish a joint committee on marriage law, including the question of the prohibition on divorce, is to be fitted into or reconciled with the initiative which he has now taken. I am concerned that there be a significant political commitment to ensure that in a reasonable time-span the Oireachtas will have an opportunity to examine the prohibition on divorce. If that is done honestly and conscientiously, and if the problems are fully appreciated and recognised, I am confident that a committee would recommend the abolition of this prohibition. That should go ahead even if it appears to be amending a Constitution which is itself under discussion. I say that because otherwise I fear that we will lose impetus by having a very general and diffuse discussion on the Constitution rather than seeing the necessity to take a practical, immediate and urgent step on the one provision of the Constitution which genuinely hurts so many of our citizens and requires to be amended. We must consider the kind of reform of our marriage law which will allow people to legally terminate their marriages where they have irretrievably broken down and where in many cases a second stable relationship has been entered into, whether by a second marriage in the Catholic Church following an annulment granted by that Church, which is not a valid marriage, or whether it is a marriage on the basis of one party having got a divorce abroad, with the further question of whether that divorce will be recognised here or not, or whether it is simply that a man and woman have come to live together in partnership and have formed a stable relationship and may or may not have children.

These are daily problems. I do not think there is any Member of this House who does not have personal knowledge of the incidence of family and marital breakdown where the situation would be helped by having a reasonable and responsible mechanism whereby there could be legal termination. We must provide the possibility of legal recognition of the fact that the marriage has totally broken down. I urge that we do not hide behind a general discussion aimed at constitutional review in order to postpone grasping that nettle and applying ourselves to the degree of leadership and general education and allaying of fears that will be necessary if that amendment is to receive general support throughout the community. It is encouraging and significant that the opinion polls have increasingly shown a consistent majority in favour of change. Why I say "significant" is that full political endorsement of a decision to change the prohibition on divorce has not yet come fully. The Labour Party is the only political party to have stated clearly its commitment to this reform. I hope that the two parties now in Government will see the essential necessity to take that practical step and not postpone it because of a general debate which will inevitably take longer to reach some reasonable degree of consensus and accommodation, so that there could perhaps be a new Constitution.

I appreciate that there are a number of other people who wish to speak. I do not intend to refer in detail to other areas of the Constitution where there could be a useful review. I will just mention the possibility that the Constitution could be examined from the way in which it affirms the protection of private property which it does in the context of promoting social justice and the exigencies of the common good, but may not do in a way that is sufficiently balanced to enable us to develop as a people the resources of our community while still safeguarding the private property rights of individuals. The Constitution, both in Article 40, section 3 and in Article 43, attempted to strike a balance. We know from the difficulties of implementing the Kenny Report and from the whole question of compensation in local authority law, that there is an urgent need either to clarify that there is no constitutional problem or alternatively to address ourselves to an amendment of the Constitution which would get over that problem.

Clearly there is a very real need for serious and constructive review of the Constitution. The Constitution is not some kind of holy writ on which we have to adopt a fundamentalist approach. I sincerely hope that this debate and debates that follow it will encourage people to move a little in the direction of seeing that we must, in Senator Dooge's terms, be prepared to take at least the first step before we can expect or hope that there will be a genuine dialogue between the political traditions in both parts of this island.

Mr. B. Ryan

I probably am a rarity in Irish politics in that when I sought election to Seanad Éireann I made no reference to the problem of Northern Ireland. However, the breadth of the motion proposed by Senators Hussey and Ferris encouraged me to put some thoughts together because I read "creating within this island conditions favourable to unity through reconciliation of our people". In the breadth of this debate so far, though the emphasis has been on the Constitution, I do not think that it is exclusively about the Constitution. The debate about the Constitution is largely a debate about our attitudes to our own problems and difficulties, focused as they are in particular on the problem of Northern Ireland.

