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

The following motion was moved by Senator Lanigan on Thursday, 24 November 1988:

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

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-Con-ference 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.)

Professor Murphy

I am glad to be able to get away from the narrow ground of extradition and come back to the broader issues before us in this motion. The motion has the Anglo-Irish Agreement primarily in mind but it certainly does not exclude a wider discussion than that.

There are no grounds for either the pessimism or the hope that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will disappear because of the events of the last week or two. It has endured, it has withstood all kinds of threats and opposition and it is registered internationally. The architects of the Agreement laboured hard and long. It is not going to disappear overnight. One of the most significant things about the Agreement — let us remember three years on — is that, for the first time in the troubled relations of these islands, the British were prepared to register this Agreement internationally, to admit that they had a problem in their home ground which they were ready to share in some degree with us. It was the first time that the British were prepared to wash their dirty linen in the international laundry and it seems to me that was a highly significant achievement and one that is not going to disappear because of temporary troubles. Let us remember always how very much worse things would be without it. At the same time it is not written on tablets of stone. If it is to be replaced, it will be replaced by something better, by something, we hope, that will be based on the consensus of parties that were not consulted the first time round.

Fianna Fáil have honoured the Agreement and worked the Agreement but with little enthusiasm and with little initiative. The British for their part have not always honoured their promise to consult their partners. It is deplorable that they should have moved on such sensitive issues as the affirmation of nonviolence by candidates in elections, the issue of the abolition of the right to silence and the media ban on Sinn Féin and so on, without, apparently, consulting their colleagues in the Anglo-Irish Conference. There are faults on both sides and on the occasion of the review three years afterwards, each side should ask itself seriously what it expects from the Agreement.

Much of the trouble is because the British, and certainly Mrs. Thatcher, looked on the Agreement as something that would deliver on terrorism, which partly explains her fury over the Ryan incident, and the Irish and the SDLP looked on the Agreement as somehow a framework, an intermediate stage, and unspoken at the back of all those fine phrases was the idea that it would lead to a United Ireland. So, perhaps part of the trouble with the Agreement is that both sides are at odds on what they want from it.

We have to remind ourselves again, in these days of tension about Anglo-Irish relations, that the British have considerable trouble in giving any attention at all to the Irish question. It is a low priority with them, they cannot be bothered to take the trouble to understand the complex situation in Ireland. In the last several years I can recall only one sympathetic speech from a major British statesman. The Minister will recall that the British Foreign Minister, Geoffrey Howe, made a remarkably conciliatory speech in which he referred to the wrongs that had been done to Ireland in history and the need to understand the Irish mentality in the light of that. As I said yesterday, it is a great pity that Mrs. Thatcher herself does not take some history lessons and react accordingly. We have had little of that kind of sympathetic and positive reaction.

What is not 100 per cent clear either is what attitude the British really have towards their presence in this country. We know, of course, that they have disavowed any interest beyond keeping the peace and we know that British public opinion would certainly favour a withdrawal at some stage but then you see Mrs. Thatcher paying rather triumphalist visits to Northern Ireland and members of the Royal Family visiting their people, as it were. You never see the official British presence coming over and making gestures of sympathy with the Nationalist population. I think there is a residue there somewhere of some lingering imperial hankerings. I only hope they are not significant.

Talking about British public opinion, I only hope that people like Ms Clare Short, MP and other people involved in the Time to Go Movement are not taken seriously. It seems to me that if there is anything worse than the disdain of the high Tories and their dislike for Ireland, it is the do-gooding mentality of the Labour Left and their enthusiasm about a united Ireland as a solution. As I said on a public occasion not so long ago, we should be making novenas for the British to stay in Northern Ireland as long as it is necessary for them to do so because we certainly could not handle the consequences of withdrawal. Whatever shortcomings there are in the Agreement and whatever differences of opinion there are about the Agreement itself must be reconciled within the framework of the Agreement.

I expressed earlier on my own reservations about Fianna Fáil policy or non-policy on the North. I have to say, given their negative and destructive attitude to the Agreement when they were in Opposition in 1985, it is surprising how relatively well they have worked it since then. I suppose Fianna Fáil are the masters of real politik, the masters of pragmatism. We can be especially thankful to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, for his distinctly personal contribution to the working of the Agreement. It seems to me that the Tánaiste's personality has mitigated the worst effects of the indifference to the Agreement which prevails in other quarters in Government.

I praised the Taoiseach yesterday. In fact, I was getting somewhat alarmed at the fact that I had praised him because Senator Mooney was taking off into high lyrical flights about the Taoiseach's historic importance. Still I have admired not only on this occasion but at the time of the Falklands crisis in 1982, his statesmanship vis-á-vis his English counterpart. I repeat that today. It is a statesmanship, however, which has to do with the relations between our two States. Alas the same statesmanship does not apply at all in his attitude towards the North. I am not happy about the way in which he tosses off phrases about the North being a failed political entity, that there will be Anglo-Irish friction as long as the Northern problem exists. He tosses off these phrases glibly, unaware apparently that he himself is part of the problem and that the attitude of his party and of southern nationalism is part of the whole problem.

I do not like the ring of the way in which he says that there will always be prickly Anglo-Irish relations as long as Northern Ireland exists. If there were no Northern Ireland problem I suggest our relations with the United Kingdom would still be difficult in the foreseeable future because of the classic patterns of post-imperial patronising and so on on their side and our prickly sensitivity about their attitudes to us. This is a kind of classic relationship. What alarms me a little is the implication in the Taoiseach's statement "as long as the Northern problem exists" as if somehow Britain had now the capacity to solve the Northern problem which of course she has not. Let us make that distinction perfectly clear. She bears the major responsibility for the mess that is the Northern problem but she no longer has the capacity, alone at any rate, to solve it.

