Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish Relations: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved on 24 November 1988:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of recent events affecting Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations.

—(Senator Lanigan.)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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

"notes the upcoming review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and calls upon the Government to:—

(1) put proposals to the Conference aimed at bringing about devolution with Northern Ireland,

(2) bring about regular pre-Conference consultations with all the constitutional parties in the Republic,

(3) ensure that in the context of 1992, the Conference examines the important economic and social implications of the Single Market for Northern Ireland and the Border areas,

(4) ensure that Conference meetings are held in a regular scheduled way and not merely as a form of crisis management,

(5) help initiate a programme of special measures in Northern Ireland to improve relations between the security forces and the community, with the object in particular of making the security forces more readily accepted by the nationalist community,

(6) encourage and speed up the establishment of an Anglo-Irish Parliamentary body."

—(Senator Manning.)

Mr. B. Ryan

This is one of the very rare occasions in the seven years that I have been in this House that we have been able to talk about something at a time when it was perhaps the central concern in public opinion. Therefore, it behoves somebody like myself, with a reputation for, perhaps, colourful language, to be a little more restrained than usual. I am not going to omit to say anything in which I believe but, unlike people in other parliaments and in other jurisdictions, I believe I have an obligation to be sensible in what I say and not to attribute motives to other people that in many cases are beneath contempt. I will come to that as I develop a few ideas.

There are some ideas on Northern Ireland that are rarely articulated, sometimes because at least in their analysis they overlap with the analysis of those with whom most of us disagree. The motion is, of necessity, a bland motion which leaves sufficient room for all of us to discuss it, but the one thing that Northern Ireland most manifestly is not, is bland. It has a history of pain, suffering, murder, mutilation and, as is often forgotten given the horrors of the last 20 years, of almost 70 years of scandalously — by the standards of western democracies — discriminatory and one-sided government. Because awful things are done in the name of those who have suffered over 70 years does not excuse us from remembering what people have suffered. To quote a phrase I heard one time is that "the problems of Northern Ireland did not begin in Enniskillen last year." We cannot pick a point in the history of Northern Ireland and say "That is when it started and that is how we must reflect on Northern Ireland's history."

If I were a historian, which I am not, I would find it a most interesting exercise to trace the historical developments in Northern Ireland which produced the appalling mess that it is now in. I cannot do that but what I can do and what I propose to do is to insert into this debate a number of what I would regard as the missing dimensions of the analysis that is now widely held.

There is a considerable amount of concern about an end to violence and I would subscribe fully to that view. I think violence in Northern Ireland is wrong, counter-productive and without moral justification. It is not a position I take lightly because my sympathies, often expressed in company which gives me some discomfort, are with those who I believe have suffered enormously not just in the past 20 years but in the past 70 years. My sympathies have forced me to take positions that are neither popular nor widely supported, either within this House or in the other House, on issues concerning Northern Ireland.

In our concern to end violence, we have taken a step further and we have talked about reconciliation. Reconciliation — as between churches, so between people and nations — can only come on the basis of truth. It cannot come on the basis of ambiguities or ambivalences. We have learned to our cost in this country over the past 20 years that perhaps we have got certain ambiguities and ambivalences about violence. By way of an example, I wonder how anybody who has denounced what has been done in our names in Northern Ireland for the past 20 years can produce a moral or political justification for the 1916 Uprising. I invite people to consider, not the political consequences which we all recognise, not the enormous consequences thereof brought about in the thinking of ordinary Irish people, but the moral position on Easter Monday, 1916, when an entirely unrepresentative armed force, without any political mandate of any kind, without any support from anybody, chose to take up arms against the British Government in what was then — whatever else was wrong with it — by the standards of the time a democracy. I have no great moral qualms about 1916 because we have justified it in retrospect but I invite all of us — myself included — to at least not strike moral positions about the use of force to achieve political ends that are turned on their head by even a cursory examination of history.

The problem of violence and the difficulty of dealing with the use of force in domestic and international politics is not something new. The question of the use of violence has corrupted the churches; it has corrupted international affairs and it has often corrupted the internal security of many States. It is astonishing to look through the history of the churches — I am including in that the church to which I am a member — in their explicit support for the most extraordinary imperialist and colonialist exploits of warfare. It is extraordinary that one can go into any Protestant church and look at the vast numbers of memorials to wars which were manifestly wars of imperialism. The memorials you see in Protestant churchs are not just dedicated to the heroes of the Second World War or the First World War; they go back to the Crimean War, the Boer War and to God knows what other wars, many of which were wars of imperialism.

One of the frightening points is that all of those who should be in a position to give unchallengeable moral guidance about the use of violence and about warfare have all been historically tainted by the very thing that they now pronounce upon with such authority. The only community I am aware of, through its own history, that has a record of being consistent in resisting all wars is the Quaker community. All of the major churches in my view have compromised on the most fundamental of questions, the use of violence to achieve political ends.

In terms of condemnation and criticism of violence, we all have an obligation to search deep into ourselves, into our traditions, into our history, into the Pantheon of heroes and question the whole issue of the use of violence. If we have an obligation to analyse history, equally we have an obligation to examine our behaviour currently. The Minister and I had a little exchange of views last week on morality and international affairs. I think a country such as this, that has suffered so much from political violence, has an obligation to be extremely careful to distinguish our moral views from our political views and not to be seen in any way to be uneven or equivocal in our condemnation of violence simply because of the source of the violence.

I have told members and supporters of the African National Congress that I do not support — because my conscience will not allow me — some of the activities in which they engage. I am not prepared to turn them into some sort of social pariahs because of their use of violence, particularly given the historical compromise that most of the institutions that describe themselves as western civilisation have made, but I believe I have an obligation to state my moral position. A country such as ours that has suffered the pain it has suffered over the past 20 years cannot selectively condemn the violence that is perpetrated in our name and fudge on the violence that is perpetrated in the names of other countries that describe themselves as democracies. If we have learned anything, it is the pain and the misery and the sheer gore of any kind of warfare. It is our obligation not to tout empty phrases but to look for the abolition of warfare. I think that goes beyond the whole issue of simply disapproving of the arms race.

We could, as a nation, have a serious discussion about what sort of proposals we have for defending ourselves in the event of an invasion. We could discuss the whole idea of a non-military form of resistance to attack, a non-violent form of resistance to attack. This sounds like idealistic framing but it is a necessary extension of both the moral position we claim to take and of our experience of violence for the past 20 years. It is not enough to say that the morality of warfare is decided on simply by a majority vote. I believe passionately in democracy but I do not think democracy requires the moral law.

The use of violence is so wrong and so frequently brutalising. Anybody who has read the testimonies of people who have been involved in warfare will know that after truth the first thing that goes out the window in warfare is morality. I have talked to the most ordinary, decent, church-going Christian people and asked them about what happens when you are in a head-to-head war situation and the last thing you think about is morality. The last thing you think about is justice or dignity or nobility. The only thing you think about is that it is me or him who has to survive and if I can get him when he is not armed then I will get him when he is not armed because that secures my position. I say all of this because I think that much of the moral condemnation of violence — which is right in principle — has been devalued by the fact that most of us who use those phrases are actually tainted by the historical adherence to the use of force that has tainted all of the great institutions in western society.

In looking at Northern Ireland — my good friend, Senator Robb, made this point at great length last week — it is quite correct to look at it in terms of a conflict between two communities but it is incorrect to see it as only a conflict between two communities. It is equally incorrect to address only one side of the greater conflict because Northern Ireland is a problem of imperialism and there are two dimensions to that imperialism. There is, first, the Irish style imperialism which, if Articles 2 and 3 meant anything, would be expressed in those Articles — but since I am satisfied that they have no legal force I do not think it is a legislatedfor or constitutionally instituted form of imperialism — but it is reflected in an often poorly thought-out nationalism which, sadly, is often manifested in the speeches of members of the Minister's party. There is an unwillingness to address the human dimension to the aspiration they all have, which amounts to an almost imperialist claim by this part of Ireland to take control of that part of Ireland. That has been talked about at length by historians and politicians and we have learned a lot about ourselves over the past 20 years.

What is not so fashionable, however, is the other kind of imperialism, the British imperialism. As my friend and colleague, Senator Robb, said last week, it is not just we who have a claim on Northern Ireland, it is the United Kingdom Government who make a claim. It is too simple and almost naive to pretend that the British Government's interest in Northern Ireland is as benevolent as they would have us believe and as many politicians in this country would have us believe, too.

I do not believe that the British Government would ever have subscribed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and to the commitment that if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland supported Irish unity then they would facilitate it, if they believed for one second that such a majority would ever exist in Northern Ireland. I do not believe them. I do not believe there is a scrap of evidence from history that British Governments, of whatever political complexion, have been prepared to spend the billions of pounds that they spend in Northern Ireland every year, benevolently to protect the interests of a community that did not serve any purpose for them. They abandoned the 70 to 80 per cent of the population of South Africa without a second thought. They have renegotiated the status of Hong Kong without giving the citizens of Hong Kong as much as the right to vote on what has been negotiated in their names.

I refuse to believe that the British Government's interest in Northern Ireland is simply to reflect and protect the rights of the majority. They have abandoned larger majorities. They have abandoned people in more strategically located positions when it suited their interests. When we get the unguarded opinions of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as we got yesterday, then we see another side to British interests in Ireland, that is, the interests of a large country in keeping a foothold of influence in a smaller neighbouring country.

There is a majority in a part of Ireland whose fears about Irish unity are by and large well justified, and who were correct 70 years ago in suggesting that Home Rule would be Rome Rule. I do not believe that there was a scrap of doubt that the Protestants of Ireland would have suffered grievously under an All-Irish Government in the 1920s. The history of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am still a practising member, would not give anybody to believe that they would have been other than tolerated. They would have been let go to church — we would not have closed down their churches — but their values, their aspirations, their ideas of how a society should be organised, their ideals about the structure of society, about family, about other things, would not have been given a second's thought. I have absolutely no doubt about that. I accept it is a hypothesis but my feeling would be, looking at the historical development of this part of Ireland, that Protestant sentiments would have mattered very little in the ferment of nationalistic rhetoric that characterised the early years of this State.

Having said that, however, I do not believe that it is a sensitivity to their needs and fears or a commitment to their loyalty that maintains the British interest in Northern Ireland. I believe there are clear, strategic, political and indeed economic reasons why the United Kingdom Government would wish to have a foothold on both sides of the Irish Sea. There is enormous evidence of the use of the Irish Sea by the submarines of a variety of major world powers and I do not believe the United Kingdom would be too happy not to be able to maintain surveillance of the Irish Sea from both sides of the sea.

