Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Sep 1984

Vol. 105 No. 1

Report of the New Ireland Forum: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the report of the New Ireland Forum.

I am delighted to be able to propose this motion. I am also glad to see that there is an amendment from Senators Dooge and Ferris, the leaders of Fine Gael and Labour in this House, in that this shows their commitment to the idea of discussing this subject which I and Senator Ross had pressed so hard for at the end of the last session. As far as this amendment is concerned we are not about to start to try to raise a vote against it or anything of that sort. We can accept that the motion and the amendment exist basically as a framework for a discussion of the Report of the New Ireland Forum and its content. We can take it in that way. It is not a motion and amendment that we need to go into every detail of the wording.

I would also like to welcome, and thank the Leader of the House and the Whips of the various parties for it, the agreement that this motion can be debated for a longer period than the normal three hours and that our speeches need not be quite so curtailed as they normally are. This is important in order to allow Members a fair chance of speaking. Quite a number of Members have already spoken to me and indicated that they want to speak. I am very glad that they will get a chance to do so as the three hour limitation would mean that basically there would be very little left after the proposing and seconding of the motion, the amendment and the reply.

I believe there will be no argument when I say that the report of the New Ireland Forum is one of the most important documents to be produced in the State over a great many years. It is important in its conclusions but it is extremely important in the process that went to its making, in the various submissions that came into it, in the remarkable quality of the oral evidence that was given to it, and in the whole educative process of the formation of the report of the debates of the Forum and of the effects that it has had on those who participated and those who listened. Basically, one of the most important things it did was to teach us to some extent how others may see us and to teach us that we need an acceptance of points of view other than those that come most closely to us. I welcome the way the report sets out the parameters in which we are discussing the whole situation in Northern Ireland and this State. I welcome the kind of aims that they set before us. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the dangers which have been described in chapter 2.4 of the report of lack of political initiative are only too real. It states:

The immediate outlook for the North is extremely dangerous unless an acceptable political solution is achieved. The long-term damage to society worsens each day that passes without political progress. In political, moral and human terms there is no acceptable level of violence. There are at present no political institutions to which a majority of people of the nationalist and unionist traditions can give their common allegiance or acquiesce in. The fundamental social bonds which hold people together in a normal community, already tenuous in the abnormal conditions of Northern Ireland, have been very largely sundered by the events and experiences in the past 15 terrible years.

The dangers described in chapter 2 are very far from being exaggerated. If we cannot make political progress in this situation, if we cannot produce some kind of politcal solution we might as well overtly hand over to the initiative of violence on both sides and to what in the end might be a final solution, in the sense that Hitler used it, as far as the Northern Unionists are concerned, that they should be put in a position where they must conform to what the Provisional IRA think Ireland is or they should leave or die. That is a solution that none of us here wants to achieve.

I very much share the ideals of a new Ireland which are outlined in the Forum report, particularly in chapter 4. I emphasise this because of some of the things I may say later this evening. I share the ideal of unity by consent. I, too, want a united Ireland, but I feel it is not enough for us to produce a report like this which sets out the problems, the different points of view and identity, suggest solutions and then that we should sit back and congratulate ourselves on having done a very good job of work. It is now that we need to begin to work at changing public attitudes. It is our job to change public attitudes here as well as trying to ensure that public attitudes change in Northern Ireland and to work at changing ourselves.

The analysis of the historic and present problems of Northern Ireland as contained in chapter 3 of the report is a good one. The report is correct in saying that with the kind of population it had, there was a basic instability in Northern Ireland and this is a thesis which I heard John Hume expound many times. He is perfectly right in saying that while you have such a large minority who were opposed to the state as it was you could not maintain a stable and a normal democratic political society. The analysis is also right in describing the kind of reaction which the Unionist majority had to this. This is dealt with in particular in paragraph 3.10 which states:

From the beginning, unionist insecurity in regard to their minority position in the island as a whole had a profound effect on the manner in which political structures were organised in the North. Political dialogue with the nationalists was avoided for fear of undermining the unionist system of exclusive power and privilege. Fears were stimulated of forcible absorption of unionists into an all-Ireland Republic, dominated as unionists saw it by a Roman Catholic and a Gaelic ethos. Those fears led many unionists to equate Roman Catholicism with nationalism and to regard the nationalist minority in the north as a threat to the survival of their power and privilege.

This is a description of the behaviour of the Unionist Party as I knew it growing up in Northern Ireland. When any new political initiative as, for instance, any new united labour movement in Northern Ireland began to show its face the Orange drum was taken out and beaten and the Unionist voters were frightened into maintaining the status quo on those lines. This was very well covered by Paddy Devlin in the talk which he gave in Lahinch last Monday. Because of this there is no doubt in my mind that successive Unionist Governments showed the dragon's teeth that sprang up into armed men in Northern Ireland. In many ways they were to blame for the type of discrimination which they indulged in and which alienated an entire community in Northern Ireland.