I do not propose to reiterate my views here on Sinn Féin and the IRA. I have made them clear on a number of occasions. John Hume's masterly indictment of the IRA on the occasion of the SDLP Annual Convention says it all. Sometimes people from the North say to me: "We do not agree with the IRA either but you Southerners do not understand the circumstances in which the IRA arose and the circumstances in which they continue to operate". I regard that as an unjustifiable defence. I do not believe there are any circumstances which justify the existence in operation of the IRA. There is absolutely nothing to be said for the Provisional IRA. By any standards of morality, by any standard of humanity, there is no justification for the armed struggle in the relatively liberal political culture which obtains even in Northern Ireland.

The existence and relative success of the SDLP, of constitutional Nationalism, is proof of that. It is proof that there is no need to have recourse to an armed struggle to remedy the grievances of Northern Ireland. Even if there were some excuse we would have to say that the armed struggle is not directed against the so-called occupiers or oppressors of the Northern Nationalists. Again John Hume has eloquently exposed the pathetic nature of the IRA claim that they are defenders of the Nationalist people because the statistics of the casualties point to the fact that it is they who have been responsible for the majority of deaths in Northern Ireland and it is the civilians of Northern Ireland who have suffered most among the casualties. As John Hume said, some armed struggle. Even in their professed aims it has to be said that they are failures. Níor tháinig a lá fós agu le cúnamh Dé ní thiocfaidh a lá choíche. They are failures and stupid failures.

I think that Sinn Féin have some cheek to hold a conference on the occasion of the three year review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to condemn the shortcomings of the Agreement as if they themselves had not done everything in their power to wreck the Agreement. We have to point to the puerile attitude of these retarded people who address their letters to C. Haughey, Government Buildings. The refusal to recognise the State and the refusal to recognise the Constitution and to give people the proper titles provided by the Constitution indicate the escapist puerile world in which Sinn Féin live.

One final point about the IRA. Nowadays they are at pains to tell us through the medium of their paper An Phoblacht that their quarrel is only with Britain in Northern Ireland, that it is not true that they have designs on this State. Well, I certainly reserve my belief on that one because Army Order No. 8 which instructed so-called volunteers to cease hostilities in the Twenty-six Counties was made for pragmatic and strategic considerations, not because they did not believe that their divine mission was to create revolution in the island at large. The fellow travellers of the IRA should be aware that they are engaged in cutting off the branch on which they sit themselves.

Of course all of us should be aware that the worse the social and economic circumstances are in this part of the island the more opportunity Sinn Féin and the IRA have to stir up that discontent on which they thrive. Having said that, I must say that all in all I agree with John Hume in his claim that he was perfectly right to engage in talks with them. It was worth taking the chance. In modern Irish history the process has been the same over and over again: that you have violent men engaged in violent means to achieve their ends but some of them at least are converted time after time to the attraction of constitutional nationalism and the lure of parliamentary democracy. That happened with Fianna Fáil, it happened with Clann na Poblachta and John Hume was taking the chance that it might happen also with Sinn Féin. And who knows? Ostensibly he has failed, ostensibly he did not convert them to his way of thinking but who knows what ferment he may have started and what inner debate there may now be proceeding within the circles of Sinn Féin and the IRA in the North? I think that was a good thing.

I have admiration for John Hume and the SDLP but it is not an entirely unbounded admiration. It seems we assume that all the bigots and the intransigent people are on the Unionist side. It is sometimes said, and rightly I think, that the Unionist community are ahead of their leaders in their wish for peace and compromise and that Molyneaux and Paisley, for example, are not really listening to the inner desire of their people for peace. I would not be surprised if the same thing were true of the political community led by the SDLP. It seems that some of the SDLP leadership attitude is unbending. While there was no question of abandoning the Agreement in order to suit the Unionists, at the same time I feel in these last months a gesture could have been made by Mr. Hume and Mr. Mallon. There could have been some way, perhaps it is still not too late, of saving the Unionist face because this really is what it is all about. If the Unionists could feel that they could go to talks without being further embarrassed, then I see no reason some kind of diplomatic gesture should not be arranged in the way of suspension of the workings of the Agreement for a brief period. I begin to wonder if there is not on the SDLP side something of the same rigid and unbending attitude at the top level.

Would the SDLP be satisfied, I have often asked them and asked myself but I never got an answer, with a satisfactory internal solution in Northern Ireland? Suppose that the Unionists could be got to concede, which sooner or later they will have to face, that a restoration of any kind of Stormont ascendency is not on, that there must be some internal agreement and it must give the Nationalists much more than the representation which their 40 per cent entitles them to in the interests of peace and everything else. If the Unionists were converted to an equal power sharing arrangement, would John Hume, Séamus Mallon and the others agree to that or do they hanker after the unattainable, a united Ireland? I have this unease about what SDLP policy really is. Their rhetoric, their language, is nebulous and it encourages this interpretation of looking ahead to something wider than Northern Ireland.

I turn now to our amendment in which Senator Ross, Senator Norris and myself are calling on the Government to announce its intention to introduce a constitutional amendment relinquishing the territorial claim to Northern Ireland. We all know what that claim is. Behind it is the notion that Ireland as an island is entitled to unity as of right, that there is an abstract right to unity. If we examine that more closely, there is no basis for that abstract right. Being an island does not automatically entitle this country to territorial unity. There are plenty of examples in the world of island shapes being politically shared. North-east Ireland, many parts of Antrim and Down, have a much closer sense of affinity with south-west Scotland than they have, let us say, with my own county of Cork. An island does not in itself guarantee some God-given unity.

