I deliberately held off speaking on this particular motion for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I wanted to give my own new colleagues an opportunity to get the feel of the Seanad and, secondly, I wanted to hear what the Taoiseach had to say on this whole question.
The matter of creating the conditions that will in some way assist in the whole question of unity is a very wide subject which calls not only for detailed research and discussion but also for cautious comment so as not to create any more fears in the minds of the Protestant people of the North. There is a great depth of fear there, therefore the word "cautious" is used very deliberately.
When discussing the means of assisting other initiatives being undertaken and being proposed, we believe compromise is necessary to make those initiatives a success. We must compromise intelligently to the extent that the compromise asked here will play a role in allaying somewhat the fears of the Protestant people in the North. It certainly will not make them run across the Border to look for shelter in the South. We are a very long way from that, but it will help in some way to allay fears, and coupled with the other initiatives on the table at the moment it is tremendously important that we think, not in terms of opposition but in terms of complement.
The compromise asked of all of us in this Chamber in the motion is simply that we engage objectively in a debate which is a means and not an end in itself. It is a means of reaching out for favourable conditions. Nobody has really said what the favourable conditions might be. Nobody knows in the final analysis whether, in fact, we can create those favourable conditions. But we can, as suggested in the motion, reach out for favourable conditions so that we can be of useful service to the other initiatives that are going on at present on the North. I speak of the Secretary of State, Mr. Prior, and of the Anglo-Irish talks also. We must not forget that the Attorney General has also been asked to have a look at the whole question of the Constitution. All those are initiatives. If we are not seen to reach out to assist in some way in those initiatives, we can hardly claim to be serious about making a contribution towards favourable conditions.
We are asked to have a look at the Constitution. The motion asks us this on the clear understanding that where it is proven that deficiencies exist they cannot be remedied by discussion alone and that action must follow the discussions. To me, as an ordinary working-class person, that is a simple proposition. If any of the barristers, solicitiors, accountants, farmers, auctioneers, businesmen or company directors in this House put that proposition to me as a trade union official to try to get agreement from workers, some having a very low standard of education, I believe I would have no difficulty in getting agreement from those workers. If for some reason I could not get agreement from those workers on behalf of the professional people to whom I referred, they would be the first to denounce my people for being stubborn, unreasonable, etc.
I do not propose to make the accusation that anyone in this House is being stubborn, but I will lay the charge against the Opposition that they have either deliberately or accidentally confused ends with means. Accordingly, judging from the terms of their amendment, they are behaving as if we were close to an end rather than searching out means to amend one aspect that may contribute to unity. That is a very simple proposition and a very simple request. They know, I know and everybody else in this House knows that there is an awful lot of travel to be done and an awful lot of ground to be covered between the means and the end. The reason opposing Senators know this is that quite a few of them are experienced. Some of them have just come into the House, but they have been active in politics for a long time. So it is either accidental or due to confusion that they are failing to recognise that there is a lot of ground between the means and the end or, if they consider there are two extremes, that there is a lot of ground in between two extremes.
It is not really in character for experienced politicians to take up an attitude of no compromise, and many of the Senators on the opposite side of this House are very experienced people. The Fianna Fáil Senators are well aware that discussions initiated by their own leader are in progress. I am speaking of the Anglo-Irish talks. They know of the intentions of Mr. Prior with regard to the assembly. They are fully conscious of the necessity to avoid adding to the deep apprehension of the Protestant people and they should be aware that in terms of doing anything to assist unity they must compromise.
In any attempt at unity we must start by understanding the depth of the anxiety and insecurity of the Protestant people. We have to be very careful on that score. Those are not my words. I did not see all of the programme Today Tonight yesterday evening, but those were the words of Mr. Whitelaw, who has very substantial experience of political initiatives in the North. Mr. Whitelaw believes that to start from any other base than understanding the depth of fear of the Protestant people is to live in a fools' paradise. Mr. Whitelaw went on to say that Protestants cannot be pushed in the wrong direction. He then said that he was encouraged by the Taoiseach's thoughts, stressing that some contribution is needed, and he also praised the Anglo-Irish talks. Mr. Whitelaw, who has great experience and whose initiatives were brought down not by political action but by strike action in the North, sees the necessity for initiatives and welcomes this initiative of the Taoiseach. He sees it as heading in the right direction. He never, at any stage during the programme, stressed that it was the end or that we were anywhere near the end, but that it was a sensible and constructive way to go about trying to move in a way that will not be too fast and will not frighten the Northern people but which, at the same time, will run alongside the other initiatives that are there.
I am not asking for sudden action. We know that this debate will go on for a long time and a lot of ground will have been covered before we finally come to the stage of having a referendum and in the course of that time I expect that a lot of fears of the people of the North will have been set at ease. Mr. Whitelaw, who welcomes the Taoiseach's initiative, has to be listened to whether we like it or not. He has been in the middle of the whole thing. He has been involved in initiatives. He cannot be ignored. What pleases him most about this initiative is that we are not suggesting the setting up of institutions and are not embarking on a course of action that might antagonise any of the Protestants in the North.