In spite of fairly frequent visits to Belfast I do not believe I have any magic insight into the minds of citizens of Northern Ireland, be they Catholic or Protestant. I accept Senator McGuinness' point: I do not like the labels of Nationalist, anti-Nationalist, Unionist or anti-Unionist. They are Catholics and they are Protestants and they are proud of those titles. There is only one path by which you can persuade people that you are concerned about their welfare. That is by showing yourself to be generous, showing yourself to be understanding, showing yourself to be considerate and showing yourself to be willing to stand up for their rights if those rights are threatened, even if they are a minority, be it a significant or an insignificant minority. I should like, therefore, to talk briefly about our attitude to our many minorities. We have a habit of talking as if we had only one minority. I regret to say — and I hope to elaborate on this — that our generosity and our kindness and our willingness to stand up in politics and outside politics for the rights of our many minorities do not say anything which would encourage Northern Protestants to believe that we are suddenly going to be converted to generosity and kindness and to have the willingness to stand up for difficult causes and for the rights of difficult people.

Mar shampla, féach ar mhuintir na Gaeltacha. Sin mionlacht cultúrtha atá againn. Tá pobal na Gaeltacha ag dul i laighead le 60 bliana anuas. Cad é an bun rud a bhí ag teastáil agus á lorg ag muintir na Gaeltachta le déanaí faoi Údarás na Gaeltachta agus céard a tugadh dóibh? Ní raibh Udarás na Gaeltachta ann ach Gaeltarra Éireann faoí ainm eile. Ní raibh aon smacht acu ar chúrsaí pleanála, ar chúrsaí oideachais nó ar aon rud mar sin. Sin mionlacht beag cultúrtha atá againn sa tír seo, mionlacht a deirimid go bhfuil suim faoi leith againn ionta, ach ní rabhamar go róflaithiúil leo nuair a bhí siad ag lorg smacht ar a gcúrsaí féin.

I should like to mention our travelling people. Our travelling people have been hounded out of most towns and most cities at the behest of, and generally with the support of, elected representatives of most of our political parties. In some cases the Labour Party have been an honourable exception: in some cases they have not. When it comes to the two major political parties their record on specific instances of the rights of that minority of our people who choose freely to travel has not been good. In fact, it has been absolutely scandalous. I would put to you the situation about homeless people in this country and in particular in this city. They have been hounded out of Fairview, out of Ballymun and out of Chapelizod. I have to say to this House that not one elected representative of the Irish people saw fit directly or indirectly to say one good word in defence of those homeless people. That small and not particularly threatening minority were hounded out of accommodation by local people actively assisted by the elected representatives of all three political parties who are traditionally represented in this House. That does not say much for our attitude to minorities when they become difficult.

I will go on to talk about our old people living alone. People may not like to hear this but it is a fact that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul did discover that in terms of the basic physical resources for living, old people in Northern Ireland are vastly better supplied than the old people down here. If I were an old person in Northern Ireland I would not be particularly enthusiastic about my future in this generous, kind, understanding Republic of ours. We have ignored them because they have no voice, because they are a minority and because they therefore cannot threaten established positions. Look at our children begging on O'Connell Bridge or on St. Patrick's Bridge in Cork. Look at the children from Seán McDermott Street and from places like that. They are a minority. They do not represent your average comfortable middle-class or working class child with a home and parents with an income. What did we do with them? When they got difficult and awkward we opened up Loughan House 150 miles from home and we dumped them all up there out of the way. That is not generosity. It is not imagination. If I were a young person I would not be too enthusiastic about joining a State like that.

What about our prisoners? We are unique in these islands in having a prison in the Curragh which the visiting committee have on many occasions recommended should be closed. That prison is still open. That is not generosity. I would point out to the good Catholic Members of this House that the Pope in almost his final address in this country directed particularly the attention of churchmen and Christians to the welfare of prisoners. Those who would preach to us about Catholicism and our Christian tradition would do well to pay attention to that. The Curragh prison is still open. It is a disgrace to this country that civilian prisoners whatever they have done are in military custody. It should be closed immediately, and so also should Loughan House.

What about the wives of violent husbands who have totally inadequate legislative protection? They are not a large group. They are not particularly vocal. When have we showed a willingness to respond to their needs, to understand their problems and to give their needs priority over other urgent legislation? Because they were not large, because they were not vocal, we ignored them. Again they are another minority.

