Anglo-Irish Agreement: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator A. O'Brien on Wednesday, 27 November 1985:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the Hillsborough Agreement and calls on all persons of goodwill to work for the success of this initiative in the interests of peace and stability in Ireland."

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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

"having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland;

recalling the unanimous Declaration of Dáil Eireann adopted on the joint proposition of An Taoiseach, John A. Costello and the Leader of the Opposition, Eamon de Valera, on 10 May 1949 solemnly reasserting the indefeasible right of the Irish Nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory;

recalling that all the parties in the New Ireland Forum were convinced that a united Ireland in the form of a sovereign independent state would offer the best and most durable basis for peace and stability;

re-affirming the unanimous conclusion of the Report of the New Ireland Forum that the particular structure of political unity which the Forum would wish to see established is a unitary state achieved by agreement and consent, embracing the whole island of Ireland and providing irrevocable guarantees for the protection and preservation of both the unionist and nationalist identities;

while recognising the urgent need that exists for substantial improvement in the situation and circumstances of the nationalist section of the community in the North of Ireland and approving any effective measures which may be undertaken for that purpose, refuses to accept any recognition of British sovereignty over any part of the national territory;

and requests the Government to call upon the British Government to join in convening under the joint auspices of both governments a constitutional conference representative of all the traditions in Ireland to formulate new constitutional arrangements which would lead to uniting all the people of Ireland in peace and harmony."

—(Senator Lanigan.)

Professor Dooge

We have had a wide ranging debate on this motion and it would be quite impossible for me to say all I wish to say on the matter within the compass of some 30 minutes. Accordingly I think, as the Leader of one of the groups in the Seanad, speaking at the half way point in this debate which is being scheduled to stretch up to 25 hours if necessary, I should in my contribution meet the more serious arguments that have been made against the motion and for the amendment which is before the House.

In a thoughtful contribution at the close of the first day's discussion, Senator Smith suggested that those who wish to criticise the amendment should read it carefully. I want to assure Senator Smith that I have read the amendment very carefully and I have read it so carefully that it is quite clear to me there is a superfluous three letter word in this amendment which makes it gramatically incorrect. But we are not concerned with niceties of grammar. We are concerned with what this amendment means, and when Senator Smith went on to talk about what the amendment meant, he did not refer at all to the first line of the amendment. The first line of the amendment is equally important, if not more important, than what follows, because the first line says delete all words after "Seanad Éireann".' What are the words that occur in the motion after "Seanad Éireann"? "That Seanad Éireann welcomes the Agreement." The amendment says delete "welcome". The amendment says refuse a welcome to this agreement, and that is what anybody who votes for the amendment is voting for. The motion goes on to call on all persons of goodwill to work for the success of this initiative. Though Senator Smith went on to suggest to wish the agreement well and to hope that good would come of it, anyone who votes for this amendment is voting to refuse to join in the call to persons of goodwill to work for the success of this initiative.

We should be clear exactly what is the net point in this debate. To vote for the amendment — and perhaps to go even further and, the amendment having been lost, to vote against the substantive motion — is to clearly refuse — if Senator Stanford were here he would now correct me on that split infinitive — I should say clearly to refuse a welcome to the Hillsborouigh Agreement and to refuse to join in a call to all persons of goodwill, North and South, to work for its success. That was the issue that was faced courageously in this House yesterday by Senator Eoin Ryan, who over a period of almost 30 years has contributed so much to this House. That is the issue that must be faced by every Senator when we come to vote this evening.

I want to deal with some of the points that have arisen during this debate. I have chosen three points and I want to concentrate on these. The first is a point made by several speakers from the Opposition benches, notably made at some length by Senator Martin O'Toole, that this agreement is a substantial departure from what was in the Forum report. I want to argue that it is a culmination of the Forum process and its language is very close to that of the Forum report. Senator Lanigan and other Senators argued that this agreement is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and I propose to argue and to quote authority to the effect that it is nothing of the sort. The third point that I would like to deal with is the point which was raised by Senator Mary Robinson from the Opposition benches that in looking at this agreement we must accept the reality and the dangers of a substantial Unionist alienation. First, I want to emphasise that this agreement is the culmination of one process and the start of another and a more formal process. The recovery from the collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement has been slow; but in the past few years, even though there has been a wavering from time to time, the progress has been sure. There were between 1974 and 1983 initiatives of a minor nature both in Northern Ireland and here in our own State, but none of these gathered momentum. In 1983 we had the establishment of the Forum and in 1984 we had the Forum report. It has been said — and was said in this House when we debated the Forum report in September 1984 — that the response of the United Kingdom to that report was entirely a negative one. I argued in that debate of September 1984 that this was not so — that notably the response of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Jim Prior, in the debate in the House of Commons was one that showed a possibility of progress. I want to re-emphasise that point today. In that response, which was the first response of the United Kingdom to the Forum report, in the debate of the House of Commons on 2 July 1984, Jim Prior made a number of important points. The first point he made is one that is just as relevant today when we judge the Hillsborough Agreement as it was at that time. I would like to quote from what he said. In column 25 of the Hansard report of the House of Commons of 2 July 1984, Jim Prior stated in his speech:

The dangers for the people of Northern Ireland of sitting back and doing nothing are greater than the obvious risk of seeking to make some political advance.

That was the immediate response of the members of the British Cabinet responsible for Northern Ireland. It was not a response that said there is no risk in going ahead. It was a response that said the risk must be taken, and what as happened since then is that that conviction of Jim Prior's in July 1984 has since been shared by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

I was a member of the Forum delegation that visited London in order to talk to the members of the various British political parties and I came back from those discussions rather despondent because there was not among any group of any of those parties a sense of urgency in regard to Northern Ireland. There was not among these people at Westminister — the small number who took an interest in the problem of Northern Ireland — any appreciation of what might happen if things just went bumbling on. This has changed. This has changed over the past two years, and it changed as a result of the Forum process that was initiated by the Nationalist parties.

It is always a nice thing in a debate on Irish political issues of great magnitude which have constitutional implications to find a suitable quotation from Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke has something to say to us on this issue. It is something we should remember. Burke said that "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little". That is what the Hillsborough Agreement is saying to the people of this State, to the people of the United Kingdom and to the people of Northern Ireland. It is better to do a little than to do nothing at all. There are risks in what is being done. This was emphasised by Senator McGonagle yesterday. That has been clearly recognised by our Government and clearly recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom.

There are risks. There is no notion in the minds of either the Irish or the United Kingdom Government that the peace and stability which is aimed at in this agreement is something that is going to come tomorrow, is something that is going to come in the short term. Again, I would like to quote what Jim Prior said in that July 1984 speech; I am quoting from column 23 of the same Hansard report. He said

At one time, I felt that a major, strong and effective political response would in itself prevent terror. Now I am of the belief that in the short run political progress may increase terrorism, for a short time before things improve.

That is one of the risks that has been consciously taken by the United Kingdom Government and by our own Government. Both Governments and the people in both countries must face realities on this issue.

I now want to come to my second point which is that this agreement is not a departure from the Forum process. It is the culmination of the Forum process. It is easy to look through the Forum report; it is easy to look for the passages that suit a particular purpose but in particular for those people on the ground in Northern Ireland, Unionists and Protestants who looked at the Forum report, they above all were able to appreciate that the heart of the Forum report was in Chapter 5 entitled "Framework For a New Ireland. Present Realities and Future Requirements". That is what the Hillsborough Agreement is all about, facing present realities and attempting to meet future requirements. Paragraph 5.1 of the Forum report deals with the major realities that were identified by the four Nationalist parties sitting in the Forum. Paragraph 5.2 deals with the necessary elements of a framework within which a new Ireland could emerge. Jim Prior also acknowledged these realities in his speech to which I have alluded and he produced a list of realities of his own, of five realities in regard to Northern Ireland.

What we have seen now in the Hillsborough Agreement is the synthesis of the realities listed in the Forum report and the realities in that initial response on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The seven major necessary elements for the emergence of a new Ireland listed in paragraph 5.2 of the Forum report and the five major realities listed by Jim Prior in July 1984 are clearly and unambiguously reflected in the preamble and in Articles 1 and 4 of the Hillsborough Agreement.

Because of the limitation of time it is not possible for me to point out in detail the extent to which the language of the Hillsborough Agreement reflects the language on reality of the Forum report. For the benefit of anyone who has difficulty tracing it, I will list the concordance between the two. Paragraph 1 of the Preamble of the Hillsborough Agreement is strikingly similar in language to paragraph 5.1 (7) of the Forum report. Paragraph 2 of the Hillsborough Agreement parallels 5.2 (1) of the Forum report; paragraph 3 of the Hillsborough Agreement parallels 5.2 (4) of the Forum report; paragraph 4 of the Preamble to the Hillsborough Agreement is close in language to paragraph 5.2 (2) of the Forum report and is also one of the five principles which Jim Prior mentioned. Paragraph 5 of the Preamble reflects wording which is part of paragraph 5.2 (4) of the Forum report and paragraph 6 of the Preamble of the Hillsborough Agreement reflects language from that same paragraph. Paragraph 7 of the Hillsborough Agreement is extremely close to paragraphs 5.2 (5), 5.2 (6) and 5.2 (7) of the Forum report. If I had time I could point out how close these similarities are. When we go on further through the Hillsborough Agreement we find the working out of these realities and requirements.

I come now to the argument that the constitutional position of this country has been changed or will be changed in some sense by this agreement. Again I ask people to look at what is in the agreement and perhaps even to look at what is in the Constitution. Because of the time limit I can only make a few points. I am asking people to look at the contents of the Constitution listed on page V of the official edition. In this list there is a grouping under headings. Articles 1, 2 and 3 are grouped under the heading of "the Nation", Articles 4 to 11 are grouped under the heading of "the State". Our Constitution distinguishes between the Nation and the State. That distinction is part of this basic fundamental law; it is in the constitution itself. Is is not merely a semantic idea — we have judgments of our Supreme Court which stress the distinction. I will refer only to one judgment of 6 May 1976 in relation to the reference to the Supreme Court of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill. The unanimous judgment states on page 14:

It is true that the Constitution is a legal document but it is a fundamental one which establishes the State and it expresses not only legal norms but basic doctrines of political and social theory.

Page 15 states in regard to Article 2 of the Constitution:

This national claim to unity exists not in the legal but in the political order and is one of the rights which are envisaged in Art. 2 and is expressly saved by Art. 3.

Finally on this point I would like to quote from one of our most eminent constitutional lawyers, Mr. Justice Donal Barrington, at one time a candidate for Seanad Éireann and in that instance not aligned with my particular political persuasion. In a de Brún Memorial Lecture at University College, Galway in 1981, Justice Barrington dealt with the question of whether there was any semblance of truth in the argument that the provisional IRA could derive a mandate from Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. In that respect I will quote directly from this lecture. The quotation is most easily accessible in the Forum report, on page 19 "The Legal Systems, North and South". This lecture was given in 1981 after the Supreme Court judgment. I quote from Mr. Justice Barrington:

Whatever political doctrine is stated in Article 2 the State established by the Constitution is pledged to respect for international obligations and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 3 accordingly prohibits it from attempting to legislate for Northern Ireland.

I continue to quote his exact words:

The implication is that the State, with whatever political reservations, accepts the Border between North and South in law and in fact until such time as a peaceful solution can be found to the problem.

There is one of our more eminent constitutional lawyers saying that the question of the Border is not a question to be copperfastened in the Hillsborough Agreement; it is something accepted in law and in fact since 1937. Let us be quite clear. If we want to talk about constitutional matters, let us talk about them in terms that are real. Let us listen to those who have studied them, those who are the experts on this point. That is why Senator Eoin Ryan was able to come in yesterday evening and say there is nothing against the Constitution in this agreement.

I ask you, on this point, to look at what was the great lost opportunity of 1967 when an all-party informal committee was able to come together, and when we had unanimous agreement and I would like to quote from the December 1967 Report of the Committee on the Constitution:

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

The Irish Nation hereby proclaims its firm will that its territory be reunited in harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen.

That was not an abandonment of the national tradition. That committee sat under the late George Colley whose credentials as a Nationalist were never doubted. A member of that committee was Seán Lemass whose credentials as a Nationalist were never doubted but who indeed was one of the great realists of Irish politics. That was assented to by Deputy Denis Jones, no longer in public life but still, happily, alive, and anyone who knew him knew his devotion to our Irish heritage. That was assented to by the late Deputy Seán Dunne who managed to acquire a most excellent knowledge of language because he was imprisoned in the Curragh Camp as an extreme Republican during the war years.

This was not an abandonment of Irish nationality. It was an attempt to make it absolutely clear beyond any doubt that Articles 2 and 3 were not a claim but only an aspiration. Of course we can say it is only an aspiration but the Unionists in Ireland do not believe us. The problem is that the Unionists of Ireland do not believe it. We would have had a far greater chance of convincing them if there had been action on that 1967 report.

The final point I want to touch on is the very real problem of Unionist alienation. Senator Robinson posed the question at the end of her contribution yesterday: are we to attempt to alleviate the very real alienation of the minority in Northern Ireland at the cost of a similar alienation of the Unionists? This is a problem that must be faced and is faced in the motion before you. If you look at the wording of the motion you will see that it calls on all persons of goodwill to work for the success of this initiative. That word "work" is not accidental. We are being called on to work. At the moment we are just being called on to talk here and talk is necessary as an initial response, but what is necessary over the very long haul that is coming is work, hard work, self discipline and a continual sensitivity to the problem.

I have not got much time to develop this point but I want to say that I think it is one of the more serious points that we have to consider. We have seen in the newspapers statements from Unionists saying that this is worse than Sunningdale, that they supported Sunningdale, but they cannot support this agreement. Can they not read the Hillsborough Agreement and see that the road to Sunningdale is now open under Article 4 of this agreement? Devolution on the Sunningdale basis is possible under the Hillsborough Agreement. If these people are not merely talking, if they really were prepared to accept Sunningdale then let them accept this agreement; let them work under Article 4 for devolution in Northern Ireland on a basis acceptable to both communities.

We need a real commitment to work for the success of this initiative. What have we got to do? We have got to read the Hillsborough Agreement. We have got to read our own Constitution and settle our doubts about that particular problem. We have to try to understand. I said it is hard work. Here is some homework that I think we should do. Here in my hand are the three reports from the Devolution Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. How many members of the Oireachtas have read these three reports? How many have read anything other than the newspaper account of the Catherwood report which is an annex to the third report.

There is indeed hard and unwelcome work to be done. Senator Michael D. Higgins referred to an article in the Financial Times of 20 November by Kevin Boyle and Tom Hefferan, two lawyers, one from University College Galway and one from the Queen's University of Belfast. They have a good deal to say about acceptability. What we have to do in this State is not to talk about conciliation but to practice it. Words are cheap.

I suppose it is inevitable that when talking about Northern Ireland all sorts of religious connotations come into mind. When I say we should practice conciliation and not talk about it, I am reminded of the words of a devotional work of some centuries ago the "Imitation of Christ", which is usually attributed to Thomas á Kempis. There is a phase in that that always stuck in mind: "I would rather feel compunction than know its definition". This is what we must concentrate on. We must concentrate on these issues by practice rather than preaching.

While I am in the quotation frame of mind I want to quote again from Joseph Addison. He may be an unusual author to quote from on such a matter. I want to quote from him in order to emphasise that the success of this initiative is not inevitable, that success will not be easy and certainly far from automatic. In his play on Cato, Addison included the lines:

"Tis not in mortals to command success but we'll do more, Sempronius, we'll deserve it."

That is the challenge to the people of this State. If we act so that we deserve success with the Hillsborough Agreement, then there is a chance of success but not otherwise. I have attempted to show by what I have said that there is no real substance in the objection to this agreement on Constitutional grounds, and that there is no substance in the argument that it is a departure from the Forum process. If I had more time I would have liked to develop the argument that there is no prospect of success in seeking to advance along the line suggested in the final paragraph of the amendment.

I want to stress what the motion says. It asks that the agreement be welcomed. It asks everyone of goodwill to work for it. I want to stress once again that anyone who votes against this motion votes against welcoming the agreement and votes against calling on people of goodwill to work for its success. I hope that the majority of the Members of this House will vote overwhelmingly to reject the amendment and the amendment, having been rejected, I sincerely hope that nobody, not even one Senator, would then vote against the substantive motion.

Mr. Lanigan

On a point of order, yesterday in the House we had a very reasoned debate on this motion and on the amendment but, unfortunately, towards the end of the debate a very distinguished Member of this House was called a fool by a Member of the Government party. He was asked to withdraw the remark and with bad grace he walked out of the House. He did withdraw the remark but I felt that it was with very bad grace. As the said Senator is in the House, I would like to ask him this morning, does he categorically withdraw the remark he made about a very distinguished Member of this House, a remark that I felt was in very bad taste. As we are talking about the Imitation of Christ, in charity and in fact Senator O'Leary should categorically withdraw the remark he passed yesterday evening.

An Cathaoirleach

I was not here at the time the remark was made, but my information is——

Mr. O'Leary

There is no problem. I intended to start my speech today by reemphasising my withdrawal.

Mr. Lanigan

Thank you. The Senator does not have to start his speech with that.

Mr. Ross

I feel unable to give the sort of welcome to this agreement that some Members of this House have been giving. I hope that any criticisms which I make of it will be listened to in the light of the fact that there is no question in my mind, or in the mind of any other independent Senators, of the sincerity and the desires and motivations of those who actually negotiated it. It should be said at the outset, before the agreement is criticised, that I do believe that those who negotiated it did it out of a genuine desire to reduce the endless cycle of violence in Northern Ireland and out of the need which they felt to bring the communities together.

One of the great weaknesses of the agreement was portrayed by Senator Dooge when he said, that it is better in these situations to do a little than to do nothing. There is a great weakness, in such a delicate and such an unsatisfactory situation as there is in Northern Ireland, in saying that something has to be done and therefore doing something for its own sake. It is very easy in these situations, which are so delicately balanced, to do the wrong thing and to precipitate, even out of the best motives, a situation which is worse than it was before. What is done is important. That something is done is also important. But if it is wrong, if it balances things the wrong way, the danger in meddling with these types of situations, especially the one in Northern Ireland, could be catastrophic.

I would like, first of all, to question two basic assumptions about the situation in Northern Ireland. They are two fundamental assumptions which are made from what I would unfortunately have to call both sides. The first one is the position of those of us in the Republic of Ireland. There is a fundamental question which I want to ask about and which is behind the thrust of this agreement, and that is whether we want a united Ireland. I would like to call on the Government and the Taoiseach in this debate to consider holding a referendum of the people of this country on the whole issue of unity. That presumption is made and said so often as though it is true. This question must be asked. Do we want real responsibility in this part of the country for Northern Ireland? Do we feel that the Northern Ireland majority, the Protestants in Northern Ireland are our kind and that they are part of us? Are we prepared to pay in any way or in any sense the economic cost outlined very adequately in the Forum report? Is the sacred cow, the myth of a united Ireland, still sacrosanct in 1985 as it certainly was in the twenties, the thirties, the forties and the fifites?

I have often heard — and many Members of this House must so often have heard it, too — the opinion expressed in this part of Ireland, casually but with conviction, that we want nothing to do with that area which is a constant source of trouble to us. Who relishes the idea of us taking over the security of Northern Ireland or can even envisage it is practical now or in the future to have the gardaí patrolling in Northern Ireland, the Falls and the Shankill Road? This question is so fundamental it should still be asked. It is quite obvious that, with or without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, we are not ready economically or ideologically to take on this awesome responsibility. To pretend otherwise is foolish dogma. For many, the slogan of a united Ireland is purely a flag of political convenience. It is an empty phrase which is brought out time after time without any thought for the consequences of such a step. In the case, I am afraid, of the Opposition here, it is very often a territorial claim which is made without any consideration for the people it will effect.

This fundamental premise was a driving force behind these negotiations that were going on, certainly behind the Nationalist side of the agreement. The presumption that the people of the Republic want a say in what happens in Northern Ireland is something which I would question. I am not at all sure that the people here want anything to do with Northern Ireland when it comes down to the fundamental basic facts. I am not convinced but I think it is worth thinking about whether they would rather that the whole problem went away, was ignored and that we were not entangled in it. Once we enter into such a minefield as this, once we actually get involved in running Northern Ireland, which is what this agreement does, our presence in that part of this island will be regarded as threatening. Once we are sucked in there we are moving into the unknown. It is an unknown situation about which I would be very pessimistic. Before this agreement was ratified and even now I think it ought to be a prerequisite to find out whether the people really feel the identity with that part of the country that has always been maintained and assumed. I believe, therefore, that a referendum in this part of the country would be useful to ascertain what the feeling is if the full economic costs were spelled out and the possible civil strife which would ensue, the consequences of this and the security implications. We should ask ourselves whether we want to become embroiled in this situation.

There are two criteria which should be applied to this agreement when judging whether it is a good or bad agreement. One is: will it stop the bloodshed in Northern Ireland, or will it reduce the bloodshed in Northern Ireland? The second is: will it bring the two communities closer together. I am afraid I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe that this agreement when it is in force will reduce the bloodshed and violence in Northern Ireland.

It is absolutely right that from this House and from all sides we should condemn the implicit or explicit threats which have been going on from the Unionist side that violence will ensue as a result because they are, in themselves, an encouragement to violence. We should condemn this, but the frustration which is felt by the majority population in the North at being overshadowed in this will almost inevitably result in violence as it did to the minority when they were not fully represented and they did not feel part of the parliamentary democracy there. The tension has increased and heightened not only in Northern Ireland recently but in Dublin. The security around this House and Government Buildings and in many places in Dublin since this agreement has been stepped up. I hope this is not an omen for the future. I hope it will not be necessary. The security on the roads leading from Northern Ireland has increased also. It is a sign of the immediate effect that this agreement has had.

Whether this agreement has brought the two communities closer together and whether it will bring the two communities closer together is very doubtful indeed. The sight of that massive rather frightening demonstration in Belfast by the loyalist population is a bad omen for the future. That was not a small gathering. It was a gathering of people with feeling. That was a gathering of people who felt that they had been betrayed and it was a gathering that felt very hostile to the other community.

On the other side, there is a certain amount of Nationalist triumphalism. I know the Taoiseach quite rightly told his party at the Parliamentary Party meeting recently not to make triumphal statements. But the truth is that this negotiation was a Nationalist victory and the Unionist people, the Protestant people up there know that this was a Nationalist victory and they resent it. The Nationalists feel it was a Nationalist victory also and they are talking about it, even today from the SDLP side. There are hostile remarks going backwards and forwards from one side to the other. Perhaps the best yardstick to judge whether the two communities have come together or are going to come together as a result of this is this: now that the balance in Northern Ireland, which may well have been unsatisfactory before, has been moved the other way, there is a serious split in the party which probably carried the most moderate influence in Northern Ireland — the Alliance Party. It is deeply split on this issue. There are very good and moderate people on both sides of the Alliance Party and as a result of this issue they are taking completely opposite views. It would be a tragedy if that party split up into some sort of tribal form. It is doing that. The moderates are splitting apart on this issue at this very moment and have done so in the last week.

Senator Robinson spoke yesterday about the lack of consultation with the Unionists. It is an extraordinary idea that you can negotiate how a province is governed without consultation of any sort with the majority of the people who live there and to impose something on them which it is known is against their will. Senator Eoin Ryan yesterday said that there was no point in talking to the Unionist people because they knew exactly what they were going to say. I do not agree with that statement because, first of all, the SDLP were consulted by this Government and advised and kept in touch with these negotiations at every single stage. A minority was kept in touch with negotiations while the majority of the people of Northern Ireland were kept completely in the dark. I do not blame them for resenting this. I do not believe, even if it was known what they were going to say — which it may or may not have been — that they should not have been consulted. It is an insult to them in a delicate situation to say to them tacitly: "There is no point in talking to you because we know what you are going to say". First of all, you do not; and, secondly, even if you do, it is not going to make them very receptive of the agreement in the end if they know they have not been consulted and it is going over their heads without even a gesture.

There is a real problem of a complete switch in the situation in Northern Ireland with the aspect of alienation. For so long, quite rightly, we heard that the Nationalist population was alienated from the system of Government up there. That is absolutely true. They were alienated and something should have been done to bring them back to respect the system and to get them involved in the system — but it should not be done at the expense of totally alienating the Unionist population in the North. While I understand fully what Senator Dooge said about working to make this agreement a success, I think it is now a fait accompli that they will not accept it because they were not consulted, because they are alienated, because they feel betrayed, because they feel cornered, because they feel that all sides to this agreement have taken up the cudgel and imposed it on them. It is important to ask where the situation goes from here. What happens to Northern Ireland from here? It is a totally unknown step that has been taken but the key is the reaction of the Unionist population in the North.

It is a malign scenario that is facing us. Because the Unionists feel betrayed by Britain on this, because they feel they have lost a battle to the SDLP, they will question, as they have never questioned before, the whole basis of the union with Britain. While the slogan of unionism with Britain may well not really have meant what it said — it may well have been more a loyalty to a different way of life and it may have been expressed in antagonism to the Republic and to the Nationalists there rather than a great feeling for the United Kingdom — the next logical step for them to take is to think about independence because there is nothing else for them to do. They have lost the backing of Britain, they see a hostile country on their Border and their only alternative is to talk about independence for themselves. That is an absolutely horrific prospect for us, for Britain and particularly for the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland. One wonders whether the British Government foresaw this and in a fairly cynical manoeuvre do not mind terribly whether this happens or not, because I have never believed that the British Government have any vested interest in staying in Northern Ireland. I have always believed that the British Government rather resent and would like to get off the hook of the pledge to the Unionists that they will remain members of the United Kingdom for as long as they wish to be. In the last two weeks the Unionist population have turned on Britain and feel betrayed. They have had imposed on them an agreement between the British and Irish Governments which they do not want. Presumably they will look for another way, which will be independence. That, of course, will get Britain off the hook because the Unionist population will not want the link with Britain; they will want to rule Northern Ireland themselves. Then Britain will be able to say: "Well, you do not want the link with Britain anymore, the Nationalists do not want it, a majority do not want the link with Britain. A plague on all your houses. We are now getting out". I see that as a real possibility which has not been considered by the Government here. If that happens the implications for us here are totally unfathomable. The implications for the Northern Ireland State are very difficult to foresee. But the involvement of the South, like it or not, in a UDI situation in Northern Ireland will be very deep indeed because undoubtedly the Nationalist population, will be left in a very vulnerable position.

It is also dishonest to say that the status of Northern Ireland has not changed as a result of this agreement. It is dishonest to say it will not change as a result of this agreement because the status of Northern Ireland has changed. One has only to look at the exchange between the Prime Minister of England of the time, Edward Heath, and Jack Lynch, the Taoiseach of the time, when Edward Heath told Jack Lynch to mind his own business when he was interfering in Northern Irish affairs and making representations to him. Now we have a complete reversal of that situation where we have a presence from the Republic in Northern Ireland, a presence which is accepted by a Conservative Government and indeed by a Prime Minister who calls herself a Unionist. That is a change in status. That is saying "Come and meddle in our affairs if you like or take part in them if you like", rather than: "Mind your own business". So the status has changed and the status, I suspect, will change by other means of subterfuge in the future because we are only playing with words. That is an empty promise.

At this stage it is fair to say that this is, undoubtedly, a Nationalist triumph. The Nationalists have got a great deal out of this agreement; the Unionists have lost a lot of ground. If it is to work it is very necessary that a gesture should be made by the Nationalist population to make it work — I agree with Senator Dooge on this — and by the Irish Government who carry a great responsibility for it. I am reiterating something which was said by Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla — I do not know whether it was in the Dáil or not. I think the first step that could be taken by the SDLP would be to go into the Assembly. I know the Taoiseach said, in reply to a question yesterday, that he was not going to urge this on them because they are an independent party. But it might be remembered that the SDLP had a large input into this agreement and perhaps the Taoiseach could put some pressure on them to make a gesture to the Unionist population who feel very lonely and very isolated at this stage. If the SDLP were to walk into the Assembly it would give them some sort of confidence and also the SDLP might in the very near future start urging members of the minority community to get involved in the RUC, because I believe the security forces will be on the agenda very early indeed. But it does need — from us as well — some movement.

Another step we could take here to make this State more acceptable to the Unionists, is to properly reactivate the constitutional crusade. That started in 1981, but it died in about 1983. If we are to convince them that we are not a hostile State, that we are not a theocratic State, that we are not actually threatening to take them over with an alien culture, we must do things, we must take action with certain pluralist measures to show them that we are not what they paint us to be because so often we are what they paint us to be.