It may be argued by the Opposition that the Taoiseach's initiative will have no great influence on our Protestant friends in the North. But that is not a reason for not trying to take an initiative. In deciding that point is it not obvious that we should consider that, whether it pleases them or not, it certainly will not antagonise them? Mr. Whitelaw, who knows a lot about it, has suggested that the type of initiative being taken will not antagonise the Protestants but will be welcomed by them.
We also have the observations of churchmen and other people welcoming this initiative. I see this motion as part of a contribution to the whole process of reconcilation. I do not see it as a proposition that might in any way antagonise the Protestants in the North. At this time our endeavours should be directed at trying to influence the people of the North. But the amendment before the House at the moment will antagonise them when we should be trying to influence them. This amendment is the Republican version of "No Surrender" and let us hold on to the status quo. It is an effort at opting out, not because they believe there is no middle ground but because the initiative came from Fine Gael. If I am wrong and if Fianna Fáil are seriously concerned about Articles 2 and 3, they have no grounds for opting out because opting out of any portion of it is no reason for opting out of the whole lot.
Articles 2 and 3 are not the only Articles involved. We have heard some very good contributions from both sides of the House on other Articles of the Constitution. There is a lot to the question of creating conditions favourable to unity. Fianna Fáil, by opting out, are deliberately avoiding the possibility of searching out the advantages in this whole area. Because of that it seems that, even though Fianna Fáil may feel antagonistic, there are advantages to be gained by cooperation. If they were to co-operate in this debate, rather than putting down an amendment which deliberately seeks out the best way to concentrate on the disadvantages, they would get a lot out of it. But they must avoid concentrating on the disadvantages. The wording of the Fianna Fáil amendment leaves us open to the charge that we are not prepared to mobilise ourselves to tackle the tasks that are necessary to create conditions favourable to one aspect of the whole question of unity.
We are all legislators but I say to the Fianna Fáil legislators that it looks as if they are not prepared to display the type of leadership which would generate enthusiasm so that others on both sides of the Border can feed on it as part of the overall process. We are not displaying conviction of desires.
The question of creating favourable conditions for unity calls for a reaching out not only to our own people but to Protestant brothers and sisters in the North who need our guidance and who need to understand exactly what we are thinking in respect of what we can do to make the conditions more favourable. They need our leadership. If the people in this Chamber do not make an effort to show that we are serious about giving guidance and leadership the people in the North will have another laugh at us and will become more entrenched in their views because they see initiatives going on in the North, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the status quo being maintained in the South which will be an impediment to the initiatives that are taking place and will be proceeded with at a later date in the North.
Perhaps there are weaknesses in our approach to unity. Even if we admit it, would that assist the Fianna Fáil people to come along and put down something more positive than an amendment that says "no", that holds on to the status quo? It does not look like it. If we really want to convince people that there are weaknesses in our approach to unity and that we in this House, wish, through sensible debate, to build some sort of contempt for those weaknesses, we must seriously question where we are heading. After all, we adopt the “no surrender” and the status quo mentality but we will not convince any thinking person that we are intent on unity when we are not prepared even to examine the feasibility of proposals aimed at trying for favourable conditions.
Here we are talking about one small but important aspect of what is needed and the Fianna Fáil Senators are not prepared to make that start in this area. How can they finish something that they do not begin, that they refuse to make a start on? The amendment is refusing to make a start on this initiative not because everybody in Fianna Fáil disagrees with it—I will deal with that later. In this House they are refusing to get down to cases despite the fact that they know a case exists, particularly in the light of the Anglo-Irish talks and Mr. Prior's proposals. If a case did not exist last week, it now exists in the light of Mr. Prior's proposed initiatives.
We are all great people at suggesting that legislation does not go far enough and wanting to amend it to go further. In this House, how often have those of us who are here longer than others stood up and said legislation does not go far enough and that it needs amending? At the same time, when Fianna Fáil are asked to have a look at creating favourable conditions that might necessitate a review of the Constitution and some legislative programmes they make the argument by the very tone of their motion that all the legislation we have is correct and does not need reviewing. If we put down amendments to it which are defeated and we are still not happy, Fianna Fáil can hardly argue that all the legislation is correct. They refuse to accept that a legislative review is needed. The only thing I can assume on that basis is that the Fianna Fáil Senators now accept that all the existing legislation is perfect. That is a preposterous suggestion. I do not believe the Fianna Fáil people believe that.
This is too serious a business for us here in this House — let them have all the rows they like in the other House — where we are having the first opportunity to debate this, to put down a motion that pretends that the Opposition are being mistreated. There is no crown of thorns being embedded in anyone's head. It is a simple proposition that ordinary working-class people would be ready to come to terms with, yet there are professional men, experienced politicians and so on who are not prepared to come to terms with it. It would be understandable if we were talking about an end in itself.