In our Constitution which, we will recall, was drafted ten or 11 years after Éamon de Valera founded Fianna Fáil — and one of the main reasons for founding Fianna Fáil was to recover the lost territory, as it was thought of then — so it is not surprising that the Constitution should include then a claim to the lost territory. There was little understanding then among our people of the realities of the situation in the North but in the late eighties we are much more aware of what the situation is there. We are much more painfully aware of the position. If we were not aware in 1937 that the territorial claim was offensive, we should be aware of it now.

All of our parties now claim to respect the integrity of the Unionist ethos and the right of the Unionists to their own aspiration. That was declared in the New Ireland Forum, in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and by many of our politicians since than. How can we reconcile our respect for the Unionist ethos with the territorial claim? How can we say to them: "On the one hand, we respect your right to want to be British but, on the other hand, we are going to incorporate you into a united Ireland."? The territorial claim simply does not make sense. That is why, after all, they are basically opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They see the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a back door or a half-way stage to Irish unity.

Our amendment is quite in keeping with that Unionist fear, it is quite in keeping with the logic of the situation over the last several years. The Unionists are constantly telling us that the territorial claim is basic to their fears. I quote from The Irish Times of 30 November 1988, a statement issued by the Young Unionists of Queen's University and this report, which apparently is being circulated to our Government, calls for the removal of Articles 2 and 3: I quote:

"The Republic must abandon its claim to Ulster," says the report, adding that "the removal of the claim is crucial because it would be the key to unlock the political stalemate in Ulster."

Only this morning in the newspaper there is a report of a joint document issued by the Official Unionists and the DUP in which it is again argued that the cause of violence and destruction in the North is the Republic's territorial claim. The document accuses our Government of failing to give positive implementation to a commitment under the Helsinki Agreement in 1985 renouncing territorial claims on other participating countries. I quote again:

I will not try to rival your affection for Eamon de Valera. I know I would be a loser in that contest straightaway. However, I do feel that majority opinion in the Republic, as I understand it anyway and, indeed, as attested in various polls, would gladly write off the territorial claim if it could be assured of a just and peaceful deal in the North. People here as well as in the North are well ahead of the rhetoric of their politicians. People here know it is either hypocrisy or madness to talk of integrating the North into our economy or into our policy. People want an end to the chronic security crisis, to the running demands on our resources and to the deterrents to investment in tourism, but people here are also anxious to do their best by all the Northern people, Catholic and Protestant.

At the moment the IRA feed off the ambivalence of our official policies on the North. They have the ruthless courage of our casual convictions. They are the cutting edge of the territorial claim. They are the cutting edge of the call for a united Ireland. As long as we back the territorial claim, we are implicitly backing the IRA. We could isolate them dramatically if we disavowed their objective as well as their methods, if we disavowed our sneaking regard for their dirty work for which, if they succeeded in it, some of us would be retrospectively glad to hail them. Abandoning the objective of a united Ireland does not mean abandoning the Northern Nationalists. On the contrary, it would strengthen our position under the agreement to insist that their rights should be respected. If we removed the territorial claim or even if we gave notice of intent to remove the territorial claim, we would be stronger morally to say to the Unionists: "Stop dreaming of any restoration of a Stormont ascendancy. You must come to terms with the Nationalists in the North and share the part of Ireland which you both love." We would be in a stronger moral position to say this if we made it clear that we had no vested territorial interest.

Suppose it happened that there was no territorial claim — cross-Border co-operation in many areas could be strengthened enormously. That admirable body, Co-operation North, for all its good work in the field of social and educational co-operation, is somehow looked upon with suspicion, as all bodies will be looked upon with some suspicion as long as there is a formal claim to a united Ireland. They are all seen as stalking horses for political unity. Above all, one of the greatest attractions to me of abandoning the territorial claim is that we could then say to Britain: "Now it is your Border. You carry the lion's share of the burden for supporting it. We cannot afford to pay three or four times per capita what you are paying in terms of security and it is your problem.” We would be enormously stronger in the international arena as well if we took that attitude.

I am aware, of course, of objections. A classic objection to the spirit of our amendment would be that Britain has no right in Ireland, she has no right that part of Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom and, in theory, I agree with that. There is no abstract right to territorial unity in Ireland and Britain certainly has no abstract right to be governing part of Ireland, but we must remember that the British have now virtually renounced their claim to Northern Ireland if the people so decide at some particular stage. That is in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There is no doubt that the mood of the British people would facilitate that if the people of the North wanted it, so everything turns really on the position in the North itself.

The other objection to our amendment would be that by renouncing the territorial claim you are abandoning the Nationalists. Not so, not any longer. The Anglo-Irish Agreement now guarantees, however undeveloped its workings, however disappointing the developments of the past few years, the rights and aspirations of the Nationalists in a much more meaningful and effective way than these totally ineffectual clauses in the Constitution. I submit that the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes the territorial claim even more unnecessary than it is.

I might add that, if we in the South were bursting with real Republican principles, if we really hankered after the equality and brotherhood of Catholic, Protestant and dissenter and if we had shown that throughout this century and particularly since Independence, and if we really wished to establish a secular State which is the corollary of that Republican belief, we might have some moral basis for our territorial claim. Our territorial claim might not be so offensive if we were real Republicans but, in view of what we are and of what we have clearly declared ourselves to be, that we want to maintain a Catholic ethos and, in effect, a Catholic State, our territorial claim is doubly insulting.