I am coming to the end of my time. I should like to say that I find it very difficult to make up my mind on how to vote on this matter simply because I find so much wrong with the agreement. I think, on balance, that the agreement will do a great deal of harm rather than good. I hope it will not. I think it will probably push things in the wrong direction. It will push things into a scenario which is more dangerous. On the other hand, I feel quite sincerely that those who entered into it did so out of genuine moderate motives. I feel that to vote against it, especially with the disgraceful attitude that has been taken by the Opposition in this debate, would be wrong and open to misinterpretation. Their attitude is destructive and it is designed, I suspect, to wreck the agreement. Had the Opposition negotiated this agreement they would be perfectly happy with it and they would be recommending it to this House now. I will not go into the lobbies with them simply because of the dangers of misinterpretation and simply because I do not wish in any sense, despite my severe reservations about the agreement, to do anything that would obstruct the possibility of success or obstruct the enormous goodwill which I know was involved in actually negotiating it.

Mr. Robb

Before I start I will tell you a little story. In Ballymoney last week, at a grammar school to which my children go, one little boy said: "If we agree to this can we go back?" The reply was: "You cannot go back, you will have to go forward".

We must listen very carefully to what the Leader of the House has said this morning in terms of not only hard work but painful hard work. We must also listen very carefully to the truths which Senator Ross was portraying before you about the present state of feeling in Northern Ireland. Here, you are remote from the reality. I live with "Ulster says No" plastered around me. It behoves me to try to communicate to you this morning some of the feelings of the people who live around me.

I have striven for years to try to help in the process of bringing about Irish unity. I implore all of you to consider very deeply the implications of the course we are now on. In 1912 "Provisional Government" meant "Provisional Government." I have little doubt, from what I have heard and seen in the last week that in 1985 "Provisional Government," with all that that entails, could be the outcome of this agreement if the feelings of betrayal, outrage, despair and desolation are not taken into serious account. Having said that, let me also remind Senators that I was quite offended when a recent leader in The Irish Times asked had no Protestant the courage to stand up and say that he would support this agreement. If you read today's Irish Times you will find that that is not so. There are Northern Protestants who, despite any reservations they may have, are prepared to support it as an honest attempt to break out of the vicious cycle so that we may some day anticipate the prospect, of going forward as a new united people together. But on top of all the present fear and uncertainty and insecurity in Northern Ireland, as you can imagine, rumour is rife. Just as certain constituents may be reacting as if this agreement is one step from the solution to Ireland's ancient problem — certain constituents in the more remote parts of the Republic — so, in the North of Ireland, people who may not have read the document, others who may feel it is too clever by half, others who because of ancient irrational fears and whose instinct insists that they are now the minority, facing the demoralisation of a ruled-over rather than a ruling race, such people — wrongly, in my opinion — see in this agreement, not just a step towards unity but placing them, as Senator Ross has pointed out, in an increasingly friendless way onto the slippery slope in a direction in which they resolutely do not wish to go and one on which they have been placed, as they feel, by the very people, the Westminster Government, to whom they have given sacrificial loyalty for so long. At present they feel like a person hijacked, blindfolded and obliged to walk the plank.

Let me ask you to ponder on the following. Had Ireland as a whole suffered the same sort of rending assunder that the North of Ireland has suffered in the last 15 years; had the suffering been on a similar scale; had we seen instead of 2,500 dead, 7,500 dead; instead of 25,000 injured, 100,000 injured; had Europe joined with Britain to insist that you as part of an ancient archipelago accept some British rule in your affairs as a means of resolving the conflict — in that context remember the original Treaty and the ports — you will know what many Unionists today must feel, especially when this has happened without consultation and regardless of the effect that that consultation might have had, or without recourse to the normal democratic decencies, as they see it, and also acknowledging immediately that they in their turn did not seem ever to want to acknowledge these decencies in the way now being demanded. If you were told that your dream of an all-Ireland had failed, that you must start the dismantling process, that you must return like the prodigal to the ancient fold of the archipelago as a whole, this will give you some measure of why so many people gathered in Belfast last Saturday and how they felt.

Unlike the man from County Clare or from County Antrim, I do not feel either cheer or despair that this is the end. This heralds a very tough and potentially violent period for a new beginning in Irish history. Thirteen years ago in a pamphlet New Ireland: Sellout or Opportunities I wrote as follows:

A people in the majority whose democratic ethic is tied so closely to one aspect of democracy; the inherent right of the majority to rule, not only resents challenge but are embarrassed by it and unable to cope with it. As time goes on they are less and less equipped to cope with it. This leaves them particularly vulnerable to the new conditions of today. How much more vulnerable they would become if their greatest prop should turn against them i.e. they are spurned by Westminster and rejected as British citizens.

I wrote that in 1971 in making a plea that the Unionist people should transcend the ancient fears of the past and join with the Northern Nationalists to penetrate the rest of Ireland with a new thinking that has been inspired by our conflict to change Ireland rather than to be cornered in a decreasing space within the North of Ireland. If you read The Irish Times of this morning you will see what I mean.

There is a huge task ahead, first, to dispel myth and rumour, and this requires urgent hard work. Senator Dooge was right to ask how many of you have read the devolution committee's reports produced by the Assembly. I thank God our group went to the Forum and were cross-examined by it and had a most productive and constructive exchange with it. I also thank God we went to the devolution committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I had the toughest oral examination of my whole life faced by Assembly men Mr. McAllister, Mr. Foster, Mr. Smith and others. I have heard many things this week, and if you wish to dispel myth and rumour there is an urgent task ahead. The task will involve much of your resource. I have heard from the workforce in our hospital about the loss of patients. I have heard from professional people about the loss of Protestantism. They know me as a man who wants to bring about an all-Ireland. I have to try to defend this document. Little wonder that the document of agreement has not been seen for what its chief advocate in Ireland, Deputy FitzGerald, wants for it — a solid base on which the two communities in Northern Ireland may begin to build a future with respect for each other's traditions as we look towards that future.

I can only say then to those who, like me, wish to promote it that in order to give it a fair chance it will indeed take courage, steadfastness and generosity of spirit if those most opposed to it are to be reconciled nor only to the agreement but also to the position in which they now find themselves, a position which Senator Mary Robinson described correctly yesterday as one of changed status. In a sense you are dealing with a new phenomenon — a people in the north-east corner of Ireland, as you seem to refer to it, who begin to see and feel like a minority rather than a majority. You too must make your psychological adjustments to deal with this phenomenon. The agreement allows for the clawing-back of many powers to a devolved government, provided that power is shared. Unionists now ask whether the SDLP will share power with them when the Anglo-Irish Conference may suit the ends of the SDLP so much better. Nevertheless, let us applaud the SDLP. For the SDLP, unlike some other people in ireland, are in no mood for triumphalism. The SDLP are far too near the action for triumphalism. The SDLP are also very wary about having their fingers burnt. The question must then arise as to whether they can or will be able to make the urgent gesture towards Unionists, the kind of gesture to which Unionists were never too well disposed to make in the opposite direction.

Even if all the power possible were to be shared it is another defect in the eyes not only of Unionists but of democrats that written into this document there is not even the minutest chink to suggest that, no matter how successfully the people of Northern Ireland might get along together, they could ever anticipate a situation in which they might have the power for their own form of self-determination without the controlling influence of the Conference in the background. This might be of little consequence if the voice on the Conference that is supposed to be there on their behalf was a trusted voice, one with which they could identify, one which they believed understood them and which would genuinely represent their point of view. No Englishman, no member of the Northern Ireland Office as part of the dynasty of direct rulers will ever represent me, any more than they will represent the Loyalist or Unionist people, adequately.

That makes the agreement more repugnant to Loyalists than it might otherwise have been. An Irish Minister will feel for and understand the Northern Nationalists in a way that an Englishman can never do for the Loyalists. It was wrong from the point of democratic principle not to at least envisage the possibility that there might be a chink of hope that the people of Northern Ireland could come together. Remember James Fintan Lawlor's famous saying — it has some pertinence in relation to what Senator Ross was saying — that you can federate nothing that is for real unless the parties are independent of each other first. Absolute independence is the prerequisite for federation, the forerunner of unity or union.

This document, however, has achieved something already — the taking of real responsibility jointly on the basis of improved understanding by the two Governments of their respective and conflicting roles in the perpetuation of our conflict in Northern Ireland. This is perhaps the first time that the Westminster Government have treated the Irish Government as an equal. This is the first time that post-colonialism has been put in the bottom drawer, or at least it has been slipped down a few drawers. There is neither patronage nor a basis in this. For that I am glad and in that respect I welcome this as an advance in understanding.

The unresolved conflict between the people of Northern Ireland, however, is quite a different matter. Polarisation is deeper than I have ever known it. The potential for death and destruction, for the ultimate catastrophe of Conor Cruise-O'Brien's malign solution is very real. I say all this not because I am opposed to the agreement but because I am a realist who wishes to support it in a spirit of realism. There is something unreal about it when the result is perceived and debated 150 miles from Ballymoney. I live there and all around me the posters shout and scream "Ulster says No". That is an outrage to me as an Ulsterman. If they said "Unionists say No", I would respect it. If they said "Loyalists say No", I respect it. But "Ulster says No", — as I said in a statement, which I do not think was reported in the Southern papers but it was in the Northern ones — that is untrue, misleading, arrogant and wrong.

"Courage" was the word used by Senator McGonagle in his contribution. To "courage" I would add "generosity of spirit". We need healing, as John Hume has pointed out in recent months so well. We need healing as well as solution — humility not whoopers. There must be fairness and evenhandedness. To defuse the fears of Loyalists far-reaching gestures are now required by the people on this island, because Loyalists know that the situation is changed fundamentally. Their status is changed and they know that they are not looked on as part of the United Kingdom. Some of us have been saying that for years, that we are the ununited part of the so-called United Kingdom, but that does not lessen the feelings of outrage and hurt. In this moment, if you want to engage them as Irishmen for Ireland, you have got to understand them and see them as the new minority and ask yourself how can you engage them in a way in which they never, in their time, were able to engage you.

I remind this House of the opportunity for a further place on the global stage for Ireland afforded by reverting to the place given to it by the late President Eamon de Valera, a place of associate membership of the commonwealth of nations. Let me emphasise again it is no longer the British commonwealth of nations but a commonwealth of nations, many of them republics, sharing post-colonial problems and facing the problems of new found independence. Are we too hidebound, too lacking in self confidence to contemplate with open minds the advantages that might accrue? If the Catholic population in the North now obtain equity as a result of what is envisaged, will the Protestants obtain the security which, in their minds, they feel they need?

Again, I ask you to listen to James Fintan Lawlor, who claimed that you could not promote healthy federation of peoples unless the parties entering into such federation were independent of each other first. Can we anticipate, as we hope, to move forward and out of the impasse rather than backwards and into civil war? Can we anticipate unity at the end on the basis of a true independence, where the people are sufficiently self-confident to say that, if and when that day comes, we, the people of Ireland, having negotiated our independence and our freedom, are prepared to look at the possibility of creating a federation of the decentralised and different regions and communities, not only of Ireland but of our neighbours — Wales, Scotland and England. I did not say "the British Isles"; I did not say "of Britain"; I said deliberately "of Wales, Scotland and England" along with their satellite island communities.

If there is ever to be an Anglo-Irish tier of government, why not have it on the Isle of Man and why not call it the House of Wise of Welshmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen and Englishmen? None of us wants to run the risk of neo-imperialism. None of us wants to be tainted ever again with the problems of colonialism. None of us wants to feel that we are participating in some ruse concocted by a Northern Protestant to inveigle us or you into a London-controlled adventure. But we have got to live in an increasingly shrinking world of increasingly alienated people. We must therefore use our imagination and look far beyond this agreement in order to make the agreement work, to be people with big hearts, broad minds and with challenge for our children in the future.

It was said this morning that The Irish Times had suggested that Northern Protestants were not prepared to stand up to support us. I will conclude then with a statement which I have issued and addresed to the Unionist population and at this moment is being addressed to you it has been sent to all 40 newspapers in the North of Ireland and it is signed.

The late Brendan Adams, member of the Northern Ireland Protestant community, insisted that our community had a stark choice — accommodation with Irish Nationalists for more space in Ireland or retreat into less space in a repartitioned Northern Ireland. If opposition to the will of the British and Irish Governments is sustained, Unionists will in effect be opting for independence. Yet at this time negotiated independence, which implies negotiated with the goodwill of the two sovereign Governments and with the support of the other countries with which we do business, for the whole of the six counties of Northern Ireland is not a realistic starter. UDI for the whole territory could not succeed either as there would be too many people violently opposed to it. If we are not careful there will be too many people violently opposed to this agreement. Consequently the most likely outcome of the present Unionist reaction if sustained and if not to be violent is repartition.

The question I ask the Protestant, Loyalist, Unionist community is is this what a once great people really want. As an Irishman belonging to the Ulster-Scot tradition, I am very much aware of the history of our people and its ancient origins down through the centuries. The story is heroic of Donegal, Ulster and the two kingdoms spanning the north channel. In more recent times in the heyday of the British Empire our people travelled the world as pioneers of one sort or another confident of their ability to survive in many minority situations. Ulstermen were first to transcribe, to print, to sign and to declare the Declaration of Independence in the United States of America. From our members came much of the radical thinking of late 18th century Ireland. Throughout the 19th century, especially in Canada and the United States of America, we were at the frontiers of expansion.

In 1914 the Ulster Volunteer Force, of which my father was a member, along with the Irish National Volunteers enlisted in the forces of Crown and Empire. The National Volunteers did so in the belief that Home Rule would be delivered at the end of the war while the Ulster Volunteer Force did so on the understanding that they would be excluded from it. Never was England's divide and rule sleight of hand so deftly operated. If those who returned from the carnage in Flanders as well as those grieving at home for the thousands who did not return were to ensure that they did not die in vain, it was inevitable that the effect of that war was to divide the people of Ireland more bitterly than ever. Today there is no British Empire. There is no British Commonwealth either. The Union is no longer what it was. It should now be clear that it has very limiting conditions attached to it.

In a rapidly changing world, therefore, our choice as a people has been stark indeed for some time. The sort of choice that I identified in my original pamphlet New Ireland: Sell Out or Opportunity in 1971 was accommodation with the rest of Ireland to live in Ireland with wider horizons for a future and a new future or else gradual retreat to a last stand in a Protestant statelet, east of the Bann and north of Newry. What good would that do for our children or our children's children? Instead of being cornered by change in Northern Ireland we, the members of the Ulster-Scot tradition, should be breaking out to promote change throughout Ireland as a whole. The vast majority of Irish people, both at home and abroad, who are supporting the Anglo-Irish agreement do not do so because they believe it is a document that will achieve Irish unity. Rather they do so in the face of the bitter legacy of Anglo-Irish history in an attempt to find a compromise between the two traditions in Northern Ireland for the good of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. Should such goodwill be dissipated by failure it is not just the people of Ireland, both North and South, who will suffer. Constitutional stability in England is also on the line.

England is now a multi-ethnic society of many minorities. The special position of Protestantism in England, which has up to now been respected, will not be respected if this conflict in Ireland brings about a constitutional crisis. Northern Ireland Unionists who defied the will of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland following the 1918 general election are now determined to defy the will of the British Parliament. I have argued many times before that, in such situations where consensus cannot be achieved, a significant minority should have the democratic right to secede from arrangements repugnant to them. I implore them to ask themselves are these arrangements as repugnant in the changed situation as they seem to believe they are, or do they not provide them with a lifeline for new hope and a fresh start for a new and greater future along the lines that I have been addressing myself to when I addressed specifically the people in this part of the country.

The weakness of the Unionist case in this context, however, is that they were so unwilling to share power, let alone concede the right of secession to the minority living in Northern Ireland, throughout their reign over it. More important, however, for us in Northern Ireland and for the Members of this House, is how many more people will be killed before we open our minds and move out of entrenched positions to give new thinking a fair try. According to The Sunday Times poll, 40 per cent of the population, 25 per cent Protestant, 66 per cent Catholic, in the North of Ireland are prepared or might be prepared to give this agreement a fair try. The question I ask them is asked in The Irish Times this morning: can their voices not be heard as legitimately as those heard in Belfast on Saturday? I thank you for the opportunity to have mine heard here and for having received me in the way you have.

The present proposals may be reviewed in three years time. Perhaps that is the answer to the question I posed about the chink, the possibility, that the Anglo-Irish Conference is not fossilized as permanent because there is no institution that can survive if is fossilized as permanent.

Being aware of the feeling of betrayal felt by the Unionist population, a feeling compounded by the lack of consultation prior to the signing of the agreement, I would nevertheless urge those among the majority community and especially those opposed to the agreement to consider how it could yet be applied constructively for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, respecting differences and building upon it. In the final analysis, the future will depend on the degree to which the principle of the right to self determination, based on the need for consensus rather than majority rule, is built into progress not only for Northern Ireland but for Ireland as a whole. For this purpose we must look beyond Britain and Ireland for models of democratic pratice more appropriate to our needs.

In the meantime the present agreement has indicated a much greater understanding by the two sovereign Governments of how they relate to the problem of their own conflict about Northern Ireland. It remains to be seen if it will help or hinder the process of accommodation within Northern Ireland. It will, I repeat, take courage and statesmanship to prevent calamity. I urge that we give the agreement a fair try. We must apply our minds to it, open our hearts to it and seek in generosity to reach out the hand across the various divisions so that the spirit behind it is the right spirit. If on review at the end of three years it is manifestly not working to the advantage of the province as a whole, then the alternatives which each one of us might prefer can be thrown into the melting pot for further debate. I support the motion.

Mr. Killilea

Over the years I have grown to admire Senator Robb because of his integrity, tenacity and great courage. In saying that I do not want to single him out in the Seanad but he has faced great hazards in his lifetime and I admire him for it.

We have listened today to some great rhetoric in this House. Over the last ten or 12 days we have read sheets and sheets of newspaper reports of statements by politicians of all degrees, of all shades of political beliefs both here, in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. I am 17 years in public life and never have I heard such discussion. As a Fianna Fáil Member of this House for so many years never have I seen our party and, indeed, our leader come under such pressure on such an issue.

I would like to take one point to which Senator Robb referred. I admired him for it, as it is his interpretation of the agreement. I would like to make my short contribution on this basis. Senator Robb stated categorically that this is the first time that the Irish Government were treated as equals. I would like to draw attention to articles 5 and 8 of the accord which states:

(a) The Conference shall concern itself with measures to recognise and accommodate the rights and identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland, to protect human rights and to prevent discrimination. Matters to be considered in this area include measures to foster the cultural heritage of both traditions, changes in electoral arrangements, the use of flags and emblems, the avoidance of economic and social discrimination and the advantages and disadvantages of a Bill of Rights in some form in Northern Ireland.

(b) The discussion of these matters shall be mainly concerned with Northern Ireland, but the possible application of any measures pursuant to this Article by the Irish Government in their jurisdiction shall not be excluded.

I would like to contradict Senator Robb because we are not being treated as equals, far from it. There is not enshrined in that a reciprocal right for the Irish Government on law in Great Britain. May I draw attention to The Prevention of Terrorism Act? We are not to be treated as equals.

As a Galway man, I live quite a distance from Northern Ireland but I have friends and relations there. I thought that enshrined in this agreement I would see that the systems of justice in Northern Ireland were in question. They have been in question for many years. Yet we find included in the agreement the extra-territorial jurisdiction included in article 8 of the communiqué. I quote as follows:

The Conference shall deal with issues of concern to both countries relating to the enforcement of the criminal law. In particular it shall consider whether there are areas of the criminal law applying in the North and in the South respectively which might with benefit be harmonised. The two Governments agree on the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice. The Conference shall seek with the help of advice from experts as appropriate, measures which would give substantial expression to this aim,...

Rather than being treated as equal, it is my interpretation that the inference of the mixed courts means that there is something wrong with our jurisdiction. I would like to claim on behalf of all Governments — and I have served under Liam Cosgrave, former Taoisigh Jack Lynch, Deputy Charles Haughey and Deputy Garret FitzGerald — that there is no such situation in our judicial courts in this country. I would like to make this claim clearly and unequivocally. In this sovereign State we can stand over it under any Government. We may have political arguments about certain matters, but in judicial application we are an example not alone to this country including the Six Counties, but to the whole world. That is a fair, honourable and honest comment.

Why do we need mixed courts? I would like to ask this simple question. Why do we need a judge from Northern Ireland to sit in any of our courts? There is an inference in that. I would like to say to Senator Robb that that is not treating us equally.

I would like to make another point. When I first saw the communiqué I thought there would be something in it, and that we would finish with the Diplock courts and follow the Labour Party policy in England which made a demand that we finish with that particular type of court in Northern Ireland. I thought we were going to finish with and, indeed, correct some of the imbalances created in the supergrass trials. I thought we were finished with questions regarding human rights, interrogation, arrest and detention in Northern Ireland. I thought we were going to finish with all of this.

We all know, honourably and honestly, that what has gone on in the criminal courts and in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland over the last number of years has contravened the code of human rights laid down by the Council of Europe and implemented by the Commission and the Court of Human Rights as was proved in the case of Ireland versus Great Britain in the Seventies. That is an undeniable fact.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a document of the Council of Europe. For the last number of years the Council has been trying to bring the report of the New Ireland Forum for discussion at the Assembly next January. I refer to document AS/JUR(37)2. The report is by Miss Lambraki, Greek parliamentarian, who is doing the report for the Legal Affairs Committee. On page 6 of that document "Human Rights Violations in Northern Ireland" it is stated:

In this connection, however, we shall merely mention current anti-terrorist legislation, which violates human rights, since it fails to respect the recognised principles of law regarding arrest, interrogation and detention.

Court proceedings also violate human rights since "terrorist" trials are conducted without jury and witnesses do not give evidence in public. A change in the special court system is being called for in England by the Labour Party which is also demanding that the anti-terrorist legislation be repealed.

This was Miss Lambraki's first visit to London, Dublin and Belfast. This was her summary on her return, printed in a document which was circulated in 21 countries of Europe within the framework of the Council of Europe.

I thought that might be enshrined in this communiqué, that I would find that the British Government had made an arrangement — and many Senators possibly believed so — to correct this position. I would like to quote a statement by the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, on 26 November 1985 in the House of Commons when she was making her contribution and moving that they would agree in parliament with this accord. I quote The Irish Times of Wednesday, 27 November 1985 which gives a verbatim account of her contribution. I want to draw your attention to this fact. She was talking about the changes which she could see or which she could believe might take place, and I quote

Secondly, Article 8 which deals with legal matters says that consideration will be given to the possibility of establishing mixed courts. Let me say straightaway we have absolute confidence in the judiciary of Northern Ireland.

Those are the words of Mrs. Thatcher, eight or nine days after signing the agreement. She continued:

Indeed, the integrity and courage which they have shown in recent years in maintaining high standards of judicial impartiality have been outstanding.

I ask fellow Senators one question: is what Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, has said applied to the Gibson summary? She says "integrity", mind you. I do not have to go into that case, because it was well acclaimed in this country. Does she clearly and categorically state that the Gibson theory had integrity and that the Gibson summary had integrity? I am afraid that that is a statement which has escaped the attention of all the media, of all of the politicians throughout this land, in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. What horrifies me is that Mr. Neil Kinnock, the Leader of the Labour Party, was sitting across the floor listening to that statement. It has got to be put down in the annals of this House and in the annals of history that ten days after Mrs. Thatcher signed the accord she scuttled article 5 and article 8 of that accord. So I turn my attention to the realities of the situation now. Indeed, I listened to Senator Dooge this morning giving quotations from some of the finest orators, prose writers and poets in the history of this country. I, personally, must say this to you all — my father could not afford in my time to give me third level education and I have to do with what I have.

Mr. Ferris

The Senator is doing all right.

Mr. Killilea

I will say this to Senator Ferris because he is a man I admire in a peculiar way. Senator Dooge said this morning that we are facing the present realities and we are doing something about it. What has Fine Gael, or Labour, or the Minister, or the Taoiseach done about that statement made by the British Prime Minister in the British House of Commons two days ago? That to me is the most serious statement ever made in all of this debacle of a debate that we have had, and in all of the volumes of paper that have been produced. I found it by accident. I was shocked to read it but, of course, my attention might have been drawn to the Leader of the SDP yesterday who spoke about the accord not going far enough.

To quote Mr. David Owen's speech in the House of Commons yesterday, he felt that the agreement had not gone far enough. He said that cross-Border cooperation is not strong enough, that we need joint patrols, a joint helicopter service with rights to fly and chase on either side. He said that we want the authority for joint arrest. I remember him clearly, because I was listening to BBC 4 saying that we have not gone far enough. Far enough for what, after listening to Mrs. Thatcher? We have not gone far enough, I submit to you, to protect the Border. We, the sovereign Government of Ireland, have not gone far enough to protect the Border. I felt sick and humilitated as an Irishman — and I am not carrying the alleged green flag, or green card, or whatever else they call it — and humble to think that we were now, as a sovereign State, being brought down to the level of the chaotic state of Northern Ireland. That, to me, is repugnant to my intellectual digestion. It certainly is repugnant to me and I am sure, to many other people.

It is not, of course, the first time that the British Government as a parliament wanted us to protect them. It seems to me we are doing just that in this agreement. For the benefit of this House, I submit on that basis we are unconstitutional in this matter, no matter what the Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, says, no matter what the Tánaiste. Deputy Dick Spring, says, and no matter what Senator Eoin Ryan says. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, has, in my opinion, broken her word in ten days. She has, as I said, done a very dishonourable thing in the claims made by her, to the will and the wish that seemingly was evolving from the joint talks. I do not understand how she could say that she respected the integrity of the judiciary of Northern Ireland ten days after this accord was signed.

I come from a rather historical family, too, in my own way. I want to explain to the House that I was not in this country at the time of the signing of the agreement. I was not here for all the television programmes. I was not here for all the propaganda that went out on this unique occasion. I happened to be at a Human Rights Convention for the Council of Europe in Seville in Spain on that particular day. I want to tell this House something that worried me. The ink was not dry on the agreement that day when the British Foreign Office handed to me, an Irishman, a telex of the accord, propaganda unparallelled in my time in politics. I said to myself, after trying to get through it, how is it that the British Government, through the ambassador should be able to give to me within an hour, exactly what had happened? Not alone that, but I can gather from the telex machine that it was sent all over the world within the hour. What I could not understand was why it would be handed to me. It was, and I have it. As a matter of fact, I think I am unique in either of the two Houses in that I am reading from the accord printed and circulated by the British Foreign Office. That is the document which I have. It is there in evidence.

Mr. Ferris

You are being contaminated.

Mr. Killilea

No, I am not being contaminated, but there are many people being contaminated. It is sad that they are, because I refer to that statement by Margaret Thatcher of the day before yesterday. There was no sign of that statement the day I received that document. The propaganda — not by the Irish Government because they would not be capable of putting out the propaganda — of the British Government and of the British Foreign Office around the world is unparalleled. It raised alarm in me, to say the least. I was about my business. I am glad the Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, is here at this time. Many people in this House do not know it but on a Friday two weeks ago the Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, assumed responsibility as President of the Council of Ministers in the Council of Europe — a very onerous task. I, and the Members of the Irish Parliament who have the honour — and it is an honour — to represent this country, as we do collectively, wish him well. There is no politics in this. The Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, can confirm that, if he wishes. He can address the House and say that on any matter relating to this country in the Council of Europe the eight Members of this Parliament, representing all the major political parties, have always tried — and successfully so — to be of the one mind as regards national issues. I think that is unparalleled again in the Council of Europe.

A year ago last April when the New Ireland Forum had been finally debated, we thought that it was such a wonderful document — and it is — and a modus operandi for us, as it were, to explain what the Irish Parliamentarians in the Irish political system had, at last, after so many years of difference, achieved. We felt, internationally, we should have this matter debated. We had great difficulty, and the Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, knows this. It is time to raise this matter because the British Government did not want it. The British Government did not want to hear anything about the New Ireland Forum and Sir Frederick Bennett, the Leader of the Conservative Group, did everything in his power to ensure and to insist, if at all possible, that the New Ireland Forum could not be debated in the Chambers of the Council of Europe.

We are a small nation. We applied the rules and regulations and we got it on the agenda. We were just about to have a final decision and a final debate in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg next January when the accord was signed. I was at a legal affairs committee meeting last Monday week in Strasbourg, and before any person could utter a word the MP, Toby Jessel, of the British Conservatives, said, on a point of information, that the New Ireland Forum was on the agenda and it must be obliterated because the accord and the conference had superseded it.