I do not believe that the British Establishment has yet entirely accepted that we are capable of governing ourselves. Usually this is not said, but on occasions like this week things are said about this country that reflect a perception of us which is not far different from their perception of any other semi-colonised country. I refer to the refusal, for instance, to accept that such a thing as due process of law exists, the refusal to accept that the things that they claim to espouse — for instance, separation of powers — actually exist in this country in a way which seems to me to be far more visibly true than would be the case in the United Kingdom. When one sees all that, it is naive and simplistic to believe that the only reason the United Kingdom Government maintain their position visá-vis Northern Ireland is that the majority wish them to do so. It is palpable nonsense, in the light of British pragmatism about much bigger countries and much bigger issues. It is a very convenient reason to be involved in Ireland, but it is not necessarily the biggest reason. The biggest reason that has motivated British Governments for generations to do various things is the protection of British interests.

The British have a perpetual obsession about instability on this island. They perpetually lecture us about the threat to democracy in this part of the island from the Provisional IRA. I would not wish for one second to be governed by the Provisional IRA, but I do not believe they represent the scale of threat to democracy here that some British spokesmen would have us believe. What that reflects is a British obsession with instability in this island and a British determination to keep a foothold and keep an interest. I do not believe the United Kingdom would be happy to have a country as near as we are which would not be a member of NATO, which might have a capacity and a willingness to operate and think independently and which might choose Governments which would not be of their liking.

That side of the equation and of the discussion is rarely mentioned, perhaps because almost alone Sinn Féin and the IRA are the ones who articulate the view about British imperialism. I do not accept the Sinn Féin analysis of British imperialism as the only problem, the only solution being to get rid of it. I do not accept that, but there is a long way between rejecting their singular obsession with British imperialism and the position where one pretends it does not exist. I do not believe the present British Government would have given a commitment to support Irish unity if they dreamed for one second that it would happen. They would not have given an unqualified agreement to that effect. It would have been heavily qualified and heavily linked with protection of British interests if they thought that it was likely to happen. Therefore, I do not accept the common argument that the Anglo-Irish Agreement represents a significant shift in British thinking.

At this stage it is appropriate to talk about some of the things that have been said in the past few days. Perhaps one of the reasons I will never be a member of a Government or Taoiseach is that I do not believe silence is necessarily the appropriate retort to some of the things that have been said about us recently. I want to put it on record as a fairly frequent and vigorous critic of many of the institutions of the State, that I am absolutely certain that a citizen is safer in this jurisdiction than he is in Britain.

I am certain I would feel far more secure having my rights defended by the Irish Judiciary than I would if I ever had to deal with the British Judiciary. I am not saying that just because I am Irish. I am saying any citizen in this country has a better chance of having his rights vindicated by the Irish courts and the Irish Constitution than a citizen of the United Kingdom would have in the British courts and under the British constitution. I think that our courts — and our Supreme Court in particular — have a record of absolute independence and of scrupulous defence of the rights of the individual, notwithstanding my frequent disagreements with some of their decisions, which is not matched by the British superior courts. A classic and simple example is the fact that the British superior courts accept that matters which concern the security of the State are matters which can justify a lot of strange actions by the government. That is a view that most governments would take.

The difference between our courts and the British courts is that our courts say that they have the right to adjudicate on whether the Government are right in saying that a certain matter impinges on the security of the State. They have an absolute, untrammelled right to demand that a Government explain to the court why a certain action was justified because of the security of the State, whereas the British Judiciary have conceded totally to the British Government the right to determine what impinges on the security of the State. We could not have had in this country — I say this in response to what has been said about my country in the past two days — an incident similar to the de-trade unionising of the entire workforce in GCHQ without the Government who tried to do it having to go through the most rigorous cross-examination in the courts of this country because of the severe impingement on the rights of the individual. We could not have had it. The independence of the Irish courts is something that perhaps people in Britain do not appreciate.

As a country we should not at present do anything other than give full support to the Taoiseach. It is an unusual thing for me to say but I do not believe any Irish person serves either the people of this country or the people of Northern Ireland by giving any impression that we would approve in any way of a dressing down being given to the leader of this country by the British Prime Minister this week. I, as one of the most vocal critics of this Government, would like to put that on the record. I do not accept that any Prime Minister of any other democracy has a right to treat us as if we were something like a client State. We are an independent nation with an independent Judiciary and a democratically elected Parliament and we regulate our affairs as we see fit in the interests of Irish people and international peace.

I do not believe that we should be in any way influenced by the gutter press in Britain, which is owned incidentally by somebody who was described in the Sunday Observer magazine last week as one of the two or three real confidants that Mrs. Thatcher has, Rubert Murdock. He claims to be one of two or three people who can contact Mrs. Thatcher any time, any day he wishes to talk to her. I do not think we should undermine or understate the significance of that. It is newspapers that Mr. Murdock owns which are among those who say the worst things about us as a people. Therefore, I do not believe it is entirely coincidental that these foul-mouthed racist comments are made by newspapers owned by a friend of the British Prime Minister.

I am actually being quite restrained in what I say. I could have said, and felt like saying, a lot worse. We as a nation have been greviously insulted. I must say that there is a serious question about whether the determination to sustain the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the determination to be seen to be, as we all are, against the use of violence in Northern Ireland, should continue to persuade us that we must co-operate with a Government which feels entitled, whenever it does not get its way, to treat us with such complete contempt. I specifically refer to that on the issue of extradition.

We know very well that this country is not a haven for terrorists — far from it. God knows how many thousands of people have been detained under the Offences Against the State Act. Statistics show that proportionately a larger proportion of our population has been detained for questioning under the Offences Against the State Act than has been detained in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is something I have frequently condemned. I know that we have had breaches of the law and I believe that we have had abuses of suspects in the interests of dealing with paramilitary violence. I know that we had a state of emergency. I know that we have the Offences Against the State Act. I know that a man from the same city as myself is serving four years in prison because he was convicted of membership of the IRA on the basis of a poster he had in his possession which supported the IRA. He was convicted and got five years in prison, which was reduced to four years. It would not happen in Northern Ireland. If it did happen our Government would be the first to complain. I utterly reject any suggestion that there is any safe haven down here.

What we have is what apparently the British approve of for themselves but would not have us have — an independent Judiciary. It is an imperfect, independent Judiciary in the same way as all judiciaries are imperfect because they are made up of human beings, but it is independent. If we are not going to be allowed the dignity of an equal partner in an equal partnership, if it is not a partnership of equals, then it should not exist at all. If the British Government have not yet got it into their heads that we are an independent nation with an independent tradition and history, then it is time our Government educated them about the basic facts of Irish history. While many of us very strongly oppose the present Government, we are not going to have this Government or any other Government humiliated simply because one particular Prime Minister, at a particular time when she sees herself more and more as monarch rather than Prime Minister, takes offence because a small country does not do, on the spot, what she wants. That is all I have to say about recent events.

There is more that needs to be said about Northern Ireland and I would like to echo some of the sentiments of my colleague, Senator Ross, in the terms of the amendment that we have proposed. It is true that this country needs reconciliation. Reconciliation implies truth. It implies being prepared to face up to the truth, not about the other side but the truth about ourselves. I believe there is an element of Roman Catholic imperialism in the sort of traditional Catholic nationalism that this part of the State has espoused. Therefore, not just politicians, who tend to be in many ways more flexible, but the churches have an obligation to reflect on their history, not in some sense of self-justification but to reflect in painful and often difficult and embarrassing detail on their loyalties, their history and their views. I have already referred at length to the ambivalences of all the churches on violence, particularly violence used by establishment forces, often in wars of colonialism. Out of that has to come repentance and the willingneses to say we were wrong and we are sorry. I do not believe yet that we have got anywhere near that in the relationship between our churches.

It is an extraordinary contradiction that the ecumenical movement in this country, while it is developing, is far less developed than in many countries where there are no wars which involve Catholics and Protestants. Of course, it is not a religious war, but one of the reasons for the trouble is a total lack of communication, a total lack of contact and a total lack of appreciation by one side of the other side's traditions, perspective and history and particularly of their fears. In that context the more we have contact between people of different religious traditions, the more we can hope to break down those misunderstandings and those fears.

Notwithstanding the increasing view down here that they are all different up there, I have seen people from the most militant Protestant areas of Belfast come to life in my own city and in west Cork and settle down into a Gaeltacht community. A man from the Shankill Road, married to a woman from the west Cork Gaeltacht, came to live in west Cork and set up a small industry there. He is at home there; he is not a stranger or a foreigner there. He is one who told that he feels he is part of the same people. Whatever the divisions, whatever the differences, there is a lot that Irish people have in common. The history of our uncertainties in sporting matters is clear testimony that there are divisions but we are not clearly divided into two different nations.

The churches have hidden behind denominational barriers to make life easy for themselves. I give a simple example and this is a criticism of my own church. A new common baptismal certificate for the children of inter-church marriages has been agreed. The churches on my side of the division that have agreed to it are the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and the Catholic Church in Ireland. Our church apparently could not accept the prefix "Roman" to its name even though our other churches in England, Wales and Scotland could do so. I regard that as a symptom of how far we still have to go. There is a long list.

We should be encouraging inter-church marriage in this country and there is no better place in which to develop understanding between two human beings than in a marriage. It is an extraordinary fact that all of our churches would prefer one of theirs to marry a bad one of the same community than a good convinced Christian of a different community. I find that a total inversion of Christian values and something to be regretted. We have not gone nearly far enough in ecumenical developments. We should be pushing the limits of ecumenical development but we are far from it. We are the followers on, we follow behind but we do not do nearly enough. There are, unfortunately, endless examples.

To achieve reconciliation between communities in this island, particularly in Northern Ireland, also involves bringing people back into the mainstream. It involves ending that word which is now so fashionable, "alienation". It is an interesting fact that in the last few weeks the Garda have produced an analysis of areas in this city which describes something that sounds awfully like Northern Catholic alienation. I hope we learn in time about alienation. I hope we learn in time to deal with it, but in Northern Ireland it exists.

On the question of alienation, you must give people a feeling they are in a society where they are treated fairly and decently by the courts and the security forces. There are apparently close to 100 young men in the town of Strabane who do not feel it is worth their while going out at night because they can be assured if they go out they will be harassed by the security forces, not once but every night. You cannot tell a community that this is a fair system of security, that this is a fair society. That is a prerequisite.

It is in that context that I would state my opposition to extradition. Those who are most alienated in Northern Ireland, those who have suffered most over the past 70 years and indeed over the past 20 years, see extradition as yet another sign that they are on their own, that nobody is really interested in their welfare, that nobody identifies with their feelings and nobody really cares. It has been said to me that it is impossible to accept the sincerity of a Government — and it is not just this Government — who claim to be concerned about the unfairness of the judicial process in Northern Ireland but who, at the same time, are prepared to extradite people to be tried under that judicial process. You cannot have it both ways.