When Senator Ross and I put down this motion there was a reaction from our Fine Gael and Labour colleagues, as reported in the public press. I cannot give a date for that but the general tone of the reaction was that it was a a red herring and it would be divisive and a distraction to have this kind of amendment now. Senator Ross and I framed the amendment very carefully and what it means is that we call on the Government to start to announce their intention. We know, of course, a referendum in the morning on Articles 2 and 3 would be a recipe for mayhem but we are talking about a public education campaign and a public statement saying that we regard these clauses as unhelpful: "It may not be expedient to get rid of them now but we are saying publicly to you, our Protestant friends in the North, that as soon as possible we will try to secure a consensus for their abolition."

We could begin in that way. Would it not have in itself a dramatic impact and be a force for peace if there was an all-party, unequivocal statement that what we want is to help in the establishment of peace in the North, that we do not want to incorporate their territory into ours, that we will remove the Articles in due course and we will not use them as a threatening or a bargaining counter? Of course, we will not do that because we are ambivalent about the North. We have two levels of attitudes about the North and we switch from one to the other, depending on the circumstances. We live on one level of the old anti-partitionism where we see England as the occupying force, while under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, England is our partner with whom we co-share the responsibility for the North. These are two different attitudes. Again, with great respect to the Cathaoirleach, I do not wish to offend her, but throughout the career of Éamon de Valera that anti-partitionism was the orthodox rhetoric. Mr. Lemass as Taoiseach tried to get away from that somewhat but it still survives, and it survives among Fianna Fáil in various parts of the country and at various times of the year. I defy anyone to challenge that.

I must refer to the fact that in this House not so long ago a Senator used the phrase "forces of occupation" or "occupation forces" to describe the British army in the North and he was very surprised that people should take exception to what he said. He quoted — and he was right to quote — precedents that Éamon de Valera, John A. Costello and so on had used the phrase "occupying forces". The answer is that since the New Ireland Forum and since the Anglo-Irish Agreement we have come to a totally different position on the North. We have two positions now. The new position is that the English are no longer occupying forces in the North. They are there with our consent, in co-operation with our security forces, maintaining peace. You cannot maintain the two positions simultaneously. You either totally reject the old anti-partitionism and with it reject the territorial claim or else you continue on in this kind of ambivalent muddle which is inhibiting people like the Taoiseach from taking any real action on the North.

I am as concerned as anyone with the welfare of the people in Northern Ireland otherwise I would not be wasting my time in thinking out this kind of thing for myself. I simply do not think a United Ireland is the way to achieve peace. We should stand back and encourage the people in the North to work out their own consensus and, thank God, we have in this House at this time someone like Senator Robb who brings to our discussions on this vital national question a wisdom and knowledge for which we should be very grateful and I should pay tribute to successive Taoisigh indeed in making sure that he remains in this House.

We should listen to Senator Robb because his essential message is that nothing can be done without consensus among the people themselves in the North. There are other so-called solutions or suggestions for a solution which really cannot be entertained, like repartition or cantonisation, that you chop up the North into various Nationalist and Unionist sections. All that ignores the central problem of getting Ken Maginnis to like Austin Currie and Austin Currie to like Ken Maginnis, to recognise that they have the same accent, that they love the same fields and rocks and, therefore, they must find some mechanism to share this politically between them.

I do not know how you do that but we should encourage the peacemakers. We should cheer Raymond Ferguson and Ken Maginnis. We should also cheer similar people in the SDLP. We should hope for, work for and talk to them about a change of heart so that they can have talks. We should take off all the pressure represented by the territorial claim.

Meanwhile, the Anglo-Irish Agreement must be worked more dynamically and our job is to help. We must remember that our real task in respect of the North is not stale and insincere prattlings about territorial unity because territorial unity is the enemy of peace.

Mr. Lydon

A stable society can only be based on respect for democracy and the rule of law. In the Six Counties the Nationalists seem to have lost faith in the British rule of law and the Unionists seem to have lost faith in the British process of democracy. Like all persons of goodwill, I wish to see the people of this island living in peace and harmony with each other and with our neighbours in circumstances which will foster the cultural, social and economic well-being of the people of this island and lead to a fruitful collaboration with the other peoples of the planet and especially with our nearest neighbours.

We in Fianna Fáil believe that ultimately this aim can best be achieved by the development on this island of a unitary State comprising structures which have the assent and support of the vast majority of the people of this island including, in particular, the assent of those who now form the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the six of the nine counties of Ulster still under British rule. Of course, I recognise that this cannot happen in the immediate future and that in the short term there are problems which must be dealt with which are, for some people on this island, quite literally matters of life and death. I also recognise that between the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties and in our relations with Britain there are cultural, social and economic issues which can be tackled in the short term and whose resolution would improve the standard of living of many people on this island.

I am aware that because the Unionist community know it is our desire to achieve a united Ireland it is reluctant to engage in dialogue with us. This reluctance has been heightened by their perception of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a step in the direction of a United Ireland. Some might say that faced with this impasse we should abandon our ultimate objectives or at least conceal them by removing Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. While we ponder these objectives, it would be dishonest of us to say other than that we are still convinced that a United Ireland is a desirable goal.

We realise, of course, that the world continually undergoes political evolution and that in both a European context, and more recently in a global context, there are developments which may ultimately create structures which will transcend the local difficulties on this island and which, even in the short term, may facilitate arrangements between the North and South and between this island and Britain.