I want to know where we stand in the Council of Europe now. The debate is programmed for next January. The Minister is the chairman of the Council of Ministers and is looked on with respect. We want guidance for our work and for our dedication, internationally. Are the British Government right in stating that the accord supersedes the debate? In the opinion of the Council of Europe Secretariat, following the propaganda circulated by the British Foreign Office, is the New Ireland Forum debate now to be postponed or put in the dustbin? It is a very important issue to me. I would like the Minister or the Tánaiste to advise me on behalf of this country, not as a Fianna Fáil member but as a member of the delegation of the Irish Parliament in the Council of Europe, as to the direction we should take and then I will pass comment. I would be very interested to know.

I take this opportunity to wish the Minister well in his onerous task as chairman of the Council of Ministers. There is confusion but it is organised confusion and there is a sinister difference between confusion and organised confusion. The British Government are the best people I know for creating organised confusion.

I am sad in the belief and — now from the statements of Margaret Thatcher — in the knowledge that this document is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not going anywhere and it is not going to go anywhere. It does not treat this country equally or with the same rights as Senator Robb suggested. Two days ago the British Prime Minister said that she had absolute confidence in the judiciary of Northern Ireland in their acts, in their work and in their deeds of the past.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzsimons)

The Senator has one minute left.

Mr. Killilea

When it came to the mixed court question, Mrs. Thatcher commented:

...we know the difficulties which would be involved in mixed courts both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We recognise the reservations which were held by the legal profession. We see no easy way or early way through these difficulties.

What are the difficulties? Are the difficulties of the mixed courts, their implementation in the sovereign State of Southern Ireland or in the divided Northern Ireland? These were questions which she did not answer. I think it is a reflection on our constitutionality. It is a reflection on our Judiciary. It is a reflection on every Taoiseach that we had in Ireland since the formation of this State to say that we need mixed courts. We do not need mixed courts. I do not know why that was brought into this accord. It does not treat us equally.

Mr. Magner

It is very difficult to try to adhere to the request of the Taoiseach on the way this debate should be conducted, having listened to the last contribution from Senator Killilea. Irrespective of the speech that one has written, it is almost impossible not to follow him down the boreens he has travelled. What struck me forcibly in John Hume's speech in the House of Commons was where he quoted Louis McNeice. It aptly applies to the contribution made by the last speaker. When quoting Louis McNeice, John Hume said, "Put up what flag you like, it's too late to save your souls with bunting". Unfortunately, this poses a difficulty for Senators like Senator Killilea that there is now a substitute for freeing Ireland ten minutes before closing time in the local pub. That presents a real difficulty for many people. There is now an agreement, as referred to earlier by the Leader of the House, that has to be worked on. If it is not worked on, it will fail and some people do not like work and some people prefer the rhetoric because it is easier.

I am afraid that the contribution made by the last speaker is in the mode of freeing Ireland at half past eleven. We are embarking on a much more difficult task. We are embarking on a task that we hope will mean not unity but peace, prosperity and that people can live, love and rear families. It is not about territorial unity or the unity of the four green fields or anything else. It is about letting human beings live and it is about being generous.

I wholeheartedly support the agreement but, at the same time, I am conscious that since the signing of the agreement, the Unionist population in Northern Ireland have made it clear both on the streets of Northern Ireland and in the British House of Commons yesterday that they are extremely concerned at the consequences for them and their different ethos and traditions. I feel it is to these people I should address my remarks. I would ask them to stand back and consider this agreement in more depth, particularly section 4 (b) which states:

It is the declared policy of the United Kingdom Government that responsibility in respect of certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be devolved within Northern Ireland on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. The Irish Government support that policy.

I believe this is the essential element of the agreement and the one which I am afraid has been overshadowed by discussion on the question of sovereignty, which Senator Killilea kept referring to, and which to my mind is a largely outmoded and emotional phrase which will not alter one whit the reality of life for people in Northern Ireland. The reality of life in Northern Ireland is that a society exists there in which two peoples of different religions have been driven apart by factors of their own making into a society which practices a form of apartheid, Catholic and Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist. They attend different schools, live in different housing estates, play different sports and, generally, live separate existences, particularly in workingclass areas where they seldom come into contact with one another.

In repeated statements from politicians of the Nationalist persuasion it has been continually stated that they seek equality in all matters in Northern Ireland, equality of treatment in education, equality of treatment in employment and equality before the law. The question I would like to pose is this: is equality enough? Do they mean "separate but equal" because if they do, then I am afraid of the results. It is the same sort of phraseology used by politicians in the deep South of America and, indeed, in parts of the African Continent. I fear that there may be those on this island who would perceive that the role of the Irish Government would be used only to secure equality for the Northern minority, while at the same time, ignoring the reality that there can be no reconciliation without return to a State approaching normality in Northern Ireland and there can be no normality without a policy on integration.

This agreement represents a victory for neither side in Northern Ireland, if it is to be seen otherwise the inherent dangers of the agreement will quickly come to the surface. Instead of having a Nationalist community which is alienated from the system of government, we will have a Unionist population which is alienated and that could have, as we all know now, very serious consequences.

As I said earlier the essence of this agreement can be that it holds out the prospect for the people of Northern Ireland of a real change in that society. I would appeal to the Unionist population to suspend judgment. We have no aspirations on this side of the House to their birthright. What we seek is not to extend the Twenty-six County State into a Thirty-two County State. What we seek is a new State where we can all live in peace and with respect and tolerance that is due to people's different religious persuasions. That is fundamentally where we differ from the contribution made by people like Senator Killilea. We do not seek to change the Twenty-six County State into a Thirty-two County State simply for the sake of uniting the territory of Ireland. That has always been the opposition's fatal flaw in this regard.

The leader of my Party, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, at a meeting in Kerry on 19 October this year addressed remarks in particular to the Unionist community and the sentiments he expressed then I will repeat because they are sentiments I totally agree with I subscribe to them because they are relevant. The Tánaiste said:

There are no settlers in this island, there are no invaders, there are no usurpers. (Bear in mind he is speaking to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland). Your right to live here is as fundamental as mine and your aspirations are as legitimate as mine.

In re-echoing those sentiments, I would further like to point out that it is the Labour Party in this House that has consistently held the concept of pluralism. It is the Labour Party who opposed the divisive Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill and it is now the Labour Party who push forward with divorce proposals believing that it is an obligation of political leadership not to wait for the opinion polls but rather that we would move and the opinion polls will catch up with us.

While speaking on this agreement, it would be easy to ignore the antics of Fianna Fáil some of which we witnessed a few minutes ago. They have said nothing of substance to the people of Northern Ireland since the foundation of the State. They have replaced policy with slogans and still believe that the reunification of the country can be achieved without any attempt to explain what will happen to the Protestant people of Northern Ireland if such an unlikely event were to occur in the near future. The Unionist population are unlikely to take over the Hogan Stand on All-Ireland day, nor is Irish likely to be the spoken language on the streets of Lisburn in the near future. If we aspire to a united Ireland, it must be an Ireland which first and foremost has a united people and that cannot wait until we are at a conference table because it is precisely that which will stop us from getting to such a conference table. The leader of Fianna Fáil has called on this House to support his party's amendment to this motion. He is calling on this House to reject the Anglo-Irish agreement. He might have, perhaps, advanced arguments that this Agreement be rejected on either or possibly both of the following grounds — that it is constitutionally repugnant or that it is politically unsustainable.

I listened to his speech in the Dáil — I have read a copy of it — and he has not advanced any specific constitutional objection to this agreement. This point was borne out this morning by Senator Dooge when he quoted the Constitution and the Hillsborough document and, indeed, the Forum report. The Leader of the Opposition has not identified the Articles of the Constitution to which he claims this agreement is repugnant. If he believes it to be flawed and if he believes the Government lack the constitutional competence to make this agreement, is it not then incumbent upon him to make the case in the clearest, most specific legalistic way to demonstrate such unconstitutionality? Does his duty end there? Is he not bound to seek to restrain this Government from encroaching on the terms of the Constitution by reason of their having reached and decided to implement this agreement? Can he stand idly by and not invoke the third great organ of State, the Judiciary. The Judiciary is the protection of his and his people's national aspirations.

The people have a right to know what the Leader of the Opposition intends to do. If his objections are solely political in nature, it must follow that the people have a right to know what the intentions of the Opposition would be if they were to return to power. Does he intend to renounce the agreement when taking office and if so why? Does he intend to call for a review of the Inter-Governmental Conference established by the agreement and, if so, what does he hope to achieve in its renegotiation? Inform the people what may come to pass. For my part I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition would negotiate with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom any more dynamic role for the Irish Government or one with such political support as has been demonstrated exists for this agreement.

The agreement may be seen as an enormous challenge to all the people of this island, North and South. With the correct balance, I believe that a substantial section of the northern people will see that in this agreement there lies a hope for peace. If that prospect is made more real in the months ahead and passions are allowed to cool, we may see a dramatic change on this island. It will require astute political judgment by both the Irish and British and Governments. It will require a deeper understanding of the Unionists psyche and it will, above all, require courage now to match the imagination of the agreement. It would be a help in this House if the national interest was put before party politics and I would add my voice in asking Fianna Fáil to at least abstain on this motion. I think this proposition was also put by the Leader of the House in his contribution.

The most disturbing aspect of the aftermath of the signing is probably the lack of any positive reaction to the agreement by what we call the moderate Unionist opinion in the North. The reactions of the hard wing of Unionist opinion was entirely predictable. There does not seem to be any break up in Unionist opinion about their fears on the agreement. That is extremely worrying from this Government's point of view. They believe that for the first time the Government of the Republic now have a decisive role in areas which they hold very dear, security particularly. I would hope that not only would this Government try to find ways of allaying the fears of the middle ground of Unionism but also see if it were possible that some of the structures down here, such as the Council of State who advise the President, who is commander in chief of the armed forces in the Republic, could put themselves in the form of a moderate Unionist, so that there could be a reciprocal arrangement down here.

This is both possibly novel and dangerous. I believe if you need to convince the middle ground of Unionism that there are no secret agreements, there is no undercover second stage plan about taking over the State of Northern Ireland, then you need to do something very concrete and positive to show them.

I believe that we must find some mechanism here — we have done it in the Seanad in so far as we are involving very distinguished Members such as Senators John Robb, Bríd Rogers, and my colleague Stephen McGonagle. We have done it in this House and I do not see why we cannot do it in the other institutions of this State particularly at this time.

It is quite pointless asking people to be generous if you are seen not to be overgenerous yourself or to be taking the same risks. What a risk it would be if we said to the Unionists: "You can come and sit with us on the Council of State. If that requires a constitutional change, we will change the Constitution for it, but you will be in there so that nothing in relation to your own security or any action by us could considerably threaten you". You could allay that fear. Today they would reject such an offer obviously. In time to come they might not. I put that out because I accept the fear that the moderate Unionists have. The other people are a bit like Senator Killilea, one will never convince them. It is the old bunting job as Louis MacNeice said. It has nothing to do with solving anything. It is what gives the work and gives the votes, unfortunately.

The whole process of trying to convince moderate Unionists that they really have nothing to fear can, I believe, be assisted to some considerable degree by the Protestant community of the Republic of Ireland. In the whole field of culture and the arts the Protestant minority are extremely well represented as, indeed, they are in the business life of the Republic. Unfortunately, they are not as well represented or as active in the political structures. Nonetheless, Protestants who are citizens of the Republic know that we do not seek to take control by force or coerce any section of the Northern population into any kind of an Ireland except by free consent. They can assist in this by trying to allay the fears of their coreligionists in the North of Ireland.

The days ahead are fraught with danger. It is true, as has been said by Senators Mary Robinson and Ross, that this agreement contains within it the seeds of great chaos and destruction. Senator Ross implied that it may have been better to do nothing but that was not an option. If it was we could consider it but it was not an option. Over the next ten years there is little doubt in my mind that the Provisional IRA and their political wing, Sinn Féin, fully intend to try to subvert that state in Northern Ireland without any let up whatsoever. They are going to keep on killing and bombing. We had no option but to act.

I find the position taken up by the Leader of the Opposition as incredible. I do not want to say by Fianna Fáil because very obviously, his rejection of this agreement is not a policy that is universally accepted within the Fianna Fáil Party. Once the process was commenced — indeed he played a very important part in that process at the Dublin Castle summit and he played an important role in the Forum — it must have a conclusion and the conclusion was in the Hillsborough agreement. I dislike saying it but it seems to be true that the only thing wrong with the agreement is that the signature at the end of it is not just that of the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher but also of the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald. If the signature was that of Deputy Haughey it would be seen as a tremendous advancement. That is an appallingly petty position to take on this kind of an issue. This is not a normal political issue on which you can hope off each other to your heart's content and you really do not do anybody any harm. This is an issue of life and death; and it is appalling that the Leader of the Opposition and of the biggest single party in this country can, for what appears to be no good reason other than that he did not conclude it, rejects it. What did he put in its place? — nothing. It is not as if he took this agreement apart, wholly, clinically and politically and said "That is where it is wrong". But he has done neither of those things.

Very interestingly this morning Senator Dooge went through the Constitution and the Hillsborough Agreement line by line and posed the question as to where it was unconstitutional. The reality is that Fianna Fáil will not test the constitutionality of the agreement in any of the courts because they do not believe that it is unconstitutional. This was a hat rack for Deputy Haughey to hang his hat on; but many members of his party would prefer if he had kept the hat on his head because it has meant for them a grave trauma, because Fianna Fáil are a very important and vital part of the political mechanism and system in our country. They have played a magnificent role down through the years. It is sad that Deputy Haughey should be so petty. There was reason to believe beforehand that he could be very vindictive on various issues. But it was almost inconceivable to me that he could be so petty, because very few people accept his argument and he does not put it forward with any great conviction.

People have expressed fears that this agreement could self-destruct, cause tremendous hardship to many people and, in the short term make things worse. That is true. That is the risk that this Government have taken. I believe it is worth the risk. I sincerely hope that the people of Northern Ireland, particularly the Unionists, having gone through the system of trying to persuade the British Government to change or renegotiate the agreement by using the methodology of withdrawing from Parliament — by elections and withdrawing from involvement in local government and so on — at the end of that process will have their fears allayed. Because, unless this Government demonstrate, with great clarity and with great courage, their ability to deliver not just to the Nationalist side but also to the Unionist side in terms of allaying any fear they may have in any aspect of their lives or traditions, then I believe the agreement will fail. Next week or the week after next, I understand that the Inter-governmental Conference will take place between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But before we hear from that process of resignation from government to a campaign of civil disobedience or to active physical violence, concrete measures will have to be taken by this Government to allay the fears of the Unionist population.

Mr. B. Ryan

If I was to be entirely honest I could put forward a good case for saying that anything new or original on this issue that I might have to say, given the amount that has been said about it, could probably be put together in about three minutes and that most of what I have to say would probably only be rephrasing in my own somewhat limited vocabulary of things that other people have already said. But I think there are a couple of issues that should be talked about in discussing an agreement like this, an agreement central to which is a heavy emphasis with fluid, flourishing rhetoric, on the question of alienation in Northern Ireland. Without being excessively political, it is a fact that a large part of the alienation in Northern Ireland is the alienation of a section of the working class. This is the difficulty for me as a socialist — and, I suspect, for many socialists and many people in the Labour Party in particular — of two Governments which are Tory to a greater or lesser extent in their economic philosophies discussing ways of remedying the alienation of working class people while at the same time ignoring the economic order and economic system which inevitably generate alienation among working class people. If you add the extra dimensions of religion, politics and sectarianism to that alienation you have an explosive mixture, as we have seen.

Nevertheless, at the core of alienation in Northern Ireland is the same sort of economic order which creates alienation in this country, creates alienation in North America and creates alienation in Britain. It is an alienating economic order which excludes people who are useless, excludes people and judges people exclusively on their economic worth. Therefore, there is to a certain extent a conflict of interest between the economic interests of the ruling classes represented by the British and Irish Governments and the economic interests of those whom they would hope to liberate from alienation by this agreement. There is a conflict of interest and something almost of the order of a pretence and of a sham about the claim to liberate people from alienation because the fundamental cause of alienation is not so much sectarianism, though it is there. It is not so much violence, though it is there. It is not so much oppression, though it is there. It is the sum of all those things heaped on top of the economic oppression that working class Catholic people in particular have suffered in Northern Ireland for 60 years.

It is necessary to emphasise that this is an issue. I am not suggesting that there is some sort of unified Northern working class waiting to be liberated by socialist rhetoricians such as myself. But I do not think the claims of either the Irish or British Governments or, indeed, of a large part of the Unionist establishment to speak about the needs, the fears and the terrors of working class people in Northern Ireland is almost laughable if it was not so fraught with risk and danger. I will quote from a poem "Docker" in the book by Seamus Heaney called The Death of a Naturalist published, I emphasise, in 1966:

There in the corner standing at his drink, the cap juts like a gantry's crossbeam, cowling-plated forehead and sledge-head jaw, speech is clapped in the lip's vice. That fist would drop a hammer on a Catholic. Oh yes, that kind of thing could start again. The only Roman collar he tolerates smiles all around his sleek pint of porter. Mosaic imperatives bang home like rivets.

That is as fine a description of Northern working class Protestantism as anybody could ask for. It was prophetic of Seamus Heaney in 1966 to use words and language that perhaps would have appalled people when, as he said, that sort of thing could start again. That sort of thing did start again quite quickly afterwards.

When we talk about two Governments representing economic policies and philosophies which create alienation on a grand scale, which support an economic order which creates alienation, and when we talk about elimination of alienation, one's credulity is stretched and the whole credibility of the objectives set is highly questionable. It is a fact that alienation is not just a northern phenomenon. There is alienation among a large section of our young people, among a large section of our unemployed people, in many big built-up areas of Dublin and indeed Cork. Alienation is a fact of life when there is high unemployment, low wages, poor housing and poor education. That is the cause of alienation and it can be exploited for political reasons, for sectarian reasons and for many other reasons. The real root cause of alienation is exclusion from the process of economic development and economic growth.

Why then have we had such a focus on northern alienation? This has been, to some extent, skirted around. The reality is that there was alienation in Northern Ireland probably almost from the moment the Northern state was created. There has been alienation in Northern Ireland, formented and sustained by a most unjust system of government. The problem about alienation today is that this alienation is now giving voice to itself in support of a political organisation which uses violence. While it is perfectly reasonable to say that it makes it more imperative to wean people away from violence and therefore to end alienation, it also quite clearly suggests that those who are alienated have one way that can guarantee them notice, that is violence. Therefore, implicit in the commitment to end alienation in Northern Ireland is an acceptance that whatever the morality of it, whatever the aesthetics of it, it does appear that violence works at least in drawing attention to people's problems and in requiring the political establishment to begin to do something about remedying that problem of alienation. It is more than welcome and more than worthwhile that that alienation is addressed. But equally it is regrettable that it took the political support on a grand scale for violence that has been manifested in recent times to push people into a position where they chose to do something about it.

It is not for me to say that violence is right. I would not say that violence is right. But I think that there is some rhetoric attached to violence which, in the process, adds to alienation and adds to the sense of being excluded from some of the people about whom we talk so much down here. The official Church position on the use of violence — the Church which frightens all of us and dominates our lives — is that it can be used. I quote from the Irish bishop's pastoral, The Storm that Threatens, which is actually on nuclear war and which states that Christians:

have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have the right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.

I am not going to say that therefore the objective conditions exist in Northern Ireland which would justify violence. Indeed I do not believe they exist. But to produce anti-violence rhetoric which somehow suggests that such a decision can be made safely and clearly, from the safety of 150 miles away from areas that have suffered alienation, oppression and injustice for 60 years, is to grossly oversimplify the thought processes, the experiences, the understanding and the suffering of those people who now, in Northern Ireland, support violence. They are not necessarily all brutal, savage, cruel people. They are the victims of oppression on a grand scale over 60 years. The fact that they have been pushed now into using violence is as much a reflection on us down here as it is on the Northern State.

Let us not be under any illusion. Violence and alienation are not just something new. The Border is not a one-sided Border. One of the things that happened in this State, subsequent to Partition, was a resolute determination on the parts of both Governments to work away feverishly to create two quite different States representing two quite different ethoses. We set up Catholic laws, Catholic principles and Catholic concepts in areas of sexual morality, in areas of censorship and in areas of family law. We set them up without a second thought and without a concern for sensivity, just as the North was enforcing, legalising and building into the legislative structures of Sunday observance, the closure of public parks on Sunday, the attitude to the sale of alcoholic liquor on Sundays and matters like that. We both set about setting up structures which reflected the religious priorities and the religious values of the dominant community.

In the process down here, we set up much more fundamentally customs barriers, other divisions and other separations and we contributed to the Border. Customs barriers are not just on one side of the Border, they are on both sides. There are intellectual barriers on both sides, there are religious barriers on both sides. Indeed it is true to say that the alienation of many of the Northern Ireland Catholics is not just an alienation from the Northern State, it is also a considerable and profound alienation from the Southern State. Some of the sense of being alone in the world which Northern Protestants have experienced in recent weeks characterises very well the historical experience of many Northern Catholics. It is not without irony that one of the colloquial terms for describing the Army of this State among Northern Irish Catholics is to describe our Army as the free state Brits because there is not a clear sense of being identified with the Southern State and alienated from the Northern State which many of us attribute to Northern Ireland Catholics.

When we talk about violence we should begin to avoid some of the horrific rhetoric that is associated with it. We even make a distinction between violence, war and terrorism. All wars are terrorist wars. There has never been a war that did not involve terrorising of civilians, whether it is the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of London or the bombing of Hiroshima. All of those were terrorist acts, all were acts against the civilian population. There are no heroic wars. If we are going to condemn terrorism let us get rid of the sanctimonious clap-trap and face up to the fact that you cannot condemn terrorism and somehow develop a concept of holy and noble wars in which all sorts of moral principles can be sustained.

Likewise, if Governments are prepared to meet people like P.W. Botha, Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev and ignore the fact that all three have been involved in terrorism on a grand scale, and then announce that the elected representatives of the working class people of west Belfast cannot be spoken to because they support violence, there is an amount of sanctimonious clap-trap involved in that. The difference between the three people I mentioned and Gerry Adams is bascially that they have power and he does not. Because they have power our noble principles of not approving of violence are ignored. But in Gerry Adams's case he can safely be ignored. In the process we further cement the identity that many people in Northern Ireland have, with Gerry Adams and with his politics because they see him as their only representative, being ignored by those who claim to speak on their behalf.

Therefore, since the whole issue of economic alienation and the whole issue of the gulf in class experience between those who drew up this agreement and those who are supposed to benefit from it is ignored in the agreement, it is, as far as it goes, a limited agreement. Its worth is limited by the lack of analysis of the whole role of economic forces. It is limited by the lack of a perception of people's historical economic experiences and it is limited, to some extent, in its content.

There is some irony in the Inter-governmental Conference having the right to look at prisons policy. Prison conditions in Northern Ireland for those who are found guilty of subversive crimes are far better than prison conditions for those people in the South. Conditions for people visiting prisoners who are in detention for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland are far better than they are down here. There is a certain irony particularly for people in the North who visit some of their family in Portlaoise and then visit other members of their family in Long Kesh and find the visiting conditions far better in Long Kesh. The Irish Government are now going to take an interest in the affairs in Northern prisons while at the same time not looking after their family members too well in the South.

Whenever there is trouble at a rock festival, good, established middle-class Irish people always attribute most of the trouble to what they describe as the Northern element, that is, some subordinate group, inferior to ourselves, coming from somewhere north of the Border. Then we are quite clearly a bourgeois Parliament. We represent the interest of the middle class and many are alienated from us down here. We abdicated a long time ago any pretence to democratic control in the economic area.

On that sort of analysis I could find plenty of reasons to oppose this agreement. As it is an agreement which is made over the heads of people over whose heads most decisions in society are taken and have been taken, given the structure of the economic order under which they live, I could oppose it. I do not think that one can put an agreement like this exclusively in terms of economic forces or in terms of politics or ideology. Human suffering is a more fundamental issue than my politics, ideology or analysis of the future of Northern Ireland. I find it very difficult to tolerate exploitation of misery whether it be by nationalism down here or by a soulless socialism both here and in other countries. At the core of all human problems is human misery. The suggestion that somehow you can manipulate human misery to achieve some fine new future is not just wrong but revolting.

If we are stuck with the rules of what many people would call a bourgeois democracy, then within those rules and within that framework many things have been rewritten by this agreement. The rules for the relationship between Ireland and Britain as far as Northern Ireland is concerned have been rewritten. I do not think there is any way to avoid that conclusion. Perspectives, particularly British perspectives, have been redrawn by this agreement. Old perceptions, particularly Northern Protestant perceptions, have been challenged in a very fundamental way. The reaction of Northern Protestant leadership has been excessive and extreme. I do not think there is any doubt that perceptions which go back into history have been very fundamentally challenged in a way that irrespective of whether this agreement works or whether the British Government backs down under Unionist pressure those perceptions will never be returned or restored to the way they used to be. It is not because of the contents of this agreement but because of the reaction to this agreement that these changes in perception and perspective will come about.

I believe that the British Government have been somewhat taken aback by the intensity of Northern Unionist reacton to this agreement as have the Government of this country and in particular the Opposition. The spectacle of a former Fianna Fáil Minister who is now an Independent TD explaining Unionist hostility as being collusion between themselves and Margaret Thatcher underlines the extent to which people have been taken aback by the intensity of Unionist reaction. Therefore this is a very interesting agreement and one that contains possibilities even within its limitations to open people's eyes to new thinking. In terms of opening eyes to new thinking it is interesting to parallel the response of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland and the response of Fianna Fáil in the South. Both of them have used effectively the same slogan, which is "no surrender". Fianna Fáil will not surrender aspirations that they believe, somehow in their catalogue of rhetorical cant, ride very high. The Unionists have been shouting no surrender for so long that many of us have almost forgotten what it is they will not surrender to.

They have a similar philosophy for dealing with people who do not agree with them. They ignore them and as far as possible keep them out of power. That is what the Unionists have done in Northern Ireland. It appears to be what Fianna Fáil propose to do with the Unionists if they ever have the opportunity to deal with them. They will leave them to sink or swim through their own devices but do not expect them to be generous. They both look backwards for their inspiration. They look back to history, to old times and to the way things used to be. It is interesting and painful for someone like myself who comes from a well-rooted Fianna Fáil background to have to say that the best parallel you can draw in this country is between Fianna Fáil and Ulster Unionism. On the other hand I think it would be dishonest and untrue to suggest that Ulster Unionists do not have reasons to be frightened of this State and to be frightened of what would happen to them in a Thirty-two County Republic.

The recent extraordinary outburst by one of our bishops about the obligation of Catholic politicians would suggest that wherever Catholic bishops decide that areas of public morality are in question it does not matter whether there are minorities who need to have their views respected nor does it matter whether there are minorities who have feelings that are different from our own. None of these things matter. What does matter apparently in the eyes of at least one Catholic bishop — and he has not been contradicted by his colleagues — is that Catholic politicians do what they are told. Thus when the Bishop of Down and Connor calls on politicians to be generous and lectures politicians about the need to show generosity and sympathy, and uses quite astonishingly and unclerical language about the failures of politicians, I would suggest to him that he address his fellow bishops who are creating a scenario in which Irish Catholic politicians find it increasingly difficult to be generous.

All the minority churches in the Irish Republic say that we should have divorce in this country not because they are interested in divorce but because their religious philosophy emphasises the freedom of individuals to make choices. If Bishop Cathal Daly wants generosity he should address his remarks first of all to his brother bishops. After he has got his brother bishops to respond in generosity then he can lecture the politicians who are more than willing to be generous if certain powerful pressure groups are prepared to respond to and respect that generosity.

Having said that I acknowledge Unionist fears and Unionist concern, I also have to say that there is an element of the master race philosophy about Unionist politics. If one gets the impression that there is a need for Unionist politicians at least to feel secure, for them to have the feeling that there is somebody over whom they are superior — in a way they need a minority in Northern Ireland in order to feel that they have triumphed over somebody — it is understandable. They are isolated and lost in history. It may be understandable but it is entirely unacceptable. Therefore a part of the hostility of the Hillsborough Agreement is not misunderstanding, it is not rhetoric. It is a gut reaction that one of the planks of Unionism which is a sense of superiority is threatened by the establishment of what is attempting to be a structure of equality.

Fianna Fáil on the other hand appear to be lost in a kind of romantic Nationalism. They are rapidly becoming what can only be described as a petit bourgeois party with a devotion to bishops and property which characterises the petit bourgeois. Their obsession with claims to pieces of terrority is characteristically petit bourgeois. They cannot think in terms of people and people's needs. Their obsession with Northern Ireland is as a fourth green field to be retrieved. It appears that whether it is to be got back green and fruitful or black and burnt out is secondary to the getting back of the piece of property. They are getting lost in what Seán Ó Ríordáin called tionlacan na n-oinseach or the gathering of fools, the sort of rhetoric they are using about Northern Ireland, Seán Ó Ríordáin also talked in a somewhat different context when he used a few lines which reminded me a little bit of Fianna Fáil floundering around in search of Tír na nÓg. Senator Connor will know this very well from school. The first five lines of Seán Ó Ríordáin's poem "Cúl an Tí" are:

Tá Tír ná nÓg ar chúl an tí,

Tír álainn trína chéile,

Lucht ceithre chos ag siúl na slí,

Gan bróga orthu ná léine,

Gan Béarla acu ná Gaeilge.