We are talking about looking for cooperation in regard to the means to a possible end. Maybe Fianna Fáil have some grounds for being antagonistic. By and large, the real argument seemed to come from the other side of the House on the basis that Articles 2 and 3 are not for sale or are not up for discussion, alteration or amendment. If Articles 2 and 3 represent the objectionable part of the motion for them, if they feel it is embedded in the motion or that it is contained in the Taoiseach's talks on television or radio, it is not case for rejecting the lot. Total rejection is not the way to amend — total rejection in the sense that it is a motion proposed by Fine Gael and, therefore, is not worthy of support. If Fianna Fáil embarked on some sort of initiative not to delete Articles 2 and 3 but possibly to suggest an alteration in the wording, I wonder would people in Fianna Fáil make the argument for total rejection? I do not think so. I say with all sincerity that it is possibly because Fianna Fáil have been in power longer than any other party and because Éamon de Valera was the initiator of the Constitution in 1937 they would prefer if they had taken some initiative in this direction.
Fianna Fáil have taken initiatives. Their own leader got the Anglo-Irish talks under way and I would like to give him credit for that. The fact of the matter is that we are all involved in this problem. Governments change from time to time. We on this side of the House will, in fact, find ourselves one day having to deal with the whole question of supporting matters affecting the North. Fianna Fáil may regard as antagonistic the Taoiseach's remarks regarding Articles 2 and 3 but I do not think the matter should be considered a closed door. It was an expression by the leader of a party who has taken an initiative. I do not for one moment accept that all the people in Fianna Fáil or all the Senators in this House would not be amenable to some rewording of Articles 2 and 3 rather than the argument "not an inch, no surrender".
Fianna Fáil have tabled a new motion rather than an amendment to the Government's motion. This has given them an opportunity to soft pedal not only on the question of constitutional change but on the desirability of creating conditions favourable to unity within this island. In doing that they are saying they are not in the business of assisting any effort at reconciliation, that is, any effort that is taken by anyone other than Fianna Fáil. Let us be clear on that. It was open to Fianna Fáil and to us in the past to submit amendments. However, amendment does not always mean that you have to delete everything after the first word and then proceed to write a new motion. If Fianna Fáil were not satisfied with the wording of the motion and if they considered it should be altered, they should have put down the appropriate amendment. If this had been done the debate would have been a much better debate, even though I accept that the debate has been of a high standard. It would have helped us to go about this question in a much more purposeful way, particularly on Articles 2 and 3. However, I believe that the matter of the wording of the motion is still open.
In the motion before the House Fianna Fáil are being asked to accept that yesterday's time is gone. It is gone forever. Senator O'Leary said that. Here we are talking about efforts to be made tomorrow. Fianna Fáil are confusing yesterday's problems. They are holding on to preconceived notions. They are confusing tomorrow's efforts with yesterday's problems. This is often a very dangerous course of action. On many occasions they have made the plea to us not to dwell on yesterday's difficulties when we have to deal with other problems.
I am not asking Fianna Fáil to surrender their strong political views. They are entitled to hold their strong political views. They are entitled to dig in on the question of review of the Constitution. I merely speak of the need for acquiescence on this matter, not because I believe in acquiescence in every case but because of the great seriousness of the present situation. The motion does not ask Fianna Fáil to surrender their political views, but on a matter of such importance they should not have rewritten the motion. I have stated that I consider the question of the wording of the motion is still open and I ask Fianna Fáil to take advantage of that opportunity. I ask them to do this at a time when the Secretary of State for the North of Ireland is trying to get round the question of filling the political vacuum. I am asking them to acquiesce because the Anglo-Irish talks are running alongside that particular initiative.
Even though this may not be the most major contribution ever made on the North towards this question of unity, nevertheless it is a contribution. In many circumstances we have to let go of our own particular feelings and subjugate in some sense some of our feelings in the interests of dealing with a healthy unit. It may be a small contribution towards creating favourable conditions for unity, but it is a contribution and it will be a demonstration to the people in the North that we are prepared to accommodate each other in the South in a way that will enable us to pursue desirable goals. In the final analysis it does not matter which party are in government. When the question is on the table each of us needs the activity of the other in the most positive way possible. If Fianna Fáil were back in power and the political vacuum in the North was close to being filled, they would be asking the Opposition for their co-operation and activity on a difficult and delicate question.
I for one would be one of the people, and I am sure all my colleagues would share that with me, who would be only too ready and willing in the light of the whole history of the last 12 years to make serious efforts to facilitate Fianna Fáil, if they were the Government, if they asked for this initiative.
The forming of good attitudes is also something we have got to take care of. Our willingness to adopt new methods must be demonstrated, because in the long run these things are the only way to ensure a healthy campaign that will make us in the Republic acceptable. As people of goodwill, and I speak for the lot of us, we are in no way endeavouring to destroy the traditions of dignity and freedom of our Portestant friends in the North. When certain thoughts enter my mind I wish I was in some other Chamber where I would not have to modify my language. However, in the absence of the other Chamber, I will expose my thoughts here: I suggest to my Fianna Fáil colleagues in the Seanad that it is time for them to stop the bellyaching. It is time for us to do away with the catchcalls and slogans which have been displacing action. Instead of reacting let us now act.