As a conclusion, I want to put on the record of this House some disturbing events connected with the International Fund for Ireland. You cannot end alienation by ignoring the alienated. You may not like the manifestations of alienation. You may not like the political representatives that the alienated choose for themselves. You may not like the manifestations of their alienation, particularly the use of force, but you will not get rid of alienation by pretending it does not eixst. You will only make it worse. What appears to be happening in West Belfast since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and in particular since the setting up of the International Fund for Ireland is an attempt to set up parallel structures in West Belfast which are under the control of perhaps the only agency in West Belfast which could not be seen to be affected by Sinn Féin, that is, the Roman Catholic Church. There is history of extraordinary changes in policy, of extraordinary unwillingness to support community enterprise that is so well documented that it is time it was addressed by the Government down here.

I appreciate the difficulties but let me give some examples. A very prominent member of the church in Belfast said, for instance, that part of West Belfast's problem is that there are so few people with sufficient experience and resources to bring forward plans for new projects and to research them. That sounds extremely plausible. The Bishop of Down and Connor made that statement.

A cursory study of West Belfast will show that in 1971 Ballymurphy Enterprises were set up and developed a number of factories etc. I do not want to waste the time of the House by going into the details, but at its height Ballymurphy Enterprises had a new 7,000 square foot factory employing 20 workers. An industrial co-operative was employing three men, a building company was establishing a co-operative on the site and another subsidiary company has commenced production of block-mounted pictures. This was all happening in 1972-73. It continued up to 1979. In March 1979 the little industrial training complex of temporary wooden huts was totally destroyed by an early morning fire. The training facilities were immediately transferred to the new purpose-built industrial training centre. A few weeks later the electricity service moved on to the site to dismantle the electricity services. In November the British regular Army marched into the Ballymurphy Industrial Estate, the four small factories were occupied under martial law regulations and the occupants unceremoniously ordered at gunpoint to vacate. Community enterprise was squashed by the agents of the State. That was once. Then later on it happened a second time.

I suspect the Minister's Department, and perhaps the Minister, have heard of Conway Mills. Conway Mills is a much maligned institution, a much maligned exercise in community work. I want to read in some detail what happened. Education began and a crèche was established for infants. The mill theatre and conference centre became a hive of activity. On the floors below a furniture retailer installed his business. Close by a furniture manufacturer commenced operations. There was a small block-mounting business, as well as glass crafts manufacture, a small electrical engineering company and the daily Irish language newspaper Lá. At the back of the premises, a garage and bodywork shop were installed. Forty people were working full-time within the complex. A floor was being developed into an office suite and an accountancy firm had taken up a tenancy. Without any enterprise zone assistance, without Departmental funding, Conway Enterprises was becoming a hive of commercial, educational and social activity.

Let it be said that this was all in West Belfast. It would be impossible to have anything happening in West Belfast which was entirely run by people who would be regarded by the security forces in Northern Ireland as above suspicion, given the nature of political support in West Belfast. In 1985 Douglas Hurd issued a statement in the House of Commons warning that Government funding would not be directed towards community groups which directly or indirectly associated with or contributed to people who were thought to be directly or indirectly associated with paramilitary organisations. Unfortunately, a member of the SDLP chose to identify Conway Enterprises as a paramilitary front organisation and all funding then stopped.

Apart from the demerits of doing that, in the light of what happened in Ballymurphy and in the Conway Mills, it is astonishing to find such an eminent commentator as the bishop saying that no skills and no talents existed in West Belfast to set up community enterprises. At the same time a succession of groups were being set up, some of which I will list: Fryers Bush Limited, the directors being Bishop Cathal Daly and Bishop Patrick Walsh and Reverend Professor McCoy; West Belfast Development Trust, with one priest on the board of directors; Glenwood Enterprises with one priest on the board of director's; Cathedral Community Enterprises with two priests and one nun on the board of directors and Townsend Enterprise Park has Father Mathew Wallace, another priest on the board of directors. It is a disturbing indication of an attempt to shift community development away from community controlled organisations to the control of the Roman Catholic Church.

Apart from being wrong in principle, it is also wrong in the sense that you will not end alienation by pretending you can ignore the people who are alienated. You may not like what they are doing but what is happening in West Belfast is an attempt by the Church to the single channel of aid through the International Fund for Ireland. I find it ironic that many of the liberals who sit in front of me here and who would be so critical of the church attempting to take over anything down here will sit back quietly and watch the church take over virtually everything in West Belfast.

There is more. There are the attempts by the Divis residents' association to set up various agencies — a crèche — and the church suddenly sets up a crèche the following week. They set up various enterprises and each enterprise that is set up is paralleled by a church controlled enterprise. The regrettable fact of this is that it is difficult to accept that what was said about the absence of talent either reflects a lack of knowledge or a political agenda. You cannot end alienation simply by telling people they must go to a new body. You will not end alienation by creating dependence. You will only end alienation by creating a community. If people feel that their stake in society through their involvement in society is sufficiently advanced they are the ones who will decide of their own volitìon that they no longer need violence and are no longer prepared to support violence. Notwithstanding all the horrible things that have been done — and they are horrible — the IRA would not exist to the extent that it does if it did not have the tacit support of a considerable number of people in Northern Ireland.

It is too simple and too easy to issue lectures about morality. What we have to do is to persuade by argument, by support and by resources, those who currently support violence that there is a different way. The basic persuasions must involve justice in terms of the operation of the courts and the security forces, justice in terms of employment, which is why I still support the MacBride Principles, and justice in terms of the allocation of resources in the areas of greatest alienation and no more attempts to manipulate those people by setting up safe control structures which give the impression of being community organisations but which are not under democratic community control.

The people of West Belfast are not savages, they are not uncivilised, but are brave people who have suffered more than anybody should be asked to suffer. So, incidentally, are many working class Protestants in Northern Ireland who have suffered for different reasons. That is why I was so happy to put my name to an amendment which was entered first of all by the one Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas — I will embarrass him now because he is here; I thought he would not be here and I could say it — who knows what it is like first to live in Northern Ireland, secondly to be a Protestant in Northern Ireland and thirdly, and perhaps the most painfully of all, to be a Protestant who breaks out of the ranks of his own tribe and suffers the consequences of that. This House has a particular obligation to listen to the words of the one person who does not have to analyse it from the position of a politician, historian, commentator or a journalist but from living in the midst of it, and particularly has to think about where his children are going to live and what sort of a society his children are going to inherit. That is why those who introduced a simple two line amendment saying that we should throw out the claim to sovereignty are wrong.

It is also why Fianna Fáil speeches around the country which attempt to portray the problem as being a matter of acquisition of territory are also wrong. A number of things have betrayed the cause of Ulster Protestants in Ireland. One of those has been the despicable unwillingness of Fianna Fáil to confront the Catholic Church in recent years and, in particular, the spectacle of the divorce referendum which did more damage to the cause of people like Senator Robb than people down here have yet to begin to imagine. Any belief that doubting Thomases or Protestants would have had in Northern Ireland about the nature of this State, any belief that we had changed, and were a pluralist society in which different traditions and aspirations could have an equal role, were scotched by that referendum. Rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a flexing of muscles by an alliance between the largest party in this State and the largest church in this State and a quite clear assertion that we are prepared to talk nicely but on the real crunch issues we are prepared to give, in the characteristic words of Ulster Unionists, "not any inch".

That is the crux of the problem we have to confront ourselves. We have to confront the entirety of our history, not apologise for it but confront it and see it through. We have also to confront the entirety of the history of Northern Ireland, including the dimension of British imperialism. Our churches have got to confront the entirety of their history including their history of support for violence all over the world all through the history of the churches.

We have also got to be careful, not in a process of trying to politically out-manoeuvre Sinn Féin, not to end up out-manoeuvring ourselves by creating empty hollow structures in west Belfast, in particular, that will have no community support, no community consent and will not achieve anything. You may build all the buildings you wish, but if people do not believe that they are theirs, under their control, serving them for their benefit with their consent, it will achieve nothing except a large waste of money and resources. The problem is that in the area that most needs the funding from the International Fund for Ireland it is going to be impossible to spend that money because we will not allow the local community to control it. I would appeal to the Minister to investigate what is happening in west Belfast to the funds of the International Fund for Ireland.

Mr. McGowan

This is a subject which is very easy to talk about. The motion "That Seanad Éireann takes note of recent events affecting Northern Ireland" has been on the Order Paper for some time. The recent events change from day to day. There is plenty of rhetoric to describe events, but the picture you get depends on where you sit. I have expressed my commitment on a number of occasions, maybe not as eloquent as others who have more training in speech-making but with no less sincerity.

Today I came through three checkpoints. I left at 6.30 a.m. and in the dark of the morning I was stopped by British soldiers so I know in my bones the feeling of the hard grassroots. I passed through Belfast Airport yesterday and I was not very far away from the security forces. I applaud and appreciate Senator Robb's involvement and the fact that he, a Member of this House, speaks with honesty and conviction. I compliment him and I hope we will get people like Senator Robb who will make an honest and sincere contribution. Therein lies the hope of dialogue to resolve the difficulty. The problem is like a fishing line that is entangled completely; some people would throw it away rather than get down to sorting it out.

Northern Ireland is a good subject to talk about — you can get emotional about it and arouse people. It is going on for so long that most Irish people who are involved in public administration or affairs in their own country are genuinely interested. It is a simplistic attitude to blame the church for lack of action or Fianna Fáil and the present Taoiseach or to look for simple labels to tag onto people. I appreciate having an opportunity of saying, for whatever value it will have, and I am not convinced that it will be of a lot of value — that nobody is being codded in the North of Ireland today. The average person in the North of Ireland today faces a very grim picture on the ground. If there is anything they despise, it is people who look for a platform to describe their plight and difficulties and use it to further their own political ends. That is all too prevalent here. We have seen parties and individuals that are going nowhere and have no great future but they come to this House and the other House, and our media give recognition to such people who look for such a platform. They will be given air time and publicity far quicker than the average, normal, reasonable person on the ground in the North of Ireland.

When one turns on the radio, and I was listening to it on the way to the House, one finds that even Gay Byrne has a solution to this problem. It is ridiculous in the extreme. Everybody who finds himself short of material uses the North of Ireland, which I deplore completely, and so too do the people in the North of Ireland. They are sick listening to stranded politicians and journalists——

An Cathaoirleach

I presume the Senator is addressing his remarks to the Chair?

Mr. McGowan

Yes. The people in the North are sick listening to journalists. Quite recently I was watching Gay Byrne interviewing Ken Maginnis and Bernadette McAliskey, formerly Bernadette Devlin. Gay Byrne allowed Ken Maginnis to be shouted down and talked down to by Bernadette McAliskey, who is not now an elected representative. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. Nobody will buy it.