When we say this we should remember that for all the evils of Partition in this country — and they were many — the fact that there was Northern Ireland meant that this State — the Twenty-six Counties — was spared the sort of instability that can occur if you have a large and determined minority that threatens the very existence of the State. If we think back to what might have happened in 1922 if there was no Partition, and if it were the Government of Ireland who had to deal with a large and determined minority in the North who at that time would have been supported by quite a number of Southern Unionists in opposition to the existence of the State, we realise that we would have found it very much more difficult to produce the kind of State we have produced and about which there is a danger that we can be a bit self-satisfied.

In paragraph 3.12 where we describe our own State, we can be a bit self-satisfied about our stability, our tolerance, our lack of discrimination, and we do not make in the report anything like as deep a critical analysis of what happened in the southern part of Ireland as we do in the North. Granted it is dealing primarily with the North but it might have been a bit helpful to have a deeper analysis of what happened here.

It calls attention to the fact that one of the difficulties of Partition has been that there was no Unionist participation in the creation of government and in the creation of the State here and that is true. One must remember that there were Unionists here in 1922 but because they were such a small minority and because of the situation at the beginning of this State they felt marginalised and did not feel part of what was going on. It was not until about the sixties that the descendants of the original Unionists in this State began to feel integrated as a part of the Republic of Ireland. In the time I have tonight I cannot deal with this fully but I refer to a recent book by Kurt Bowen entitled Protestants in a Catholic State which is a history of the minority in the South of Ireland which gives a very good background of what happened, the developments of the change of the generations and how people began to feel an integral part of Ireland. Although I have certain criticisms of this assessment the conclusion in paragraph 3.7 is correct.

Since its establishment, partition has continued to overshadow political activity in both parts of Ireland. The country as a whole has suffered from this division and from the absence of a common purpose. The division has absorbed the energies of many, energies that otherwise would have been directed into constructing an Ireland in which nationalists and unionists could have lived and worked together.

I now look at the description of Unionist attitudes and identities in Chapter 4 in the assessment of the present problem. This is from paragraph 4.8 on. It is crucial to the Forum report that this section is there, that these attitudes and identities are seen to exist because in very many anti-Partition movements in the past and in many analyses of the situation from this side of the Border very little account was taken of the fact that people in the North had attitudes and an identity that they not only wanted to maintain but that we should wish to help them to maintain. The report has made a step forward that was not made before.

While I welcome this I feel that it is crucial to realise that this must affect our own attitudes and behaviour. Even the way we put the matter in paragraph 4.9.2 is a little ironic where it describes the Protestant tradition.

The Protestant tradition, which unionism seeks to embody, is seen as representing a particular set of moral and cultural values epitomised by the concept of liberty of individual conscience. This is often accompanied by a Protestant view of the Roman Catholic ethos as being authoritarian and as less respectful of individual judgment. There is a widespread perception among unionists that the Roman Catholic Church exerts or seeks to exert undue influence in regard to aspects of the civil and legal organisation of society which Protestants consider to be a matter for private conscience. Despite the implicit separation of Church and State in the 1937 Constitution, many unionists hold the view that the Catholic ethos has unduly influenced administration in the South and that the latter in its laws, attitudes and values has not reflected a regard for the ethos of Protestants living there.

It is not just a question of Unionists seeing it that way. Later in the report there is a summary of that which gives the impression of this as just the funny way Unionists look at things. In putting forward that point of view the Unionists have a good deal of truth on their side and if we do not accept that we will never make any progress. If we do not realise that there has been a good deal in our history and in our present to back their view, we may well be in the act of creating more of that view for them. The ideal which is put before the Irish people in the report is epitomised in paragraph 4.13.:

The new Ireland must be a society within which, subject only to public order, all cultural, political and religious beliefs can be freely expressed and practised. Fundamental to such a society are freedom of conscience, social and community harmony, reconciliation and the cherishing of the diversity of all traditions. The criteria which relate to public legislation may not necessarily be the same as those which inform private morality. Furthermore, public legislation must have regard for the conscientious beliefs of different minority groups. The implementation of these principles calls for deepening and broadening of the sense of Irish identity. No one living in Ireland should feel less at home than another or less protected by law than his or her fellow citizen. This implies in particular, in respect of Northern Protestants, that the civil and religious liberties that they uphold and enjoy will be fully protected and guaranteed and their sense of Britishness accommodated.