That to some extent, mutatis mutandis, reminds me a little bit of Fianna Fáil floundering around behind the house looking for this mythological Tír na nÓg in which all of our ailments are to be remedied. But there are going to be no hard choices in the process. When Seán Ó Ríordáin said that the people who are actually there are “gan Béarla acu ná Gaeilge” he was fairly well summarising that it might be a nice place to dream about but it does not exist in Irish realities.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has three minutes to conclude.

Mr. B. Ryan

Fianna Fáil have failed in the entirety of this debate to produce an argument that has swung me in the least to believe that there was a case for voting against the agreement on their terms. There are terms which I could justify voting against. Notwithstanding my scepticism it is really a debate between two elements of the British and Irish ruling classes — and I use those words with some conviction — talking about those who will never experience the privilege of ruling. Nevertheless it does make progress. As Seán Ó Ríordáin also said: "ní ceadmhach neamhshuim", indifference is not something that we are permitted. Therefore I do not think abstention is something that we should be permitted on an issue like that either.

I have considered what I believe to be profound arguments against the agreement and at the same time I have considered the fact that the agreement does represent a change in perceptions. We should look at the balance between the possibilities of at least reducing alienation and of extremely increased violence, of opening routes to people which will minimise their need to use violence as against future trouble and the current horror of continuing trouble. We should balance the liberties that have been taken with democracy in this process — there have been some liberties taken with democracy — with the fact that by and large some of the structural issues that spring from our economic order contribute to this problem. Having read the Fianna Fáil amendment I have come to the conclusion that it would be perfectly possible to vote for the amendment and then vote for the motion because there is nothing inherently contradictory between them, notwithstanding some of the extraordinary hopes and aspirations contained in the amendment. One could argue that the agreement is a step on the way to what the authors of the amendment have in mind if you thought they were serious, which I do not. Therefore it is impossible to take the amendment seriously because I do not believe it. I have said often before that if Irish unity came about in the morning the first people to drop dead with fright would be those who talk loudest about it because their own historical assumptions and prejudices would be severely challenged.

Having made all those balances and having thought about it I do not think any sane Irish Republican has any choice but to support the agreement. Whatever its limitations, whatever its inadequacies given one's political perspective — and many of us have different perspectives — whatever its fears and whatever its threats, whatever one may say about it, and whatever the legalistic minds may read into it I do not think any Irish Republican has an option but to support it.

Mr. A. FitzGerald

I widely welcome this Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am doing so in a climate, not just within this country but internationally, that sees it as a very welcome step forward in relation to the historic problems of Northern Ireland. Not alone is it that but it is an experiment not attempted in other parts of the world in how to deal with a troubled area by bringing a degree of involvement by two sovereign States into the solution. Senator Brendan Ryan referred a moment ago to a stepping situation. Stepping gradually into this problem one would hope that the results will, in the long run, be positive. I know that you, a Chathaoirligh, and everybody else in the House shares the view that it is the culmination of the work of the New Ireland Forum and the four Nationalist parties in this country who gave it so much time and gave is so much consideration.

One of the areas that concerns me most about the way in which this agreement has been treated in this part of the country since Friday week last when the agreement was signed in Hillsborough, is the view that was expressed by Senator Eoin Ryan yesterday and one which I feel very much associated with. That is the one which spoke very clearly of the role the SDLP have been playing in Northern Ireland over the last decade and longer. The role they have been playing is one that has been very close to the community, very close to violence and very close to the levels of division that exist within that part of Ireland.

To assume, as Senator Ryan said yesterday, and I wholeheartedly agree with his position on this, that any party in this part of the country who is removed from that violence, removed from that tension, removed from the atrocities that have occurred on both sides of the community either by the Provisional IRA or by the Protestant paramilitaries, have any more understanding or insight into the difficulties that are within the community in the North is a huge degree of hypocrisy. It is a huge degree of misunderstanding of the problems of the North and really it only goes to show how far removed they are from the realities of the difficulties facing the communities there.

The agreement reached at Hillsborough does two things essentially in the constitutional area, which should, if measured, understood and considered properly by both communities in the North, bring with it a degree of consolation and a degree of welcome by each side. Article 1 deals with the consent of the majority of the people in the North to the change of status in the present position of the North. It recognises that the present wish of the majority of the people of the North is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland. It goes on to say in Article 1 (c):

if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

When "effect" has been stated in Article 1 it is on the one hand to give a feeling of solidarity to those among the Unionist population in the North who do not want to see the status of the North changed. It is recognised that they have as of this moment a wish to remain within the United Kingdom and that wish will not change without a majority being prepared to support it. On the other hand the minority gets at least some hope that in a situation of a majority being reached in the North who would wish for a change of status and for the unity of this country to be achieved, that would not be interfered with by a British Government who would in fact introduce and support legislation to give effect to that wish.

These aspiration are not the aspirations or the language of an agreement which seeks to subsume either community but is rather an attempt to open up dialogue in the establishment of the Inter-governmental Conference which is referred to on page 4. The most telling sentence of all is the sentence in Article 2 (b) of the document which states:

In the interest of promoting peace and stability, determined efforts shall be made through the conference to resolve any differences.

This section seems to indicate the wish of the two sovereign Governments to ensure that, if there are difficulties, these difficulties will have to be faced in dealing with the present problems as perceived by the minority community in relation to the UDR, the operation of the courts, the system of trials and the prisons, which is a major area of sensitivity. These problems will not be easily resolved. Whereas the means is provided for the minority population in Northern Ireland to use the Irish Government in suggesting reforms, in moving the British Government to consider measures that will bring more harmony and peace into the community, it will not easily be achieved unless there is a willingness on both sides to see these measures not just considered but adopted. I think that the dialogue that will develop from the Inter-governmental Conference will bring together regularly a meeting of minds and a preparedness to seek progress from this agreement to the extent that each Government is satisfied that the document is there for a serious purpose, that it is there to harmonise the community, that it is there to realise objectives and is not there simply for the short term political benefits of either of the signatories.

It would have been preferable, as has been suggested by other Senators in the course of this debate, if the Unionists had been consulted in the preparation of the agreement. It is equally fair to say, as has been argued, that if there had been consultations the risk to any agreement being reached would have been enormous. The possibility of agreement being reached under those circumstances would have been extremely difficult.

One must bear in mind also that, whereas most of us expected the onslaught of objection by the Unionist parties to this agreement, it is unfortunate that moderate Unionists have not seen fit, even at this early stage, to consider the aspects of the agreement that can only support their stance and look to using the agreement, and the conference which the agreement inaugurates, to pursue the British Government in relation to areas which could be beneficial to them.

The problems of the Unionist objection as of now and the sizeable demonstrations that occurred in Belfast and elsewhere since the agreement was signed are, of course, born of fear and kindled by emotive language and misunderstanding. It seems to be important that in the whole framework of the Britishness of the Northern Unionist position, they seem to forget the point that could be made strongly about the role which their allies in the British Parliament, the Executive Government of the United Kingdom, could play in looking after their interests and in succeeding to take from this Conference some worthwhile reforms, bearing in mind the considerations and wishes of the majority population and particularly bearing in mind the importance in this atmosphere of reducing tension and curbing the paramilitaries on both sides and especially the political wing of the Provisional IRA, Sinn Féin, which has been growing among the minority population in Northern Ireland. It seems to be very much the concern of the thinking Unionist to consider very seriously that growing problem of defection from the democratic process by an increasing number of those involved in Northern Ireland and to ensure as far as possible that every attempt is made on a democratic basis to offer a way of successfully countering this trend and moving instead in the direction of what the agreement sets out to achieve, realisation of objectives, whereas up to now, in the absence of any real powers in the Northern Ireland Assembly, there has been no mechanism to enable the minority to feel that its aims at a political level can be satisfied. I hope that in the early stages of this agreement, the early stages of the formation of the Conference, it will be seen as a very worthwhile endeavour and that our contributions here in this House will herald an agreement which will become a worthwhile experience.

Mr. W. Ryan

I will be very brief. At this stage it is extremely difficult to say something that has not already been said. It reminds me of many years ago in this House when we had a very long debate. One prominent Senator said that he had often heard of the transferable vote but up to that day he had not heard of the single transferable speech. I am not saying that every speech here for the last two days has been transferred from one to another but certainly they were very similar in many ways. I congratulate most of the speakers who contributed on the dignity of their speeches. In the other House this debate was carried on without any rancour of any kind. A few speakers on the Government side here attacked our party and our leader for our stand on this matter. They could have left that out of it and leave us to ourselves.

We, the chief Opposition party in this House and in the other House, feel that it is our duty to express our misgivings about the agreement. It is the duty of the Opposition to tease out any Bill or agreement which comes before the House. We feel that there are certain things wrong with this Anglo-Irish Agreement and, therefore, we should have our say without people on the other side pretending to be amazed by our opposition to the agreement.

We fully recognise the need to improve the situation of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. We approve and support any effective measures taken on their behalf; but we cannot accept the abandonment of our claim to Irish unity or recognise British sovereignty. This is what worries us most about this agreement.

Some political parties have opposed the agreement — the Unionists, our party and Sinn Féin. They have opposed it for different reasons. We know very well that the Unionist policy is not to give an inch. Down through the years since 1912 they have been waving the Unionist flag. If they had been less intransigent down the years we could have come a long way by now. This is something we fear most as far as this agreement is concerned: will the British Government be strong enough to resist the Unionists? It happened in the past with Sunningdale. A pretty good agreement was drawn up and after six months the British Government at that time dissolved the Assembly and we were back to square one. If the present Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and her party remain in power, I am fairly confident that she will not back out; but things change in England. They changed before. Only a short time after the Sunningdale Agreement the Labour Party came into power and backed out of the agreement. With all due respect to the Labour Party and the Conservative Party too, the Labour Party in Britain when in opposition always express their concern about Irish unity but when they got into Government they did not do anything for us.

The Tory Party for which we never had any great love in this country, was the only party from which Ireland ever got anything down the years. That is why I am hopeful that the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, will see that the Unionists toe the line and, if they do, perhaps something will come out of this agreement.

I fully understand why the SDLP have expressed their satisfaction with the agreement. The SDLP are the people on the ground and understand how people have suffered living in Northern Ireland. We are living a good distance away from it and it is easy for us to talk. I fully appreciate the SDLP attitude to this agreement.

Finally, the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned about the abandonment of Irish unity. It is contrary to certain Articles of the Constitution. The agreement has already been approved by the Dáil and the British House of Commons and, therefore, it is there to stay. The Fianna Fáil Party wish it well and hope that the agreement will be a success. We will do everything in our power to help the Government and any others concerned to make it succeed.

Mr. O'Mahony

We cannot overstate the risks which are involved for all of us in the island if attempts to implement the recent Anglo-Irish Agreement fail. The price of failure will be the strength and support of those who advocate and use violence to achieve political ends while simultaneously undermining already fragile democratic structures North and South of the Border. Because the price of failure would be so great, all of us in this House, whatever our reservations about the nature of the agreement might be, must wish success to those who seek to implement it. More than that, we must seek to offer whatever guidance we can to the Government here in the dangerous months that lie ahead.

The agreement is a calculated gamble by both the Irish and the United Kingdom Governments. It is one which, I accept, was made for the highest motives — to bring peace, conventional justice and political stability to the island. The gamble, of course, arises in whether the agreement is pitched at a point which will sustain constitutional nationalism in the North against those who use and advocate violence without simultaneously setting off reactions on the Unionist side to make Northern Ireland ungovernable and to organise countervailing violence in opposition to the proposed arrangements.

As with all gambles, of course, we cannot be sure of the outcome until it occurs. There have been, however, dangerous straws in the wind in Northern Ireland in recent days. Unionist political leaders have begun a process which, as things now stand, can only lead to UDI and reactionary violence unless they can be drawn back from the brink. At the same time the IRA's campaign of violence continues. It will be strengthened by intimations from senior Conservative politicians in recent days that this is their final shot at finding a solution to what they choose to call the problem of Northern Ireland. Those two ingredients form a highly volatile political cocktail indeed. It is one which could plunge this island into greater crises than ever within the next 12 months unless wise counsel prevails.

I understand fully the high motivations of those on the island who initiated the New Ireland Forum process and who have brought about this agreement. First, there was a moral sense in the South that some new initiative was needed to end violence and death and bring peace and stability. Secondly, there was a growing fear North and South of the Border that the IRA and its front organisation, Sinn Féin, would win out in its struggle with the SDLP for support in the Nationalist community.

Thirdly, there was a growing sense of frustration at the failure of Unionism to accommodate non-Unionist democrats in the administration of Northern Ireland in a way which would enable them to survive against the politics of violence while working towards justice and peace.

Fourthly, there was a growing concern at the apparent willingness of Mrs. Thatcher's Government to continue to opt for direct rule and containment of violence within so-called acceptable limits.

These, as I understand them, were the motivations of those politicians in the South, and certainly on the Government side, in initiating the Forum's process, which culminated in the present agreement. They were laudable motivations in themselves; and most reasonable Unionists would see them as such, taken in the abstract. Most Unionists, however, do not see the present agreement as being in the least laudable. Indeed, they feel a sense of betrayal, anger and confusion on a scale which is difficult for us in the South, with our historical perspective, to understand. We had better, however, come to understand it as soon as possible if we are to stave off the very substantial difficulties which I fear lie ahead.

I have three sets of fears about this agreement. I offer them in good faith and in the knowledge that the situation in Northern Ireland before the agreement was in itself unacceptable, to say the least. My first concern is that, as of now at least, the agreement does not have the consent of the majority of the political activists within Northern Ireland. The SDLP clearly support it, just as the IRA and Sinn Féin predictably do not. While 25 per cent of the Unionist population appear to support it, 75 per cent do not and these include all Unionist politicians at all levels. Smaller political groupings, such as the Alliance, the Northern Ireland Labour Party and The Workers' Party have the gravest doubts about its viability and, in any event, are unlikely to influence the course of events. There is, therefore, in my view no consent in Northern Ireland to this agreement at present. The alienation felt by the minority in the past is still felt by some of them today and it is now shared by Unionists across the board. As things now stand, the present position may well be worse than the previous one in that alienation has now spread to the Unionist population as a whole. In this situation it does not matter much what the will of both sovereign Parliaments may be. Whatever its theoretical sovereignty may be, the writ of Parliament will only run with the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland as elsewhere.

It can of course be argued that something had to be done in the face of Unionist intransigence in refusing to share power with the minority community. This argument is true. I believe that a devolved power-sharing administration could have been delivered and made to work with the constitutional guarantees contained in the Sunningdale and Hillsborough communiques, if the Irish dimension had been left aside for the present in the interests of restoring devolved government to Northern Ireland and involving both communities. I am concerned that the present arrangement will not work precisely because the Irish dimension is built into its structures so heavily. It does not matter that we mean what we say down here about constitutional guarantees to the Unionists. What matters to the future of this agreement and to the future of Northern Ireland itself is what Unionists perceive our intentions to be and what they perceive now is an attempt to replace Unionist domination — reprehensible though that was — with Nationalist domination with the benign support of the United Kingdom Government which no longer wants them in the union.

This perception on the part of Unionists contains the seeds of disaster. I can only repeat the plea of my friend, Gerry Fitt, in the House of Lords last Wednesday when he called on both Governments not to give the Unionist people the impression of being cast aside despite the demagogy of their leaders. Their consent to the radical changes now envisaged, if it can be won at all, can only be won through dialogue with them. We cannot rely on the United Kingdom Government to deliver that consent for us, not least because we in this island do not know what the long-term objectives of that Government are, no more perhaps than they know themselves at this time. In this connection, and in the hope that it is not too late, I would urge the Government to consider a number of suggestions made in recent days. I cannot say which, if any, of them holds out the prospect of diminishing the Unionist backlash, which I foresee, but I repeat them as worthy of consideration.

Lord Fitt, in his remarks in the House of Lords on Wednesday, urged that Unionists be invited to participate at this stage in the deliberations of the Anglo-Irish Conference so that they will know and understand the procedures afoot. In addition, Dr. David Owen yesterday and Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla of The Workers' Party earlier this week asked the two Governments to urge the SDLP to enter the Northern Ireland Assembly, to debate the agreement with Unionist politicians and as a sign of goodwill towards their common future together.

Finally, my friend, Deputy Cluskey, in the other House last week made a point that at some stage it may be necessary for the Irish Government to indicate its willingness to suspend its participation in the Anglo-Irish Conference provided Unionists negotiate a devolved power-sharing administration at executive level and for as long as that administration is sustained.

I do not advocate any one of these options in particular. They each have advantages and disadvantages. What I am clear about, however, is that some significant gesture of goodwill to the Unionist community is called for at this time and I would urge the Government to see to it that it is made. There is a coldness and a calculatedness in the Unionist response to this agreement which is extremely worrying to me. They appear to have embarked on a campaign of political action in the first instance to undermine this agreement. Let us not forget that behind the hardline politicians there are even harder military men waiting in the wings.

My second source of concern about the agreement is that the Irish Government under the arrangements made will have de facto responsibility for security policy in the North, or at least it will be perceived as having de facto responsibility. It is not difficult to perceive in the months which lie ahead a situation arising in which the Northern police or paramilitaries, or indeed the United Kingdom Army, are involved in an incident in which minority lives are lost or in which the security forces fail to take action to prevent sectarian killings of members of the minority community. I am aware that the subservience of these forces to political will was tested in re-routing marches earlier this year, but the political situation has changed radically since then. It is inevitable, in my view, that further polarisation should have occurred within these security forces since that time.

Should these instances to which I referred occur, whether they are provoked or calculated — and all of us must hope they do not — the minority community, genuinely in some cases and inspired by Provisional IRA in others, will look to this Government with its apparent de facto responsibility for redress. If that redress is not forthcoming — and we would be relying on the United Kingdom to see that it is — democratic politics, North and South, will have been placed under the most severe strain imaginable. Ifde facto responsibility for security is seen as an empty gesture by the minority community, their faith in the democratic system will not be sustained.

My third concern arises from my conviction as a socialist. Before I come to it I would just like to make one remark in passing. I think it is important to state that I do not see the Labour Party as a Nationalist party. There has been a tendency during the Forum process and since to talk of the four Nationalists parties reaching an agreement in relation to Northern Ireland. For me, the Labour Party is not a Nationalist party. The Labour Party contains within its objectives the aspiration to unity of the people of this island by agreement and consent, but that is only one element of the range of objectives we have as a socialist organisation. The others, of course, as members of my party know, have to do with the transformation of the kind of society we have — the introduction of genuine justice, the ending of unemployment and the transformation of the capitalist underdeveloped economies we have North and South of the Border.

We are a democratic socialist party and therefore in the months ahead I think it is very important that we do nothing to force working class loyalist people in Northern Ireland into further retrenchment than the position they already find themselves in. There have been signs over recent years that working class people, particularly in Belfast, have begun to come out of the sectarian positions they have occupied in the past and have begun to explore ways in which they can co-operate together to bring about the transformation of society in the interests of working class people in their areas and in the island as a whole. It would be a great tragedy if, in the course of the next few months, the Labour movement in the South did anything to smother these small seeds that have been growing particularly in Belfast in recent years.

In my own life, which is neither here nor there in the context of this great problem, I have found that, with the exception of my attitude to the question of the desirability of the unity of the people of this island, I have more in common with Protestant working class people from the Shankill Road, and Sandy Row than I have with many people in this part of the country and in this House. I believe strongly that the Labour movement, while we must struggle for devolved administration in Northern Ireland, because it will only work through the introduction of normal democratic politics involving power-sharing, we must always be aware that our real long term struggle is to unite with those workers in the North who share our common aspirations to justice and to a new social order. Therefore, in the months ahead we must be very careful not to make it impossible for those connections to be made at whatever time in the future.

With those words of concern I conclude by saying I am aware that the motivations of those who entered into this process were good motivations. I am also aware that if this agreement fails, for whatever reason, the situation North and South will be worse than it was before the process began. I am in those circumstances prepared to support the agreement. But I hope that it will be possible for the Government, and in particular for members of my own party, to take on board the serious concern which I feel most deeply.

Mr. Fallon

My feeling in regard to this whole debate is that the amendment which we have put forward has not received sufficient media attention in particular. It focuses on all the aspects of the problem we are discussing and in many ways it would cover the most important element of the problems we know exist in the North of Ireland. It is abundantly clear in our amendment that we recognise fully the need to improve the situation of the Nationalist community in the North. We support any effective measures taken on their behalf, but we cannot accept the abandonment of our claim to Irish unity or the recognition of British sovereignty over the North of Ireland, which is involved in this agreement.

Obviously, there must be some degree of worry. It has been suggested very strongly by many sources that the signing of this agreement is in some way repugnant to the Constitution of Ireland — by fully accepting British sovereignty over part of our national territory and in some way giving a legitimate role to a British administration in Ireland. I feel that this part of the agreement could do serious damage and affect our historic, longstanding and legitimate claim to the unity of our territory. Like many people, I would be concerned that this agreement would put our Government into an almost impossible political situation in which they would find themselves accepting or assuming responsibility for actions and becoming involved in situations, particularly in the field of security, over which they would have no control. I would like to sound a warning that this could become a reality.

Paragraph 3 of our amendment reads:

...recalling that all the parties in the New Ireland Forum were convinced that a united Ireland in the form of a sovereign independent State would offer the best and the most durable base for peace and stability;

Paragraph 5.4 of the Forum report states:

Among the fundamental realities the Forum has identified is the desire of nationalists for a united Ireland in the form of a sovereign, independent Irish state to be achieved peacefully and by consent. The Forum recognises that such a form of unity would require a general and explicit acknowledgement of a broader and more comprehensive Irish identity. Such unity would, of course, be different from both the existing Irish State and the existing arrangements in Northern Ireland because it would necessarily accommodate all the fundamental elements in both traditions.

The basic national objective of unity has been re-affirmed time and time again. By giving it a clear and positive expression, I think the Irish Constitution does no more than reflect the fullest and most dedicated aspirations of the majority of the people of Ireland. The acceptance of this agreement could well be in conflict with that fundamental aim, or it might help to undermine our nation's ability to achieve that aim.

In voting for this agreement Dáil Éireann departed from the concept of Irish unity by seeking to give a legitimate role to an administration and a political entity, the existence of which is a denial of that concept of unity. Many Senators mentioned that the Forum is gone by the board, that this treaty supersedes the Forum. When we talk about the Forum we have to talk about the attitude of people to the Forum. Who could ever forget the famous statement of the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in regard to that document, when she said "Out, out, out."? What I see as being basic to this agreement is that the Irish Government accepting British sovereignty over part of Ireland will involve itself in advising in some way the British Government to rule that part of Ireland more effectively and help to make it more favourable to the authority of the British Government.

I believe that that is very much part and parcel of this agreement. The document is very much an acceptance of British sovereignty over the North of Ireland and treating Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. What was done must have been done to smooth out the difficulties which the British have encountered in ruling that part of the country. It could be argued that the Conference to be will be helping to do this smoothing out job to help in some way to reconcile the Nationalist community with the British administration which we know and which they have always seen as being alien or opposed to them in many ways. This agreement is perhaps going in a wrong direction. It is seeking to bolster up the existing political structure which in itself is the cause of the problem and is the source of the violence and the instability which will always exist as long as it remains that way. There is no doubt that the agreement tries to bolster British rule in the Six Counties and to move Nationalists towards accepting an internal settlement with the eventual aim of establishing a devolved government.

I referred to the security aspect of this agreement and I believe this is very important. In the joint press release on the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985 on page 4, paragraph 11 it makes the point that:

The Conference will consider security policy issues as well as serious incidents and forthcoming events. A programme of action will be developed with the particular object of improving the relations between the security forces and the nationalist community. Elements of the programme may be considered by the Irish Government for application in the South. The Conference may also consider policy issues relating to prisons, and individual cases may be raised.

On page 5 of the same joint press release it says:

The Conference will set in hand a programme of work to be undertaken by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána with a view to enhancing co-operation between the security forces of the two Government in such areas as threat assessments, exchange of information, liaison structures, technical co-operation, training of personnel and operational resources. The Conference will have no operational responsibilities.

We must look at the importance of those paragraphs and the security arrangements in the agreement. One of the main aspects which is being used and has been used at home and internationally by the propaganda machine which we know existed, is the hope that it will help to improve the position of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and to alleviate their situation. Having made that statement we immediately talk of the area of security because it is important when we speak about those areas that we look closely at the agreement and what the agreement offers in regard to the security area. We know that it is the administration of justice and it is the operation of the security forces which weighs most heavily and most grievously on the Nationalist community. That is what causes the most resentment, the most anger and the most feeling of injustice. This resentment, anger and sense of injustice focuses as much attention on the UDR which as we know is a sectarian armed force which would not be accepted in any other country in the world.

We know that the present system of administration of justice in the North is quite desperate becáuse we are aware of the human rights issues for example of detention, arrest and so on, we know of the Diplock courts, the paid informer situation, the supergrass. Generally we can say that it is a discredited area of security. I feel very strongly that it is absurd and it is totally misleading to talk about improving the situation of the Nationalist community or to talk about alleviating their worst fears unless there is a radical change in and a restructuring of the entire security system. We know that is not coming about from this agreement. It achieves nothing of importance in this area. We have mentioned Article 7 of the agreement, the hopes, aspirations and so on, but at the end of the day the UDR will continue to reign as before. The basic situation will remain very much unchanged.

If the whole agreement is to succeed surely it will require the will, the loyalty and the whole commitment of many people. Obviously Mrs. Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain is the key person in this whole episode, but having regard to the way in which she threw out the Forum and even the manner of her speech last Tuesday in regard to the Judiciary, I certainly do not trust Mrs. Thatcher.

Another aspect of the agreement which is obviously worrying to many people is the binding legal obligation, not just for the present, but for the future. Unless Article 1, which has worried many people, is renegotiated in some way, then I think the Irish Government preclude themselves from raising the issue of Irish unity at some international conference in the future. We have not here just a communique; we have a formal treaty, an agreement registered in the United Nations. It is much a more difficult and a much more important document than a communique or an ordinary political structural agreement.

I should like to make a further point before concluding. Nobody really has suggested, or is prepared to say for certain, that what is proposed in the agreement will provide lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland. Certainly we know that has not happened in the short term and it looks likely to be that way in the near future. We are not prepared to say that this will happen in the long term, or that it will end the alienation of the Nationalist community, or that it could even achieve the agreement and consent of the Unionists. We know their position at the moment. Many people are saying they hope the agreement succeeds. I would totally agree with that. Yet many people feel that it is not capable of bringing violence and instability to an end.

As I said earlier, our amendment has not been sufficiently highlighted. Whether this is a deliberate ploy on the part of the media I do not know. Certainly we have not been able to match the huge propoganda machine that existed for, I presume, the Irish Government and the British Government in particular. Our amendment would give support to the Nationalist community. Our amendment, I believe, would be far more effective and more supportive of their cause. If it could be adopted it could help to bring peace and justice to our country.

There are many aspects of the agreement that I could agree with. I hope it succeeds for the many people living in the troubled northern part of our country. In particular I hope it succeeds for the SDLP who have many friends on both sides of the House and in all the political parties of this country. I do hope their aspirations for and their belief in this agreement will be realised, that they have made the wisest decision and that at the end of the day peace, reconciliation and justice, and all the nice things of life that we hope for will be achieved as a result of this agreement.

Mr. Browne

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Chomhaontú Angla-Éireannach seo agus tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil sé againn. Molaim go hárd an Taoiseach, an Tánaiste, an tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus na hoifigigh Stáit a d'oibrigh go dian dícheallach ar feadh na bliana chun go mbeadh sé seo againn. Agus molaim freisin Príomh Aire na Breataine a d'athraigh a meoin bliain ó shin nuair a bhí sí ag caint faoi rudaí eile nár mhaith linn a chloisint ach d'athraigh sí a meoin agus tá an Comhaontú seo againn anois. Tá súil agam go n-eireoidh leis. Cuireann sé brón orm, caithfidh mé a admháil, go bhfuil daoine ag gearáin faoi láthair mar gheall ar na rudaí nach bhfuil ann agus cuid des na rudaí atá ann. Ach tá sé an fhurasta ar fad milleán a chur ar dhaoine gur ghlac said le rudaí nó nár ghlac said le rudaí eile. Tabhair seans don rud seo agus le cúnamh Dé beidh toradh tairbheach aige.