Everybody wants politics to work in the North of Ireland. Not too long ago — in 1973-74 — we had an election for the Assembly in the North of Ireland, which Assembly lasted five months. The people in political power in England said they wanted politics to work in the North of Ireland but while they were saying that, they were disbanding the political Assembly in the North of Ireland. They disbanded the Assembly and the Members were then left without a salary. Everyone knows that politics is a way of life. Politicians' income and resources to sustain their families can run very thin at times.

I venture to say that those people who were in politics in the North had very few resources at the time the Assembly was disbanded. They were put out of business when their cheques stopped coming through the post. The people who stopped the cheques were the very people who were calling for politics to work in the North of Ireland. I do not know how they reconcile the two measures. I have seen at close quarters the members who were elected to the Assembly coming close together. I have seen those very same people being forced out of politics when they were down to the point where they did not have enough money to pay for a single-bar electric fire, their telephone was cut off and they had to leave the area. That is how far the British pushed those who stood up and tried to make politics work. They put them out of business forever while, at the same time, saying: "We will get an initiative to make politics work in the North." It does not make sense to the average thinking person in the North. I do not believe the British were ever serious about getting politics to work in the North.

I have no time for paramilitaries of any kind and I deplore all the actions of the IRA. My simple question to the IRA is to ask what they have achieved in the past 20 years? In Lifford, a little town in Donegal, that is nearest the Border, there were perhaps three gardaí in the town and a note would be put on the door of the barracks to say that if a Garda was needed after 5 o'clock to phone the garda's house. Now we have 60 gardaí and maybe 12 sergeants. Across the Border from County Donegal there are 7 military bases — major concrete bunkers that cannot be bombed or blown up which contain sophisticated modern listening equipment. My county which I claim has tourist potential is ringed by seven British military bases which makes it nearly impossible for a tourist to think about braving the Border to go into my county. That is the tragedy of the North

I ask the IRA to say what they have achieved and if there are any leaders prepared to sit down and assess the situation? How many lives have been lost? How many accidents and accidental killings have been caused? How many of their own men have they lost? I appeal to the House and to everybody else to ask the IRA to assess their achievements over the past 20 years. As the song says, the barbed wire is going higher and higher. People who have small farms of land or small businesses on both sides of the Border are now taking their lives in their hands if they go out on a dark evening. It is a case that if you see the flash of the lamp you live and if you do not see it you are dead. That is where we stand at present. Driving through the North of Ireland on a wet, dark November day it is a case of being lucky to see the flash of the lamp and the personnel are anxious that you see it. All these risky factors in survival exist in that part of the world. That is where the IRA has brought us to.

I do not know how the previous speaker, although I know he is sincere, can blame the church and church leaders, and Fianna Fáil and their leaders because that is not to understand the situation. I would use this debate as an opportunity to ask the Provisional IRA to assess the situation. At the end of the day everybody involved who has taken life will have to sit down and assess what they have done, what they have achieved and where they are going. I believe that the IRA will have to be forced and isolated to the point of doing that.

I have to compliment Deputy John Kelly on his honest and reasonable contribution on television last night and the night before. He spoke in solid honest terms to the British, who had some very unreasonable people who made some very unresonable contributions. John Kelly stood up for his own country and he did not allow the atmosphere or the politics of the day to take over. He made an honest contribution. I was in London on Monday night and saw him being interviewed at length by the British media, and I saw him again last night. In my opinion he made a good and honest contribution. More such direct talk has got be be directed at the British. We are told that Mrs. Thatcher is furious, and I am not surprised because whether we like or dislike Mrs. Thatcher she is a successful politician. Mrs. Thatcher is only using the first opportunity——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator will have to refer to Mrs. Thatcher at least once as the British Prime Minister.

Mr. McGowan

The British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, may be furious and she may like to be described as being furious, but she is a fairly clever political operator. She must have been looking for an opportunity to respond to the delicate, difficult and weak situation that she found herself in after the Stalker, Gibraltar and other affairs and the killings that have gone on for a long time and cannot be explained. That is a legacy she would find very difficult to defend.

If I had an opportunity, which most likely I will not, I would say to the British Prime Minister that very few Irish people believe that the British had not an administration or a death squad that went to take people out. They took them out in the North and they took them out in Gibraltar. It does not matter what trial or inquest took place, those people were taken out and Mrs. Thatcher knows that and the Irish and the British know that. Some British people are prepared to condone that type of justice but the average person in the North and in the South of Ireland — certainly nine out of ten — are totally convinced that the British have a structure of military operation who believe it is expedient to take out undesirables. One would be a hypocrite to say other than that the British sent people to take out those undesirables who were in Gibraltar and elsewhere. Mr. John Stalker was taken off the case. They have a way of administering justice that we have very little confidence in and that is a big part of the problem.

Mrs. Thatcher is aware that everyone in Ireland is not a gombeen and she was right to become furious because she is shifting the tide in politics. However, I would not lie awake at night over the British Prime Minister getting furious.

Over the past 20 years many people in the North and in the South have expressed their concern and offered advice — some have even risked their lives. I would put forward one theory which I believe has played a part, and that is economic neglect of the North of Ireland. I have claimed consistently that since the disbandment of the Assembly in the North there has been economic devastation of the Border area. I have no long written submission or lengthy dossier. I have a simple approach and a simple knowledge of the situation in the North. I have a page to hand and I will give a copy of it with my compliments to the Minister. It indicates that there is a black area in the North.

Senator Ryan talked about what was happening in Strabane. The tragedy is that Strabane has the highest percentage of unemployed people in Europe. You cannot have the highest percentage of unemployed people anywhere without paying a price, and that is a hopelessness among young people. The statistics I have given to the Minister are based on 1981 figures and they have become much more serious since then. It is now admitted that Strabane and Derry have the highest percentage of unemployed people in Europe and those who are administering from Westminister have to recognise that they have not contributed a fair share to its development and prosperity. They have starved those areas and that is providing a breeding ground, an environment and a social structure for the IRA and the paramilitaries to survive.

First, the British have not allowed politics to work and, second they have economically devastated the area. West of the Bann there is little or no development. There are a number of development associations and development boards but at the end of the day the only industries that are encouraged to set up west of the Bann are high risk industries that do not last under local political pressures. I hope that one day some sane people responsible for the affairs in the North will recognise that there will have to be restructuring of the community and thus give the people a decent way to earn a living without queueing up at a dole office. They have destroyed the soul, and the future hopes of young boys and girls in that area. The school-leaver has no chance other than to emigrate. Is it any wonder then that those people revolt and join paramilitary organisations?

I would say discussing a motion on Northern Ireland is an opportunity for the House to say that the IRA and those who follow it are going nowhere, that politics must be made to work in the North and that there must be an economic input in the affairs of the North. I ask that this House recommend to Mary-field, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to consider improving the economic lot of those young people who might yet be encouraged to turn away from violence and to believe that there is a future in their time. After 20 years it is very difficult for young people to have any hope that their area will produce a reasonable and happy environment to live in.

The situation in the North has caused serious devastation to my county, Donegal. I have already mentioned how it has affected tourism and the average industrialist who comes into the country. No matter how difficult it is to attract industry to counties Mayo, Clare, Sligo or Tipperary, there is an added difficulty when you have to escort a prospective business developer around the Border area. If he flies into Dublin or Belfast he will travel by motor car to inspect the prospective site. After a little while he senses the situation and he is not encouraged. Sadly, I make that statement. We have had many potential developers who were not encouraged and who disappeared nicely into the background. That is what the troubles are doing not only for the Six Counties but for other counties including my own. Counties Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth have also been affected. The map has shown up these areas and it was not prepared by somebody who had a political case to present for or against the future of the North. The statistics, the figures and the coloring of the map were arrived at by people who were doing an honest exercise. It is an economically black area and it must be tackled. It cannot be left in abeyance without paying a price and the price is that it leaves young people without hope to go forward.

At the end of the day, when we are finished and when everybody has made his contribution there will be many different theories. There is a theory which was advanced by a Unionist representative recently. He went to some member of the SDLP and said "What are you worried about? Some 54 per cent of the 12-year-olds are Catholics. In eight years time you should vote us out of it". However, that will not happen because there will be emigration. He said that some issue will come up and it will happen perhaps not in eight or 12 years but in about 16 years. Would it not be a tragedy if his forecast was right and Catholics in the North had to get a majority before the problems could be resolved? If that is the kind of hope we project what would we achieve? We would achieve a similar situation to the one we have but with the scales balanced the other way.

I would never get carried away about this because I know many people and whatever their religious persuasion they are also hard-headed business people. We must negotiate to ensure the future of this country. The people in the North, whether they are Protestant or Catholic, will have to survive in a tough, hard Europe. The people in the North have more in common with those in the South. This was brought home to me very forcibly yesterday when I attended a conference of the Community in respect of peripheral maritime regions. We had about 70 delegates from Wales and Scotland. It was organised by the British. This organisation is a think-tank for the EC and submits programmes and policies to it. It was extraordinary to see that the British mainland was very concerned and that Wales and Scotland were heavily represented but there was no concern about Northern Ireland. They, as a peripheral area, were not represented, there was no voice to speak for them. Every time I look at it I say that the interests of the hardline Protestant in the North will be better served the day that Ireland is united as a country and as a people.

Mr. Robb

Hear, hear.

Mr. McGowan

Britain does not care a lot about Ireland. It is a bloody nuisance to them. That was abundantly evident long ago. A few things are crystal clear and our elected representatives must tell them to the British, clearer and clearer and louder and louder until they are heard. There is no confidence in the British administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Honest, reasonable people in the North have said to me: "How the hell could we believe in British justice in Northern Ireland when you have the Justice walking on 12 July at the front of the Orange Order parade?" It cannot be done and never will be done until they sort themselves out and are honest, open and fair.

Our technology and our communications systems are improving all the time. Those who are living with the cave mentality are losing out and will lose out. The British have a responsibility. They created the situation in the North and they have a major responsibility to resolve it. We also have a major responsibility and that is to negotiate with the British. Whether or not their Prime Minister or anybody else gets hot under the collar, we are not to be misled. We know where the real problems lie. The problems are with the British. They are leading the people in the North down a road with nothing at the end of it. At the end of the day, when lives are lost and opportunities are lost, the British will have to negotiate and the hardliner in the North, whether he is Protestant or Catholic, will have to negotiate. There is no other way. I would welcome the day if we had a programme of joint development where if, say, Harland and Wolff were in big danger we could join them as partners and help them to sustain employment in the North for Protestants and Catholics and if we could get involved jointly in, say, gas exploration and put forward joint ventures that would give employment to young people.