Leaving aside the sense of Britishness, which is a slightly different thing, one of the major questions that faces us is whether we have the ability to live up to this ideal and if we have even the desire to live up to this ideal. In the history of this State so far it is perfectly true that there has been little violence and little overt discrimination against minorities, but until at least the sixties I would suggest that there was very little effort to offer minorities here a picture of being Irish with which they themselves could identify. In the book by Kurt Bowen that I referred to he makes a distinction between assimilation and integration and suggests that assimilation of a minority means that that minority simply disappears to all intents and purposes and becomes a part of the majority, but integration would mean that the minority is brought into a society where, though all parties can feel that this is their society and they identify with this society, they can maintain their own diverse points of view and way of looking at things. It is very clear that in the Forum report the ideal which is being brought before us is not assimilation but integration in this sense, an integrated yet diverse society, whereas I am afraid that the fear of the Northern Protestants, the Northern Unionists, at present would certainly be that it would not be integration but assimilation if they were brought into a united Ireland. We have not yet succeeded in creating a society in which minorities in this State can integrate fully and identify as being completely Irish from the point of view of other people, if not just from the point of view of their own. How can we even think that without some deep change in public attitudes here and in the structure of our law and Constitution the Northern Ireland majority will identify as Irish and as part of this State as is put forward in paragraph 4.13? It is not sufficient to say, as seems to come across in the evidence given by the Roman Catholic Bishops to the Forum, "If you join us we will make sure that you will have your human rights". If we are not prepared to make a start now to allow for the sort of human rights that minorities need, if we are not prepared to do something practical about it ourselves, we have no credibility for the Northern majority and it is no use saying to them, "If you join us we will change everything". They would be very foolish to believe any such thing.

I am not asking for precipitate action but I am asking for a society that ceases to refuse to face these issues. In dealing with this I do not want to go into a whole argument about the possibility of a refernedum on divorce and so on, nevertheless this sort of issue is a litmus paper issue, and do not imagine that society in Northern Ireland is not watching it. It is easy for us to say it does not make any difference what we do, we will not be able to make the Northern Unionists happy. Maybe we will not, but we can certainly make them very unhappy. It was very interesting that when Bishop McNamara published his recent pastoral the media who rang me up and asked me for a reaction were not the Southern papers but the Belfast Telegraph and the Northern Ireland BBC. I consider that that shows very clearly that there is an interest in these matters from the Northern side and that people who are looking to the possibility of a change in the political situation watch these kind of things. If on this issue we disgrace ourselves again, as my predecessor, Senator Yeats once said, we may forget the Forum and the ballot box and we may reach for the Armalite on both sides, because that is what will happen.

We must also contrast what is said in the Forum report with what is said in the document produced by the Ulster Unionist Assembly Party Report Committee, which is entitled "The Way Forward". I will not confuse it with any other document which may happen to have a similar title. It is a discussion paper produced by the Unionist Party. When they look at the ideas put forward by the Forum they look on the Forum as a strategy to ensure a united Ireland, which it is in one sense, but it points out that, not only is it a component in the ongoing pressure for consent by the Unionists by producing what they describe as a charter of republican reasonableness, and I quote:

It is also necessary for it to set up a blueprint for political structures that would, ostensibly, accommodate unionists in a way that the Republic has never been able to do in the past, and which would have been inconsistent with the State's ethos and existing Constitution. It now appears at least probable that this entire strategy is about to fail. There is, at present, no apparent prospect of the British Government welshing on its guarantee; there is no hope of unionists falling into the trap of a unilateral declaration of independence; there seems little likelihood of the Forum being able to produce a blueprint for pluralism in the teeth of opposition from the church and partitionist republicanism.

We need to give that the lie, to show that that is not a correct analysis of what is going to happen here. To do that we need more than exhortation; we also need action. We need to get out of a society which shakes in its shoes at the rattle of Bishop McNamara's crozier. We need to get out of a society that accepts and introduces totally negative reflections of Roman Catholic teaching in our Constitution while making virtually no effort to cope with the problems on the ground. If we really care about the Forum report making progress we would see that it is not just a question of saying "If you join we will accommodate you" but of a real acceptance of an Irish identity that does not require Roman Catholic teaching to be enshrined in the law and Constitution and that can allow Catholics themselves to be adults and follow their faith without State compulsion.

I have not time to deal with all the issues which are raised in the Forum report. It is important that they produce an economic report as well. Whatever about alienation through feelings of minorities there is a thorough danger in both parts of Ireland that such a large proportion of the population will be alienated through economic and social deprivation that both establishments will face a revolutionary situation which will change the entire face of Ireland.

Various solutions are put forward such as a unified State a federal/confederal solution or joint authority. On this I would urge that we should to some extent keep an open mind. Generally speaking, the difficulties of the federal and the joint authority solution might well outweigh their advantages and in the end what we will want is a unitary State, but if we felt that some progress was to be made by other means we should not turn our backs on it.