We have an opportunity to act without surrendering our political strength. We have been using the catchcries and slogans for too long as a substitute for action. No matter how slight we may expect the gain to be not only from the debate but from the general reaction to the motion, let us go after it because we cannot afford the luxury of not drawing on our strengths. We have been too busy trying to get at each other politically.
Let us now get at our strengths. Let us take strength from each other on this occasion. If we do, I suggest we will go a long way to create favourable conditions for unity. I have my own views about the Constitution. So far I have not gone to town on that aspect of the debate because it is necessary to try to deal with the entire question of whether the Opposition amendment has a useful purpose in the context of the situation now being faced in the North. That has to be dealt with at length. I will make some points that perhaps my Fine Gael colleagues will not hold with, perhaps, in regard to the Constitution.
As members of institutions we must be seen to be doing something effective to accomplish our goals and objectives. Somebody must start leading the Seanad down the road to its purpose and from that point of view it is fitting that we should begin to find the task before us. As I have said several times, and I make no apology for repeating it, the task is to fill the political vacuum in the North, in the context of the Anglo-Irish talks on the North and the Attorney General's brief to look at the Constitution. We must accept our task, which is to do everything possible to ensure that the dialogue on unity will serve its purpose as part of the whole. If we are not prepared to talk in an effective way about parts of the whole we will not see the day when the whole will function as a unit. From my experience of events throughout the world — I spent nine years in the company of Northern Ireland Protestants and I have the experience of having been a trade union official for many years — I submit that advancment will not come from what I will describe as the beleaguered minority complex, particularly on the question of unity. We must get rid of that complex but we cannot do so unless we tune in to the fundamentals. Having tuned in to the fundamentals, our activity should enable us to go forward in a physio-mental campaign in active unity.
I have lived with the beleagured minority complex for a long time. I have often had to take on my own trade union members who expressed this beleaguered minority complex. These people set themselves up as the true defenders of their traditions and Constitution. They regard it as their job as the beleagured minority to defend the status quo, the attitude “no surrender”. That is not the attitude of most working class people. As I have said, I have made numerous efforts to bring my people along from that type of mentality. In the final analysis I get them to agree, wherever we can find common ground for agreement. The attitude towards maintaining the status quo by our Protestant brothers and sisters is not the way to demonstrate that they are people of goodwill.
Of course there are obstacles, but let us turn them into a challenge. We have the challenge here and now, and if we apply ourselves to this oppurtunity instead of negatively defending the status quo we can do a very good service to the Irish nation, small though it may be. Of course, mistakes may be made. I do not ask Fianna Fáil people to take anything for granted, but I suggest they must help us to follow through in this debate and not be negative. There has been enough dawdling, alibi-ing, excusing and pampering each other down through the years. That is not a very good mentality. Once you take up an attitude like that, it is very hard to change it. In this debate I do not think that attitude need be held rigidly. I will make one or two observations on that later on.
Fianna Fáil have rightly claimed to be the people who originated new and bold ideas, many of which were opposed by some of their own people who did not like them but who eventually came to terms with them. Some people in their own party disliked what they were doing, but they went ahead, to the betterment of the nation. They knew they had a difficult road to travel, but travel the road they did to the benefit of the Irish nation. There is a history of that in Fianna Fáil in some areas which I will mention later. Some Senators who are long-standing members of Fianna Fáil find it difficult to travel down this road which does not make any great demands on them or look for any commitment from them in the sense of surrendering some strongly held political view. They should not look at half of the picture but try to act positively and see what is available.
Let us have a look at what is available arising out of this debate. This may facilitate us in trying to reach a consensus on what action needs to be taken, to what degree, and how we should take that action. That was the mentality of the Fianna Fáil Party when they took initiatives on bold and new ideas down through the years. What is wrong with that now? Why are they remaining blind to facts which are distasteful to them? Where are the new and bold ideas now? Where are the people of the calibre of the Lemass era? Mr. Lemass knew that people's minds were in a state of flux and that they could be influenced to break away from old beliefs and old allegiances. If he had not believed that, if he had not worked to bring his people along with him, companies like Aer Lingus might not exist, and initiatives on the North, such as the cross-Border ventures by Captain O'Neill and himself, would never have been taken.
It is time we stopped living with the luxury of complacency. We must try to do something to create favourable conditions which would assist in achieving unity. I cannot understand the failure of a republican party to show any desire to heighten the interest of the Irish people as a whole in creating favourable conditions for achieving unity. If the Taoiseach had chosen to use very optimistic terms when taking this initiative, I would be the first to take him to task, because I believe total optimists are extremists. If the motion had been framed in a totally optimistic way, suggesting that unity had arrived or was about to arrive, that would suggest to me that we were debating an end rather than a means to an end. I cannot take him to task because he has not approached it in that way. His is a genuine effort to persuade people that the whole question needs to be looked at in the sense that laws which have been enacted may have antagonised some people.