We must get on to this track. We must defeat the paramilitaries. We must defeat those who are hell-bent on using politics and religion to cover up for their own lack of ability to do something positive. We must not be misled by Mrs. Thatcher or anybody else. Britain is hoping that the North will go away. They are not going to do very much about it. It will not go away. All we can do is to encourage our Government to be constant and consistent. There are enough good people on this island, North and South, to see that we all play our part in Europe. It is not a question of when the Border will go; it is when the people of the North and South unite to improve their lot on this island.

Mr. Ferris

As someone from Tipperary, it is appropriate that I have some input into this resolution which takes note of the events of recent days particularly which would affect Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations.

I appreciate and admire the contributions of Senators like Senator McGowan, who live on the Border and are faced daily with the problem as it pertains in that part of the country. I have the utmost respect for people like Senator Robb who comes from the other tradition, religious and political, and makes a contribution in this House. It is a lesson for all of us who have the comfort and privilege of being far removed from the political and other difficulties in the North of Ireland. I also speak for a party in this House which played a major role in the negotiations that led up to the Anglo-Irish Agreement through our party Leader, as Tánaiste of the day. We played a role in the Forum to which the Unionists were invited to attend and participate and which, in their wisdom or otherwise, they refused to do. The Forum led on to the Agreement called the Anglo-Irish Agreement which is a living breathing thing.

The Agreement, is not, and never was intended to be, an end in itself. It was conceived, designed and developed as a framework, a means to an end. Because of the confusion and ambiguity that surrounds different interpretations of the Agreement, it is necessary that we should remind ourselves of that fact. To listen to some remarks being made by different people in this debate and throughout the country, it is possible to reach the conclusion that the Agreement is somehow going to be dumped or abandoned. That is an alarmist and unnecessary conclusion to reach. First, even if he wanted to, it is not possible for the Taoiseach to abrogate the Agreement just as it is not possible for Mrs. Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, to abrogate the Agreement. It is an international treaty, registered at the United Nations and there is no clause in it which makes it possible for either side to walk away from it.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Taoiseach wants to walk away from this Agreement. He has given no indication whatsoever to that effect. In fact, earlier this year, the Taoiseach asked the Dáil to reaffirm its commitment to the aims and objectives to the Agreement. It is naive to expect the Taoiseach to cling to the Agreement with the same sense of commitment as those that developed it, including the leader of my party, because the Taoiseach was not involved in the first place. One must give credit where it is due and it is only fair to point out that there has been no deviation from the principle of adherence to the international agreement since this Government took office.

Thirdly, the Agreement is not the vital thing. What is vital is the set of objectives the Agreement set out. The principal objectives are the need to develop the unique relationship between the people of these islands and the close co-operation between the two countries. This is a matter that was referred to by Senator McGowan. It is imperative to diminish divisions in Northern Ireland and achieve lasting peace and stability. There is a need to reconcile and acknowledge the rights of the two major traditions that exist in Ireland today, recognising that a condition of reconciliation and dialogue involves mutual recognition and acceptance by each community of the rights and heritage of the other. There is need to ensure an acceptance throughout the community that violence does not represent any way forward and to ensure that there is a society in the North that is free from discrimination and intolerance. Those are some of the objectives of the Agreement.

If one examines the performance of the Government by reference to these objectives as fairly and objectively as possible, it must be said that the performance measures up reasonably well. There are certainly few grounds for seeking to dismantle an all-party approach to the difficult questions surrounding the North. They are not to be found in the performance of the present Government. To be sure, there are grounds for criticism of poor tactical judgments in relation to some issues that have come up but in overall terms — it is appropriate to put it on the record of the House — I do not find any grounds for accusing the Taoiseach in the extreme way that many of his critics have in recent times.

It must be said that the deterioration in Anglo-Irish relations, notwithstanding the Agreement, is not of the Taoiseach's making. The extraordinary insensitiveness shown by the British Government and the ineptness of its handling has been met on our side with firmness and pragmatism. This brings me to a point that has been covered by several Senators and that is the insensitive and provocative statements made by the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher and the insensitive and libellous statements made by some segments of the British press in connection with the case involving a constituent of mine. I was pleased to learn that litigation is likely to arise with some segments of the British media in relation to the Father Ryan case. It was unfortunate to listen to the extraordinary contributions of Members of the House of Commons in Britain who raised their voices in this criticism of us.

Mr. Robb

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ferris

They still want to treat us as if we were not a sovereign State in our own right. I resent that as a democratic politician who has for years condemned the Provisional IRA and everything they stand for and who has tried to improve relations between our two countries because we are so dependent on one another. It behoves all of us to be responsible at this time. That responsibility also lies with the British Government. The criticism made by the British Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons was made on a day when that country and that Prime Minister were found guilty by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to their legislation in connection with the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Who are they to preach at us, a sovereign State, about what procedures we have in place or what procedures we follow or do not follow in a particular case?

Do they forget that we have not short memories in regard to their actions and the actions of their Government in connection with the Stalker affair, the report therefrom and the fact that no action was taken? If the case was reversed there might be some criticism levelled at us. What happened when a British soldier was found guilty of murder in a court procedure? He had his sentence remitted after 18 months and he was then reinstated in the same army in which he committed the murder. What kind of confidence can anybody in this country have in an administration that allows that to happen? What about the performance of the British army or its agents in Gibraltar which has been referred to and the additional documentation that has been presented by Deputy Dick Spring, Leader of the Labour Party, relating to that affair?

That is why all clear thinking people question and worry about extradition. I can understand why there is so much resentment within the Government party about their having a hand, act or part to do with extradition. People do not have a sense of confidence that in the British jurisdiction, in their legal procedures, Irish people will receive a fair trial. That is unfortunate because Britain always prided itself on being fair and above reproach. Unlike ourselves, they do not have a written constitution to protect the rights of individuals. We do and our laws reflect these rights to the best of our ability, even in emergencies. That is why when in cases such as the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Winchester case, the Maguire case and other cases which were not the subject of extradition proceedings but were the subject of British justice, evidence was produced which proved that these people were innocent, the system was not geared to allow for terms of reference for appeal hearings to be heard. These people are particularly concerned that their only hope nowadays is to depend on the discretion of the Secretary of State to grant a pardon when he has finished going through whatever legal procedures have been laid down. That is the only reason people are worried about extraditing Irish citizens, particularly where as in Fr. Ryan's case, the warrant was so all-embracing as to cover conspiracy to murder people unknown.

We have agreed arrangements with other European countries, as civilised sovereign States, to deal with terrorists as they should be dealt with. Why should a government who were condemned by the European Court condemn us because we want to put in place procedures that we arranged by way of legislation when the Extradition Bill was being debated? I say that in the knowledge that there are eminent lawyers in Britain who are being quoted publicly and who have not refuted their statements. One of them is Lord Denning who is considered to be a senior legal figure in Britain. I quote from page 27 of a book published by Derek Dunne on the Birmingham Six in which Lord Denning says:

It is better that some innocent people should remain in prison than that the system of justice be brought into disrepute.

That is what worries me about why we should in any way facilitate the sovereign state of Britain by extraditing people who may not receive a fair trial. I am saying this as somebody who has condemned on numerous occasions the activities of the Provisional IRA and I have no qualms of conscience for doing so.

Legislation put in last year which we tried to amend on 7 December, 1987, in the Seanad when we moved an amendment which would put in place a procedure which would require the Government or the applying Government to have a prima facie case established which could be heard publicly in court where the warrants would be made public and where the accused would have a facility to defend himself. That was a tightening up of the procedure to protect the accused in the knowledge that all accused are innocent until proven guilty but the Government, in their wisdom, decided to reject that amendment. I am a democrat and I accept that in a voting procedure in this House that amendment was rejected.

We gave a specific role to the Attorney General which is now enshrined in legislation. We must allow the proper procedures to take place in relation to all cases that come before him, and that includes the Fr. Ryan case. That is now with the Attorney General and he has the statutory responsibility to consider all the evidence. As far as we understand, that evidence is similar to what the Belgian Parliament and Government rejected because they could not justify the warrants under Belgian law. The same should apply here.

If I followed that line of argument I would be removing from the Attorney General his independence, laid down by law to look at the case. I have no doubt that he will look at it in the light of what has been said in Belgium and by us as responsible parliamentarians. He will look at the fact that the British media have made it almost impossible for anybody to be tried under that type of warrant. It is an emotive warrant and it is most insensitive of the British Prime Minister to carry on this campaign of intimidation in relation to our procedures, whether they are the Attorney General's procedures, legal procedures, judicial procedures or the procedures of this Government as laid down in law. That is our message for Mrs. Thatcher.

We will do our business as we see fit. Our performance and commitment in this area is something that Mrs. Thatcher should not readily take on as one of her pet hobby horses because everybody does not kow-tow to her. We are not all wrong and she is not the only one who is right in this area. People who have since been proven innocent and who are still in jail, have to depend on the graciousness of the pardon of her Secretary of State. That is the only reason there is any problem about extradition in the mind of many people in Ireland. I do not know of anybody who condones the harbouring of criminals or those involved in terrorism, the Provisional IRA bombings, the killing of innocent people or anything else. If any legislation can be used to stop that, be it the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill or anything else, let us implement it and use it, but while there is any doubt in our minds about the commitment to justice as we understand it and the rights of the individual, let us be very wary.

Anyone who feared that there would be a wilder response from this Government led by the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, has so far little grounds to justify that fear. One must regard the continuing seizure of arms and the diligence of the Garda in hunting down terrorists as showing that there is a commitment to cross-Border security and that this has not been diminished by any of these events, even if some of the atmosphere of trust has been dissipated. The cause of that dissipation of trust has certainly come from the British side only, particularly in relation to Fr. Paddy Ryan's proposed extradition.

The atmosphere generated by many speakers from the Fine Gael side and other people in this debate has been caused by Deputy Haughey's apparent ambiguity of attitude to devolution. This ambiguity, though nothing new, is hard to understand. The Taoiseach has never indicated in the past any commitment to devolution as a long term solution and it is hardly to be expected that he should undergo a sudden conversion of this question. Neither does the Agreement impose any obligations on him to put forward devolution as a solution to this problem. The Agreement describes devolution as the policy of the British Government which the Irish Government supported. The role envisaged in the Agreement for the Irish Government in respect of devolution is to be able to put forward proposals in respect of the ways and means in which devolution might be brought about to ensure that the interests of the minority community would be fully protected.

Clearly, the authors of the Agreement of which Deputy Spring, Leader of the Labout Party was one, did not see fit at the time to write into the Agreement that devolution was the policy to which both Governments were committed. No political party in the republic, to my knowledge, see devolution as the only, or necessarily the best way of bringing about a long term solution in the North of Ireland. No political party to my knowledge has argued that a solution entirely confined to the North of Ireland represents any kind of long term solution at all. Looked at in this light, the Taoiseach has not said anything either new or particularly controversial on this subject.