We see the statelet of Northern Ireland as a failed political entity and we reiterate our belief in a United Ireland but we recognise the gulf between us and the Unionist community and we accept that their agreement is necessary for peace and harmony on this island. Perhaps North and South we are too rigid in our political thinking. Perhaps we are too rigid in clinging to our symbols and perhaps if we really understood what is essential to each community it would not be beyond the Irish political genius to come up with a structure acceptable to all.

In the last analysis it is a question of sovereignty. Sovereignty in the modern world may be a many-faceted thing capable of more flexibility than hitherto imagined. Only dialogue between those who really know what is essential in their nationalism or in their unionism has a chance of discovering whether it is possible to achieve a lasting agreement on the totality of relationships between North and South, between Ireland and Britain, between Ireland and Europe and between Ireland and the rest of the world.

Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement deal with security and legal matters. All the people of this island have a right to the protection of the rule of law. The insensitivity of the British administration to law both in the Six Counties and in England and Wales, not so in Scotland, is a cause of great disquiet throughout Ireland. Recent judgments in British courts and recent, and not so recent, actions by the British do little to foster respect either for British law or for its implementation. The United Kingdom has, in fact, the worst record in Europe on human rights and has been found guilty of violating the European Convention on Human Rights more often than any other signatory to that convention. Thirty-one times since 1950 they have been brought before the European Court of Human Rights and 21 times they have been found guilty of violation of that convention. One of the most despicable incidences was in 1978 when the court found the United Kingdom guilty of inhuman and degrading treatment of 14 internees in 1971.

We are all too aware of the record of discrimination against us for over 800 years and, as Senator Ryan pointed out, there was almost 70 years of discriminatory and one-sided government in the Six Counties. Indeed, it is not so very long ago that the British disgorged the scum of their jails, clad them in two-tone uniforms and unleashed them with a fury against the poor of Ireland. It is not so very long ago since those self same Black and Tans, often in 30 minutes of wanton destruction, laid waste 30 years of a poor farmer's toil and I can testify to that.

Recently we have seen in the Six Counties Diplock Courts, a shoot-to-kill policy, supergrass trials, use of plastic bullets, internment without trial, torture, the list is endless. These actions by the British serve only to chase the innocent unemployed youth of the Six Counties into the waiting arms of the paramilitary godfathers, the Provisional IRA and other so-called Republican paramilitaries who claim the mantle of republicanism and who often claim to be the defenders of the Nationalist population. They have in the past 20 years killed more than twice as many Catholics as the security forces. They also seem to have a policy of killing Protestants usually along the Border when the victim is alone or in front of his wife and children or else when he is at prayer. Retaliation and tit-for-tat killings are then initiated by Protestant paramilitaries. The IRA are not content with killing here in Ireland. They now travel abroad, again clad in the mantle of freedom fighters, and kill in Britain and other countries. They ignore the ancient dictum that those who live by the sword shall perish by it.

The Forum report of 1984 stated:

In political, moral and human terms there is no acceptable level of violence.

How do we break the cycle of violence and what has the Anglo-Irish Agreement got to offer, if anything? Some people have argued, and I am inclined to agree with them, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement copperfastened partition. The Government inherited the agreement upon taking office. It was an international agreement entered into by two sovereign Governments and lodged in the United Nations. I am sure that in the reviews of the agreement provided for in Article 11 our Government will continue to press for reforms in the Six Counties, but whether they succeed or not still remains to be seen because I feel that little has been achieved in the area of reform. However, I quote from a speech by the Minister for Justice in Dáil Éireann on 16 November 1988, when he said:

There have been a number of positive developments in the administration of justice over the last three years. The supergrass trials which were such a cause of controversy and concern because they involved as many as 30 defendants tried on the uncorroborated word of an accomplice informer before a single judge without a jury, have been brought to an end. At the same time, however, there has been no "substantial expression," in the words of the agreement, of the aim of public confidence in the administration of justice. The Government continue to be of the view that on objective legal grounds, as well as on the grounds of increasing public confidence, the method of trial for scheduled offences in the Diplock Court needs to be reformed. We remain of the view that a three judge court of first instance is the right step to take.

A lot has yet to be done. We have only to look at the way the British press was deliberately whipped into a frenzy of hate in the Fr. Ryan case to see that the chances of his getting a fair trial have now diminished and disappeared. Some British commentators have claimed that the states of the European Community should automatically respect the warrants of other members. This would be a delightful state of affairs but a necessary corollary is that there would be a right of appeal to an independent European court, an appeal not simply as at present to the European Court of Human Rights on the administrative practices of the government in question but to a proper European Supreme Court on the merits of the case in question.

Article 10 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement deals with cross-Border co-operation on cultural, social and economic issues. These are areas where co-operation between North and South can directly affect the lives of ordinary people. We have long been aware that connecting the electricity grids could save consumers several million pounds per annum by reducing the amount of spinning reserve required. It is tragic that this most obvious advantage of operating on an all-Ireland basis is lost to us by the actions of those who claim to be working for a united Ireland.

Trade between the Six and Twenty-six Counties should bring mutual benefits. Trade and consumer goods have been distorted by the high value-added tax and excise rates in the Republic which led to the 48-hour rule introduced by the former Minister for Finance. Hopefully, 1 January 1993 will bring a more even playing pitch when Irish consumers will gain the advantages of a larger all-Ireland market and fair competition.