I welcome this motion which is a very simple one: "That Seanad Éireann welcomes the Hillsborough Agreement and calls on all persons of goodwill to work for the success of this initiative in the interests of peace and stability in Ireland". The last speaker and others mentioned the amendment. I do not know what we can achieve by accepting this amendment if we cannot achieve something from the agreement that we have drawn up. I cannot see how we can get Unionists to come to a conference in Belfast to try to achieve unity if they will not accept this agreement which has given them a guarantee that unity will not come without their sanction or the sanction of the majority in the Six Counties. Having given them an opportunity to have devolved government, we are groping in the dark if we think they will go for a further extreme chance of coming together to talk about unity.

I do not want to talk about people who gave their best in the past. Eamon de Valera, who did so much good for us during his lifetime, was quoted by a previous speaker. He certainly talked a lot about the North of Ireland and a unitary State. That was sufficient for his day. It got him re-elected. In fairness to him, were he alive today and in this Seanad, I do not think he would be opposing this Anglo-Irish agreement. I do not want to commit the crime, of which I often find other people guilty, of putting words into the months of those who have gone before us. Poor Wolfe Tone must turn in his grave when he hears all the speeches at his grave side. Wolfe Tone did what he should have done in his time and today he might have a completely different view.

I want to talk about some of the present leaders who helped to bring about this agreement. I have already mentioned our Taoiseach, our Tánaiste, our Minister for Foreign Affairs and the officials of the Civil Service. I want to pay a special tribute to John Hume. A few weeks ago in the Seanad I tried to have a motion passed congratulating him on his performance on television on the Tuesday night before the Anglo-Irish agreement was signed. I thought then, and I still think, that he gave one of the best performances by any politician that I have ever seen on television. There was no shilly-shallying. There was no question of playing for safety. He said quite clearly that it was time to drop the slogans and, God knows, we have had enough slogans about the North in our time. He also said it was time we gave up having an inferiority complex and talked about standing up to the British and that we should be big enough to sit down with them. I am glad that our leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, was big enough physically and mentally to do exactly that. I want to thank and congratulate Mr. John Hume for, on that occasion, setting such a high standard for us. He, along with several other SDLP speakers are living in the thick of all this trouble in the North and we are very privileged to have a person of Senator Bríd Rogers's capability in this House. You have only to watch her in debates on television to realise that she has so much to offer.

We are very privileged to have here Senator John Robb who gave today a marvellous speech when he dealt with the reality of the problems in the North. He gave us the Protestant viewpoint and asked us to be big enough to look at the other side. These people are the people we have to listen to and while I do not want to knock Fianna Fáil for the sake of knocking them, Deputy Brian Lenihan's excuse on television that Fianna Fáil were more or less the overall guardians of nationalism and republicanism and that they could see a wider vision than the SDLP is absolute humbug. We hear so much patriotism trotted out. All you have to do is go into a pub and a fellow who has three or four pints in him, to give him false courage, will have no trouble in marching to the North in the morning with a pint in one hand and an imaginary armalite in the other. The good point about that is that he will wake up in the morning and common sense will have hit him again. But when leaders who are there to lead set a standard that is not what it should be we are in trouble.

If we can believe that an emissary went from Fianna Fáil to America to sabotage the agreement that was going to come about that is getting as near to treachery as one could expect from any democratic party and I regret very much that any such attempt should have been made. It is not a crime to be small in stature but you must be big in mind no matter what size your body is. Much of the criticism on this has been about the constitutional position. Shakespeare hit it on the head centuries ago when he said there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. We can stand back and talk about a united Ireland, four green fields and all the island as part of our nation. If it does not happen, we are only dreaming. Senator Brendan Ryan referred to a poem in Irish that said: "Tá Tír na nÓg ar chúl an tí." We can not live for ever in Tír na nOg because it does not exist. This is 1985 and we will have to come into modern times and deal with the problem.

The question of a united Ireland is going on for 60 years. Shouting "Up the Republic" and saying that we will not yield an inch, that we want a united Ireland and will have nothing else has not brought it any closer. At this stage we have to accept that an effort has been made. There is no guarantee that this effort will bring about a united Ireland in our lifetime but it is not good enough that people are lamenting what is going to happen. There are so many problems in the North at present that have to be tackled. Surely this is what the whole thing is about, that we can set up a Conference and deal with the problems. I cannot understand the logic of the viewpoint that it is either a unitary state or nothing. How can we go from our present state to a united Ireland if you take into consideration the reaction of the Unionists to this particular proposal. I repeat that this proposal is guaranteeing to them that they will not be forced into a united Ireland, that it can only come with the consent of the majority up there. How could we possibly go from here to a united country or a unitary state in one go? That is simply playing with words for the sake of votes, and I put it as bluntly as that.

We have a mixed up idea as to whether we have a Thirty-two County Ireland or a Twenty-six County Ireland. When one of the Opposition speakers yesterday was talking about this country of ours down here he quite clearly thought that the country had 26 counties and that the North was just there by chance. We need to get our lines clear as to what exactly we are talking about. I am looking forward to this Conference helping to solve many of the problems the Nationalists have while in no way stepping on the Unionists. I wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Barry, every success in what will be a very difficult job for him.

I realise that where you have two parties so opposite in views for 60 years that it is going to be difficult to bring them together. Anybody who has ever been involved with football clubs that were split in a parish will have some idea of the difficulty there is in bringing them together. That is only a minor detail when you think of what is happening in the North. We have to accept that we cannot have the Nationalists in an inferior place any longer. The Unionists will have to accept also that their privileged position cannot continue for ever. I can see the difficulties that will arise. The last time I was in the North was the year before last, a few days before 12 July. While I enjoyed all the pomp and ceremony and the banners that were flying, it appeared to be a carnival affair for those who were living there. It is not altogether the most pleasant of times. The Nationalists suffer very much from the idea that they are treated as second class citizens at that particular time.

The problem is how to get from that stage where you have drums being beaten all over the place for so long to the stage where equality comes into play. I want to say nothing that will prolong that day when we can have an approach there of peace and stability and where the Unionists can see their way towards accepting that the Nationalists must have their rights as well. The Nationalists have the problem that they are sometimes supposed to be represented by the Provisional IRA and some of their deeds could in no way endear the Unionists to us or towards the idea of a united Ireland.

The one thing we have to remember in speaking about this agreement is that we are talking and can effect, very much, the lives of people in the North. It is amazing how brave many Republicans in the South are. They certainly have no great worries about people being killed in the North but you often hear the comment: "as long as it does not overflow into the South". That is a very brave line to take on a united Ireland. It is marvellous as long as all the trouble stays up in the North, as long as we see the people in the North as foreigners who deserve no great sense of freedom or no great sense of fair play. Anything that can be done to stabilise this approach towards bringing unity in the long term but above all peace and stability in the short term should be done to help this cause. Trying to find fault with the so-called breakdown in our constitution is not helping one way or the other.

Earlier today I had the privilege of hearing the marvellous speech that was made by Senator John Robb. It was followed immediately by a speech by Senator Mark Killilea. I am glad that a few hours have passed before I got back in to speak here. I am quite sure Senator Killilea was sincere in what he said, but it does not help either the advancement towards unity or the success of this agreement. He quoted what Mrs. Thatcher said ten days afterwards. I wonder, if the British looked up our records and saw that ten minutes after signing the Forum report Deputy Haughey pulled the rug from under everybody by giving his interpretation of it, would we get very far? I am sure Mrs. Thatcher has said things that are wrong in the past. But at least we must give her credit: she has taken a firm line on this agreement and seems to be very determined to do her utmost to make it a reality.

Senator Killilea referred to the propaganda that has been sold around the world. The people all over the world are not fools. The leaders of their countries, who have reached the top in political life, are not there simply because they are gombeen men. They have not all accepted what was said simply because the propaganda machine was in action. Some such term as "snow programme" has been used by somebody who has been sounding off regularly in the newspapers. Do people with minority viewpoints ever think that perhaps they could be out of step rather than thinking that everybody else has been conned. I was delighted to see the fine response to this agreement because it really meant that what was achieved was worth backing. We had the Americans — the Irish-Americans in particular — the President of the United States right through to the leaders of the European Community all supporting this agreement. I was equally glad to think that 60 per cent of the Irish people accept it for what it is — not that they can see a united Ireland around the corner but simply because they see it as an honest effort. One could say it is the first honest effort for a long time to make some progress. It is great that we have reached a stage in Ireland where the Irish people can sit back, judge things for themselves and not be conned by arguments that are made for political reasons.

This agreement deserves the success I hope it will have. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing an advance — not a very fast one — to a stage where the North will not get into further turmoil. Too many of us know too many people up there. Even if we do not know them personally, they deserve the peace and tranquility we hope for in this part of Ireland.

Mr. Harte

If the discussions which have been going on over the past 12 months had not been held in secret, we would have had nothing to talk about today, because the negotiations would have broken down and no sort of progress would have been made. As a moderate man, I believe that anything which represents progress has to be given very serious consideration, no matter what your reservations are, particularly when you are dealing with a situation such as the North of Ireland with all of its complexities. To me the Anglo-Irish Agreement represents progress towards a political solution. Considering that the negotiations had to deal with a most unusual and most complicated set of problems, it is a wonderful achievement that they brought about, not a solution but certainly the potential to bring about a political solution to the Northern Ireland problem. I put it at no more than that.

Since the latest phase of the Irish troubles erupted in 1968 it was often said — and even right up to the time of the signing of this agreement it continued to be said — that it was up to the local politicans in the North to come up with an answer which would bring about a solution to the problems of alienation and so on. It is a little bit much to think that you can continue to make that argument when you have regard to all the initiatives which were doomed and all the attempts at trying to get some form of power-sharing. It is a little bit much to be talking about the fact that it is up to the politicians in the North to settle it. If they had settled it we would not be having this kind of debate here today — we might be having some sort of a debate but certainly not this kind of one and in the context of an agreement of this nature. The fact is that no political solution was going to be brought about by the political parties in the North because to a great extent there was a great fear of loss of support by either side. That prevented any concessions being made. In short, you could say that the ground space, politically speaking was too confined. Here we had a situation where there was a great narrowness about the whole approach and not only the approach but a narrowness in attitudes. Inevitably, this unusual and complicated mess had to be broadened out in the context of an Irish dimension. Otherwise we were not even going to have potential efforts or potential structures in the North to bring about a solution.

The quarrel which has overshadowed the North, particularly since 1968, this overbearing attitude and behavioural patterns, has to be interfered with. It may be a strange way of saying it but you are actually interfering with a quarrel. The only way you can do this is by the imposition of a system of refereeing aimed at finding ways of showing those who have been quarrelling down through the years — supposedly on behalf of the community as a whole — that their difficulties can be reconciled if they all will take time out to consider what is being proposed to them. This Conference, given a chance, will do the job of refereeing and do it well. The evidence will be there to show that bitterness and divisions need not remain a permanent part of life in the north-eastern part of Ireland.

It has been argued that the initiative is a high risk one and that it is likely to test the mettle of the Taoiseach and of the British Prime Minister. I do not think we should have any fears on that score. Of course, you are negotiating in a high risk situation. Obviously no matter what you come up with, there will be a very large element of risk in it. But the evidence is there that both Governments and both leaders have shown firmness. To gauge the distance we have gone all we need do is look back on the past reactions— the famous "Out, out, out" remark, the hunger strikes and the remarks of the British Prime Minister when she said that the North of Ireland is as much a part of Britain as Finchley is. That shows us how far the British Prime Minister has progressed in understanding the situation. We must give her credit for that, because she had a very narrow understanding prior to that. She has come a long way.

While someone might argue that to make the concession she made might be some sort of weakness, I frankly do not think that. A tough mind only shows up when you find out that you have not been right all along and admit it. That is not tender mindness, that is tough mindness. This is going to be a very essential ingredient in making this structure work. For someone of the British Prime Minister's nature and the position she holds it is a brilliant and imaginative step, particularly from someone who had previously a narrow view of the North of Ireland. I say that in so far as she felt that the Unionist voice represented the whole voice of the North of Ireland. She must be given full marks.

On the question of all the complexities in the negotiations, of necessity and facing up to all of these complexities the negotiators were faced with — you cannot but argue that this agreement has gone an awful long way. I will be the first to admit that there is a very substantial portion of theory written in. Therefore, it is a wait and see situation in order to find out how effective it will be. With regard to all of the difficulties that the negotiators were faced with, what else can you write into an agreement except a substantial portion of theory in the hope of inducing the moderates, working towards the elimination of the alienation of the minority and the isolation of the subversives? Of necessity you must have a great deal of theory in it and work towards what can be practical and what can be achieved. Quite frankly, if the nerve is held, it does provide the basis for a new beginning.

I would like to deal briefly with the question of the argument on sovereignty. May be not everybody will go down the road with me on this, but it seems a little bit puzzling that here we have people in both Houses of the Oireachtas who in 1972 freely entered into an agreement to join the European Economic Community and freely gave away the right to legislate in certain areas. On that occasion there was no screaming about the diminution of sovereignty. They saw no difficulty in transferring a sizeable portion of our sovereignty to the European Community. Yet when you talk about the question of removing the terrible situation in the North of Ireland, even on sovereignty, nobody wants to give an inch. That is not to suggest that our sovereignty is being affected by this agreement. I do not think it is in the least. I think it was when we entered the European Community. Tommorrow or the next day we could get a directive from Europe, and that is it, whether the House likes it or dislikes it. If there was an input from both sides in the North in this Conference, that will be put to both Houses and the House either accepts or rejects it. That is not the situation in the case of the European Community. It is fair to say while making that argument that, we have representation in Europe and they have a vote, it does not make any difference. The fact is that there is an overwhelmingly majority against our vote and they are going to set down laws affecting our society, and that has been done since 1972.

It is interesting to note, when we are talking about sovereignty, that both parts of Ireland are part of the European Community. The arguments about loss of sovereignty are more appropriate to the joining of the European Community rather than they are to the signing of this agreement. I do not think we are going to have any laws to implement as a result of these structures. We will not be bringing about any laws in England that they do not want to have. But Europe will continue to make laws that we will have to put up with. There will be in the Conference the reciprocal input, but it will be a matter for the Oireachtas and the British Parliament to decide whether it goes into legislation or not. That is an interesting one in the sense that there is no written constitution in England. The constitution is the legislation they make. It is a very interesting point. If they are going to put into their laws some of our impact, then we are into the question of their sovereignty.

In the real world nobody's sovereignty is affected by this: nothing is being given away in this agreement that threatens us. We have to face up to it. The lives and fortunes of the people of Ulster are hazardous and would have continued to be so for a long time to come if no initiative of this nature had been embarked upon. The intransigence of the Unionists, the narrowness of other political people and the presence of subversives in the North of Ireland have made it impossible for them to come together and bring about any sort of a solution. The opportunities were there. In the case of the Unionists, when the first civil rights march started in 1968 and before the wrong people got a grip of it, there was an opportunity for them to have a look at the situation. They have had opportunities since then and did not take them. The position now is that they are being backed into a bad situation which has brought fear to them, but I do not think they have anything to fear. As someone who has lived with quite many of them for over nine years I would not want to put any fear into their minds because I consider them as very close friends.

For most of the people living in the North the real test of this agreement is likely to be whether it improves the situation on the ground and what hopes it holds out for peace and prosperity in the long term. That is how it has to be judged. I would answer that by saying that it has taken the things in the North out of the kind of sterile context that they were in. In other words, whether we will have a united Ireland or not, it has changed the parameters of that age old question. In that sense there is a great chance for long term peace and prosperity to eventually come — not in my lifetime, but eventually to come there. The unfortunate part is that the IRA, due to their activities over the past 16 years, have put a united Ireland further away than ever. They have widened and deepened the divisions. The fact that the Hillsborough Agreement tries to isolate them or seeks to isolate them can well mean that we can get back on the road and make up some of the ground that was lost. Unfortunately, that happens to be a fact of life. We could describe it, as Séamus Mallon says, as a toe in the door, or as I heard somebody describe it, as a very good fudge. It is a fudge that will bring the political process to all those who are actually looking for a way forward, or seeking a way forward through peaceful and reconciling methods.

The agreement provides the majority community in the North with an opportunity to look after their own future. If they have sense enough now to get a form of devolved Government with the minority, I do not think their fears will be half as well-founded as they seem to be at the moment. The opportunity is there for them. They have lost opportunities in the past. It is there now. Certainly, I have no desire to be a dominant person over any minority group. The very nature of my party would not allow it. I say these things in the sense that, unfortunately, they have backed themselves into a corner. It seems that what they were saying while they were backing themselves into the corner was: We are Nationalists of Northern Ireland.

The claim to being British is something that was necessary, but, in effect, if you look back over the history of how they have always wanted to govern themselves, they were, in fact, Northern Nationalists. The only difference was that they wanted control over their own affairs, but only on their own conditions. No matter what happened in the past, there is nowhere in the world where one can have that nowadays. In a situation that is more bitter, more divisive and more filled with grievance than most situations one can think of, one cannot have this kind of power based on dominance. We certainly do not want it. There is no way that it will work for the Unionists. They should take this chance to get together quickly with their own people in the North, the minority people, and start this power-sharing process. If they do not, a great opportunity will be lost.

When talking about the North, there was never a chance of any sort of balanced or sympathetically assessed situation being arrived at. This was largely because of the intransigence on the part of the Unionists. Possibly it was a power cult. I cannot really put my finger on it, but it would be safe to say that there were certainly blind spots. Through these blind spots one generally encourages the perpetrators of perversion. They themselves, like the subversives in the North, have got caught up in the disease of historical prejudice. This facilitated the subversives who behaved in a similar fashion. The Unionist people did that by favouring one group with privilege while another were forced into the stealing of a tradition for their own misuse and the abuse of the society in Northern Ireland.

As a Labour Party man I should like to go on record as offering assurance to the Unionists. This goes for most people in any party whether they agree or disagree with this initiative. I would like to say to the Unionists in the North that we are totally committed to this approach and we believe that the differences between us can be removed. We have to put it on record regularly, and as loudly as we can, that we reject outright and absolutely any attempt to unite the people in the North based on coercion and violence.

The agreement has a unique feature in that it holds down the precondition of Irish unity to the factor of consent. John Hume has pointed out that the initiative amounts to a clear and formal abnegation by the UK Government of any strategic financial or similar interest in being in Ireland. Since the remaining prerequisite to unity is consent, which by definition cannot be coerced, this removes all justification for violence in pursuit of Irish unity. I would certainly share those sentiments.

Agreement and consent have been the cornerstone of the Irish approach to the Northern question down through the years. The New Ireland Forum consolidated that approach. The various political leaders have renewed their parties' commitment to that approach. That is understandable if one has regard to all that went on in the Forum and all the difficulties with which the Nationalist and Unionist people in the North are faced. It is very easy to understand this approach, because the North of Ireland problem is above all, one of competing identities and conflicting loyalties. When it finally comes to rest in peace in the future, we can say — or those living at the time, or the historians can say — that much of it was unnecessary conflict. We are in a situation, that is not amenable to solution by violence or by rhetoric, no matter which side that rhetoric comes from. I would like to say, in the words of my own Labour Party programme that our philosophy with regard to the North is persuasion, dialogue and communication. That is the cornerstone on which we would always approach the situation, always have and always will.

It is only right, too, that we start giving credit where it is due. Deputy Haughey, the Leader of the Opposition, was as we know, the prime mover of the latest development. His approach was the key instrument to the new Anglo-Irish Agreement, because of the InterGovernmental conference concept. That concept has been established within the framework of an Anglo-Irish Governmental Council, which was set up in November 1981. That Inter-governmental Council actually owes its parentage to the summit of December 1980 in which Deputy Haughey was a prime mover. I would like to give him thanks for that. He helped the situation in the North substantially on that occasion. I am not going to be critical of the delay in the situation, but that has to be acknowledged. We have to acknowledge not only that but other achievements of Fianna Fáil Governments. We must acknowledge their contribution to the Forum as an Opposition on this whole national question.

The Agreement represents progress. There is a consensus there that Northern Ireland represents the most chronic and intractable political problem facing the Irish people during the 20th century. There are major economic and social problems facing us. There is the problem of social legislation. We cannot divorce this initiative from the whole question of employment, apart from dealing with the key issues of the recognition of the national issue and the reconciliation of the two communities and also the recognition of structures and procedures towards further political development. We must also recognise that the Unionists must be taken into consideration when we are legislating on social issues. It is not going to bring about a united Ireland. On the one hand, you cannot enter into initiatives where you will have an input and there will be a reciprocal input from the people from the North without paying attention to their input. We have to be careful on that. We have to show evidence in the not too distant future.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has only two minutes left.

Mr. Harte

The Loyalists in the final analysis will see that we are actually trying to conciliate. We are trying to conciliate without flinching on measures necessary to bring about justice and to remove alienation and also to deal with the question of isolating the subversives. I would like to have gone into questions of the economic measures needed to help the Loyalist working class areas, which cannot be overlooked in any conference. We should not be shy in having some input into British legislation on that matter. Obviously, it is not only in the Loyalists areas that there is great unemployment, but unemployment is substantial in such areas.

I see the agreement as having a very substantial element of theory in it. I believe the goodwill is there. The firmness of commitment is there. The people who are going to deal with it are very resolute in going about their business. Some speakers talked about the failure of the agreement. Whether it fails or not, initiatives have to be taken. One cannot just stand by and see murders, injustices and society being perverted. Initiatives must be taken.

Mrs. McGuinness

I apologise for my failure, because of family reasons, to be present at the earlier stages of this debate when making my contribution. I am under the distinct disadvantage of not having heard what other Senators and, indeed, the Taoiseach has had to say. Therefore, you will forgive me if I seem to be saying things that have already been said or making my contribution in a way that shows that I have not heard what other speakers have said.

On the other hand, perhaps I have had the advantage of living in the community in Belfast for virtually the whole of the past week, and living in the main among the moderate Loyalist population. While I was there I was very much concerned to find out the feelings of the moderate Loyalist population. There is no doubt that every one of us knows exactly how the extremes at both ends feel. There is never any trouble in finding out what Dr. Paisley thinks or, indeed, what the Provisional IRA or Provisional Sinn Féin think. In looking at the situation one tends to feel that an agreement which can have brought forth such forthright condemnation from both Dr. Paisley and the Provisional Sinn Féin must have some advantages for the rest of the population. I thought that the most important contribution that I could make, as someone who represents people in Northern Ireland as well as people in this jurisdiction, would be to try to find out how the ordinary person in Northern Ireland feels about the agreement. I will refer to this in more detail later.

While I have considerable reservations, particularly about the way in which this agreement was reached, I do feel that it is deserving of support and it does offer some hope. I would very much share what Senator Harte has just said that initiatives must be taken and that we cannot stand by and let the situation as it has been over the past 20 years go on without making some kind of an effort to try to move forward.

First, I would like to refer to the basic principles of the agreement as set out in article 1. I was very interested to see it set out as it was because it came quite shortly after my having read a very interesting book by Kevin Boyle and Tom Hadden called Ireland—A Positive Proposal, on which I was speaking in Belfast last week. It struck me as being an extremely sensible contribution to the whole discussion of the Northern Ireland situation in that it went through, in particular, the various simplistic solutions that have been offered, taking them carefully and analysing them and showing where they were impossible of achievement and where, perhaps, some hope might be seen. When I read this book, I felt that it had been written by people who know what they are talking about. Kevin Boyle is a member of the Northern Nationalist community. Tom Hadden is a member of the Northern Protestant community. They were writing about the Northern Ireland that I know, not just some sort of imagination. In their book they say precisely that, before we move on to making any positive suggestions and positive moves, both sides are going to have to acknowledge these things that are set out in article 1 of the agreement — that any change would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. They recognise that the present wish of that majority is for no change and that the British people must acknowledge that if there was a majority for change that they would not stand in its way. It was very interesting that the agreement did fulfil this particular precondition. That is very important.

It is extremely important that the whole agreement is cast in the mould of consent on both sides. Obviously, as Senator Harte has said, we are in the business of seeking consent and not in the business of imposing matters by force. There are two basic things which must be said about being in this consent issue. First of all, if we are looking for the consent of the majority community in Northern Ireland to a united Ireland we must take our own position much more seriously and be prepared to work very hard towards a position where consent would be forthcoming. We must be prepared to work legislatively, economically, educationally, in our Constitution and perhaps also in our whole cast of mind. This is something about which I have spoken before in this House and elsewhere, particularly in the debate on the New Ireland Forum report. It is clear that we are going to have legislative change that would take account of the fact that we are seeking to set up a pluralist community. We desperately need on both sides of the Border economic change which will give economic improvement to the whole community of Ireland. We also need the educational change that will bring up children on both sides with an understanding of the other side.

It is very common for us to feel critical of the education, for instance, in history in a lot of Northern Ireland schools where there is minimal teaching of Irish history. Perhaps our own teaching of history gives us very little understanding of the feelings of the majority community in the North. They are seen more as a problem than as a contribution. Until we begin to cease to look at the majority community in Northern Ireland as being a problem for Ireland and the more we grow to look at them as people who can make a contribution to Ireland, the more likely we are to succeed in changing our cast of mind, as it were, in this situation.

One thing we must do in trying to make this agreement work is to keep away from a triumphalist attitude of saying that we have won this concession from the British and have succeeded in doing this, that and the other, and now we will be able to change matters in Northern Ireland. This kind of statement is not going to help and may even harm the hopes of making the agreement actually work.

Secondly, with regard to the issue of consent, after listening to what people have to say on Northern Ireland, I think such consent to this agreement should have included consultation with the representatives of the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland before the reaching of the agreement. It should include this consultation from here on if we are to hope for a consent situation.

This question has been obviously the one that has created by far the most bitterness in Northern Ireland with regard to the agreement — the fact that there was so little consultation. This bitterness is in the hearts of the most moderate and reasonable Unionists as well as in the more extreme elements. What has been said to me on many occasions was that there is this feeling that the SDLP were consulted but the Unionists were not. Of course, this is not the fault of the SDLP nor of the Irish Government. It means that the Irish Government have consulted and treated their side better than the British Government have treated their side. I am not blaming the Irish Government for the lack of consultation with Unionist representatives. That fault must lie, in very large part, at the doors of the British Government. They were making a mistake in behaving in this way. I hope that it will not be a mistake that will be fatal to the success of the agreement.

Of course, the non-consultation with Unionist representatives and with the Loyalist community as a whole on the part of the British is understandable, but it does not mean that it is excusable. It is understandable because of the long history they have had of trying to deal with the Loyalist community and with a feeling which they must have had that consultation would be futile and that there was no point in trying to have consultation with people who were likely to react by saying basically "not an inch" and refusing to agree to anything. One can very well sympathise with such feeling that there was no point in talking to these people. Even if this was the case, non-consultation was inexcusable because, in the first place, it has given such an enormously strong lever against acceptance of the agreement situation among the Unionist population, and the more moderate Unionist population above all, because obviously one was not going to get consent from the extremists under any circumstances.

On looking at this form the point of view of an industrial relations example, where there is disagreement on a course of action between management and workers any good industrial relations manager — as portrayed in the advertisements of the Federated Union of Employers, which say that a talk-out is better than walk out — that consulation is necessary. Even in a situation where, after all sorts of consulation, the management is going to turn around and say: "You do not agree, but we are going to go ahead anyway", there is still the strength that you have talked to them and consulted with them. Mrs. Thatcher was making a mistake with her Government in leaving this out to such a large extent. Of course, in a sense the Unionist position is totally illogical. They are saying to the British "We desperately want to remain British and ruled by you" and yet when rule is exercised they turn around and say "We do not want to be ruled this way, we only want you to rule us on our conditions", as it were, Is this loyalism? It is illogical.

Yet, if this was Yorkshire and not Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom, if an agreement with a foreign state about the future of Yorkshire was to be made, can we really believe that the British Government would not have at least consulted the local MPs, the party faithful, the influential local people, local government and so on? I do not think we can. Therefore, it has been a shock and an insult to Unionist feeling, however moderate. They see this agreement being imposed on them without consultation, particularly when they see that the Irish Government have taken the trouble to consult with the SDLP and have taken their views into account.