The question of devolution, of course, is bound up with the issue of power sharing. Northern Unionists have not ruled out either notion in their recent responses to the Agreement. Deputy Haughey has offered to meet Unionist leaders in any forum they suggest and to meet them without preconditions, that is to say, with an open mind. He knows that if he meets them they will want to talk about devolution. He knows that any proposal they put forward will have to recognise the reality of power sharing. In offering to meet them with an open mind, he is saying clearly that he is willing to listen to ideas about devolution and about power sharing. He is saying that he is willing to go as far as possible to ensure that their aspirations and ambitions, and their rights as a community, are accommodated. No other interpretation is possible from the invitation that the Taoiseach has issued to Northern Unionists.

I do not believe there is any party in the Republic committed to peace and dialogue who can take issue with this invitation from the Taoiseach. The task of Opposition politicians in the Republic should be to see that he honours that invitation and that he means it in the spirit I have outlined. Unionists know, as does everyone else, that the Agreement cannot be walked away from. That is why some of them at least have moderated their demands to cover the operation of the Anglo-Irish Conference rather than the Agreement as a whole.

As it happens, it is the operation of the Conference that is under review at present, although some people think it is the whole Agreement. I do not believe it is beyond the ingenuity of both Governments, if there is a will to do so, to ensure in the context of that review that the structures of the Conference are developed to a point where it does not inhibit further dialogue with Unionist opinion. Clearly then, any review must ensure that it remains possible for the interests of the minority community to be fully and effectively represented. That can be done, I feel sure, in a way that Unionist opinion can live with. A dialogue with Unionists based on the recognition of the equal right they share with the Nationalist community is the major prerequisite for further progress. All the signs are that Unionism is ready for that dialogue. All the signs are there that the Irish Government are willing to understand it. No obstacle should be erected in the way of that dialogue.

When Deputy Dick Spring spoke in New York last summer about the Anglo-Irish Agreement he said that it was a time when it was worth taking risks to make progress. It appeared from the reaction to that speech generated at that time that there were still many politicians who would rather cling to entrenched positions than look forward, even if looking forward might lead to a greater chance of reconciliation among the two communities in the North. Some of the reaction to what he said bordered on the hysterical. One newspaper headline, for instance, suggested that he was calling for the removal of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That, of course, is nonsense. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is the most important instrument to have emerged in the developing relations between Britain and Ireland since the foundation of this State and to remove it or to weaken it would be an unforgiveable act.

When people talk about the Anglo-Irish Agreement they frequently refer to the effect it has on the ground in Northern Ireland or in terms of the effect it has on cross-Border security. There is a tendency to judge the Agreement and to assess its achievements or failures by reference to these criteria alone. Sometimes the major historical achievement of the Agreement is overlooked with this kind of analysis. The day the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed the British Government, for the first time in the history of our relationship, agreed in an internationally promulgated agreement to withdraw from Ireland. There was a condition, of course, and that condition was that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland would wish for, and formally consent to, the establishment of a United Ireland to which all of us aspire in the Twenty-six Counties. This affirmation by the British Government is now enshrined as an instrument formally lodged with the United Nations and neither the British nor the Irish Government can unilaterally walk away from it.

It is worth repeating what I said earlier on this subject: they cannot walk away from it even if they wanted to in the context of this review which has now begun. This is a common misunderstanding about this review and it appears to exist even in the minds of those who should know better. The review is not a review of the Agreement. The historic affirmation I have just referred to still remains intact, even when this review is completed. So will the scope of the Agreement, so will its aims and objectives. The review will examine the workings of the Intergovernmental Conference, no more and no less. To talk of dismantling the Agreement for this reason, like some Unionists have done, is arrant nonsense. Anyone who has read the Agreement should know this.

The Agreement did more, of course, than just enshrine a commitment to withdraw. It created a real and meaningful role for the Government of Ireland in the conduct of affairs in the North of Ireland. I know some Unionists resent this, but this was one of the major achievements of the Agreement, that for the first time we could involve ourselves in the conduct of affairs that concern Northern Ireland particularly in relation to the minority community. That rule was, and is, carried out through the staff members of the Secretariat and through bilateral contacts at ministerial level, as well as through the regular meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is clear that no Government of the Republic could or should consent to the diminution of that role. Even the present Government, who spend a considerable amount of time and energy attacking that position in which the Agreement placed us, appear at least to be coming to the realisation of the value of the role that this Agreement has given them.

We cannot blind ourselves to the fact that progress in many areas has been slow and painful. We cannot ignore that fact that violence continues unabated, particularly the bestial violence of the IRA. We cannot forget that when major difficulties in Anglo-Irish relations emerge or are caused in the main by arrogant and insensitive actions and utterances by the British establishment, as has happened in the case of Father Ryan, that the structures of the Anglo-Irish Agreement were unable to help in bringing these difficulties to a satisfactory conclusion. That is the medium that we should be using to deal with any criticisms that might come at us from the British institutions.

As I said earlier, it is undeniable that the Agreement has forced Unionists to come to terms with reality after spending a year in the belief, which has now turned out to be a delusion, that the Agreement could be brought down by the bully-boy tactics of many Unionists as happened in the past. They have failed and they have now been forced to analyse their position more coldly and more realistically than they have ever done in the past. Many of them have come to the belief that there is no future in just "no surrender" or isolation. That does not mean that they are now willing to countenance a united Ireland. To believe that would be totally unrealistic of us but many of them are willing, perhaps for the first time, to discuss the breaking down of these barriers. Dialogue now might hold the key to a major step forward. We want dialogue but we have to do more than just talk about it. We have to do something to facilitate it. We all know that it would take a great deal to generate the trust and goodwill that will be necessary if dialogue is to succeed, or even if it is to be sustained for a reasonable period so that people on all sides can come to see the merit in talking.

That is why people like Deputy Spring believe — and I believe with him — that we should not be afraid to go further than we have done in the past. Deputy Spring suggested — and what he suggested was being modest, even though specific — that in the context of an non-equivocal statement by Unionists about their attitude to power sharing that the Irish Government should agree to a suspension for a predetermined and limited period of time of the Secretariat — not the Agreement, not the Conference, only the Secretariat. That was a specific commitment and statement by the party leader. It had a time scale. It required a reciprocal response from the Unionists. The proposal did not imply in any way that bilateral contacts between staff or between Ministers should cease. It did not imply that issues of concern to Nationalists should not be raised and dealt with. Neither did it imply any lack of faith in the aims and objectives of the Agreement in the overall sense. The reason for making that proposal was a very simple one. Its purpose was to create the window, where dialogue could take place in an atmosphere of greater trust.

The reason for limiting the time would be precisely to counter the suspicion expressed by some people that suspension would be seen by some Unionists as a victory, and that they would redouble their efforts to have the whole Agreement dismantled. In effect what the Irish Government would be saying to Unionists if they were to agree to these proposals which I have outlined would be: for the next six months you will not have what you have described as the spectre of Maryfield hanging over you. We are taking this step because we do not want to have discussions with you under duress. We want to talk to you on the basis of equality, respecting your position and your commitment to your views. We want to show you we are serious about dialogue. We want to give you the opportunity to demonstrate your own seriousness.

That is the central issue, the issue of whether people are serious. It is up to us who care about peace and human life to flush out those who are phoney about this issue — the godfathers of the IRA, whom Senator McGowan referred to as wondering what they had achieved. They have achieved wealth beyond some of their wildest dreams because they have cashed in on the nationalism and the beliefs of genuine people in the South of Ireland about a united Ireland. We should flush out these phoney people on this issue. There are some other phoney people who are just content to talk about dialogue but in their heart of hearts are not prepared to take even the first step towards creating a framework for this dialogue. Above all, we have to seek to find out whatever serious intention is there and to build on it.

John Hume, for instance, is clearly one of those who is prepared to take risks for peace. He took an enormous personal risk in the dialogue he undertook with the Provisional Sinn Féin. Clearly, he did it in the interests of peace. For my part I was desperately disappointed he did not succeed, for his own sake and for the sake of peace. He may not have reaped the glory that would have gone with success, but many of us will remember for a long time the courage he displayed in undertaking that risk. He said last week if there was now a new civil rights movement in the North of Ireland the greatest enemies would be the Provisional IRA and the Sinn Féin who talk about democracy on one hand and then try to ensure that there is no democracy for anybody else who does not hold the same beliefs as they do about using bullets to achieve whatever progress they want.

The type of courage that John Hume has shown to the other community in the North is a courage that could often be matched here and has not been matched to the same degree. We have all endeavoured to be courageous in this area. We have been threatened and intimidated by all sorts of people on all sides of us, left and right, about how we are going or what role we are trying to play in a very sensitive area of North of Ireland relations, our relations with the majority population and our relations with our nearest neighbour, the Government of Great Britain.

We cannot wait until the Unionist population is browbeaten into talks. Their rights to self-determination through the political process must be regarded as co-equal — at least co-equal — with that of the Nationalists. Even it that were likely to happen in my political lifetime, what kind of victory would that be? In the words of other eminent people who had spoken on this subject, what joy is there for any of us to bomb a million Protestants into the sea in order to achieve the political reunification of this country? The only victory I want to see is the victory for the people of the North of Ireland and that day will come when they all have an equal say in the shaping of their own future in peace and with the prospect of prosperity. If politicians have to go out on a limb at times to try to move that one step closer to that kind of victory well then surely, that step is worth taking. I have no doubt that this House would be supportive of steps taken with that ideal in mind.

Professor Hillery

In the course of this short contribution I want to focus on three aspects of Irish Government policy in relation to Northern Ireland, namely, condemnation of violence, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and dialogue with Unionists. I want also to make some comments on the current sensitive issue of extradition.

With regard to the condemnation of violence, it should go without saying that it is not necessary to make any comments here at all about it, but from time to time questions are asked as to whether we in the Republic are doing all we can to combat violence and whether we have the resolve to deal with violence. The Government have repeatedly called for an end to campaigns of violence in Northern Ireland. They have condemned the use of violence not only as abhorrent in itself but as counter-productive to the stated aims of the perpetrators.

The Tánaiste in his address to the United Nations in September 1987 said, and I quote:

Such actions do not bring closer but postpone the day when unity based on reconciliation can take place in Ireland.

The Taoiseach, in the same vein, in his statement of 3 August of this year said, and I quote:

This violence is particularly deplorable in the present context when hopes of political progress are being encouraged. It can do nothing to bring about a solution to the tragic problems of Northern Ireland.

There are words, but the Government have matched them with money in the sense that the Government commitment, at a time when cutbacks are common throughout the country, meant that no less than £172 million was spent on Border security in 1988. This is four times higher per capita expenditure than the British population spent in the same task.