I would end this contribution in a personal way. I make no excuse for this because, after all, I am or was one of those whom you are seeking to win over, to make part of your integrated Ireland, a member of the Northern Ireland Protestant majority. I threw in my lot with the integrated ideal of Ireland which is set out in the Forum report. If what I have done over the past 20 years means anything it means this. In a sense I was a child of the sixties, a child of the new hopes and changes that happened then. I was interested to read in The Sunday Tribune last Sunday the reflections of Fr. A. Flannery who felt that he too was a child of that period of hope and change and was worried about what was happening now.

In the past few years I can only say that I sometimes wondered about the reality of these hopes that we had at that time. It seems to me that there is a swing both in the Church and in the State against creative change, that there is a re-creation of entrenched attitudes. I referred in a broadcast earlier this week to a new moral McCarthyism. I was interested to get a letter today when I came into the Seanad in which somebody who is not a constituent of mine, who is a Catholic living in Dublin, said that he bore out at much greater strength, and felt that I was much too polite about it, what I said about the creation of this moral McCarthyism. In the past year I have had the feeling that, despite all the close personal relationships I have, I am to some extent marginalised and rejected, that a different picture of Irishness is being built up with no room for the likes of me and, a fortiori, no room for the Northern Protestants.

When I say this I do not want those who speak after me to react by reassuring me that they value me and so on. Perhaps they do not, but nevertheless if they do, I do not want them to reassure me personally. That pays tribute to their hearts and to their personal qualities, and I know my fellow Senators have these. What is important to me is that Senators should go away and think why I should feel like this and try to understand that, while my whole political and community life has been aimed at the sort of ideal set forth in the Forum report, a united Ireland with room for diversity and pluralism, I am from time to time tempted to say to people from whence I came: "Fight to the last drop of your blood to keep out of the hypocrisy of a freedom which is overshadowed by ecclesiastical influence". I have felt this particularly during the past few days and, indeed, as Senator Bulbulia will understand, this very afternoon.

In saying this I am trying desperately to say how much we must accept change if what we are aiming at is the ideal set out in this report, how much we need a less monolithic society if we are to achieve Wolfe Tone's ideals and the Forum's ideal, how much we need change if we are to show that the Forum is serious and that we are not going to accept the alternative of handing over to the gunmen. If we want to hand over to the gunmen, let us be honest about that and admit it. If the Forum ideal is what we are about, let us be honest about that too, and commit ourselves to doing something about it. There are people in the North, people of the Unionist tradition, who can and do try to envisage political change, who are not entrenched in the "not an inch" situation, but they are placed in a very difficult situation where they are in danger of being accused of being Lundies and traitors. By our actions we must help these people, and help them to emerge in northern society and not merely shut the door in their faces. This is my appeal to the House this evening.

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, with your permission I wish formally to second the motion and to reserve my right to speak later on in the debate.

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"welcomes the Report of the New Ireland Forum and accompanying documents as forming an important contribution to any resolution of the political issues posed by the division of the island and as providing an authoritative basis on which the realities of the political, economic, social and security problems can be considered and resolved".

Senator McGuinness has already said that there is no conflict between the motion and the amendment and I wish to confirm that. What we have done here in this amendment is to highlight a number of positive elements which we think are of importance and we feel that to do so is more useful than to have the bald statement of the original motion. Indeed, while preparing this speech I regretted that in fact we had not put down an amendment which was broader still.

Senator McGuinness has already made reference to the document by the Official Unionist Party, "The Way Forward" which was published in the same week as the Forum Report. If we are in any way to enhance the prospects of the Forum proposals of which Senator McGuinness has spoken then I think we must not confine ourselves to what is in the Forum report itself. We must study with equal care what is in this document of the Official Unionist Party. We must study with care what was said in the House of Commons in July by people from all the British political parties, coming from many different backgrounds, having had in the past many different attitudes to the problem of Ireland in what they had to say. Because it is only if all these are taken into account that there is any hope for a fruitful outcome to the Forum deliberations. I agree with what Senator McGuinness has said, that perhaps the greatest importance of the Forum was the process itself. That process of sitting down together in order to achieve a common statement was an extremely important process, but we should not consider that process as being at an end. We should consider what was done in the Forum deliberations as a dress rehearsal for what had to be done in our discussions with those who are, for various reasons, parties to this whole problem. I would like to agree also with what Senator McGuinness said, that despite the care which was taken in these deliberations and in the drafting of this report, members of the Forum — I am as guilty as anybody else — did not manage to remove from their statements all of the elements of self-satisfaction that they might have. There are still traces there. It is a reflection, I suppose, of human nature that it is far easier to see the faults of others than to see our own faults.

It was natural, therefore, perhaps, that the initial response made on behalf of the British Government was a criticism of the way in which the Forum had criticised British Government of the past on the manner in which they carried out their duties. If we criticise the British Government because, they do not see their faults as clearly as we see their faults, we should listen to others who, perhaps may, see some of our faults more clearly than we do ourselves. We should not consider the report as something that was a once-for-all. We should consider it as a valuable process, a process which must be carried through now on the higher dimension.