He was honest enough to say Articles 2 and 3 should not be in our Constitution because they antagonise the Protestant people of the North. His belief that Articles 2 and 3 should not be in the Constitution may antagonise some Fianna Fáil people but, if the debate is treated with the seriousness it deserves, and not manoeuvred by an amendment which calls for the retention of the status quo, there is scope for discussion on Articles 2 and 3, despite the Taoiseach's view that they should be deleted from the Constitution. Nobody will thank Fianna Fáil for opting out of facing this challenge. If they have strong feelings about Articles 2 and 3 being deleted, they should not opt out of the debate, but get into it and come to terms with it. The will of the Irish people, in accordance with Articles 2 and 3, is to achieve a united Ireland by peaceful means. Those Articles reflect the duly enacted will of the majority of our people, which, I understand, must be obeyed. Otherwise there would be a violation of the Constitution. There is no violation if, in open debate, you bring the public with you to the point where they are sufficiently educated and geared to make a decision as to whether a constitutional change is necessary.
We are not violating the rights of the majority. We are merely talking about what it might be possible to do. When the people read this debate and have a total knowledge of what is meant by the motion, they will be in a position to say yea or nay. There will be no overriding the duly enacted will of the majority. In the meantime, while we allow this debate to develop and the dialogue to continue, we should not manoeuvre cynically by a call for a campaign that suggests the retention of the statuas quo, when everybody knows that the status quo will not suffice. We are here dealing with the question of change. Perhaps it is not the best analogy in the world but I put it to the House. In this world, in our homes and daily lives we have experienced an awful lot of change. In many cases, particularly from my experience in dealing with trade unionists. I found often the mentality that they did not mind change so long as it affected the other fellow.
We have come a long way since the majority fought tooth and nail against the steam engine, the power loom and every other improvement that was suggested. Even in those days people had to come to terms with the difficult and awkward circumstances with which they were presented. People need a chance to come to terms here in Ireland. We must give them a chance to come to terms with the final outcome of this debate. We cannot do that if we dwell too long on wishful and futile hopes and dreams about what steps are necessary to come into harmony with our Protestant neighbours. We need to be seen not only to be debating but to be heading towards a course of action that will facilitate them with an opportunity of saying yea or nay to favourable conditions for unity. If the debate as it continues is allowed develop along desirable lines the House can rest assured that, even though nothing miraculous may emerge to influence by itself conditions of greater unity, then we will at least be in a position to say that in so far as it was our duty to do so we tried hard to create a real awareness that the status quo will not suffice and that the philosophy of “No Surrender” cannot apply in this part of the Republic. As I see it there is a great distance between two extremes with an awful lot of middle ground in between. If Opposition Senators believe that the Taoiseach's initiative was offensive or extreme, they have their opportunity in this debate to take him to task.
I dealt with the question of the amendment. I concluded by saying that the Taoiseach had put right some of the wrongs that people believed in regard to Tone. We have allowed ourselves to split hairs in regard to the way words were mentioned. We have even had an argument about the Taoiseach's reference to Mr. de Valera saying that a Protestant could not be employed, or some such words. I do not remember the exact wording. The Taoiseach, where he may have given offence, has pointed out that there was no offence meant. It is as well to understand that there was no offence meant. It was a pity, whether or not taken out of context by the Opposition, that it was found necessary to refer to Mr. de Valera and some Portestant worker. I can tell a little story here. In a certain firm in this country no Catholic on this side of the Border had ever become a manager or member of the board of directors until such time as Mr. de Valera, over a meal in a certain location, had a word with the top man there. That practice was then changed and I lived to see many Catholics attain very high positions in that institution. So much for remarks about Mr. de Valera. It was unfortunate the way such remarks were introduced.
I shall deal now with the question of the Constitution. As far as we in the Labour Party are concerned there is a desire to create in these islands conditions favourable to unity through reconciliation of its people. There is the need also to have a constitutional review — that is Labour Party thinking — and, if not a review, a total abolition. We are not alone in this view. For example, Deputy Séamus Brennan, the former General Secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party, believes that a new draft Constitution should be drawn up by an all-party committee. Mr. Michael Mills quoted him on 15 October last in The Irish Press as so saying in an interview to Southside given the day before. According to Mr. Michael Mills Deputy Séamus Brennan intends to make a major statement on this at the Fianna Fáil Youth Conference in Cork where he will be sharing the platform with the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. On the other hand, Deputy Martin O'Donoghue said on television that not everybody in Fianna Fáil was totally opposed to a constitutional review. It will be seen therefore that it is not merely Fine Gael and Labour but there are also a substantial number of important people in the Fianna Fáil Party who have come to a recognition of the need to examine the Constitution with a view to its redrafting or amendment in the interests of creating favourable conditions for unity.
On the question of the Constitution if, for example, it was decided to delete subsections 2 and 3 of Article 41, legislation would have to follow because their removal would not satisfy the Labour Party people. Neither would it satisfy the civil rights of the people affected because then there would not be any provision in law for people to re-marry or to have maintenance allowances or alimony fixed. Neither would the rights of their children be taken care of automatically as a result of such deletion. This being so, a deletion solves nothing in itself. Legislation will have to be enacted.