This commitment again was underlined by the Taoiseach in his statement in the Dáil in the debate on Northern Ireland on 17 February 1988 when he said, and I quote:

Our commitment in this area is freely given in the common interests of society, North and South, to ensure that the forces of terrorism, whether of domestic or of international origin, will not prevail.

I now want to turn to the Anglo-Irish Agreement which is one of the more hopeful innovations in North-South relations at present and in Anglo-Irish relations. The Fianna Fáil Government, from the day they took office, committed themselves to a full and vigorous use of the agreement. The Taoiseach, in addressing the National Press Club in Australia in July 1988 said the following:

On coming into office my Government declared their intention to use the Agreement to the full to promote reform, bring about an improvement of the situation for the people of Northern Ireland and promote peace and stability.

One of the main strengths of the Agreement is that it provides a forum for dialogue, a joint approach to the problems affecting both parts of the country and a framework within which difficult issues can be discussed, including the search for political consensus and progress that we all need so badly. It provides an opportunity for the representatives in the Anglo-Irish Conference to develop a working relationship, at times under stressful conditions, but an opportunity nonetheless for each side to listen and understand each other's point of view.

When we talk about relationship, the quality of it is of key importance. It is a vital element in political progress. In that context I would like to pay tribute to the Tánaiste, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who has brought his exceptional political skills and experience to bear on the work of the Conference and added to that the well-known humanity which characterises all his political work. One of the more important articles in the Agreement spells out the right of the Irish Government to put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference. It goes on to say that determined efforts shall be made through the Conference to resolve any differences. It is a highly commendable institution and I am of the firm belief that it should stay exactly in place.

When the present review of the Anglo-Irish Conference is completed I hope that it will provide a further impetus to political progress in Northern Ireland. From 1988 to date, contrary to the criticism that has been made by earlier speakers, there have been nine meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference — the highest in any year since its inception — and a further one is scheduled very shortly for early December. The Conference has provided the forum for a discussion of a very wide range of issues. In addition to maintaining pressure on issues such as the administration of justice and relations between the security forces and the Nationalist community, the present Government have put a strong emphasis on economic and social issues as well, including the need for tougher fair employment legislation and the need to tackle economic deprivation in West Belfast.

It is not true to say, as claimed by an earlier speaker, that Fianna Fáil's position is one of inaction on Northern Ireland. That is not so. There have been some advances in the past few years. New fair employment legislation is anticipated next year and a £10 million action programme for West Belfast was recently announced by the British Government. Some progress can also be noted in the administration of justice with the end to supergrass trials and in the performance of the security forces. The marching season has been more effectively policed in the past few years and credit should be given for that.

However, there have been some very serious setbacks. For example, the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil on 17 February 1988 sets out in detail the Government's concern at the handling of the Stalker-Sampson report. The Government believed they should have been entitled, under the letter and spirit of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to be informed and consulted in advance of the British Attorney General's decision not to prosecute members of the RUC. The Stalker-Sampson issue is probably the one that bears most directly on the functioning of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. A current issue that is a source of considerable anxiety in Ireland has to do with the Guildford Four case. My belief — and I think it is widely shared — is that there is an overwhelming case to refer this to the Court of Appeal which is in the hands of and the discretion of the Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd.

Getting back to the IRA and the level of violence, clearly the removal of grievances is one of the most promising answers and responses to the level of violence. The Conference has a key role to play in that respect. Again acknowledging progress where it has been made, I want to commend the Minister of State, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, for the initiative he has taken in schools integration. Credit should be given for that, too.

Turning to dialogue with the Unionists, they are in a cul-de-sac, as Senator Robb said last week, but they have the potential to play a key role in peaceful political progress in the North. The Taoiseach has repeatedly stated his wish to hear from representatives of the Unionist tradition. He has reiterated his readiness for discussion without preconditions. While we in the Republic have a continuing obligation to give reassurances to the Nationalist population in the North, we must also reassure the Unionists. They have their fears, too. History has been a powerful force in shaping attitudes and behaviour, both within Northern Ireland, between North and South and between Ireland and Great Britain. The abolition of Stormont and the exclusion from the negotiations of the Anglo-Irish Agreement must have come as severe shocks for the Unionists. At the same time, it must be remembered that the minority community in the North have been longsuffering and frustrated, not just for the past 20 years but for centuries. The Unionist leadership say they will not contribute to the review process of the Anglo-Irish Conference. They see the Agreement as a vehicle designed for their destruction, which we do not believe to be the case.

The non-participation by the Unionists in the review of the Agreement underlines their anxiety and their fears. Having said that, circumstances have changed. For the first time this century the British Government challenged the traditional Unionist approach. In one way this change in British policy compounds Unionist fears. The leadership of the Unionists must take their followers out of the corner in which they are now positioned. They have a key role to play in a peaceful solution, which is something we all want. That we have in common. By engaging in dialogue with the Dublin Government without any preconditions, the Unionists have nothing to fear. They are not at risk. They can at least listen. The Government here have already made clear their commitment to respecting and upholding Unionist views and their identity.

Finally, I want to refer to the highly current and sensitive issue of extradition. We all know that extradition is an internationally accepted instrument in fighting serious crime and international terrorism. It is a sensitive matter, particularly as it applies to Ireland. The law on extradition as it now stands includes very important safeguards but there is a continuing need for the British Government to understand the sensitivity of matters relating to Northern Ireland in this country.

May I now specifically refer to the current issue of the Father Ryan case? Our Attorney General is obliged by law to examine the warrants submitted to him by the British over the weekend. That takes time and the last thing we need at present are the provocative remarks emanating from the British Parliament and the British press. Balanced politicians — and that is what we consider ourselves here — are very concerned about containing the emotional level. We want to see fair play acted out. The last thing we need are the provocative remarks which raise the emotional temperature and make it more difficult for responsible politicians to conduct normal relations. My advice, therefore, to the British is, "Cool it" and let the Attorney General fulfil his legal obligations at the necessary pace to fulfil that role.

More generally, leaving aside extradition, the British need to be constantly reminded that court cases like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four may be of peripheral interest to Britain but they are at the top of our political agenda here. It is essential that the British be sensitive to the impact which such cases have in Ireland. There is a history of mistrust between our countries and when you add to that trial by the gutter press in Britain when Irish people are being tried before British courts, that mistrust is fuelled much further.

In conclusion, when we debated the Anglo-Irish Agreement three years ago in the Seanad there was substantial alienation among the minority community in the North. Some progress has been made and it should be acknowledged. However much remains to be done especially in the administration of justice and in relations between the security forces and the community. People in Ireland, North and South, need to be convinced of the quality and fairness of British justice. After all, extradition is about treating people properly and giving them a fair trial. We have to be convinced that that is possible in the UK jurisdiction.

The review of the Anglo-Irish Conference now underway will examine the record to date. Let us hope that the review, despite present difficulties, will give a new impetus to the pace of change and political progress under the Agreement.

Mrs. Fennell

I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate. I was in the Dáil three years ago, a member of the last Administration when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was conceived and launched and no other political initiative could have had such sensitive and careful planning. At no other time can there have been such a concerted effort made to ensure that as broad agreement as possible was reached or to ensure that influential bodies were identified and involved in it. It was an indication of the deep concern felt and the keen intent of many people to make the Agreement work. All those concerned, politicians, public servants, diplomats and economists can be proud of that achievement. The two main political groups outside that consensus at that time were Fianna Fáil and the Unionist politicians. The Anglo-Irish Agreement came at a time when there was an all-time low morale in Northern Ireland, when the prospects for peace seemed barren and both terrorist activity and military involvement in the North had escalated.

The Agreement was very carefully drafted. Its intent and aim was to help the development of co-operation and political harmony. It was designed in time to crumble and, as a declaration, to become obsolete. No one seriously expected that it would result in quick, easy solutions. If in 60 years there have not been such easy solutions we could not expect one to happen that easily through the Agreement. But it has lasted through three years of Unionist bullying and Unionist rallies, through three years of dreadful atrocities of killings, through three years of potentially controversial times when events such as the Gibraltar killings and the Stalker-Sampson affair seriously strained communications between Britain and Ireland. Whatever differences of opinion emerged there was a forum for serious dialogue and political views could be exchanged and understanding, if not consensus, reached. This alone, I know, was an important achievement; the Anglo-Irish Conference, an end to the war of angry words or editorial diplomacy, with each Government having to maintain its position with public rebukes and retaliation.

The main architect of the Agreement, Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald, will, in time and history, be given credit for his role in Northern Ireland affairs. As Taoiseach, he lost no time in tackling what he saw as Ireland's greatest problem despite the fact that there were enormous economic problems facing the country at that time also. On 30 May 1983, only five months after coming into Government the New Ireland Forum was opened and he addressed all parties at that time, Nationalists, Unionists and all, calling members to start work with a completely open mind, to provide honest and sensible answers to the problems of Northern Ireland. Deputy Haughey, on that occasion reaffirmed his party's conditional position once more. Peace and stability, he said, could only be secured by withdrawal of British military and political presence in Northern Ireland and the only lasting solution could only be in the context of Irish unity.

We could not have had the Anglo-Irish Agreement without the work of the New Ireland Forum and its report. Deputy Haughey remained unconvinced that there could be other ways of resolving differences than by British withdrawal. This attitude, and the many Fianna Fáil speeches stressing a united Ireland as the only — or almost only — option have weakened the possibilities for the Agreement. Their credibility to operate it is questioned because they do not sincerely believe in its strength. Their ability and willingness to negotiate it is suspect. If we reflect for a moment on the possibility — remote, I admit — that Fianna Fáil would have given support and full co-operation and agreement to those two initiatives, the Forum and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, what would the situation in this island now be if all parties in this part of Ireland were to be united in every way in securing agreement and understanding with the two communities in the North? Not truly having that consensus, not being able to rely on the unequivocal approach, has left room for other factions, whether hardline Unionists, British politicians or the IRA, to exploit our differences down here.

What now for the Agreement? Although we value it, we should not regard it as in the form of tablets of stone, as permanent and not capable or worthy of change. There must come a time when we can truly evaluate its usefulness and, if necessary, look for an alternative structure. If there is a serious commitment for Unionists to be involved in such a change this will need the enthusiasm and the imagination of all, not least the present Government and the Fianna Fáil Party. For us now there is no standing still on the question of Northern Ireland. Even if terrorist activities were lulled and there appeared to be a calm it would not be enough to let it happen and hope that real peace would grow.