In bringing the people of the Six and Twenty-six Counties together, communications of all kinds are important. Anyone who travels extensively in the European Community will quickly realise that one of the most significant factors binding the Community together on the Continent is the motorway network. This is not a new idea. The Romans knew it well. The building of a modern motorway from Belfast to Dublin would do more to bring both parts of Ireland together than any other single act. In this context, the recent announcement of work to reduce the rail journey time from Dublin to Belfast to one and a half hours is to be welcomed, even though the speeds will be slow compared with the French service. North and South have a common interest in developing communications between Ireland and Britain and mainland Europe.

In these days of intensive use of rollon roll-off ships and short sea routes, there are only a few corridors out of Ireland. Motorway access to Dublin port, combined with competitive rates and simplified customs facilities, would attract commercial businesses from the north-east on its way to England. Likewise, the expediting of the construction of the European route to Rosslare would attract commercial traffic from north-east Ireland on its way to the Continent and thereby encourage the enhancement of the services offered on this route.

On the island of Ireland we have two different administrative systems dealing with social affairs and social problems. Many of the professionals from opposite sides of the Border know each other and meet on an ad hoc basis at conferences and this should be encouraged. I think, for example, of the Psychological Society of Ireland who are a forerunner in this field. This sort of interaction should be encouraged at all levels, perhaps with some support from the International Fund. In the field of education, at second level there are great differences between the two systems yet each is very successful in its own area. Both could be strengthened by regular exchange of experience. One of the ways in which mankind tries to come to terms with difficult problems is to examine them through the medium of literature and drama. The Northern troubles have been no exception to this.

In asking the Anglo-Irish Agreement to foster this type of activity we must bear in mind that the English Ministers are unlikely to appreciate the subtleties of either the Nationalist or Unionist perspective. Therefore, the Irish ministerial side should endeavour the ensure that any serious effort by the Unionist community to reflect on the situation through a cultural medium receives proper support.

One cultural activity well deserving of support in the North is the growing number of local history societies with cross-community involvement. Again, all sporting organisations that have a Thirty-two county basis should be helped, promoted and encouraged. Voluntary organisations, particularly ones which involve the young which have a Thirty-two county basis, for example, the Cadet Corps, the Order of Malta Ambulance Corps serve to break down barriers. Tourism should be encouraged. I ask all those living in the Republic to visit the Six Counties, go to places like Port-stewart and Warrenpoint and see that the people there are as Irish as themselves. Long ago when I worked in Britain it did not matter to me whether those whom I worked alongside were from Portavogie or Mullinahone. I never thought to question their religion but it was enough for me to know that they were Irish and were perceived as such by the English who were unable to distinguish between us anyway and in their customary desultory fashion referred to us all as Paddies.

I think that on close examination we will find that we have much more in common with our Northern Unionists than we have differences. When I was young and living in Donegal there were two big days of my life on the Twelfth and the Fifteenth when there were two big parades, one by the Orangemen and one by the AOH. I think on one occasion the same band played for both because we were short of bands. There was no argument or fighting. They were both festive occasions. Perhaps some day in the future we might see the Orangemen invited to march up O'Connell Street. We might even see the Taoiseach's 11 formed of hardline Unionists who might suddenly bring an air of reality to some of our discussions. If we in this country want to see the Border disappear we must first make it irrelevant.

Mr. Ross

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lydon

The Anglo-Irish Agreement can help in this regard by fostering social, cultural and economic intercourse between those who live in the Six Counties and those in the Twenty-six Counties. This aspect of the agreement may give cause for hope because the closer we get to our Unionist brethren the more we may as a nation be able to talk as one people to the British and, hopefully, eventually live in peace with our closest neighbours. The British have said that if the majority of those in the Six Counties want to break the link with the United Kingdom, this wish will be honoured. Perhaps if we here in the Republic begin by re-examining our attitudes, our prejudices and our symbols we may have that majority wish in the not too distant future.

Mr. Doyle

As we have now reached the first review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement I think it is important at this stage to remember the elements of the Agreement. The Agreement was never meant to be a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. Under the Agreement, new structures were to be created, while giving reassurance of the most formal kind to the Unionists that the Republic accepted that there could be no change in British sovereignty without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland, but would nevertheless form a framework in which Nationalists could find both a focus of loyalty and an assurance of full recognition of their hitherto submerged identities. This could not take the form of power sharing because after the ten years of Unionist rejection, this was not open to discussion at the time.

This is most regrettable because throughout the seventies successive opinion polls showed repeatedly that a majority of the Unionists, never less than two to one, accepted the idea of power sharing with a Unionist majority and a Nationalist minority in a devolved Northern Ireland government within a United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the Unionist politicians equally consistently rejected this solution and, in the absence of the emergence of an alternative pro-power sharing leadership, the Unionist voters had no alternative but to vote for the existing leadership of Unionism despite the fact that that leadership had failed to reflect popular sentiments on crucial issues of devolved government.

For this reason one must be very critical of Unionist leaders in the past. In this debate Senator Manning stated that they have been very narrow and incapable of bringing together their people in a sense of common purpose. One has to agree with that and for that reason power sharing could not be imposed at that time. The only alternative was to introduce into the system of direct rule, in the absence of devolved power sharing, an element of participation by the Irish Government. This would not deny British sovereignty and the ultimate right of the British government to make the final decision. Eventually it was hoped there might be the possibility of Nationalist and Unionist acceptance. If this process were carried through effectively with early implementation in certain key areas which were specified in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Nationalist alienation would be diminished and the water in which the IRA terrorists swim would eventually dry up.