I would like to talk about the elements that have been highlighted in the amendment which has been put forward. The amendment flushes out the original motion by mentioning three elements. I want to dwell on each of the three, not necessarily at equal length. The first element that is emphasised in the amendment is the importance of the accompanying documents. It would be wrong merely to note the Forum report without noting the importance of these documents. Secondly, it is emphasised in the Forum report — and I have already touched on this point — that it is a contribution to the solution of this problem. It is not a readymade solution. As the Taoiseach said, it is not a blueprint. It would be disastrous for us to attempt to seek a solution by saying this is the blueprint, this is the only possible manner of construction. The third point that is mentioned in the amendment is that there must be a full consideration of all the realities, political, economic, social and security.

Firstly, I should like to say a few words about the accompanying documents. These are a very real contribution to an understanding of Ireland, North and South. We have never had material of this form before to help us to seek a way forward. Facts alone, of course, will not bring a solution to a political problem. The only thing that can do that is political will. But without facts, set forward without prejudice we may, in fact, go seeking a solution in the wrong direction. There is solid material in these reports which is a permanent contribution to the understanding of our country. The Study of the Economic Consequences of the Division of Ireland; The Study of the Cost of Violence arising from the Northern Ireland Crisis since 1969; The Comparative Description of the Economic Structure and Situation, North and South; The Legal Systems, North and South—these are studies whose values I think we should acknowledge. While work on these studies was guided by steering committees containing members of the Forum, we must pay tribute to the secretariat and to the consultants who worked on these most excellent reports. We have in addition the study of the macro-economic consequences of any of the three models which are mentioned. This again is vital material. If we wish to discuss or move forward on any one of these three models, then we must understand the macro-economic consequences, otherwise we will be going forward with half an eye. These are studies which give us verifiable facts and these facts are the first element of the realities that may be faced. Some people may dispute some of the statements in these reports in detail but in their general import they certainly cannot be gainsaid.

The second point I would raise is the question that this is a contribution to the solution. If it is to be a real contribution, if we are to build on this contribution, then we must be honest and realistic in all our discussions. This report is not an academic treatise by a historian attempting to analyse the Nationalist position; this is the result of practical, practising politicians from four political parties coming together to seek a common statement. What is really amazing is that there should have been the degree of agreement that there was. I think altogether too much has been made of differences in interpretation that do not affect the main import of that statement. I think — and I say this without disrespect to Senator McGuinness who did quote from paragraphs in the Forum report — that nobody should be allowed to quote individual paragraphs from the Forum report because taking an individual paragraph out of the Forum report may lead to misunderstanding, may lead to dangers of emphasis falling in the wrong place.

That report is a unit and every chapter and paragraph of it should be read in relation to the remainder. Having said that, I will have to be careful that I do not quote it myself during the rest of my speech. What I am attempting to say is let us look on this report as a unit. It does represent views of four political parties and inside those parties there are different shades of nationalism. That report is a synthesis of at least 40 shades of green.

If we are to move forward towards any solution in Northern Ireland we are not required, nor are any of us prepared, to cast off our fundamental nationalism, but we must be prepared to cast off some of the tattered wrappings of our traditional Nationalist thought. I believe that this has been done in the Forum report. It may not have been done completely. There may still be wisps of misty myth hanging around certain passages in the report but this is incidental to the main message. The content and tone of the Forum report does indeed represent a new departure. We must acknowledge that if we look also at the document which the Official Unionist Party issued at the same time that here too there is a change, not a very substantial change in content but a very distinct change in tone. I may say that because I am looking at that document as a Nationalist; the Unionists will look at the Forum report and say the same sort of thing: maybe the tone is all right but there is very little change in content, the old claim, the old aspiration, the old threat is still there. This is part of the reality and we must go forward facing these realities.

I have said that the Forum report must be taken in its entirety and so it must. It falls into three parts. We have chapters 1 to 4 which gives us the background to this problem from the point of view of Irish Nationalists. It describes the background and the present situation from that point of view. We then have chapter 5 which is in a sense the heart of the report which is crucial and central to the report. This chapter deals with the framework for a new Ireland and deals with the present realities and the future requirements. Then against that background we have in chapters 6, 7 and 8 particular structures which are described and their advantages outlined.

It is easy to say that we must face the post-Forum dialogue with a sense of reality. One of the problems is that the Irish Nationalist, the Irish Unionist and the British thinks of a particular set of realities. We are not going to get somebody to come in and say this is the real objective reality. Each of us can attempt to strip from their own view as many elements of self-deception, as many elements of rationalisation as possible, but there will remain great differences. I suggest that if we look at the Forum report, if we look at the document of the Unionist Party, "The Way Forward," and if we look at the speech of Mr. James Prior made in the House of Commons on 2 July on behalf of the British Government, the wonder is how much common ground there is already.