I merely give that as an example on the assumption that people believe that to alter our Constitution by deletions here and there would be an effective way of creating conditions favourable for unity. I make that point to broaden the discussion because if one reads the motion what we mean by a legislative review is clear. Linked with the word "Constitutional", it has to be taken to mean legislation necessary as a result of a constitutional review or amendment. Then we ask what happens in areas where legislation can be improved substantially without reference to the need for constitutional amendment. To be clear, does the motion that legislation not only arising out of any constitutional review but which is presently in existence or is proposed to be introduced, would be subject to continuous review particularly on all matters conducive to unity in the South?
I have taken this argument for my own benefit to see how serious we are and what steps will be taken to ensure not only dialogue but action arising out of that dialogue. It was said earlier that it is not something that can be rushed into but at least we should be able to set a train of activity in motion with some time limit set on it. We should be able to do it in such a way that if there is a change of Government the new occupants will not be able to pull out of any deliberations and so on that may have emerged. We should aim at getting a commitment that if we get agreement to go ahead on this we will hold on to it despite the fact that there may be a change of Government.
The question of private property in Article 43 disturbs us in the Labour Party. The Kenny Report has been in existence for a long time and in the meantime much speculation and exploitation have gone on. Despite that, no clear desire has been expressed by Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or anyone else to do something about it either by introducing legislation or giving effect to some of its contents. Meanwhile thousands of people have lost the opportunity of being housed who, if effect had been given to the bulk of the aspects of that report, would now be housed.
On reading Article 43.1.2º one sees that the State guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath and inherit property. Article 43.1 deals with the exercise of the rights acknowledged in the subsection preceding it.
The exercise of the rights of private ownership of external goods and the right to transfer, bequeath and inherit property ought in civil society to be regulated by principles of social justice. We are all familiar with the word "ought"— ought to behave well or ought to abide by the principles of social justice. It is a chronically weak word particularly so since no administration ever gave thought to the weakness in the Constitution and, therefore, encouraged speculators, grafters and laissez-faire capitalism because those people only understand the words “you must” and “you shall not”. I am not naive enough to think that to use the word “shall” will keep people from breaching something. It would have helped a great deal but it would not have been any tremendous impediment to speculators. I am not sure if it would be possible to use the word “shall” but that is what makes the whole debate interesting and that is what makes it all worth exploring.
By pointing out the difficulties that grow up as a result of the wording of constitutional Articles I hope Senators will grasp the significance of the point I made about "ought" to be regulated by the principles of social justice. We give, on the one hand, total encouragement to passing no law attempting to abolish the right to private ownership and then trust to the goodwill of those who possess wealth to distribute it equitably. In other words, we put the equitable distribution of wealth in the hands of people who are speculators and exploiters. Let me make it clear in case there is any confusion. The Labour Party hold that since the wealth of society has been largely inherited from the past, every man, woman and child has a right to a share in it and, accordingly, it should be recognised as a basic human claim. One of those claims must be the right to adequate housing, a reasonable standard of living and security of tenure. Let us be clear on this. We do not exclude the right to recognition of private property or of inheritance within limits, limits that take real care of the public interest, democratically settled. This is where we part from other people. It is only when the property claims come into conflict with the public interest that we take issue and action.
Far from wishing to abolish private property, socialism actually desires that individuals should own more of it, and more than they have a chance of getting under capitalism. We do not oppose inheritence of property provided it does not lead to a class living on unearned income instead of income from useful work. As regards production, we recognise private property where it is the best way of providing useful resources for general benefit and on condition that it is not made a means for the exploitation of labour. That is the way the Labour Party think and it should be clearly understood.
We do not want to nationalise all industries and services but only those which would be for the general good because nobody has a right to misuse property that the community allows him to maintain. As far as we are concerned, industry left in private hands must be subject to control on behalf of the people. If they abuse that trust we will expect them to consider the question of whether they should be taken into public hands. The trust is there. I make those points in the context of dealing with Article 43, which I hope will be reviewed.
We would also stress that in any constitutional review consideration must be given to the importance of the whole question of conformity with the requirements of public planning for the best available use of resources and production and for the fair treatment of those engaged in the various enterprises as well as the consumers. The question of the creation of employment is one that must be uppermost in our minds. Coupled with the other points made, we insist on those considerations in any redrafting of the Constitution with specific reference to Article 43. If we are to be concerned only with amendments, we would expect those amendments to take care of the points we have raised here; but if we are to be concerned with a total review, we would want also to be totally involved on that and on the whole aspect of social justice.
Article 40 represents another area in which the working-class people will have a problem. The trade union movement experienced great difficulty some years ago when they were presented with a very difficult problem that has lasted for a very long time. It arose out of the case of the Educational Company v. Fitzpatrick or, if you like, the Educational Company v. the Union of Distributive Workers and Clerks. There are real problems to be solved in this area on that Article such as minority rights and the right of freedom of association.
We have a very substantial number of trade unionists across the Border. In the North of Ireland there is a very active trade union movement whose members will be keeping a close eye on how we treat certain Articles of the Constitution and on legislation in so far as it will affect them as working-class people. Suggestions of divisiveness on religious or social grounds are never necessary or appropriate. In fairness to the Catholic Church, when the Constitution was amended so as to remove the special position of that Church, they did not create any uproar. It is fair to say that the Protestant bishops of the day did not care whether that Article was deleted or left in.