At the same time it was hoped that there would be recognition of the desirability of devolved government with the participation of representatives of consititutional parties in both communites, an incentive to the Unionist leaders to respond more positively to their own supporters' acceptance of power sharing. If such devolved government emerged as both the Irish and British Governments hoped would happen, the new Anglo-Irish institutions in Belfast would cease to have any role to play in the area of responsibility of such a devolved government.

Again, it was the Unionist leaders who lost the opportunity. As far as I am concerned, they have completely misread the Agreement and in doing so they have given the men of violence in both communities the opportunity to continue their campaign of bombing and murdering. The Unionist politicians, with the exception of one or two, are still going nowhere. They still appear to be oblivious of the crisis building up dangerously in Northern Ireland and, even if they suspect this — and I doubt that myself — history has hardened them against facing the facts even if the crisis were to threaten themselves next. The blindness of the Unionist leaders really frightens me.

I would like to pay tribute to the leaders of the Nationalist community. The SDLP throughout the worst moments — and there have been some very depressing moments in Northern Ireland since 1969 — have held onto their vision of a democratic solution and to their profound sense of realism as to what was essential and what was attainable. To these remarkable people and their great leaders in the SDLP the Irish people and the British people owe a great debt which can never be fully repaid but I feel it must be acknowledged. Without the SDLP there would never have been a New Ireland Forum. Without John Hume to bridge the old divides in our own politics the forum which he and Deputy Garret FitzGerald both foreshadowed in 1982 would not even have come into existence or produced an agreed report.

So far as the administration of justice is concerned there have been a number of changes including the shifting of onus of proof of the prosecution in relation to bail applications. The statutory guidelines on the admissibility of confession evidence now makes clear that confessions obtained by the use or threat of violence are not admissible and that confessions can be excluded in the interests of justice. Unfortunately, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, this is not extended to the administration of justice and particularly to the courts themselves.

Since the Agreement the British Government have handled some issues very badly, for example, the Stalker-Sampson affair and often I wonder looking back especially on the events of the past weeks, do the British Government really understand this problem in Northern Ireland and our problem with that part of the country also.

Looking at television last night one could not but be heartened by a change of attitude in the Soviet Union. Here we have two great powers, East and West, with language barriers. They do not share the same ideologies; nevertheless they appear now to be prepared to work for peace and take the necessary steps to achieve it. We have no language barriers. We have the same Christian belief and yet, for some reason, the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not been as successful as it should be. We have to ask ourselves why. I had the privilege of speaking in the debate in the other House when it was introduced. I never thought of that agreement as a means to achieve unity in our country but I did see it as a means to provide peace and prosperity for our people. It frightens me that in a civilised country so many should have lost their lives for a cause I just cannot understand.

Senator John Robb tried to bring the facts home to us by saying that if the problems had been here the number of Irish people in the Republic of Ireland to lose their lives would have been 600 gardaí, 2,000 Army personnel and 9,000 civilians on a proportionate basis. This is the tragedy of Northern Ireland and it is one of the aspirations of Deputy Garret FitzGerald that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should put an end to this violence and bring peace and prosperity to that part of Northern Ireland which is so troubled. In the long term I suppose it would be an aspiration to have a united Ireland but first peace and prosperity have to be established. Some British spokespeople last week did little justice to our efforts to establish that peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.

There is also the question of reconciliation between our people. This is a crucial issue and one speaker after another has said — I think Senator Robb is of the same view — that that reconciliation has to come from the people themselves. When paying tribute to the leaders of the minority groups in Northern Ireland one must also pay tribute to Church leaders who have played a very important role over the years. One has to have great respect for people like Bishop Cathal Daly for the way he has condemned violence and injustice on all sides continually and steadfastly over the last number of years. I was certainly heartened last Monday when I turned on my television set to see a parade in West Belfast of Catholics, Protestants, Presbyterians and people sharing no belief whatsoever all marching in darkness with lighted torches singing and praying for peace. There is goodwill: there are people in the darkness trying to find the light. Unfortunately, the political leadership has not been there to assist them.

There had been significant improvement in security co-operation between North and South and there can be no doubt in British minds about the commitment of the Irish Government and the Garda Síochána to the closest and most effective security co-operation between the two countries. I think British politicians are aware of this. They should bear that in mind before they make statements of the kind they made in recent weeks. Whatever Unionists may have felt about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I believe that most Unionists would like to see a devolved system of Government involving participation by both traditions and which would bring in train a corresponding resolution to the role of the Inter-Government Council and the security forces. I hope that a political system in Northern Ireland will evolve in such a way as to enable practical expression to be given to this sentiment. In the meantime, it is vitally important that progress should be made rapidly under the Agreement with the implementation of policies to which the two Governments commit themselves.

Unfortunately, that progress has slowed down recently. I saw the Minister shaking his head when Senator Murphy said this, but it is a fact. The two Governments, and especially the heads of Governments, the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, must not allow misunderstandings or different opinions on how best the objects of the Agreement can be achieved to interfere with the progress established by the Agreement or to harm the relationship that now exists between our two States.

Professor Eogan

As is very obvious from this motion which we are discussing, our concern is about the events affecting this State and Northern Ireland and the wider issue of Anglo-Irish relations. It certainly goes without saying that the Irish Government and the Irish people have many contacts with Britain. On the whole, these are exceedingly good. All of us have friends, some may have relations in Britain. On a wider issue, there may be some limited hiccups but on the whole these are not serious. However, the North is the big issue and this is certainly the cause of so many aches and pains. Until that problem is solved there cannot, I believe, and will not be normal Anglo-Irish relations.