Firstly, I want to suggest — and I think this is a very important point — there is now a common language. I would ask anybody who looks at those reports and, in particular, who contrasts those reports, with statements that were made five or ten years ago or 25 years ago where in fact the language of the British Government, the language of the Irish Unionists and the language of the Irish Nationalists were mutually unintelligible dialects.

If we read, for example, the official speech made on behalf of the British Government by Jim Prior in the House of Commons we find a use of language which is the same as the language used in the Forum report. This, I think, is a very distinct step forward. There is in the heart of the Forum report an emphasis on the problem of the two identities that must be accommodated. This has been part of what successive Irish Governments have been pointing to as the key problem. That vocabulary has been adopted by the British Government: we are now talking the same language.

While it may be said that it is a matter for regret that there has not been a substantial positive response of a major kind as yet from the British Government, I think we may be in danger of under-estimating the degree of response that has been there. The interim response that was contained in that speech of Jim Prior on 2 July contains statements that could not have been made by a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, even a few years ago. I would like to quote from Hansard of 2 July 1984, column 29. Mr. Prior is talking here of the question of talks which, are possibly about to happen in Northern Ireland. The language and the content here are remarkable. Jim Prior said:

Nationalists can do so knowing that we want to find an acceptable way to involve them and that we are concerned about the views that the Irish Government have expressed on their behalf.

As far as I know, that is the first time there has been a full acknowledgment on behalf of the British Government of the right of a Government in Dublin to talk on behalf of the Nationalists. They have gone, on Sunningdale and on other occasions, half way towards this recognising an Irish dimension and using phrases like that, but here we have a clear acknowledgment that the Government in Dublin has a right to speak for the Northern minority. A corollary to that is that we should be careful how we speak on their behalf. This was just no accident, no idle phrase, because a few weeks later Jim Prior reinforced this in an interview which he gave to The Irish News of 26 July. He said:

I made it perfectly clear in my Commons speech that the Republic's Government would have a legitimate interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, that it was very much seen to be representing the views of the Nationalist community. I accepted the legitimacy of that interest.

Of course, the Irish Unionists in Northern Ireland do not accept that legitimacy. They reject it, and reject it vehemently, but it is there fully accepted on behalf of the British Government.

Here we have, if not a major move, a prelude to real negotiation. I do not have time to quote unduly but I would urge others to read this speech and to note, as I say, both the language and the content. I would like to give one more quotation from what Mr. Prior said, and I am quoting again now from column 27 of Hansard, where he talks about the guarantee in regard to constitutional amendment, he goes on to say:

We are equally committed to the minority.

This is language not used before. Even in the passages where the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appeared to reject the Forum report, I think we want to read very carefully what has been said in this regard. He does indeed criticise the Forum report and, in talking about the latter chapters in the report and the three models that are outlined, he says:

The report outlines three models: one is a unitary state, the second is a form of federation and the third is called Joint Authority. Now the Report makes clear that each is to be achieved by agreement and consent.

He goes on, and let us note exactly what he says:

In as much as any of these models significantly alters the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, it is a dangerous fallacy to imagine that a Unionist will agree.

The important words are "In as much as any of these models significantly alters the sovereignty..."

The whole point is that the model of joint authority does not affect sovereignty. These words are, I think, and I certainly hope, words that have been carefully chosen, It may well be that the only immediate way forward is through the question of Joint Authority which avoids the question of sovereignty and avoids the question of constitutional change in Northern Ireland.

I would recommend to Members of the House and I would recommend to every member of the public who is concerned about this problem to examine carefully the Forum report and to contrast it with what Mr. Prior has said and with what has been said in the Unionist document. I think if we compare what is in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Forum report with some of the passages of Mr. Prior's speech and the DUP discussion paper you will see much that is common ground.

I would like to end by quoting from "The Way Forward" published by the Official Unionist Party. I quote at a passage where the document itself makes a quotation.

As Edmund Burke said,

"All governments, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded, on compromise and barter."

This document is not intended to be in any way definitive. If it is general in its nature then it is a less entrench and the more open to negotiation.

That is a quotation from the Official Unionist Party. That is not the thought and that is not the tone of the traditional Unionist Party of old. Note the words "is more open to negotiation". It looks like as if the slogans of yesterday are being abandoned. It will not even mention the major slogan because it would only remind those who once lived by that slogan. The new document is not in accordance with the traditional slogan of the Unionist Party. "Every virtue and every prudent act is founded on compromise and barter". When Unionists can say this, there is hope for change. Let us hope we are all spared to see that hope become a realisation.