We went some way in our constitutional amendments of 1972 to remove those provisions. The fact that the Constitution has been amended already means that it is open to further amendment. When we realise that the American Constitution is generally and regularly subjected to consideration for amendment, we should not have any fear in a small little island like this. I do not think that the climate was any better as a result of the removal of the provision of the special position of the Catholic Church. Times are different now. We are in a new situation in which there is a much better opportunity of creating a better climate and we have an obligation in this respect to look at the question of how we can deal with creating favourable conditions in this part of the island.
It is interesting to note that, for example, in the declaration on religious freedom, section 6, of Vatican II, we are told that governments should ensure that the equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated whether openly or otherwise, for religious reasons and that neither should there be discrimination among citizens. We may take it that the ordinary punter in Belfast or Derry or elsewhere in the other part of the island was not impressed by that declaration or else that they did not know what was said in Vatican II. In any case we have no way of gauging whether it went any way towards replacing fear with a bit of faith. The climate was not opportune at that time, and it is interesting to note that, even on this occasion with regard to divorce, the Catholic Church are not entering into the debate at this stage. Undoubtedly they will make their statements in their own time and in their own way.
There is a change of heart not only on the question of initiatives in the North but on the part of the Catholic Church. Most of the people in the North are much more aware now that it is becoming inevitable that the people in England, having made an investment in them by the protection they have given them over the years in providing the Army and so on, want a return. In this sense many of the Protestant people perhaps will want to start moving in a constructive way towards facilitating those initiatives. The initiatives were not brought down on the last occasion by political activity but by a strike. We have now an opportunity of making a more significant response.
The more I read the amendment to this motion, the more I am puzzled. As reported in the American Foreign Affairs Journal, 1972, Mr. Jack Lynch, speaking on the Anglo-Irish problem, said that the 1937 Constitution as it stands is not suitable for a new Ireland, that the Constitution of a new Ireland would have to be a written one with a firm and explicit guarantee for the rights and liberties of all who live under it. He said that he would tend to favour the view that these guarantees should relate to the individual citizen rather than to institutions as such and that Constitution makers should perhaps take a minimal approach, not to start from broad philosophical assumptions but instead to try to piece together an agreement on what is necessary for Government to function while ensuring rights and liberties to the individual. He said this would go some way towards putting us into a favourable position for dialogue.
There are factions in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour, but on the occasions that Mr. Lynch made those statements they were welcomed by all of Fianna Fáil, so much so that the speeches in that period appeared in booklet form. There was no dissenting voice in Fianna Fáil about the statement of the ex-Taoiseach when he spoke in America then. That is indicative of the point I made earlier, that there are many important people in Fianna Fáil who really believe that the Constitution needs to be looked at. They believe that that will go some way towards facilitating the creation of conditions favourable to the initiatives on the North. The former General Secretary of Fianna Fáil, the former Taoiseach and Deputy O'Donoghue all believe that some changes should take place. The amendment contradicts not only the motion but also the thoughts of the ex-Taoiseach. In a lot of ways it may contradict some of the private thoughts of the present Taoiseach. However, I will not dwell any further on that.
It is interesting to note that the contents of Article 41 were not in the Constitution of 1922 and were first introduced in 1937. Article 41 goes further than the Church. The Church laws now on the question of nullity and marriages being dissolved are much more advanced than those of the State. The problem is that because of the State's attitude although nullity may be granted by the Church, the parties cannot re-marry. Everyone knows that in such cases the Catholic Church permits re-marriage and I am not making any revelation when I say that. The dissolution of a marriage is represented only in one strain and as long as Article 41 remains as it is with the State prohibiting the dissolution of marriage we will have this crazy situation affecting a lot of people, not just on the basis of denying a civil right but also because they are going through cruel and difficult times. I do not mind admitting that this matter came home to me through one of my children. I understand the misery and suffering that people can be subjected to in those circumstances, particularly where it is allowed to drag on and no effective action is taken to alleviate it. It is all right to say that somebody has compassion. Real compassion must be in an examination of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage so that the people affected, who have suffered so long, and the children of those marriages, may be given the fullest protection of the law and enabled to embark on a new life for themselves where they can gain some happiness. They are entitled to that as a basic civil right. If it goes to the test of a referendum in this area and the referendum is defeated, so be it. We can then no longer be accused of not having regard to the terrible strain put on families who find themselves in those circumstances. We can no longer be accused of not making an endeavour in that direction. In the process, despite the fact that the referendum might be beaten, we will have gained a lot of knowledge that we can bring to bear on dealing with this question of the family. From that we will find a way to ease and make less acute the problems in those situations.
A hard core in the North, particularly those who have seen their nearest and dearest gunned down maybe while standing behind the counter of a shop or looking at television, have no good reason to talk or think about the question of unity. Be that as it may, many people who have not suffered this problem and many who have suffered and have had this serious harm inflicted on them who would be glad and are willing to seek a way forward. We at this end of the country are the majority and if we are not seen to wish to create political initiatives which will facilitate them either to fill their own political vacuum in the North or to create conditions favourable to them if they want eventually to get round to the question of unity, then we will be doing an injustice to them. We must tune in to minds that are in a state of flux.