I fear greatly that this is going to make difficulties in the acceptance of the agreement. I would suggest, on the positive side, that our Government should try to put all possible pressure on the British Government to use any contacts which they have with the more moderate Unionist community to try to mend the fences in regard to consultation and to bring consultation structures with the representatives of the non-violent Unionist community and with the non-violent Nationalist community into the framework of the Inter-governmental conference which is about to be set up. Rather than having vague references, such as are in article 4 of the agreement, about what is to happen, as this Conference grows actual consultation structures with both sides of the community should be built in. Of course, this will not be easy, but I feel it is essential if we are to have any hope of progress. It is not enough to involve Ministers, officials and civil servants because the Loyalist community tend to see British civil servants as being, at least, as foreign as Irish civil servants in some situations. This may be illogical, but this is the way they look at them. They certainly do not see British civil servants, sent over from Westminster, as being representative of their interests. Also, from my acquaintance with the Nationalist population of Northern Ireland, I would not say that a great many of them would necessarily see Irish civil servants sent up from Dublin as being representative of them either. I do think that this is something that will have to be looked at very hard and I would ask our Governments to put it into their consultation with the British.

With regard to the questions of security and related matters that are dealt with in the agreement, this is a very sensitive and very difficult area. While I would be very much in agreement with what is said and set out in the agreement, I wonder how easy it will be to achieve it. I was struck by views put to me in particular by one person that I know in Northern Ireland who played a very large part in the community there up until his retirement. His feeling was that, while he was a person who viewed the agreement as a fairly reasonable agreement and he would like to see these things happen, he wondered how realistic it was. For instance, again and again we have looked into the possibility of larger membership by the Nationalist community in the RUC and again and again this has proved virtually impossible to achieve, partly, it has to be said, because of the fact that those unfortunates who do join the RUC are at even greater physical risk of being done to death than their Protestant counterparts. Therefore, it is very hard to ask the Nationalist community to take part in the RUC when by doing so they are putting themselves and their families at really serious and hideous risk. I have doubts whether it will prove possible to achieve this aim. Certainly, it will be a very long term question.

Again, from our side of things, article 8, dealing with the legal position, the extradition position and so on could create various considerable problems in this jurisdiction, but I feel sure that many other people will have dealt with this aspect of the matter and that the legal and constitutional difficulties with regard to extradition will already have been dealt or will be dealt with by other people in this House. Therefore, in the limited time that I have I would prefer to deal with my own experience of the Northern situation over the past week. With regard to the kind of fears that the loyalist population have of the agreement, I have dealt with the non-consultation aspect, but in a sense an offshoot of this has been a very unfortunate increase in the power of Dr. Paisley and the more extreme elements, and this is regretted and feared by very many moderate people who see themselves as being at the opposite end of the scale from Dr. Paisley. It is sad to them to see Mr. Molyneaux paraded around at, for instance, the huge demonstration in Belfast at the weekend as a kind of pale shadow of Dr. Paisley, because those of us who know Mr. Molyneaux have a respect for him as a reasonable and upright man, however much one might not agree with his particular ideas and he is certainly not a demagogue and a stirrer up of violence. I think it is a great pity to see him, as it were, dragged into the vortex of appearing to be just simply in Dr. Paisley's train.

Again, I am concerned at the support for this enormous demonstration in Belfast by people who never went to demonstrations. Certainly, none of them were people that one might refer to as "rent-a-demo" crowds. They were people like the local doctors where I come from. People who do not go to demonstrations went to that demonstration, and that does worry me. A failure to attend to this feeling in the population is something that both we and the British Government do at our peril. Again, of course, we have the usual economic fears that, if we are working towards a united Ireland, Northern Ireland has a great deal to lose economically. These fears are sometimes exaggerated because some of them are based on a view of our, say, health and social services and so on which is wrong factually. The difference between the two is not nearly so great as it appears in people's minds; and sometimes, when you can explain what facilities are available here and so on, they say: "Really I did not know that you had that much". Therefore, this is a question of information, a question of Governments being able to put across the factual information on what kind of services we have here, on what our own economic efforts are and what we hope for in the future. Undoubtly, if this agreement is to succeed, some kind of economic background, whether through the United States or otherwise, which would provide greater employment on either side of the Border, would really mean a great deal to many people who look at things in a sort of practical and down to earth fashion.

This would make a very big difference. It is something that we must try for very hard indeed. It was suggested to me by one or two people of perfectly good reason and goodwill that if there was a move towards a united Ireland there would simply be an exodus from the loyalist community of the better educated, the younger, the more skilled population to look for jobs elsewhere because they would feel that there would be near economic collapse if we had Irish unity. I am not saying these people were right. If they are wrong, it is terribly important that we disabuse them of these feelings and that we succeed in laying these fears at rest.

I have several times before dealt with the sort of socio-religious fears which people have and I do not propose to speak of that again, but I would just remind the House that they do remain.

Another thing that remains, unfortunately, is the paramilitary forces on both sides; and there is a good deal of doubt, I would say, throughout the community in Northern Ireland as to whether this agreement can succeed in ridding us of these paramilitary forces. Of course, I see what is being intended. I think it is an excellent intention and I hope that it will succeed in persuading the support communities of paramilitaries on both sides to reject them more and to see that there is more hope in constitutional and political progress and less in physical force. The trouble is that we also have to overcome the fact that a lot of the paramilitary support is not based on belief but on intimidation and that their monetary back-up comes frequently from protection rackets on both sides. This is certainly true in the city of Belfast on both sides of the divide. These kind of things are going to be very difficult, indeed, to dismantle and this is something that the Inter-governmental Conference will have to apply its mind to as well.

There is one other thing that I have to say, although in some ways I regret saying it, and this is that our present Minister for Foreign Affairs is viewed in the North by even the moderate loyalist community as being someone who tends to be triumphalist, who tends to make sweeping statements about the situation in the North and there are certain fears of him personally. Now I know that the Minister is himself a man of sense and sensitivity. On the other hand, in talking with groups about the Northern situation I wonder does he hear as much as he listens to, if you understand my distinction. Does he really take in some of the things that are being said to him? I would ask particularly that at the moment, when we are trying to get this agreement off the ground and when we are trying to see if some progress can be made along these lines, he should refrain from making statements indicating that perhaps now we can get rid of the UDR or perhaps now we will be able to do this and do that. I think that is very important. If this agreement is going to succeed, it will have to succeed in a very low profile way to begin with. Its practical success is what we want, not just the ability to make statements about what we may have achieved. Since Deputy Barry has been, as it were, put at the head of this, I would ask that he should be particularly careful in the way in which he approaches the statements he makes.

To conclude — I think I only have about four or five minutes — I support and will vote for the acceptance of this agreement. When I was in Northern Ireland I attended a meeting of a group called Protestant and Catholic Encounter. This group has struggled on through thick and thin to try to keep the communities together and to work towards reconciliation at the grassroots. It has members from such Loyalist areas as Seamore Hill and from areas like Lennadoon in Andersonstown which are synonymous with republicanism in our way of thinking.

It has members who are members of the SDLP and members who are members of the Unionist party. When I was speaking to them I said I wanted to talk to them about their feelings more than to tell them about mine. I was very interested in the kind of reactions they had. Many of them gave voice to the kind of things I have been talking about today. One of the SDLP members put forward the suggestion that we also must be very careful — I think he was perfectly right in this — that we do not take away from the SDLP their aim of a united Ireland because if we do so, we throw them into the hands of the extreme republicans and Provisional Sinn Féin and, therefore, we must keep in mind that they must represent the aims of the Nationalist community as well. One thing which I thought was true, perhaps, but in some sense was an ironic statement made by an elderly lady who originally came from County Meath but has lived all her professional life in Northern Ireland, that historically communities are united not by agreement but by the slow process of intermarriage and the interlocking of two communities. I felt in a sense how right she was and yet how difficult it is in our religious situation where we have such difficulties in reconciling the idea of intermarriage at all without looking on it as a positive good. It was strange that she should have said this. I think it was a prophetic saying because I think it is a positive good, and it is something which should be sought rather than rejected by the Churches. This is the way that you will reach closer understanding in many ways.

At the end of this meeting, having had all this discussion, the chairman, who is an Englishman, suggested to me that we should put it to the vote to see how many people at the meeting would feel that the agreement should be given a try. I felt, perhaps, that this was an insensitive suggestion and was a little worried about it, nevertheless, he went ahead and did it. Of the people present at that meeting, virtually everyone from both sides said, yes it should be given a try whatever reservations they had about it. These were a specialist group and these were probably the best group you could talk to in a sense that were in favour of the agreement. I felt that while one had a number of people like that one had something to build on, therefore, it was worth supporting. This was brought to mind in reading the Crumlin Column in a recent copy of the Church of Ireland Gazette because the man who writes this is basically a Unionist and has been all his life and yet his attitude to the agreement was that, if this agreement is so opposed by the Provisional Sinn Féin and Dr. Paisley, it has something to offer and, therefore, we should have another look at it and try to give it some degree of support. Despite the reservations I have and despite the fact that I would emphatically ask that all sides be brought into a consultation structure, I feel I must give basic support to the agreement.

Mr. Lennon

Perhaps of all the Members of this House, with the exception of people living in the Six Counties, I must be the Member of the House here who lives closest to the Border as I live in Dundalk. I do not profess to know more about it but I have quite a lot of experience of the problems in the North and, indeed, in Dundalk because of the way the Border counties have suffered as a result of the troubles.

Dundalk has suffered to a great extent as a result of the troubles in the North. Most of the speakers here and in the other House over the past few weeks have spent most of the time talking about the difficulties in the North. I do not intend to labour this point in relation to the Border counties. Dundalk has suffered more than any other town. Many industries have closed not necessarily because of the troubles but because of the troubles they were not replaced. Many industrialists coming to this country are not interested in coming to places like Dundalk. People in Border counties are very anxious that this agreement should succeed.

I live a few miles from the Border. Many of my friends and in-laws live across the border and for that reason I have a fair bit of experience of it. I welcome the agreement as much as anybody else. The Catholics are very grateful to the Minister, Deputy Barry, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, and so on but Deputy Barry seems to be singled out as the one who has worked very hard for them. They are very grateful to him for showing intelligence and self-control, unusual, perhaps, in some Irish politicians. He did not mention the Border in the past two years. He spoke about justice, fair play and equality for the Catholic people. He carried the complaints of these unfortunate people from the sovereign Government in Dublin to the sovereign Government in London. At last the people have a champion who can equal the British in intelligence. He gave the Northern Catholics a sympathetic ear for their daily difficulties and provided a voice of authority over the telephone saying where the buck stops in London. He has now made this procedure a permanent structure in the Anglo-Irish agreement and he is prepared to go North to mix with the passion and the bigotry to bring further hope to the oppressed Catholics. The Minister did not neglect the problems of the Border in concentrating on the grievances of the Catholics. Every action he takes to obtain justice is action for peace. Peace is based on justice; peace is the work of justice. Those who work for justice work for peace. There cannot be peace without justice. When there is justice in the North there will be genuine peace. When there is equality, the reason for the border to preserve a sectarian state, the false supremacy of one tradition over another will disappear. The British tradition, the culture and the rights of the Protestant people can be better preserved without the Border.

At present Catholics know that they are second class citizens. As long as they consent to remain so, they can have a quiet life. Croppies lie down is the first and only law of Unionism. If Catholics look for equality, for civil rights, for legal rights then the bias of the RUC, the UDR and the judiciary is turned against them. The law of 200,000 legally held guns in Protestant hands is turned against them. They cannot fully rely on the RUC who will not even protect Tom King MP. Are elements of the RUC in collusion with the UVF and the UDA? That is the big question. Sectarian assassinations, filling jails with Croppies, prosecuting Catholics for minor motoring offences, waiting outside Catholic places of recreation to harass young people, that is the Protestant law for Catholic people in the North showing who is on top.

The Catholics expect that the new accord and the Minister, Deputy Peter Barry, will protect them against unfair administration in the State, an unjust administration of the law. The Minister is clever. He does not mention the Border and rightly so. The Catholics are not urgently concerned about the Border. They want protection for their lives and homes, protection against draconian laws they want to be safe from abuse by the RUC, the UDR and the judiciary. They want to express their Irish culture and worship God in the Catholic Church without having the Pope cursed and churches and schools burned. They want jobs and promotion on merit. In brief, they want a equality of treatment. Why not? They see themselves as no threat to anyone. Why are the Paisleyites obsessed with trampling on the rights of Catholics? Work for justice and equality for Catholics would remove the feelings of frustration and rage of young Catholics. The injustices of their treatment the attacks on their community, the sectarian assassinations drive them into the hands of the IRA and the INLA.

When they get protection and speedy redress for their grievances from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry they will possess a sense of security they never had before. They never got security from the people who professed their love for civil and religious liberties. The tortures by the RUC, the killings by the Army, RUC and UDR on Bloody Sunday and, indeed, by plastic bullets, the 550 sectarian assassinations by Protestants give Catholics the impression that they have no justice, no protection and no law against excesses. The security forces and the RUC could kill and torture with impunity because of a biased judiciary. There has been some change just recently. Justice may now be achieved in another way and in my opinion that could well be the Barry way, the way of patient perseverance. This will cut away the support for the IRA. The accord is, therefore, a good thing for the Protestants because it removes one of their principal fears, the murder and bombing campaign of the IRA. Remember that Catholics, too, want to be rid of the IRA because of their murders, extortion and corruption of the young. It is when there is a Protestant campaign of sectarian assassination of Catholics that the Catholics turn to the IRA for protection and that is well known.

What are the fears of the Protestants? The most real fear they have is of the INLA and the IRA. The accord is designed to diminish and remove the IRA and the cause of fear. What remains to be feared? A united Ireland. The majority of Catholics do not want it at present, although they have for a long time aspired to it. It must be said in November 1985 that Protestants are fighting for their privileges, not for their rights. The huffing and puffing is to preserve a privileged position over the Catholics. They do not want rights but want to prevent the right of equal citizenship being given for the first time to Catholics. It is fair to say that there is an element of hatred of the Catholic religion, an inherited urge to trample on Catholics and the rights behind the present protests and votes. Rights are not the issue. The Unionists say it. They are well represented and even over-represented in Assembly, Westminster and Europe, not to speak of local councils. Over the past 24 hours we heard talk of resignations by some of them. That forces me to ask if they would resign if some of them had succeeded in being elected with a majority of two or three votes. I do not think that would happen. Most people believe that that would not happen.

The accord is cutting away the base of the IRA and the INLA but they protest because they want a sectarian State with Protestant supremacy and it makes the heart sore to see supremacy being removed by the British. The British took away the supremacy. The British took away the B men in 1971 and everyone remembers Paisley, Taylor and company huffed and puffed and marched and settled down. Stormont went in 1972 and Paisley, Taylor and company huffed and puffed and marched again and settled down. In November 1985 Paisley, Taylor and company huffed and puffed and marched and in my opinion they will settle down. If there is violence, perhaps it should go on the record of the House because of recent speeches, it would be only fair to say that John Taylor will have to take the major share of blame for prompting and inciting it by his recent utterances. Why should there be violence? The accord is designed to prevent violence and cut away the injustices that are the roots of violence. We should pray that it will act quickly. In agriculture, and I am involved in it, it should help a lot. There is a lot of feeling among some Protestant farmers that an all-Ireland agricultural policy would serve their interests well. The wet summer and milk levies and so on are some of the things we enjoyed on this side. Indeed, some of the many farmers on the far side were quite envious of us. With my experience of farmers coming from the North and buying some of our produce, I find them quite nice people to work with and I think because of differences in relation to subsidies and so on it might be much better and the farmers both North and South might welcome this.

This time the Protestant paramilitaries are determined not to be fooled by the politicians into quick action — that is my opinion — that would get their young men killed or put into jail. They dream of UDI but will they any more than Paisley, Taylor and company chase Mr. King when he comes bearing a £6 million subsidy for the next shipyard in the "Protestants only" shipyard? That is not likely.

The IRA will try to wreck the accord by murder, by the flow of Catholic and Protestant blood. The accord could frustrate the paramilitaries by mobilising family power against them, if they began substantial release of prisoners. Perhaps not everyone in this House would agree with that. Generosity and kindness used with imaginative sympathy will win the day. In my opinion and, indeed, in the opinion of many others, if we released perhaps 50 Loyalist and 50 Republican long term prisoners before Christmas, young boys and girls who were in prison before they were 20, victims of bad Governments and sectarian strife, then the families of all prisoners will respond, keep quiet, stop killing and bombing. Family agony of ten years would soon be over. Possibly we could release more in the New Year. There would be no risk, in my opinion, to the community and great benefit to both communities would result. The release of young prisoners carries with it emotions so deep that the paramilitaries could not resist them. Release of prisoners now at this time is a quick road to a feeling of satisfaction, contentment and happiness. Imagine that happiness, joy and laughter in the ghettos of Northern Ireland; the tortures of Palace barracks, Hollywood and Castlereagh would be forgotten. The one-sided justice that did not apply to the security forces would grow dim in memory. There would be a new, all powerful hope, a bright light, I hope, on the horizon.

I wish the accord well. It is a great step forward and I hope it will succeed for the sake of all the people, Protestant and Catholic. I want to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and all the other people who worked so hard for it. The British and Irish Governments are making a sincere effort to secure fair play for all in Northern Ireland. It may well happen that the sectarian State of Northern Ireland cannot contain justice.

Perhaps it cannot live with fair play. Northern Ireland was founded on a sectarian principle of Protestant supremacy and lie-down Catholics and has lived in that dreadful spirit. Can it be made to work with justice and fair play for all? The British may find that it cannot work fairly because a large section of the Protestants may not tolerate fair play for Catholics. The British may have to go back to the drawing board. They may have to look again at the problem in a wider context, maybe even in the context of the three options of the New Ireland Forum report. The Unionists should accept the accord now and work with it. It will do good for them. A happy and contented Catholic population will help to create a happy and confident Protestant population, each working for the other, united in mutual trust, respect and affection, with charity and no resentment.

The future of Northern Ireland and all Ireland will grow out of harmony and happiness based on justice and equality, something they never had before. I hope the jails will be empty, the factories will be full, the undertakers will not be burying the young, that glazers will find work scarce and the peace of Christ will dwell in the land. I have discussed this with many people over the last few weeks. I can only say that this agreement was welcomed by everybody. To turn to another large political party in the South, some people were surprised at the stand of the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Charles Haughey. Personally, I do not think I was. He has been very consistent over the last three years, consistent in his opposition to anything that the Government did, be it good or be it bad. It is fair to say that he opposed every single thing. For that reason he is quite consistent.

I have singled him out but I would not single out the whole Fianna Fáil Party because I do not think they agree with him on this. Many of them have come out in the open and expressed the view that they do not agree. I could in many ways understand people following on blindly. When he opposed it and cracked the whip many people had to obey. It may be a little like Mr. Paisley's demonstration in the North in recent days. Some felt they had to go. Some felt they had to see the others who went.

I do not believe that the whole of the Fianna Fáil Party are opposed to this. In fact it would be fair to say that many of them to whom I have spoken throughout the length and breadth of the country welcome the agreement. It would be fair to say that some of the party were caught off side on this inasmuch as they felt it was going to be a winner for the party. There are no winners and no losers on this issue. I do not think that is the reason for the agreement. The reason for the agreement was to bring about peace in the North. It was not a case of trying to score points over any other party.

One could be annoyed with the Deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil for going over to the United States to try to change the minds of some politicians who are good friends of ours. He tried to get them on their side on this issue but failed miserably, no doubt. I was glad to hear of and, indeed, I welcome the support which the agreement got from all the leaders of these great countries. While I welcome it for the sake of that support I suppose it would also be true to say that I welcome the fact that money will be spent in Border areas. Coming from one of those Border areas I regard it as an injection of money we badly need. I hope that some of it will be spent in my own little county of Louth.

We have spent much time talking about the inconvenience and the sadness of all the affairs in the North over the past few years. I have mentioned, because I represent Dundalk and that rural area, the inconvenience that many people suffer there while going about their daily work as a result of Border troubles. Any relief for those people would be most welcome. I am not suggesting that it is going to cut down on check points or any other harassment that these people may suffer but if it does lead to peace, which was the idea and the purpose of it, the benefits of this would be really wonderful. For that reason I have expressed the views of all the people to whom I have spoken over the past number of weeks about the agreement.

I want, in conclusion, to thank the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry. If I singled him out and, indeed, I have mentioned his name throughout my speech, it was because I felt he had more to do with the agreement than most others. I know how hard he worked to bring about the agreement and it is for that reason that I mention him more than the other people. I want to wish them well and I hope sincerely that nothing but good will come from the agreement.

Mr. O'Leary

First of all, I am sure Senator Lennon will not mind if I say that I disagree with most of what he said. I certainly disagree with the manner in which he presented it. I think it is the worst kind of triumphalism. It exaggerates the very real difficulties on one side and minimises them on the other. I would not like my silence to be taken as agreeing with the balance of what he said. It may well be that individually everything he said might be right but you must strike a balance. It is not just good enough to list facts. Facts must be built around a central theme and they must reflect a balance which my colleague, Senator Lennon failed totally to appreciate.

I welcome the agreement as a significant step forward in the ever developing relationship between the Governments and the peoples of these islands. It is a governmental dimension and it has, in addition, a dimension which is quite separate from Governments. Other speakers have traced the origin of the problem right back to the plantation of Ulster and indeed long before that. I do not intend to go back that far but, in the short time available to me, I will examine the situation as it has developed since 1969. The growth of what I might call constructive Nationalism, participation in government, participation in fora and the civil rights movement together with a third factor which was of considerable importance, that is, the growing influence of television, combined to create at the end of the sixties a climate in which the electoral and economic discrimination against the minority in the North could not possibly continue. The civil rights movement, the increased participation of the minority in politics and television were the catalysts for this matter. These factors combined together to ensure that even if these matters of civil and economic rights were not immediately resolved, they would remain permanently on the political agenda of Northern Ireland until they were solved. The first part of the present process arose in my opinion, because of this constitutional activity and the civil rights activity.

At this stage the matter was a local civil rights matter which, with what I would consider adequate and sensitive handling by the Unionists, would have been solved leaving the wider aspirations of the Nationalist community unfulfilled and probably dormant. But the Unionists failed to respond rationally. The more intelligent leaders such as Brian Faulkner — it is strange to be mentioning him in that context — Chichester Clarke, Terence O'Neill, whatever their faults, were far-seeing enough to be willing to accommodate the Nationalist aspirations. But they were harassed and opposed by the wild men of Unionism, the Ian Paisleys and the John Taylors and they were hounded successively from office.

The effect of this exercise by these gentlemen of naked political ambition was to destabilise the body politic in the North so that no local administration could possibly exist within that community. All Unionists should stop now and consider whether the leaders to whom I have referred and who they now follow in significant numbers have helped or hindered their cause. The conflict which I characterised earlier on as being a local civil rights matter has been elevated by the reaction of these extreme Unionists to something of international significance which has so changed the North that there is now no internal forum with cross community support within that province to consider these matters.

Time and again these political leaders tore down a structure or tore down an individual who promised to maintain cross community power or contact. Stormont was rendered meaningless by their excesses. The power sharing executive was defeated by industrial blackmail. Conferences and assemblies following one after the other culminating in the present assembly. They were manipulated so as to frustrate the aspirations of the Westminster Parliament and of an minority in the name of preserving the North as part of the United Kingdom. By their intransigence these Unionist leaders have forced the UK Government to go over their heads in seeking peace and reconciliation.

I accept that, as a result of this process, Unionist opinion has been radicalised. Demagogues have that effect. Verbal intimidation of their opponents has produced a Unionist community which has no organised moderate voice although it has moderates. The vast majority of Unionists do not accept this agreement. They do no want to give it a chance, but I do not accept that they are right. It is the task of this agreement to provide a focus for the recreation of a moderate Unionist position. Inherent in this are those provisions which foster that possibility. I will deal with them later when considering the agreement.

Before coming to the agreement itself it would be useful to look at what has happened to the Nationalist people over the same period. They, too, have their extremists. The IRA in their various forms have been attempting to radicalise the Nationalist minority. The IRA arrived late in the North when the civil rights movement with Cooper and Hume and the political realists like Austin Currie and Gerry Fitt had combined to set the political agenda for this generation. That was done before they arrived. Since then the IRA have been attempting, by violent means which I utterly condemn, to do what Paisley and Taylor did on their side of the community, to divide by fascist rhetoric. Both are trying to hijack their community and bury moderate voices. They nearly succeeded in that aim.

The SDLP have survived by the skin of their teeth as a moderate party even through the strain almost broke their political will in the early seventies. They were within a fraction of breaking, but that is where the Nationalist community stands head and shoulders above the majority community in the North. It has retained its moderate voice. Within the Nationalists there is a solid core who have remained amenable to political discussion. No such group could be indentified under either brand of Unionism. This explains why consultation with the Unionists prior to this agreement was not possible even though it would have been very desirable. One could not identify any section of the Unionist community with whom these consultations could take place in the expectation of their agreeing to anything.

To return to the IRA, having committed such a flood of atrocities they now like to claim credit for this agreement. If the IRA had not existed after 1969, the political agenda created by the civil rights leaders and the SDLP founders would have developed differently in the natural course of events but would have gone far beyond this modest agreement. The IRA made Unionist extremists respectable, and that is their primary responsibility. Without them moderate Unionists would have retained political control and Ireland would be more peaceful, more happy and more prosperous. The IRA's malignant involvement has so soured the North of Ireland community and its fellowship that the modest accommodation contained in this agreement is the best possible in the present climate. Hell cannot burn brightly enough or last long enough for every one of them, for the obstacles which they put in the way of the normal political and economic life in this country during my adulthood. Pending, however, their departure to the eternal damnation which they most richly deserve, we must do our best to ensure that their life on earth is hell. One of the objectives of this agreement must surely have been the unification of Nationalist opinion North and South in a common cause so that the tiny minority who approve of the IRA can be isolated from the good people of Ireland. They can be shown to be the class of animal that they are.

This process, I regret to say, has been severely damaged by the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party, who alone among constitutional Nationalist parties, have opposed this agreement. As a result of that opposition — I say it much more in sorrow than in bitterness — and in particular as a result of Deputy Haughey's appearance on the programme "Today Tonight", the wrath of the Nationalists has been diverted from Sinn Féin, the Provisional IRA and the individuals in these organisations who are the legitimate targets of public contempt.

Many of my friends suggest to me — you know I am a fairly political analyist — that the present Fianna Fáil attitude is a political advantage for my party. They tell me that Fine Gael has a better chance of winning the next election as a result of this attitude. This may well be true but in the interest of isolating and defeating the Provisional IRA I would wish Fianna Fáil to change their attitude and resume an increased possibility of winning the next general election. Even at this late stage I invite Fianna Fáil to rethink their attitude and join us in an all-out attempt to make this agreement work.

The adjusted attitude of the main Opposition is even more bewildering than their original outright opposition. Now Fianna Fáil appear to be saying that they are against the agreement, that it is unconstitutional, that it cannot work. But if with all these handicaps it does work they will retrospectively approve of it. This attitude ignores the fact that Fianna Fáil opposition is helping to create the conditions which will make success more difficulty and make success less likely. Let Fianna Fáil be warned that in the event of this agreement failing their responsibility and their part in bringing about its failure will be forcibly pointed out to the electorate at a political level with devastating political consequences.

The agreement deserves to be examined line by line, paragraph by paragraph, article by article. Unfortunately, in the time available to us it will not be possible to do that, so I have taken from it a number of the highlights which I consider should be examined by this House. Article No. 1 has received a most extraordinary reception because the Unionists claim that it allegedly changes their status. Fianna Fáil are against it because they believe it to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of this Republic. The Fianna Fáil leader in this House spoke on this matter and quoted mythical constitutional lawyers in support of his position. Where are these people? We have not heard from one of them. I have not seen one lawyer of any standing, I have not seen any lawyer at all with the exception of Deputy Brian Lenihan. I have not heard any lawyer of any standing in these matters argue that our constitutional position was changed by this Article. Where are Senator Lanigan's authorities? Senator Eoin Ryan, in a magnificent contribution, flatly contradicted Senator Lanigan yesterday. Fianna Fáil should either drop this argument or test it in the courts.

Funnily enough, the Unionist position is at least more arguable than the argument of Fianna Fáil. In one sense the status of the Government of Northern Ireland is added to by the consultative process contained in this agreement. This is true of many previous actions of the Westminster Parliament — for example, the abolition of Stormont and the establishment of the various assemblies, sometimes without the approval of the people of Northern Ireland, changed the status of Northern Ireland much more fundamentally than does this agreement. It was done without the consent of the people of the North of Ireland. The status of every society, ours and the North, is constantly changing in the broad sense of that word. But men of goodwill know that the status which is referred to in this agreement is the de jure and de facto supremacy of Westminster in the Government of the North. To suggest that this agreement changes that status is to fly in the face of reality.