I could go on forever, but I would be failing in my duty if I failed to refer to the fact that one of the reasons I am sceptical about a proposal to investigate our legislative and constitutional practices with a view, I understand, to being generous and understanding towards our Northern brethren, is because a senior member of the Government engaged in a most slanderous and scandalous attack on the conditions, the welfare and the rights of the poor of this country. He is still a member of the Government, but he should not be. As long as he remains a member of the Government I would not believe in that Government's commitment either to social reform or to social justice.

What about our psychiatric patients? Because they do not have votes and because their families ignore them they are left to live and to continue their existence in hovels of hospitals that should have been closed down 50 years ago. I put it again to you that we have not really shown a willingness to concern ourselves with the minorities that already exist. It is a bit simplistic to talk exclusively about the Northern Protestants as being the only ones we have to convince. If I was a kid living in Ballymurphy it would not matter to me whether the policeman who picked me up because I had no job or was unemployed or had broken the law, came under the jurisdiction of Belfast, Dublin or Westminster. He would still be a cop and I still would not like him. I still would not get any different treatment. I would be simply a young kid in trouble. Why should any such child want to join us? We will not do him any good. We will not give him a job. We treat our own kids who are victims of unemployment very badly. Why should we treat those kids hardened by ten years of violence any better?

I am unhappy about the way our politicians hide behind the soutanes of the Catholic Church to defend their own inherent conservatism. It is far too simple a cliché to blame the Catholic Church for everything. It is far too simple a cliché to lay the blame for all sorts of problems at the door of the Catholic Church. The facts are that it was very easy for people to go along with the Catholic Church when it was fundamentally a conservative organ and a conservative body. On social issues, on international politics, the Catholic Church is a far more radical voice in this country than either of our major political parties and that will not be recognised because it is now becoming inconvenient for people to do so. On El Salvador and on many other issues the Church is far ahead of our Government. So let us not in a debate like this begin to pretend that the Catholic Church is exclusively a hold up to progress.

Senator Robinson referred to something that I want to talk about. That is Article 42 of the Constitution which unless I am mistaken was almost dictated by the Catholic social teaching of the thirties. That particular Catholic view of private property and its rights has been long superseded and expanded by Catholic social teaching. I put it to the two major political parties: if you do believe in the Church that you give your allegiance to let us have a definition of the rights of private property in our Constitution that conforms to your Church's beliefs. Sectarian though it be it would be an enormous improvement on the position we have at present.

This country's dealing with its minorities is inadequate. The performance of our political leaders in defending minorities is extremely inadequate, and funds are not the problem. I will propose about ten things that could be done most of which would not cost much money. The solution to the problem is a political willingness to accept fundamentally that we are a collection of minorities and even the small and awkward ones, the dangerous and unpleasant ones, have the same rights as everybody else. If our political leadership wishes to persuade a large minority somewhere else on this island that we are prepared to be generous and understanding, then we must start with our own minority. We could have a Homeless Persons Act to provide that homeless people will cease to be shunted from health authorities to local authorities to health authorities to local authorities, defining the obligation of local authorities to provide shelter for anybody who is homeless. We could have a social welfare appeal system which would be not so demeaning, not so humiliating, truly independent and seen to be so and which would provide people with a fair hearing, a fair chance and fair representation. We could have a revised Children's Act which would define the rights of children. We could have the closure of Loughan House. Loughan House has failed. I do not believe that there is any evidence that the crime rate in Dublin has gone down or been changed by the presence of Loughan House. It was a political gesture, a political expedient at the expense of our children, an attempt to appear to be doing something about an extremely difficult problem. It should be closed immediately. We could close the Curragh as well. We could do something about our family law so that legitimate children who are victims of broken homes can be properly adopted. Fundamental conservatism encourages a distorted allegiance to the unity of the family which damages the children enormously.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Howard)

The House has agreed to adjourn the debate on this subject at 6 o'clock and it is now 6 o'clock so I would ask the Senator kindly to move the adjournment.

Debate adjourned.