It is understandable that in the 1937 Constitution there was only a certain distance one could go to satisfy the minority; one could not go too far. Now we need a central code of Articles that would be acceptable to North and South. We should not in our arguments act in a mischievous manner or misrepresent ourselves as mischievous people, particularly when we are talking about altering, amending, or repairing the Constitution — whatever way you like to describe it. We should ensure that any approach we make is not done in a mischievous manner which would represent us as sectarian people. There were arguments throughout the week that we were not a sectarian people. I will be quite honest. I do not know whether we are. I wonder if the question of sectarianism really confines itself to whether a person of one religion is discriminated against as distinct from a person professing another religion. If 75 per cent of the wealth of the country is owned by 5 per cent of the people, is that discrimination by the process of law or is it just something that accidentally happened? Are our laws or our Constitution discriminatory in this way? If they are they affect many people. Some sort of enactment or new Article is necessary to deal with that situation.
The Constitution will have to be framed, reviewed, altered or amended and put in simple language with principles and ideals which will influence and direct people. The question of when we can enact a new Constitution also arises. Can we talk about a new Constitution in the sense that we want to create favourable conditions towards unity while the people whom we are trying to influence do not at present have an opportunity of voting on any alterations that may take place in the amendment? It seems a little ridiculous to suggest that they might have a vote on it because in the final analysis if we did get around to the question of a united Ireland they would have a vote then.
It is interesting to note that we are charged with the obligation on this side of the Border to make sure that the constitutional amendments will be acceptable to the people in the North, because at present they are not in a position to vote on them. Therefore, we must make it simpler for them when the time to vote comes. We must, in the Constitution, reflect all the values and meet the legitimate interests of all sections of the people. I doubt if an examination of the Constitution would reveal that we behave in that way. We need to make sure, in any reframing amendment or altering of the Constitution, that hearts and minds are guided towards unity on political, social and economic purposes.
There have been many changes since our Constitution was adopted. People in the North have their problems in the sense that the Northern Constitution recognises in a special way the Grand Lodge. This is also a problem for people in the North, especially Catholics. If we are seen to be taking the initiative here that will also be one of the areas which will be tackled on the other side of the Border.
I am not going into detailed argument about Article 3, but it says that our legislation is binding on people in the North. While it is not necessary to delete that kind of thing perhaps it is necessary to have a look at its wording. In this way Fianna Fáil could be facilitated. I agree that it would be difficult to remove it in toto, but at the same time I could not accept it in its present form if we are speaking of creating conditions favourable to people for the purpose of unity. One cannot legislate for people over whom one has no control and say that they must accept it. However, I will not go into that in great depth.
People on the opposite side here have confused the means with the end. The motion merely asks us to facilitate the creation of conditions which would be favourable to unity. It does not claim to suggest it is an end in itself. We are not dealing with the question of being totally Gaelic as was expressed by some of the Fianna Fáil people. When the question of the Constitution comes up, even though the Taoiseach has talked about republicanism, if we are talking about a united Ireland in the final analysis we will not be writing a republican constitution, we will be writing an Irish constitution. Somebody may not agree but that is the reality. Inevitably down here we will be writing a republican constitution, but if it comes to a referendum on unity we will be writing an Irish constitution and not a republican constitution.
The question of unity has been bedeviling us for a very long time. There has been enough suffering, hardship, distraction and economic disaster, particularly in the North of Ireland where one in five is unemployed, and where people live in fear. It behoves us to practise the art of compromise. I make that strong appeal to Fianna Fáil. I believe the door is ajar and that we can do it. Are they trying to suggest there are no problems on this side of the Border? Are they trying to suggest that we have not legislated in a way that, for example, the bottom 20 per cent of the nation's households share only 4 per cent of the total income? Do they believe that should continue? Do they believe this is social justice? Do they believe that people on this side of the Border should go to bed hungry when others have more than enough to live on? Do they believe there is an equitable distribution of wealth? Do they believe that everything is perfect here? I do not for one minute believe they do.
They have an obligation to deprived people on this side of the Border in addition to deprived people on the other side of the Border to take this whole question of creating favourable conditions for unity more seriously, since they will get an opportunity by contributing to any constitutional review or change in any legislation that will come before the House. That is something worth thinking about, because if they share my views that everything is not right in respect of the equitable distribution of wealth, in respect of the right of people to have houses, security of tenure etc., in respect of the right of the socially deprived to be treated fairly, then they must at least look at the Constitution in its total context and at the legislation the enactment of which they took part. They must ask if they have a duty towards the socially deprived on both sides of the Border to create conditions favourable to unity which in its whole concept will help to bring about a better type of Ireland where privileged positions will be a thing of the past. I make that plea. I am sorry for going on so long, but we have a problem here that can be resolved. The door is ajar. It is not closed. I do not totally agree with the tone of the Taoiseach's approach but support it in principle, will vote in favour of it and give any assistance possible towards its development along natural objective lines.