It may well be that the Irish Government's view of the status of Northern Ireland may extend only to the de facto recognition of the position and may not include the de iure recognition. Article 1 commits the Irish Government to maintain that position. This difference, however, does not matter to the Unionists as their constitutional guarantee rests ultimately with Westminster. No changes in the status of that guarantee has taken place as a result of this agreement.

I refer now to Article 2. I will quote briefly in response to what Senator Robinson said yesterday. Subparagraph (a) of Article 2 reads:

There is hereby established within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental Council set up after the meeting between the two Heads of Government on 6 November 1981, an Inter-governmental Conference (hereinafter referred to as "the conference"), concerned with Northern Ireland and with relations between the two parts of the island of Ireland to deal, as set out in this Agreement, on a regular basis with...

If follows with what it is to deal with. Senator Robinson criticised the use of the word "deal" as inexactly expressing the scope and extent of the duties and responsbilities of those whose duty it was to implement this agreement. Senator Robinson is not correctly interpreting this sentence because when she uses the word "deal" she is not carrying on to consider that the word "deal" is made subject to the following phrase: "to deal, as set out in this agreement". So the actual way in which it would be done in respect of any individual portion of that agreement is set out as an essential part of the agreement itself.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The Senator said it was imprecise.

Mr. O'Leary

Yes, that is right. I would like to thank Senator Fitzsimons for that point. Maybe I did not make myself clear. It is imprecise if it was on the basis of that word the Governments would act. But if you look at the agreement, where individual powers or duties or responsibilities are given the exact nature of the duty or responsibility is spelled out. The word "deal" in this context is used in a general sense only to take into account all the duties and responsibilities of both Governments under the agreement.

I should like to mention Article 2 (b) because that article says:

The United Kingdom Government accepts that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland... in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

That theme is returned to in Articles 4 (b) 5 (c). Article 4 (b) says:

Article 5 (c) states:

If it should prove impossible to achieve and sustain devolution on a basis which secures widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland...

and it states what happens under those circumstances. These subsections clearly show that it is intention of both Governments to hand back substantial powers to a devolved administration. If the Unionists are genuine about the Third Report on Devolution, which I have through the courtesy of Senator Dooge, and the appendix thereto which is called the Catherwood Appendix, they can use this document as a basis on which to reduce the powers of the inter-governmental authority and to increase the powers within Northern Ireland itself.

In addition to that, I refer to Article 7 of the agreement which deals with a matter which is very close to the soul of the Unionists of Northern Ireland and understandably so. It deals with the security policy, the relationship between the security forces in the community and prisons policy. The existence of a permanent forum to channel the ad hoc security discussions between the two Governments would have considerable operational advantage on both sides of the Border. We are fighting a common enemy who is separately seeking to provoke responses from each administration, responses which themselves can become the focus of further discontent.

The extent to which co-operation will proceed will, to some extent, at least reflect and improve relationships between moderate Nationalists, the RUC, and the UDR or its successors. This article recognises that changes are necessary to help that situation and together with Article 10 of the agreement should create a healthier atmosphere in which the processes in the forces of law and order on both sides of the Border are equally effective, respectable and respected. In this regard the Irish Government intend to raise at the first meeting the matters concerning the use of the UDR only as an aid to the civil power. This would greatly improve the quality of life of the Nationalist majority in certain areas of the province.

Article 8 of the agreement deals with legal matters including the administration of justice. If the court system in the North of Ireland is as bad as was painted today by Senator Killilea, or is painted by the radical elements, then surely we should be trying to improve that situation by methods such as those mentioned in Article 10. I do not believe that the situation is as bad as outlined by Senator Killilea. The return of a particular prisoner to this jurisdiction following acquittal testifies to that. Do we want to light a candle or do we want to sit in the dark forever cursing it? If the conditions are right I would welcome joint courts, not because of any surreptitious extension of Irish sovereignty which it would entail, but because certain problems of crime have a cross-Border dimension. It is, however, unfortunately a prospect which is many years away.

In the meantime I welcome the redefinition of political status recently enunciated in the Irish Supreme Court which will deny political status to the INLA and the Provisional IRA members wanted in the North of Ireland. Other safeguards exist and will continue to apply but the murder of any person North of the Border is not now automatically a political act just because of alleged paramilitary connections. This judgment has not been publicised enough in the United Kingdom or in Northern Ireland. It would have significant political consequences if it was properly understood North of the Border.

I should like to refer briefly to Article 11. This is an important part of this agreement even though it is one of the shortest Articles because it says at the end of the three years from the signing of the agreement or earlier, if requested by either Government, the working of the Conference shall be reviewed by the two Governments to see whether any changes in the scope or nature of its activities are desirable. The open-ended nature of this agreement is in my view a valuable contribution to its acceptability. No future Irish Government are committed to this process but will be faced with the reality of it. I note that Fianna Fáil have not said they would repudiate the agreement in office, in Government. As a quid pro quo the British Government have similar options open to them to review — and by implication — to withdraw from the agreement. However, neither Government will want to be seen as a cause of jettisoning the possibility of Anglo-Irish co-operation on the North of Ireland.

One final matter I should like to deal with is the question of the amendment put down in the names of Senators Lanigan and William Ryan. I would like to refer in particular to the last portion of it. This requests the Government to call upon the British Government to join in convening under the joint auspices of both Governments a constitutional conference representative of all traditions in Ireland to formulate new constitutional arrangements which would lead to uniting all the people of Ireland in peace and harmony. This is not a new idea. There are records of this right throughout my adult life. Whenever any change in the Irish Constitution is suggested to accommodate the people of the North the impractical idea is trotted out to postpone any change in this part of the country.

Is there any realistic prospect of the British Government calling such a conference? They would call such a conference only if they had already decided to leave Ireland. If they had already decided to leave Ireland, we probably would not need them at the conference. If the British decided to call such a meeting — and to expect any sovereign Government to do this is beyond the limits of credibility — how many Unionists would attend? Who would represent the majority in the North of Ireland? I do not know who would represent them because their present leadership, certainly in their radicalised condition, would not. It is a childish, ridiculous proposal. It is not intended to be taken seriously even by those who propose it.

This is my view of the Anglo-Irish agreement. I think the agreement represents a giant step forward. I am not sure it will work, but I am quite sure that without it there was nothing else working. It gives us something on which we can base progress, something which gives hope to the Nationalist community in the North in regard to their treatment on the one hand and which, if properly understood by the Unionist community of the North, will guarantee the lifting of their siege mentality which has done so much to make the lives of so many people in the North miserable.

Mr. Connor

I feel somewhat inadequate after the great eloquence of my colleague, Senator O'Leary. Like everybody in this House, at least, on this side of the House, I have a great sense of occasion and a great sense of pride in talking on a great national issue. Rarely in the life of a Parliament is an issue or an event of such great importance as this discussed, because the motion before us talks about something that is a principle of Irish nationhood. I welcome the agreement. It is in my opinion a very important event in Irish history. It may be seen in the future as one of the greater events in Irish history. Hopefully, if it works, it will. I must thank unreservedly — and not because I am on this side of the House — the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for all their months and years of work. It must have cost blood, sweat and tears to bring about this agreement in this ingenious formula.

Most of what I am saying here today might be seen as spoken from the Nationalist stance, but I am not a "green" Nationalist. I am an Irishman who sees the Unionists as fellow-islanders, or, I would call them, fellow Nationalists on this island. But I would have to say that what has happened has been the result of an abnormal situation north of the Border, for which the Unionists have only themselves to blame. That situation bred a system of violence, a system of hatred, a system of alienation of the minority that is unparalleled perhaps anywhere in the world. We may talk about India with its communal problems and other countries not as well developed in terms of civilisation as we are. Yet, in Northern Ireland there evolved over the past 50 or 60 years — and especially over the past 15 years — the terrible system that is full of hate and full of distrust and full of communal distrust.

It is also amazing that all of this has created an acceptance within that part of the country that something as abnormal as that situation is normal because it has been around for so long, because it has such a blanketing effect on the way people think and act. There are many otherwise civilised people who see it as being something normal. Now I would say to the Unionists that the system which I have said they created and which they defended and which they fought for over six decades has led to the present position in that part of the island. It was not the result of the British presence; in my opinion the British presence was a secondary factor in the creation of the monster of the IRA. No greater curse has been upon the Unionist population themselves than the curse of the Nationalist paramilitaries. The alienation among the Nationalist community which was born out of Stormont and all that flowed from it gave us the situation we are trying to deal with today. British standards of democracy never applied in Northern Ireland. They were never allowed to apply in Northern Ireland. We know that the Westminster Parliament looked away while Stormont engaged in abuse, engaged in all kinds of things that were ultra vires to the power that it should have really had. But, again, the net result was community breakdown and an explosion in 1969.

I agree, too, that the Unionists evolved the system of government in the North while Westminster was looking the other way out of a siege mentality and I can understand that siege mentality. Any minority, on an island especially, are bound to feel besieged, particularly when they feel their culture is threatened, when they feel that the mother country is withdrawing or something like that. Also, their siege mentality was well fed by much of the rhetoric that we heard on this side of the Border and within the walls of these Houses. Too often in the thirties and in the forties we heard Members of both Houses talking in terms of "We will take you over; we will overrun you", or as what Nikita Kruschev once said: "We will bury you". That naturally led to a feeling of fear and to a feeling of siege.

Also during the formative years and the coming to independence of this country — and I suppose we really did not come to independence until 1922, it was a gradual process — I would have to refer to the studied hostility of Mr. de Valera to Northern Ireland, to the fact that while he was Taoiseach for 25 years or more — not in successive years, but at least for a quarter of a century — he was a dominant political figure in this country. He was the dominant political figure in the very formative years of this State and yet the hand of friendship was never extended to Northern Ireland, at a time when gestures or acts by him might have been very important.

I pay every tribute, of course, to Seán Lemass, an enlightened man, a man always before his time, who in 1965 saw fit to travel to Belfast and to at least break the ice and break that terrible frost of hostility which had existed for almost 50 years. But, alas, that more enlightened gesture by Mr. Lemass in his time, probably came too late because in 1967 the cauldron started to burst and, in 1969, as we all sadly know, the cauldron really exploded. We have lived with the ongoing tragedy that has flowed from 1969 for the last 15 terrible years, to quote at least one line from the Forum report.

Now we have had several attempts and, indeed, one might say every attempt to solve this problem from within Northern Ireland, to solve it within the Northern Ireland context. Every one of those has failed — various attempts at having assemblies, various attempts at power sharing, attempts even to have special committees with Nationalist majorities in the old Stormont system. All of them failed. But now we have a major unique step, something that was never taken before, where both sovereign Governments, the Government in Westminister and the Government here in Dublin, have decided to sit down and have sat down over these past months and years and created a new structure which will be part of the Government of Northern Ireland from here on in.

There is no point in denying that the main purpose of this structure is to wean away support from the gunmen and from their masquerading political front. We all recognise that at the very root of the political problem in the North is Nationalist alienation and the fact that Nationalist have not had a role. The result of that has been that Nationalist opinion has swayed toward the paramilitaries, towards the gunmen etc. But the formula put forward here is designed to attack that particular development and to rectify it. The alienation of the minority has given us the armed men, who recruited the disaffected young from the ghettos in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere.

This formula has proceeded above all from the ingenuity of the present Taoiseach, who, I would have to say, is the one politican in Ireland more than any other, who has thought out the roots of the Northern Ireland tragedy most deeply. The political vacuum there was a ready recruiting sergeant for young people who were easily motivated into doing awful deeds and it created easy propaganda for the political wing of the paramilitaries who are very adept at pointing to the political paralysis within Northern Ireland and blaming it, in part at least, for the awful impasse.

The formula of this agreement gives for the first time an established procedure by which the Government in Dublin can influence the laws to be applied in Northern Ireland. That needs to be said because it is the truth. There is no need to deny — if I may so again — that they will be participating in this ingenious conference as the guarantor of the Nationalist community and the Nationalist community will now have a voice at the table where the decisions are made. The corollary of that must be — I certainly hope it will be — a lessening of alienation and in the longer term fewer recruits for the bombers and the gunmen.

I appeal to the Unionists — if they would listen to appeals from the floor of this House — to see this as a positive step forward. The Unionist population more than anybody has suffered as a result of the violence, murder and the maiming coming mostly from the Nationalist side. I appeal to them to see that the breaking of this terrible cycle is through political action and through this particular process which is now set up. Ranting about majority rule or their version of democracy and shouting about the need to use special powers and the gallows, as mentioned now and again in the utterances of Mr. Paisley, and that kind of malignant nonsense can cut ice no more. I am not being triumphalist. I am not gloating when I say that all civilised thinking now agrees that there can never be a system again in the North that excludes a minority influence on the way the law is made and applied.

Mr. Killilea

That is not what Mrs. Thatcher said.

Mr. Connor

And our Unionist fellow-islanders have the guarantee that their sense of Britishness is fully protected. That was clearly stated in the Forum report. There is the guarantee that the status of Northern Ireland will not change unless the majority within the Six Counties want to change. This guarantee was clearly given and I would say this especially to my good friend Senator Killilea.

An Cathaoirleach

Do not be encouraging him.

Mr. Connor

This guarantee was clearly given following the famous Thatcher-Haughey "teapot" summit in 1980. It was clearly given again in the Forum report, which all the Nationalist parties on this side of the Border including, Fianna Fáil, signed and, of course, it was clearly given in this agreement. The Nationalists — and I am one of them — will welcome the undertaking by the British, which is given for the first time, that they would no longer have an interest in maintaining Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom if the majority of the people in that area no longer desired that state of affairs. That is another very historic fact.

Although we have acknowledged that the primary role of the Dublin delegation will be to put forward the national interest, this need not always be the case. There are many areas where the interests of Northern Ireland and the interests of the Republic exactly coincide and those interests are very often exactly inimical to the interests of the British mainland. We should look at agriculture, for instance. I see no reason why our delegation at the table in Belfast should not argue that the special derogations won for Irish agriculture from the Common Agricultural Policy should not apply to the whole island. I know very few British Ministers who would agree with that, but I am sure there are many north-east Ulster farmers — the very salt of Unionism — who would agree with that. There is the area of industry, too, in which the interests of both sides of the Border coincide. The EC industrial policy would naturally be inclined to think that aids given to industry in this country because of its smaller and weaker industrial base should be greater than given to any part of the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom is one of the most developed industrial economies in the world, albeit with all its problems.

In the area of regional policy, a policy that needs greater development — and I have no doubt that the climate and atmosphere is there to develop it into the kind of policy that it should be — there is no doubt about it that the interests of both sides of this island are absolutely bound together and have little to do with the regional interests of the mainland UK. There is also the area of tourism. Tourism in Northern Ireland and tourism in the Republic are naturally linked together and tourism policy in the United Kingdom, in so far as it relates to the mainland, has nothing to do, and is clearly shown to have nothing to do with tourism policy in Ulster. I urge that our delegation would always remember that it does not have the role merely to put forward the Nationalist point of view, that it has and should always have the role to put forward what is best for Ulster, even though that might clash with the broader British interest, leaving aside whether it is in the Roman Catholic or Protestant context.

I do not like commenting much — but I suppose I must — on the rather obdurate and hostile reaction of the Unionist leadership to this agreement. I can understand their feeling of being let down. Of course, I can. I can understand the fact that they were not consulted about this, for the point has been well made that experience has shown that by consultation with them very little progress could be made. Nevertheless, I understand their feelings. But the one logical progression from what Mr. Paisley and Mr. Molyneaux are saying is to wish more violence and mayhem on the unfortunate community which they are supposed to represent. It will bring even more suffering and death to the Protestant community which they purport to represent. I wonder, and many others wonder, if some of the posturing we have seen in the last two weeks from that leadership has more to do with some kind of malignant political rivalry between the two of them as to who controls the Unionist vote in Northern Ireland than it has to do with the welfare of their community. Reasonable people, too, will also wonder at these people making all kinds of pledges of loyalty to the British Crown and Parliament with one side of their mouth while muttering with the other side of their mouth about a provisional government and about UDI.

I cannot let the occasion pass without paying full and due tribute to the SDLP, of whom we have one member in this House. This brave group of politicians have lived in an unreal and besieged world since that party came into existence 12 years ago. They remind me of a group of angles who have not fallen, trying to succeed in Hell. They have courageously stood up for decent political standards despite the most malignant attacks upon them from all sides, but especially from the extremists on the Catholic and Nationalist side.

Provisional Sinn Féin have played on fears, frustrations and the resultant prejudice of the Nationalist electorate and have tried to win that vote from the SDLP and have tried in every possible, despicable way to out-flank this brave constitutional group. They could have taken the easy road of sloganising, using shibboleths and public house ranting like some of the so-called Republicians on this side of the Border. They did not and do not. They have always chosen the responsible role of participation and putting forward policies, the condemnation of the outrages from whatever side they came, and they always put forward what is political, what is constitutional and what is civilised in politics.

There is very little political gain for the SDLP in this particular deal. It is Deputy Peter Barry and his team from Dublin who have the right to attend at the table where the decisions are made. Twelve years ago under Sunningdale the SDLP were given participation in Government under that power sharing arrangement. This has not happened this time. Of course it has not happened for the Unionists, we agree. Nevertheless, the SDLP have unequivocally to a man and to a woman welcomed and supported it.

I do not like to be party political — this House is not given to party politics — but I, too, have something to say to the political Opposition in this House. Deputy Haughey's opposition to this deal I see as naked political opportunism which has gone wrong for him. When he had seen the way the climate of public opinion was moving he should have been man enough to come out and support this deal. I have mentioned his famous "teapot" summit with Mrs. Thatcher in 1980. The wording in that communique is the very same wording as in Article 2 of this agreement except that the word "constitutional" is deleted in this agreement."

It behoves brave political leaders in this country, especially in relation to the very sensitive issue of Northern Ireland, to take courage in their hands and not to be ranting as in the past, to take on their shoulders the heavy responsibility which is upon all of us and to carry it, to take account of new realities and not to be involving themselves in contradictions of what they said and did when they were in power. That is dangerous. That is feeding the wild men; it is feeding the fears of those who are afraid and who may act irrationally. No credit to people on this side of the Border, the largest single part on this side, for having acted in the way they did.

Mr. Daly

First, I should like to congratulate the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, the dedicated civil servants and everybody else who contributed to this historic agreement, the first step towards healing the problems in Northern Ireland.

The potential and limits of the Anglo-Irish agreement signed at Hillsborough Castle can be seen in Mrs. Thatcher's description of herself as a Unionist and a Loyalist and the Taoiseach's description of himself as a Nationalist and a Republican. This means that there is no change at present as regards Britain's sovereignty over Ulster as part of the United Kingdom or the Irish Republic's demand that the island should be unified. This demand is enshrined in the Constitution. Despite this, anything is possible in the future since, although the two Governments have undertaken not to introduce any change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and although they note that at present a real majority does not exist, at the same time they undertake that if in the future a majority there clearly wished for and formally consented to a united Ireland, they would introduce and support legislation in their respective Parliaments to give effect to this. Given the present situation the two Governments believe that it is vital to help to reconcile the two major traditions in Ireland — the Unionist and Protestant tradition which wants to maintain union with Britain and the Republican, mainly Catholic, tradition which wants to be united with the Irish Republic.

These three points clearly show that a long difficult process had got under way. This process takes account of present realities and, at the same time, aware of the possibilities of development, aims above all to put a halt to the spiral of violence. Its ultimate goal is the reunification of the island and its method is to create a climate of tolerance which should make integration possible at the level of individuals. How can this recognised principle be applied? The agreement meets this requirement by setting up a joint body known as the Inter-Government Conference which will have a permanent secretariat with its headquarters in Belfast. In the framework of this Conference which will be jointly chaired by the Dublin representative, at present Deputy Barry, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and a London representative, at present the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Tom King. The Dublin representative will be able to put forward any proposals relating to policy issues and legal, economic, social and cultural matters where the interests of the Catholic minority are especially affected.

The Conference is not, strictly speaking, a decision making body. Neither is it a purely consultative body. Although the London representative has the final say, it seems that several dictionaries were consulted in an attempt to find a title that was stronger than a consultative body but not as strong as an executive body. Finally, in this framework, attempts will be made to reach consensus between the two parties which will require both moderation and openness. The range of subjects that may be dealt with is very wide and applies to individual cases, some appointments, setting up courts, and so on.

It is to be hoped, therefore, that this will result in a distinct improvement in the political, legal and moral status of the minority which is the real subject of this agreement. When considering the situation of this minority and the fact that they are British citizens, the importance of this agreement and the potential it offers can be clearly seen. The most important result will certainly be the moral boost for those who feel their dignity to be humiliated and offended. This boost may lead to violence being abandoned as the last resort and hence a reconciliation of the different sensibilities of people who are forced to live together. The extremists on both sides will be prepared to sabotage the agreement. The political courage of those who achieved the agreement is, therefore, all the greater. The Taoiseach has confirmed his capacity as a statesman. Mrs. Thatcher and Sir Geoffrey Howe have clearly understood the European scope of this event. This agreement strengthens the cohesion of Europe.

I would like to refer to just a few points. Senator Robinson said yesterday that there was no support from the Unionists and she pointed out that there was no approach made to the Unionists. That she saw as a weakness. She knows well that the Unionists were invited to join the Forum and they refused to do it. I did not think anybody, particularly a woman of Senator Robinson's intellect, ability and skill would be so naive as to think that if they were offered the opportunity to come into this they would have accepted it. She also mentioned that the Fianna Fáil Party were not consulted and she made the mistake of claiming that they are the biggest political party in the Oireachtas. I do not mind the Fianna Fáil Party claiming that, because they can claim that and many other things, but a person like Senator Robinson should know better. Fine Gael is the biggest single Oireachtas Party with a membership of 95 as against 91 for Fianna Fáil so there is no question of the biggest party.

Mr. Killilea

Are you counting the 11?

Professor Dooge

Not all.

Mr. Daly

Senator Killilea is always helpful to me when I am getting stuck. Senator Robinson made another statement yesterday. She complained that after our party conference she was misquoted, that she did not agree and that to say it was an unanimous decision was wrong. I was at the same party meeting as Senator Robinson and I paid particular attention to every word she said. She did say at that meeting that she had reservations. She said she had concern. Everybody in that room had concern as well as she had. She did not have a monopoly of concern. She did not indicate at any stage that she was going to take the action she did afterwards. It was her inalienable right to take the action she took. But then she should not be whingeing about what was said after the meeting. It was unanimous and if I had been issuing the report afterwards I would have said it was unanimous.

Under the Sunningdale agreement the Unionists had an input and the late Brian Faulkner tried to lead these people in. It could have been brought to a successful conclusion but for the extremists, on one hand, in the North of Ireland and a weak-kneed Government that had taken over in the North of Ireland. That fell through but at least it made the basis for this agreement and put us in the position that we did not make any mistakes that we could have made at that time by believing certain things would happen.

I will conclude by congratulating all who took part in this agreement. I believe it is a good agreement and I believe it will work.

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it represents progress towards a political solution of the Northern Ireland problem. For too long we witnessed murder and violence in that part of our country and I believe this agreement provides the Irish people with the prospect of peace and stability. This agreement is unique in that it is an attempt to deal with a situation which has been seriously in need of attention for quite a long time. It attempts to set out a framework whereby the distrust, suspicion and hatred felt by one community for the other can be removed and a solution can be found to encourage people of different religions and political views to come around a conference table in an effort to sort out their problems.

The country cannot go on as it has been going on, the strife, bombing and carnage that has continued for almost two decades. As politicians we have a duty to try to come to grips with the problem. I am glad we are now attacking the problem rather than talking about doing it. If we in the South take sufficient time to explain to the majority in the North how their interests are safeguarded in the agreement I think they will eventually give it their support. Of course, it would be irresponsible and naive of me to think that this will happen overnight. The killers and the destroyers will continue with their destruction. Peace runs contrary to their cause. However, I am satisfied that they will be the losers in the long run as peace in Northern Ireland can only be brought about by dialogue and co-operation between the two communities. The agreement entered into on 15 November 1985 can now be used as a stepping stone for the attainment of full Irish unity in the future, which of course can only be achieved with the consent of the majority. It has been hailed at home and abroad as an historic pact, a courageous step forward and a ray of light through an opening door.

I should like to pay tribute to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the work they put into achieving this agreement. It has been welcomed extensively in the United States and by several of the leaders in the European Community and their Foreign Minister and also by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the President of the European Commission. It is the most positive step forward since the Sunningdale Agreement. The agreement has the aims of promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, helping to reconcile the two major traditions in Ireland, creating a new climate of friendship and co-operation between the people of the two countries and improving co-operation in combating terriorism.

The range of issues that are within the field of activity of the Conference are described as political, security, legal, economic, social and cultural. The structure thus established also includes proposals on the role and composition of a number of bodies in Northern Ireland. Also included in the whole area of cross-Border co-operation in relation to security promoting economic and social developments which has suffered in recent years. An essential element in the search for reconciliation is the assurance given in the agreement that only if the people of the North consent to unity will unity come about. However, the agreement states that it is the declared policy of the United Kingdom that if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for the establishment of a United Ireland, they will introduce and support in parliament legislation to give effect to that wish.

The Constitutional Nationalist Party in the North, namely the SDLP, have accepted this agreement. I should like to congratulate that party and their leaders whose political efforts down through the years have been an example to all of us, particularly as we do not have to work in the same trying conditions as they do in the North. They see the agreement as recognising the legitimacy of the Nationalist position. They also state that the only unity which constitutional Nationalists want is the unity achieved without violence and with consent.

One of the major plusses for the Irish Government in this agreement is that now for the first time an Irish Minister has the right to sit in Conference in the North of Ireland and have a direct involvement in decision-making regarding North and South. Such a right was never before accorded to a member of the Irish Government and was in fact, formally denied on a number of occasions.

On the central question of the role and nature of the Conference, the position of the Irish Government has changed in two fundamental respects. First, for the first time the British Government have formally accepted the right of the Irish Government to put forward views and proposals on Northern Ireland. Secondly, for the first time the Government commit themselves as a matter of obligation under an international agreement to the effect that determined efforts shall be made to resolve any difference which may arise. Members of the Opposition Party have contended that this agreement has offered us nothing. It extends to us for the first time since the foundation of the State, the possibility of making a constructive contribution to the administration of Northern Ireland beyond merely engaging in rhetoric from this side of the Border. This agreement should be given a chance to work. It is the only one to emerge in the 11 years since Sunningdale in a manner that gives the prospect of some progress being made in Northern Ireland.

Professor Dooge

I am sorry that there is a slight delay. The position is that Senator Larry McMahon has given his name as a speaker and is not present in the House. The Tánaiste is on his way over to the Seanad and will be here in the next few minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Will we suspend the sitting?

Professor Dooge

I do not think it will be necessary. I think we should just sit and rest in our seats.

Mr. McMahon

Is it possible to make a contribution at this stage?

An Cathaoirleach

I will allow you. The House is waiting for the Tánaiste to arrive.

Mr. McMahon

I was due to speak this afternoon, but I had to attend a meeting in the Meath hospital. I will be rather brief.

Professor Dooge

The Tánaiste will need time to catch his breath.

Mr. McMahon

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the motion before the House. I would like to start by heartily congratulating the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and all who contributed to the bringing about of this agreement. I and every Member of this House, and many people throughout the country, know only too well that not hundreds, not thousands but a couple of million Irish people have thrown their hands to heaven over the past number of years in helplessness at seeing the deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland from 1968, when we had the first civil rights marches and the first bombs and bullets, down to the present day. Many of us can trace back the number of people who were killed and maimed during those years. All, or most of us in this part of the island, felt so helpless at this terrible situation developing. Many of those who were killed were friends of our own. I am sure all of us know of some dear friend who has been killed in this terrible scourge that has hit our island.

I would like particularly to congratulate the Taoiseach who is a man who never let up in hoping to solve or to help to resolve some of the problems that had hit the island. He is a man who — and he would say so himself — who came into politics mainly because of the situation in Northern Ireland. I would like to go further and to congratulate and thank the Leader of the Opposition party in the other House, Deputy Haughey, and many members of Fianna Fáil who have the same desire to see the problems in Northern Ireland resolved and who played their part, principally in their capacities as members of the New Ireland Forum. I would not like to see their part minimised because of their actions in the last couple of weeks since this agreement was signed.

All members of political parties on this part of the island who made any effort to bring about a peaceful situation in Northern Ireland should be thanked by the people. We all have our strong feelings regarding the matters that pertain in that part of the island and we all do not have the same ideas as to how they can be resolved. The coming together in the Forum was the first step along that dark tunnel at the end of which there is now some light. I would like also to pay tribute to John Hume, the other members of the SDLP and to the many Unionists who have taken some steps and who in their hearts hoped that some of their actions would bring about a resolution of these terrible problems. John Hume is held by many people in this State, and I am sure elsewhere, to be one of the greatest politicians of Europe. In the face of great threat and difficulty he took a line many years ago which he has held onto. He is held in very high esteem not only by many people on this island of Ireland but even in Great Britain and across the Continent of Europe as one who has faced up to these problems with courage, determination, calmness and has held to his point of view irrespective of what the pressure was like.