Like Senators McGuinness and Dooge I agree that the motion and the amendment do not conflict. It would be very difficult to take one line on the question of noting the report without overlapping into the amendment itself, and vice versa. The most serious crisis in the EEC today is the situation in the North of Ireland, socially, economically and in the degree of violence. Coupled with this there is the fact that young people only know and can only recall violence, tension and hatred. Running alongside that there is the integration of religion. In order to place emphasis on this point, let me say that it appears that from 1969 to the present date, violence has brought the province to a state of bondage in that both communities experience a common bond of mass misery. The contradiction to this is that there are still great differences between the communities. They are very real and profound differences despite the fact that they share this misery.

The New Ireland Forum had as one of its purposes the development of dialogue and communication with a view to encouraging people to work long term towards the removal of those real and profound differences. It also aimed to try to influence the British Government to work through dialogue, communication and persuasion towards a policy for the North aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating violence and having regard to minority rights and to the general situation in the North. In other words, the Forum aimed at trying to get the British Government to follow a policy that would no longer distort the situation in the North but would encourage them to move away from the policies they adopted over 700 years of crisis management.

British Governments — Tory, Labour and Liberal — have forced Ireland in so far as the Northern question is concerned to live in the shadow of the larger and stronger Britain. As we know through history for several hundred years, they have interfered directly and very significantly in taking decisions affecting Ireland. Those decisions were taken in England for English reasons. This was done without regard to the Irish interest and without a full understanding of Irish conditions. Obviously, their approach was always imperfect having regard to the situation we experience today and was always influenced by party considerations regularly showing disregard for life and limb, particularly in recent times. It could be said that a lot of things motivated Britain in their dealings with the North. I wonder if they ever consider the people of the North anything other than industrial citizens. This is my way of putting it.

Neither the northern portion of our country nor the southern end has the muscle to get the desired effects. The New Ireland Forum, without coming out in the shape of muscle, has, by its very ingredients, the muscle to encourage or put more pressure on the British Government for a response.

In essence the cause of the drastic situation which prevails in the present day in the North can be found in the attitudes and behaviour of all British Governments over the 700 year period whether they were Tory, Liberal or Labour. The inevitable result was for the minority, at least, to become the prisoner and Britain the perverter.

To a lesser extent this could be applied to the Protestant population there. Possibly the difference on the prisoner side of it would be the question of degree. Perhaps they did not suffer as prisoners to the same degree as others experienced but they were prisoners to the extent that everything was decided in England and for English reasons and not for Irish reasons at all. That is history and it has spelled distortion. Let us now accept the New Ireland Forum Report as a means to utilise history now for the purpose of reconciliation rather than distortion.

Obviously, when the idea of the Forum came up there was a clear recognition that this task could not be left to politicians alone. Whether we like it or not down through the years because of our attitudes and intransigence in the sense that we only had a look at territorial rights rather than the whole question of people's problems and so on there was only a half awareness in the minds of the politicians. It was necessary that the question of other organised groups, religious interests, industrial and commercial and social interests, had to be called on. This applied to both sides of the Border and that in itself meant that for the first time in our history we have consensus applied.

The New Ireland Forum Report could be described as a document that helps us to understand the need to help others to help themselves. There are a lot of areas we have to understand and, despite the Forum report and the documents presented to it, there is in the minds of many people some confusion over the question of the North, its problems and how they should be tackled. This is an educational process. It is the way we go about it that is the problem. Do we wait for a British response? Do we do it by having a debate such as this on the Forum report where it will gain public attention? The people in the South must be educated a little further on the content of the Forum Report, what it means, what it is aimed at and how difficult it will be to overcome the problems that will have to be faced if progress is to be made.

The New Ireland Forum also set out to try to get people to understand why people in both communities in the North are obsessed with divisive and largely sectarian mythologies and to lay the basis from which the challenge to remove those obsessions can be taken up without prejudice to the future. The report expresses quite a lot of the desires of the people on this island. It also expresses hopes and aims at reducing the uncertainty that clouds the minds of a lot of the Northern Ireland people about their future prospects in any political initiatives that might be taken as a result of the report. It goes a long way in its desire to ensure that in any future event we should learn by experience. It acknowledges the need for the fullest possible flexibility to overcome intransigence and fear of the future. The ordinary people in England who are kept in ignorance of the depth of the problems in Northern Ireland — those of them who have paid attention to it — will have found a new opportunity in the New Ireland Forum report to get to know about the gravity of the situation, why it is so and how important it is that they respond to it.

On the other hand many Irish people for emotional reasons want a united Ireland and those that had an ambivalent mentality towards the Northern question are also presented with a very detailed analysis of the extent of the problem. I doubt very much that many of the people I know would be able to sit down and discuss, for example, the contents of the motion in so far as it affects the North of Ireland and to question in depth, what the issues are, how they are affected by the division of Ireland and the question of the political, economic, social and security problems. Many people would not be able to sit down and tease that out. Therefore, the Forum has gone a long way in that particular direction. The words of the amendment are very suitable in that respect.