The Northern Ireland or Anglo-Irish problem is the most grave problem facing this country. I know that the men and women in the street may not see it in this way. In fact, the North would probably come as a very low priority for the vast majority whose main preoccupations at this time are unemployment, income tax and emigration. Nonetheless, the North is the backbone of Irish politics. We cannot go forward with total confidence to plan our future and structure our economy as long as we have to keep looking over our shoulders at security spending, conscious that at any time violence could flare up and the killings and bombings happen again.

This generation has an obligation to work towards security and reconciliation. There can be no solution if it merely means storing the guns, the black berets and the masks for another day and another generation. That has been too often a feature in our history. Northern Ireland is our biggest political question but it is important that we do not allow ourselves to become Anglophobic because of it. This, I believe, has afflicted some in this part of the island, indeed some in this House.

The fact is that for Britain the Northern Ireland question is only one item and, although an irritant and a nuisance, we are not a very major or important item in the total context of British politics. Of course, the British Government would like to resolve the Northern question but they can afford to take their time, and put it on the sideline while they get on with more important issues, as they see them, and this is something we have to constantly keep in mind. We must not allow our reactions to events that are not quite to our liking to be intemperate and hasty. We must not give the same gut, shallow and unthought responses as we see in the British tabloid press. The recent outbursts of the British Prime Minister over the Ryan extradition is a case in point. What right has Margaret Thatcher to dictate so stridently to us? Sometimes she acts as if she still had the British colonies and we were one of them. Our response should be measured and calm.

Neither should we be manipulated into situations, as can so often happen, in which we are waging the Provisional IRA's propoganda war. At the end of the day, they are the core of the problem. They are the blight of our time. They are the vultures of this land, feeding off disadvantage and discrimination and operating a murder machine that can find no equal in the most violent conflicts in the world. They have committed every atrocity possible, killed workers because they did not heed a warning not to work for a particular person or company; shot down fathers and mothers before their own children; they have murdered people coming to church; they have murdered people while burying their dead and commemorating their dead. Then they speak about rights, civil and human rights. In a long article in The Irish Times on 3 October 1988 Gerry Adams discussed the kind of rights he would like to see. This comes as cynical rhetoric from a man and an organisation that delivers its rights through the gun and the bomb.

In his contribution to the Northern Ireland debate in the Dáil, the Fine Gael Leader, Alan Dukes, spelled out the action he would like to see from this Government. His proposals were three; they were, first, that the two Governments should now state explicitly, in accordance with Article IV of the Agreement, that they are determined to make devolution a reality; secondly, that each of the two Governments should institute consultations with the constitutional political parties in each jurisdiction before each meeting of the Conference and, thirdly, to examine the economic and social implications of 1992 North and South within the framework of the Conference. A further proposal was to set the Conference meetings on a formal schedule with perhaps ten or 12 fixed meetings a year. These are basic, sensible proposals and if enacted could set the Agreement on a new more positive course. The Anglo-Irish Conference must not be allowed to exist only to deal with tensions as they arise. There must be a natural relationship, and acceptable programme, long-term plans and goal-setting, such as has been proposed by the Leader of Fine Gael.

Regrettably, what we now have in Northern Ireland after 20 years of conflict is a polarised society, with each side lacking trust in the other and further generations growing up with memories of killing and brutality done in the name of religion or unity. So bad is it that Dr. Cathal Daly, Bishop of Down and Conor, said on 26 November at the funeral of Gerard Slane who was killed by the UDA that an extra security barrier was needed to divide the Falls and the Shankhill Roads. That a man as committed and involved as Bishop Daly sees further barriers, more visible divisions, as necessary to attempt to keep order is a depressing thought for me. This is why a political solution is so vital and why all concerned must work at every level to achieve that political resolution.

Only meaningful political initiatives, new structures to which all can contribute and by so doing be parties to resolving divisions, will heal such a community divide. The solution now has got to come from the leaders. The responsibility on them cannot be over-estimated. It is essential that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland be our first priority. We must target their leaders to focus on their sense of grievance, determine to be friends, to be allies in building a lasting peace. A new relationship with Unionist politicians has got to be established from the South and there are small hopeful signs of this possibility. Their right to co-existence must be recognised and the dreadful losses and suffering they have endured in 20 years acknowledged.

This will have been a worthwhile debate if out of it comes one useful proposal or positive idea that is worth pursuing. Indeed, if words and speeches alone could solve the problem, Northern Ireland would no longer be in crisis, so much have the issues involved in Northern Ireland been articulated in 20 years. But words without clear, intentive action are useless. The people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so much already must be given the chance to shape a new horizon through the Anglo-Irish Conference to enable all to share in planning for this island's future.

Professor Murphy

I sat here last week and listened with incredulity to Senator Lanigan's speech. I waited in vain for some substance in his speech. I do not intend to insult the Leader of the House, but his speech was a collection of pathetic and fumbling platitudes. He spoke about his Government having open minds and opening doors but it would be much more appropriate if he had admitted honestly that they had empty minds on the subject. He talked about the separated brethern. Anyone who wants to dwell on the shallowness and hypocrisy of this phrase, as used by a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, has only to remember the actions of that party during the great debates of 1983 and 1986 when the most fundamental issues of Church and State, of Catholic nationalism, of the separation of politics and morality were on the agenda, and they reneged. What was even worse, they pretended in the divorce debate to be neutral whereas, in fact, they were entirely on the side of conservatism. So, in my view, for someone in Fianna Fáil to talk about his separated brethren is a piece of superficial flapdoodle.

You would not want to be a particularly neurotic Unionist to listen to Senator Lanigan and to immediately say that this is spider-and-the-fly stuff, open doors, a round table waiting for you. I would not trust the Fianna Fáil Party's policy in the North as far as Dundalk. This is the party which cynically hijacked the New Ireland Forum when at the end of the day, the option of a unitary State was picked by the Leader of that party with total cynicism, with the total knowledge that this was simply not on, and with the result that the whole work of the New Ireland Forum lost that measure of credibility. This is the background against which we have to put Senator Lanigan's speech, that infamous behaviour, that infamous continuity of lack of interest or exploitation of the Northern issue for party political purposes. We have not forgotten that.

The public memory is very short. We have to remind ourselves of what happened two or three years ago. Does anybody recall, for example, a television commercial in the 1973 election at a time when there was, I suppose, almost maximum violence and suffering in the North, Fianna Fail's contribution to the aspect of Northern policy in the course of that election was to put on a television commercial which contrasted a blazing and suffering Derry with a scene of pastoral tranquility in the South. What was the population supposed to infer from that commercial? "Vote Fianna Fáil and we will keep you out of this mess." That was the measure of their contribution to peace in this island in the most critical period of the early seventies.

I would not mind if they had reformed their ways but there is no evidence that they have progressed at all, judging by Senator Lanigan's speech. To be honest, it is not fair to blame Senator Lanigan. He is the man on whom the affairs of State sit very heavily, a man beset by criticism in this House. I suppose it would be unfair to expect him to have the time, the leisure or the tranquillity to prepare any kind of a lengthy statement on policy. In the last analysis, he is simply reflecting his master's voice, with all its glib and insincere soundings on unitary State, failed political entity etc, etc.

Again, to remind us of the incredible nature of the lack of seriousness in Fianna Fáil's policy, does anyone recall the Taoiseach — perhaps he was not then Taoiseach — about two or three years ago being interviewed on This Week on RTE one Sunday? That was when he issued his seemingly plausible invitation to the Unionists to come and talk to him and he would “set their minds at rest”, as if somehow they had misunderstood everything and that all they needed was a good chat in the Taoiseach's office to solve the whole problem. It is no wonder Senator Lanigan was stuck for something to say. It is no wonder, again and again, he referred to British justice and British injustice. He referred to the famous mythical table, which is like some kind of Holy Grail — all we have to do is get around that table and all will be solved. In William Ewart Gladstone's day the illusion that the world's problems could be solved by meeting around the table was pardonable one could say but surely 100 years later it is too much to be listening to someone who thinks that all human problems will be solved by getting around the table. There is absolutely no historical evidence for that as a general principle.

Moving to Senator Manning's fine contribution, there is one point I want to pick out and underline. That is his assertion that the Department of Foreign Affairs does not like debates like this, that the Minister does not like them, that the civil servants in Iveagh House do no like them because they prefer to handle business as professionals. Senator Manning was perfectly right to point out the mandarinism of this approach which we should refuse to accept in all aspects of political business, the attitude that they know best and that we do not understand it fully. What compounds all of this secrecy and mandarinism is the fact that we have no Oireachtas committee on foreign policy. Some of us are in the course of constituting one informally but the Government adamantly refuse to sanction the establishment of such a committee which can be the only informed machinery through which we can contribute to debates of this kind in any sort of meaningful manner.

I move to the substance of the debate itself. I note that it refers to recent events affecting Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations, so the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not the only issue to be debated here. The motion gives us carte blanche to discusss the whole wide world, as it were, of Anglo-Irish relations, and God knows, they need to be discussed in the light of the last few days. Here, to take the heat off the Government for a moment and to dispel the criticism that I am here only to knock Fianna Fáil — incidentally I voted for them once or twice last week and poor thanks I get for it — let me put it on record that I regard the attitude of the British Government in these last days as absolutely crass in its ineptitude, in its insolence, in its assumption that the Act of Union is still in force in this country——

Senators

Hear, hear.

Professor Murphy

——in its arrogance ignoring not only that we have an independent sovereign jurisdiction here with a different modus operandi in legal matters but, in my view, the greatest crassness about the British attitude as expressed by the British Prime Minister is to ignore that we have the most sensitive situation on this island in terms of conflicting allegiances, in terms of historical memories tearing at peoples' allegiances so that the last 20 years have been a painful business of trying to re-educate public opinion in this country and for many of us it has gone against the grain. For me, many of the stands I have taken have gone against my tribal grain and then, to have ignorant British politicians ignoring the sensitivity of that situation, totally blind to the need to handle this situation most sensitively is too much to accept.

I speak as a member of the British-Irish Association which exists specifically to improve relations between our two States — which every sensible person must agree with — to dispel this negative and rancid anti-Britishness which passes in some quarters for patriotism. I speak, therefore, as a friend of the United Kingdom, as someone who has been stigmatised as a "West Brit". I propose this week to write to the Ambassador of the United Kingdom here, Mr. Nicholas Fenn, who is one of the best representatives of his country to be accepted in Ireland, and to remind him that this kind of conduct is unacceptable to us. It simply will not do. The answer is not that we must adjust our jurisdiction, our extradition methods, to their requirements. We have our own particular reasons for operating the way we do. That is why I took advantage today to express every confidence in the Attorney General in the statutory discharge of his duties and though the House did not have an opportunity to vote on that, I am nonetheless very sure a strong majority of Members hope that this is the way affairs will be conducted.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 30 Nov 1988

Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish Relations: Motion (Resumed).

Senators

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1988