I would like to pay the same tribute to Séamus Mallon, Austin Currie, to our own Member in this House, Senator Bríd Rogers, and all public representatives of the SDLP — the councillors throughout the breadth of the Six Counties — who have publicly shown themselves to be an active supporters. As a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland, I know only too well that it was not easy to hold on to one's beliefs and to express them publicly over the last ten years in the North. The country and those who have welcomed this agreement owe a debt of gratitude to those of the SDLP who have come out openly and shown themselves to be supporters of constitutional nationalism in Northern Ireland during the most difficult periods.

Very many people on this part of the island, in particular, have thrown their hands up in helplessness not knowing which way to go but with a strong desire to do something to see an easing of the problems and to see the gun and the bomb disappear from the scene. Now there is an opportunity for those people who felt so helpless down the years, and even a few weeks ago, to do something to ensure that this agreement works and holds. It is the duty of every person who feels that these troubles should not be on our island, that peace once more should be restored to this land, should use every possible contact they have with the people in Northern Ireland to ensure that they understand what is in this agreement.

The Taoiseach referred yesterday to his appeal to the people in the North to read the newspapers when they published the agreement. That is almost a fortnight ago. Newspapers are lost. It might be no harm if the British Government were asked to send a copy of the agreement as it was very nicely presented in book form to every house in Northern Ireland, be the occupiers Nationalist, Unionist, Protestant or Catholic. It is no reflection on the Unionist population in the North to say that many of them, as do many in the South, take a line from their political leaders. Many of their political leaders, those loudest of voice in the last week, are not honest with themselves or with the agreement.

I urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Barry, to make representations immediately to the British Government — of course it will cost a bit but the obligation should be on them to ensure that the people on whose behalf they have made this agreement know exactly what it is about. The best step that they can take today is to get sufficient copies of this agreement and post them into every house in Northern Ireland. At least then we will know an effort will have been made to inform the people of the North. I have already sent it to some people in Northern Ireland, because as I say I have been a frequent visitor there down the years and I know how difficult it is for those who have been living in this terrible situation for 12 to 15 years. I also believe that there is an obligation on every Irishman who wants to see the Irish problem somewhat resolved or at least peace in our time to search their hearts and see what they can do about it because so many people say so easily: "What can I do? There is nothing I can do". I do not believe that. For far too long, for 60 years, people in this part of Ireland did so little except talk.

I as a boy and as a younger man remember one election after another hearing from the platform: "We are the people who have the answer to Partition". There was a great amount of flag waving and indeed, elections were won on it. "We are greater republicans than the other side"— elections were won on that cry. It kept a certain party — and I do not think I have to name it here — in power simply because they got the message across that they were the people who had the answer to the division of our land. We have had enough of flag waving. We have had enough of this shouting from political platforms. It has not done the cause any good. It would have been far better if we devoted our time down those years — I am talking about the twenties, the thirties and the forties — to developing links between this part of the island and the six north-eastern counties.

I said it before and I will say it again — perhaps it is not too late to do it— there should be a major motorway built from Cork to the Border, from Dublin to the Border to encourage people to visit Northern Ireland. There are people in this land now who will accuse me of wanting people to go up and do their shopping there.

The Tánaiste

No chance of me going from Kerry?

Mr. McMahon

I am sure the Tánaiste will easily manage to cross from Kerry to Cork. Let the road come from Tralee and even from Dingle to the Border. We should have a motorway to encourage people to travel north on their holidays and to encourage the people in the Six north eastern counties to travel south, because there has been far too little contact between our people on both sides of the Border over the last 60 years. I do not believe that Unionists wanted a divided Ireland any more than Nationalist people on this island; it is just that they were given a divided Ireland. Many of them have expressed to me a wish to see the land reunited. A word, may I say, very seldom used by us, but which should have been used by us over the last 60 years.

Everybody talks about a united Ireland. Ireland was once united. It was before my time but there are people alive who remember it as one island and one people. Let us get back to using those words: to re-unite the people on this island. There are very many Unionists who would dearly love to see this island and these people re-united because they know that their rightful place is in a re-united Ireland. But, of course, we have put so many obstacles in their way over those 60 years and we have turned our backs so much upon their way of thinking, that I cannot blame many of them for taking the stand they have taken up to this. This is an opportunity for them to look our way. I would invite them. Indeed, I am sorry that during this debate in this House and in the Dáil we did not have some Unionists down to listen to the debate. I am sure it would have done good. We should now make an effort to ensure that any Unionist, any Northern Ireland person — Unionist or otherwise — who travels South would be welcome and we should work towards that end.

I would hope, despite the words of some of the politicians up there recently, that any Southerner travelling North would be welcomed in Northern Ireland. We are all Irish irrespective of what flag we march under. We are all Irish and we should recognise that. I want to thank the Cathaoirleach for permitting me to say these few words and I hope I have not inconvenienced the Tanáiste.

Séamus de Brún

Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam focal gairid a rá ar an gComhaontú Angla-Éireannach, 1985. Is ócáid stairiúil í seo agus tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh tairbhe as an gComhaontú atá faoi dhíospóireacht anseo le dhá lá. Is cúis áthais dom go bhfuil leagan Gaeilge den Chomhaontú ar fáil, agus go bhfuil sé le fáil agus le léamh i gcomhpháirt leis an leagan Béarla. Chuir sé áthas orm freisin gur labhair an Taoiseach beagán Gaeilge ar an ócáid a raibh an comhaontú á shíniú. Ba chéim ar aghaidh é sin ón gcruinniú mullaigh a bhí ag Chequers nuair nár fhreagair sé ceist a cuireadh chuige as Gaeilge. Ba mhaith liom a mheabhrú don Teach seo gur iomaí tionól Gaeilge a bhí i gCaisleán Hillsborough san am fadó agus níorbh í sin an chéad uair a labhraíodh Gaeilge san áit sin.

I am glad to have the opportunity, even at this very late stage, to speak briefly on this Anglo-Irish Agreement, 1985. It is not my intention to embark on a detailed analysis of the various articles of the Agreement. Most of this ground has been covered by former speakers and anything else would be, I am sure, repetition. This I do not wish to do. I can truthfully say however that I speak with a great deal of first hand knowledge of social conditions and situations in Northern Ireland through the organisation and activities of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I have had many years of close association with strands of various opinions in Northern Ireland.

During my three years as president of that movement, of that great national movement may I add, I have had occasion to officiate at various public functions in that part of our dismembered country. I sat on and spoke from public platforms with people of all denominations. I also attended social functions throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. We sang our ballads — a matter to which I shall return later — in friendship and in a total spirit of co-operation. I do not think the Taoiseach and his Government are really aware of the wonderful work being done towards bridge building, reconciliation, friendship and co-operation through the work and activities of Comhaltas. I want to put that on the record of this House in the context of the discussion on this motion. The organisation is very strong in the Six Counties and, through the close bonds of friendship that have been built up through our common heritage of music, song and dance it is doing a great deal to bring together people of all denominations and creeds in a spirit of unity.

There are other matters which I would very much like to refer to but it is very late and I do not wish to detain the House unduly. The Tánaiste has arrived to close the debate. There are a few matters to which I would like to refer before I sit down. One is the question of our sovereignty. Much attention has been focused on that aspect of this debate and I refer specifically to the contribution made by Senator O'Donoghue. If I understood Senator O'Donoghue rightly he seemed to tell us that sovereignty is something which must be amended and toned down to the necessities and exigencies of the times. I am not a legal expert or a lawyer but in my simplicity I always thought that sovereignty meant one thing and one thing only: the right of a people to decide for themselves through the full democratic process how and by what means their country should be governed. That is the essence, the core and the central part of sovereignty. I do not think it can be diminished, altered, or adapted to any special circumstances.

In his contribution Senator O'Donoghue seemed to think that we relinquished some of our sovereign rights when we entered the EC. I do not agree with that point of view. I stand open to correction on that because, as I said, I am not a lawyer or an expert on legal matters. I do not think that our entry into the EC has in any way diminished, altered, or taken from our sovereign right to determine the manner in which our country is governed or may be governed in the years to come.

I should like to say a few brief words in relation to Senator Bulbulia's contribution yesterday evening. It was a very well presented, well made and well thought out contribution but in it Senator Bulbulia referred to balladeering and balladeers. I am paraphrasing her now and I hope I shall not do her any injustice but the record will prove the accuracy or otherwise of what I am saying. She referred to balladeers and balladeering and said that she was sick of them and that they had never done anything for us in the past. I want to refute that statement and put put on the record of this House that I deplore such a statement made by a Member of the Oireachtas in this year of Our Lord 1985. I do so because I am convinced that it was the spirit engendered by the balladeers and balladeering that led to the establishment of these Houses of the Oireachtas. In other words, they gained us the freedom we have today and the right to govern this part of our island as a sovereign entity. I believe that. I am convinced of that. Therefore, it is deplorable that a statement of that kind should be made in this House.

I would also remind Senator Bulbulia that she must not be aware of the popularity of balladeering and balladeers in present day Ireland. She must not be aware of the great audiences and throngs of people who attend the various functions throughout the country at fleánna ceoil; at concerts organised under the auspices, for instance, of the Wolfe Tones and the Chieftains, and functions of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann up and down the country and indeed overseas. That proves the point that balladeering, ballad writing and singing are still very popular pastimes and still dear to the hearts of the Irish people. I want to put that on the record of this debate here this evening.

There are many other things I could say about that, but I also want to remind Senator Bulbulia that only last year the Arts Council organised a survey to gauge the popularity of the various arts in this country. To their own astonishment that survey revealed that Irish traditional music, Irish dancing and Irish singing were more popular than any other art form. I am not merely saying that. These are the figures published in the Art Council's survey. For that reason I feel very strongly about this matter. I feel that a statement of that kind should not have been made from this House. Are we to be prevented from singing or reciting or teaching the youth of our country "A Nation Once Again" and all the other ballads of that kind that led to and inspired the struggle which achieved the freedom of this portion of the country. I appreciate that there are people listening to me who would disagree with me. That is their right. I, too, have my rights.

I would like to quote from Thomas Davis. I think it is relevant in the debate which is about to be closed by the Tánaiste when I sit down. Thomas Davis says:

What matter that at different shrines

We pray unto one God?

What matter that at different times

Our fathers won this sod?

In fortune and in name we're bound

By stronger links than steel;

And neither can be safe nor sound

But in the other's weal.

Are we to deny these inspired words to the youth and the not so young of our country? The final verse is more striking and more important still. It is this:

We do not hate, we never cursed,

Nor spoke a foeman's word

Against a man in Ireland nursed,

Howe'er we thought he erred;

So start not, Irish born man,

If you're to Ireland true,

We heed not race, nor creed, nor clan,

We've hearts and hands for you.

These are the sentiments that should motivate us here tonight. These are the sentiments that we should be passing on to the youth and to the generations that are to succeed us. Are we, therefore, to deny them these valuable sentiments and allow then to lose much of our heritage that is a common bond between both North and South?

Mr. Bulbulia

On a point of order, I should like to make a correction at this stage of the debate. While not wishing in any way to be discourteous to the distinguished Senator who is speaking, I overheard his comments on the monitor. As a result of what I said in the House yesterday he extended my statement to infer that, in fact, I wrote off the entire valuable important collection of Irish ballads and songs. That was not my intention. It never will be my intention. I spoke of the sort of ballads which incite people to violence. I think the Senator will agree that there are ballads which do precisely that.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzsimons)

That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I felt that it was, and I certainly wish to put the record straight.

Séamus de Brún

It was not a point of order. I am not one to challenge the Leas-Chathaoirleach or the Cathaoirleach in matters of debate. I believe that one has the right to have one's say. As I said in my opening remarks, I was paraphrasing what the good Senator had said.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Indeed, the Senator was.

Séamus de Brún

The record will bear out whether my paraphrase was just or unjust or unfair.

Mrs. Bulbulia

It was incorrect.

Séamus de Brún

We shall not get into an argument over the matter. I still repeat that I took great exception to the statement made by Senator Bulbulia here yesterday evening about——

Professor Dooge

I want to rise on what I think is a point of order. It is that when Senators in this House make a statement in regard to something they have done or something they have said that statement is accepted unreservedly.

Séamus de Brún

I accept that. May I continue?

Mr. T. Hussey

There is no point in getting cross at this stage of the evening.

Professor Dooge

I am not cross.

Séamus de Brún

I am not cross either. I did not say that I did not accept what the Senator said. I have been very fair in saying that I was paraphrasing.

Acting Chairman

Will Senator de Brún move on and resume his contribution?

Séamus de Brún

I will move on and finish. I will say in conclusion that I wish this agreement well. I hope it will be successful. Only time can tell that. I wish it every success. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis an chomhaontú seo agus go mbeidh toradh tairbheach air mar a dúirt mé nuair a thosaigh mé, agus go dtiocfaidh toradh air dá réir do na daoine bochta in san Tuaisceart atá ag fulaingt ar feadh na mblianta anró agus cruatan agus eagóir ó Impireacht a bhí á gcur faoi chois.

The Tánaiste

I am glad to have the opportunity to conclude this debate in the Seanad. I should like to compliment this Chamber on the contributions that have been made over the past two days.

I believe it is noteworthy that 50 Senators have contributed. Certainly the whole tenor and tone of the debate, I believe, has been very heart-warming and also very impressive. It is very dangerous to single out contributions, but I do feel that a special note should be made of the contributions from the three Northern Senators, Senators McGonagle, Rogers and Robb. It is also very noteworthy that we have three members of the Northern community who, I believe, represent a widespread area of views and viewpoints from Northern Ireland.

The whole debate, which I have attempted to follow as best one could, has been conducted in a manner which, I believe, would probably not have been possible in this country certainly 20 or 30 years ago. One of the major desires of both the Taoiseach and myself, in conducting and leading this whole debate, was that the debate would be conducted in an orderly manner, that we would not rely on rattling the old drums, the drums of difference which existed in this society in the South and, indeed, perhaps still exist to some extent. I am glad to say that both in the Dáil and in the Seanad all politicians, irrespective of political perspectives, sought to debate the Anglo-Irish agreement on its merits, on whether it contained sufficient component parts to be successful or to offer a prospect of peace in Northern Ireland. I thank Senator De Brún for his contribution, which I listened to with care. I do not claim to be an expert in either ballads or balladeering, but when we can all sing and respect the other ballads perhaps we will have brought about a solution to the problem.

Mrs. Bulbulia

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste

I can claim also, as a rugby player that on occasion we might have sung "Kevin Barry" to the air of "The Sash" and vice versa, and got away with it. That is on a lighter note.

It is very important that this debate should have been conducted in the manner which it has because to some extent we are not directly involved. This debate obviously involves the relationship of the South with the North and, indeed, of the South with Great Britain and of both Governments. There always is a danger, when this emotive subject of Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland is being discussed in the South that the people whose interests we should keep to the fore are at times forgotten. I do not believe that that has happened on this occasion. It has been amply — certainly sufficiently — expressed that we have concern for the well-being, the livelihoods and, indeed, for the very existence and conduct of society in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we can be accused of throwing stones from outside or of trying to improve and rectify a situation which has been very difficult, in which hatred, bitterness and distrust between the communities has developed. We have a responsibility, as politicians on this island, to seek out and to work for a solution of the difficulties which exist on this island. It was certainly with that in mind that I, as leader of the Labour Party and, I am sure, the other leaders of the constitutional Nationalist parties in this island took part in the New Ireland Forum. Throughout that process, which was invaluable as both a historical and political exercise was a complete element of generosity in the whole approach to the New Ireland Forum, a generosity which was then, and is now, very necessary if we are to make a contribution to solving the problems on this island. That generosity is particularly prevalent in chapter 5 of the New Ireland Forum report where we set out the framework which would have to emerge in a new Ireland, a new Ireland which would be free and which would provide lasting peace and stability. We recognised that there are two traditions in Northern Ireland, two traditions which have equal validity and must be accepted as such. That is something in itself that we did not accept for a long long time.

We have to accept the validity of both the Nationalist and the Unionist traditions and identities. The democratic rights of every citizen on this island must be accepted. "Both of these identities", and I quote chapter 5, paragraph 4, of the New Ireland Forum report, "must have equally satisfactory, secure and durable, political, administrative and symbolic expression and protection." Those particular desires were very much the overriding guidance and the guiding light which we, on the part of the Irish Government, had before us in the course of the negotiations of the past 18 months. Those negotiations, as has been well recorded, were at times difficult, at times totally frustrating. There were times when it seemed as if they could not continue. There were times when it might have been indeed far more popular in the short term here in the South to break those negotiations. There were difficulties, particularly after the Chequers Summit of last year, when, if we had at that stage said we were negotiating no further, there would have been an acceptance of that by all the parties in the South because of a certain public embarrassment which had taken place. Instead, we choose the difficult path and the correct path. It was difficult at the time, but it also showed both the determination and the desire of the Government to seek a solution and to work for a solution, because that is what this process has been all about.

I have said in the recent past, and in the United States over the past few days, that a problem which has arisen over centuries does not have an overnight solution. I would be saying something similar to what John Hume has said when he remarked that anybody who thinks that it is "is wired to the moon". What we must do is work for a solution. It may take two years, five years or even ten years, God only knows. It may take as many years to bring about the solution as many years as the problem itself has lasted.

Be that as it may, there is a responsibility on us to start making progress, to take steps towards that solution and, primarily, to give the people in Northern Ireland the opportunity of living their lives in a democratic society, as we do here in the South. In that respect we are very lucky and privileged in the Republic. We have a stable democratic society with stable democratic institutions. That would be the ultimate desire for the people of Northern Ireland.

As to the agreement itself, some people were quite amazed, on the publication of the agreement, that it was quite simple and to the point. It set out the objectives, which I believe we will be able to adhere to. Basically, the first aim is the promotion of peace and reconciliation on this island. That is an objective which can be stated quite simply but will be very difficult, obviously, to realise.

Inherent in the realisation and promotion of peace and reconciliation is the whole question of respecting the rights of both communities. Unless we can lay down the foundation stone or the corner stone of the mutual respect for the rights of both communities, it will not be possible to make any progress. There are differences in the identities, cultures and traditions of both communities, differences which have been well itemised in the New Ireland Forum report and, I believe, differences which will continue for a long, long time. What we have to create is both an atmosphere and a framework within which people with those differences can co-exist. That, I believe, is possible and it is possible in the short term.

The mechanism within the agreement for the realisation of our objectives is, in itself, quite simple and it will be effective. The Inter-Governmental Conference, jointly chaired by our own Minister for Foreign Affairs Deputy Peter Barry, and the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland has a monumental task. Both Governments are approaching the Inter-governmental Conference in good faith and with goodwill, because were it not so there obviously would not be an opportunity or a possibility of success for the Inter-governmental Conference. The Secretariat, which will be based in Northern Ireland, of the Inter-Governmental Conference will also have a major task in relation to the agenda and the preparation of material for the Inter-governmental Conference.

The Inter-governmental Conference is quite unique. It is certainly unique in relation to the institutions on this island but then we are dealing with a unique problem. It is fair to say that unique problems need unique solutions. I do not believe that the Inter-governmental Conference holds out a threat to the Unionist community, as some of the opponents of this agreement have stated. I can assure people in this House and the communities in Northern Ireland that the Government in the Republic — and I believe I can speak also for the British Government negotiators — are very conscious of setting out to achieve a balance in this agreement. I believe there was a healthy understanding by both sides that unless we achieved that balance then the chances of success for this agreement and the possibilities for the implementation of the objectives of this agreement, would be very slim indeed.

I believe we have, by and large, achieved that balance. Perhaps that is not the interpretation that has been put on the agreement by those who are opposed to it, both in the North and in the South. I would appeal to those — perhaps particularly to those in the North who are opposed to this agreement — to look at the agreement for what it is and not to look at it as a threat in any way because certainly there is no threat intended. In statements made by the Taoiseach, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by myself over the past 18 months, we tried as best we could to articulate what we thought might be the fears of the Unionist community. We tried to allay those fears because obviously we had an understanding of the problems which they would be facing and an understanding of the problems which their political leaders would be facing in relation to this agreement.

Important also in the mechanism of the agreement is the fact that it is a binding agreement on both sides, a binding agreement committing both sides to make determined efforts to resolve the difficulties which may arise. We would all be naive and foolish if we were to assume that there will not be difficulties. The structures within Northern Ireland and the historical difficulties in Northern Ireland will give rise to problems in the immediate future. However, the resolve is there in the Inter-governmental Conference a resolve that I believe will be adhered to by the representatives of both Governments. I believe both Governments are approaching this agreement in the good faith that is necessary to resolve these difficulties. There would be absolutely no possibility of success being achieved were that not the position.

Reservations have been expressed and questions have been asked about the status of Northern Ireland. We should focus on what the agreement says in relation to status and on what it says in relation to the traditional aspirations towards unity and, indeed, on the declared intent of the British Government of giving effect to legislation, should a majority in favour of unity become evident in Northern Ireland in the future.

We have recognised that unity can come about only by consent. In that recognition we have been consistent with statements made by every Taoiseach we have had since the establishment of democratic Government here in the South. We have been consistent with the communiques of recent years. Likewise, Britain has committed itself to unity if that consent exists. Those who have reservations about particular statements have to look at this problem, not in the context of something that can be solved overnight but in the context of a process, not as a single event because this whole arrangement is not a single event.

Naturally, both Governments have repudiated violence. In that I believe we are also being consistent with the policies of all Governments in the South down through the years. Violence begets violence and will not solve the problems on this island. There should be no ambivalence by anybody in the South or in the North in relation to our attitude to the men of violence. They will not solve this problem. If we are to solve the problem and if we are to bring about the peace and reconciliation which we all strive for, it will not be done by those who would claim to have the ballot paper in one hand and the armalite in the other. We have an absolute responsibility, as democratically elected politicians, to make this clear at every opportunity possible.

There are risks involved. In the course of the last ten days many questions have been asked about those risks. There are checks and balances in the agreement in terms of trying to keep an even hand. The British Government have stated quite clearly, in Article 4, its declared policy, that is that devolved Government could take place within Northern Ireland and, more importantly, on a basis that would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. We, for our part, on behalf of the Irish Government, have stated that we would support that policy. Both sides in Northern Ireland can enter discussions on an equal basis in relation to devolved Government. I believe that devolved Government could play a major role in bringing about the desired peaceful co-existence of both communities in Northern Ireland.

The Inter-governmental Conference will have a wide-ranging agenda. For our part, obviously, there was concern to ensure that on that agenda would be many of the issues, if not all of the issues, of concern to the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland: the whole question of human rights, relations with the security forces, changes in electoral arrangements, the use of flags and emblems, the avoidance of economic and social discrimination, and the advantages and disadvantages of a bill of rights. This is a very wide-ranging agenda. It will become apparent to the Unionist community, over a period of time, that there are many benefits for their community in relation to the whole structure and framework which we have proposed in relation to the Inter-governmental Conference.

I believe that our approach has been generous, as has been exemplified by Article 5(b):

The discussion of these matters shall be mainly concerned with Northern Ireland, but the possible application of any measures pursuant to this Article by the Irish Government in their jurisdiction shall not be excluded.

That is very important and very significant. I also believe that it is something that an Irish Government probably would not have stated clearly five or ten years ago. In that I believe it represents a degree of progress.

In stating that there are risks involved, I am very conscious that there are also risks involved in doing nothing. Most politicians in the South, over the years, would have attempted to rationalise for themselves and would have attempted to settle the internal debate in their own minds in relation to Northern Ireland. Many of us, on occasions down through the years, could have concluded, because of the complexity of the difficulties in Northern Ireland, because of the ongoing conflict between the communities, because of the strife, the distrust, the discrimination that it was difficult to see a clear path forward to bring about a resolution of those difficulties. We in Government had and still have a major responsibility to seek to develop mutually helpful ways of making progress towards peace and stability in Northern Ireland. In 1985 that desire and aim is shared by the British Government. We are setting out on a process which will involve steps towards reconciliation of the two communities in Northern Ireland. The frame-word provided for in the Anglo-Irish agreement provides an opportunity for a major input by us in the Republic into the operation of policy matters in Northern Ireland. It provides an opportunity for both communities in Northern Ireland to work for and to work together for a solution to the problem that has bedevilled us on this island.

In the past few days I have become aware of the welcome in the United States for the agreement. There is tremendous goodwill and support for the Government in relation to the efforts we are making. That goodwill and support will reflect itself in the economic aid which will be forthcoming from the United States Administration in the springtime of 1986.

As the debates on the agreement have concluded in the Dáil and in Westminster, and now concluding in this House, what is important now — and I believe that the Opposition have been quite generous in their approach to the importance of the path ahead — is that the agreement is implemented. The agreement of itself does not solve the problem: there are risks in what is proposed in it. All politicians, particularly in the South, have a responsibility to seek to implement the agreement. I am convinced that the agreement offers an opportunity and a possibility which has not existed in the past. There are those who may feel that it is not enough and also there are those who feel that it is too much, which is the personification of the dilemma which we have here in the South in relation to offers of a solution to the problem in Northern Ireland.

In the course of the process of the New Ireland Forum, and in its report, for the first time we expressed a generosity which may have been very difficult to express down through the years. That same generosity is inherent in the agreement which was signed two weeks ago. That generosity which runs throughout the agreement is possibly the inviting hand to both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland. It would augur well for this whole island if that generosity was accepted in the manner in which it is put forward. We, in Government, will be implementing the agreement to the best of our ability, knowing full well that there are certain risks and dangers. Given the difficulties that we have all seen and witnessed, the difficulties which have bedevilled life in Northern Ireland, it is incumbent on us — certainly it is incubment on Seanad Éireann — to welcome the agreement and to call on persons of goodwill to work for the success of this initiative in the interests of peace and stability. If we do this it will add to the possibilities of achieving our goal, to bring about peace and reconciliation on the whole island.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 16.

Tá

Belton, Luke.
Browne, John.
Bulbulia, Katharine.
Connor, John.
Conway, Timmy.
Cregan, Denis (Dino)
Daly, Jack.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dooge, James C.I.
Durcan, Patrick.
Ferris, Michael.
FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
Fleming, Brian.
Harte, John.
Higgins, Jim.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hourigan, Richard V.
Howard, Michael.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kelleher, Peter.
Kennedy, Patrick.
Lennon, Joseph.
Loughrey, Joachim.
McAuliffe-Ennis, Helena.
McDonald, Charlie.
McGonagle, Stephen.
McGuinness, Catherine I.B.
McMahon, Larry.
Magner, Pat.
O'Brien, Andy.
O'Donoghue, Martin.
O'Leary, Seán.
O'Mahony, Flor.
Quealy, Michael A.
Robb, John D.A.
Rogers, Bríd.
Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

Cassidy, Donie.
de Brún, Séamus.
Ellis, John.
Fallon, Seán.
Kiely, Rory.
Killilea, Mark.
Lanigan, Mick.
Lynch, Michael.
Fitzsimons, Jack.
Hanafin, Des.
Hillery, Brian.
Hussey, Thomas.
Mullooly, Brian.
O'Toole, Martin J.
Ryan, William.
Smith, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Séamus de Brún.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 16.

Tá

Belton, Luke.
Browne, John.
Bulbulia, Katharine.
Connor, John.
Conway, Timmy.
Cregan, Denis (Dino).
Daly, Jack.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dooge, James C.I.
Durcan, Patrick.
Ferris, Michael.
FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
Fleming, Brian.
Harte, John.
Higgins, Jim.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hourigan, Richard V.
Howard, Michael.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kelleher, Peter.
Kennedy, Patrick.
Lennon, Joseph.
Loughrey, Joachim.
McAuliffe-Ennis, Helena.
McDonald, Charlie.
McGonagle, Stephen.
McGuinness, Catherine I.B.
McMahon, Larry.
Magner, Pat.
O'Brien, Andy.
O'Donoghue, Martin.
O'Leary, Seán.
O'Mahony, Flor.
Quealy, Michael A.
Robb, John D.A.
Rogers, Brid.
Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

Cassidy, Donie.
de Brún, Séamus.
Ellis, John.
Fallon, Seán.
Fitzsimons, Jack.
Hanafin, Des.
Hillery, Brian.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kiely, Rory.
Killilea, Mark.
Lanigan, Mick.
Lynch, Michael.
Mullooly, Brian.
O'Toole, Martin J.
Ryan, William.
Smith, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Séamus De Brún.

Question declared carried.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 28 Nov 1985