There is also a realisation that the distinct legal institution and administrative framework, coupled with the distinction in the character of the people, will present major problems. It will not be quickly overcome. Apart from the structure and the framework presenting difficulties there is the question of the character of the people. That is always very slow to change but again the report and its accompanying papers will highlight these facts. It is a very long, uphill task that will need endurance, strength and tolerance. It will also indicate to people that intelligent leadership that encourages creativity is essential in dealing with a situation like this.

By example the report itself forces the pace. It suggests a little bit more forcibly that brains must be used and endurance applied by all, not least the British Government. There is no question now of short cuts or crisis management; it is a question now of brains and endurance.

The report is authorative in setting out the realities of the social, economic and security problems; but while it sets out the difficulties in dealing with the problem it underlines that it will not be easy to get agreement. However, in the first instance, it provides an opportunity for greater and deeper consideration of the matter.

We are all very concerned about the future harmony and the future peace of the province and particularly about the response from the British Government. If we could forecast that from our side we probably would be speaking in a different vein now. It is well to draw attention to the fact that there is no suggestion in the Forum report of acquiescence in the continuation of the treatment meted out to the Northern minority while we are waiting for some initiatives, the division of the island, or in denying rights to the Protestant people. There is no question of saying that they do not exist or that they have not got a very high priority. The Forum report is quite clear on that. The report is unconditionally opposed to built-in official violence practised by the Unionist Governments. Although it does not say it in that way, it expresses a concern for a recognition of the Protestant majority's rights in a new Constitution.

It is fair to say that the people involved in the Forum had their problems with the bishops when they appeared before them. Let us call a spade a spade. The bishops were saying when some suggestions were put to them about changing the Constitution or introducing certain types of more civil liberties, "Try it on, and we will deal with it then". That is exactly what they were saying. But despite all that I do not think that took away from the Forum report. The people involved in the report were quite clear in their aim for forward political advancement. They realised that there must be greater pursuit of constitutional change that would be radical and perhaps odd to some people in the South but it would be necessary if we are going to talk about somebody else responding to initiatives. We have got to start responding ourselves. It is no harm to highlight it here. If you are going to argue about the elimination of sectarian laws and constitutional problems elsewhere you certainly have to get down to brass tacks on your own side, because they exist on both sides of the Border. If we do not respond ourselves the more intransigent Unionists will take advantage of that fact. The Forum report was constructive and some Unionists found it difficult to cope with and the way out for them is to complain and talk about our Constitution which does not help the situation. We must be more diligent in our own pursuit of change in the first instance if we want to nail the Protestant people down in that particular area.

We are all concerned about attaining civil, legal and political rights for the minority and getting them in a peaceful way. At the same time we must pledge ourselves to think about our own Constitution and we must have more provision in our laws and practices in the South to encourage the people whom we are asking to respond. The unity of the working classes of all denominations is the key to the future unity of our country, because the working classes are in the majority and possibly because the same social and economic problems that affect the Catholic minority affect the Protestant majority.

I see the need for the strengthening of the trade union movement North and South as a means to achieve political solidarity between the working classes. We as a Labour Party must put pressure on the international socialist parties worldwide and on other governments and emphasise the Forum report to get them to assert whatever influence they have. We must put a little more pressure on the British Labour Party, although we have had some response from them.

On cross-Border co-operation, it is a pity that the natural gas deal did not materialise. I wonder if with our economic situation we have not lost out on getting more co-operation on social and economic problems between North and South even while we are waiting for some response to the report.

I do not know whether we have done enough for tourism. Neither side seems to be doing anything about unemployment. Unemployment in the North obviously is going to be a greater problem in the sense of the ratio of unemployed compared with the rest of Britain. For example, 1,200 jobs were lost because the natural gas deal collapsed. We should put pressure on the planning of co-ordinated effort for cross-Border co-operation particularly on economic issues.

The Forum report should give people an opportunity to make a sufficiently informed judgment to counter the fatalism, prejudice and ignorance that exist on the whole question. It goes far enough in trying to be compassionate towards the Protestant majority and it is a stand against the status quo of violence, intransigent hatred and deceit, the status quo of the crisis management mentality of the British Government. To some extent it tries to tackle the mystery of the dividing line that separates us. It is really a pity that we are bogged down on the question of the Irish people trying to settle an Irish problem. Historically we are not Irish people trying to settle a problem, we are Celts, Danes, Saxons and Normans.

Your time is up.

We are people. We should be trying to settle it as people.

It would appear that there is very little time left this evening to continue this debate.

Let me intervene to say that, if it would convenience Senator Lanigan not to commence his speech, I am sure we would agree to adjourn now and allow him to resume the debate when we take it again next week.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13 September 1984.
Top
Share