I propose today to consider fairly briefly certain aspects affecting the causes and causations of these events or at least aspects which I might myself isolate as being relevant.

It is important to consider some of these, even some of them, in the light of outside events. One can certainly say that this country has a great deal going for it. Indeed, nature has richly endowed Ireland but it is its inhabitants who provide the most rewarding endowment. Therefore, the things we are debating today are not abstract and detached but things that are intimately and directly concerned with people. It is the people who are at the core of the matter and I am sure all of us are well aware of that and are deeply concerned for the wellbeing, present and future indeed, of everybody in this country.

To improve the situation may indeed involve changes, but changes are not something new to this country. If we consider the emergence of Ireland over a very long period of time, there have been various changes in the population. There have been influxes of people. There have been exits of people and indeed various cultural and regional roots have emerged. Certainly a feature of Ireland over the centuries is the impulse of Irish societies towards self-mobilisation. This has led to the emergence of periods of outstanding vitality and creativity issuing forth on more than one occasion in what has been called a golden age.

Coming to more recent times — and I think this is relevant from the Anglo-Irish point of view — it is at least useful to consider contemporary events but the taking into account of new political developments in many lands, indeed throughout the world, need not be an nostalgic retreat into historiography but a consideration of some information that is available about political and related innovations as these may act as a constructive feedback, even as a guide to future actions. In this regard we must consider global changes that have taken place particularly since the end of World War II, especially since the late 1940s when the great western European empires started to collapse.

An ensuing feature has been the freeing of people from external tutelage so as to allow them to assume responsibilities for their own affairs, a fact that is now generally accepted as an inalienable right. Even this year has seen a retreat into reality by the Russians in Afghanistan and there are reports of impending settlements in other troubled areas such as south-west Africa. Returning to Ireland, the Partition problem, which even by European standards, is minor and is yet considered by so many as an issue that nobody can solve. This is an attitude that may lead and can lead to total paralysis and it certainly leads to limitations in attitudes. I find it especially astonishing when people say about this issue: "There is no way forward; it cannot be solved". When we compare the Irish issue to events that have been taking place even within the past three decades or so, it is a normal issue that I believe can be solved by reasonable and committed people.

In all this evolving problem we must of course remember that the sovereign power in the North is Britain. I have yet to be convinced, even in this day and age when we talk about liberal democracies and political enlightenment, that Britain's only interest is to keep the peace between two warring factions. As far as I understand the problem, England is committed to maintaining control over part of Ireland and I doubt if one can question this in any way. When the Prime Minister of England deals with this issue she is always forthright and unequivocal. Like the Falklands, her overriding concern appears to be achievement of a military victory. This, of course, I believe to a large extent can be attributed to the fact that there is a strong warrior tradition in England and this produces a combat culture, some ingredient of which is military glorification and the use of emotive words and phrases such as "enemy". Harsh justice can also be part of this culture and that can lead to acts of moral degeneracy such as arbitrary shootings which we have been witnessing over recent years. If it were not so serious, England's approach, with her emphasis on law and order rather than on political development, is simplistic. One may recall William of Occams famous axiom that neither more nor more complex causes are to be assumed than are necessary to account for the phenomenon.

For the English Government and other people there, the North of Ireland seems to be considered as the westermost extension of Britain, just the same as the French for so long maintained that Algeria was the southern part of France until the Algerians themselves, coupled with the statesmanship of General De Gaulle, exploded that myth over a quarter of a century ago.

As was formerly the case with the French in Algeria, the continuing direct interest of England in the North of Ireland has not been to the advantage of all the people of Ireland. This is clear from the fact that so many of the people living in the North are fearful, that so many suffer discrimination, that so many are disgruntled and dissatisfied in general and also that so many people are humiliated.

When we consider British involvement in the North, one aspect of it is the very marked military involvement. Of course, one must not be innocent about this, and I think we have got to face the fact that there is a war situation going on and therefore there is reaction on various sides. Nevertheless, it is interesting that these military trappings are more obvious in what one might call the less well-off areas of the North — the Shankill, for instance. I am not just simply thinking about one aspect of the North. The Shankill has got its considerable saturation of troops, police and so on and so has the Falls. Another obvious area is along the Border. One of the most noticeable areas is south Armagh where, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, an iron curtain of sorts is emerging. Not only has one fortifications now along the roads but there are also these hilltop watch towers. Some years ago we used to hear talk about low-intensity operations; I think we can now begin to consider high intensity operations.

I also think that this activity in places like south Armagh clearly shows how Britain undervalues this area. The south Armagh area was, of course, for a long time, and to some extent still remains, an outstanding centre of Gaelic civilisation and culture. This is clearly shown in the presence of so many poets and persons of learning; yet through crass ignorance this rich culture was apparently unknown to a British Prime Minister of some years since, Harold Wilson, when he described south Armagh as bandit territory. This was of course totally unnecessary as Armagh remains a most intellectually cultivated country with a long tradition of scholarship. This Armagh curtain is indeed offensive to the eye; it is also offensive to the environment but, more particularly, it is offensive to society and especially to the people who live in the area. In summary, it is more of course than all of that. To me it is a bizzare indicator of failure.

The other aspect of the whole problem of the Anglo-Irish relationship is the enormous amount of contradictions it gives rise to. There is nothing so contradictory as some of the statements we read or hear of in the media and even that we hear spoken to us. I have already touched on one of these — that the North is some extraordinary major issue that could never be solved — and indeed we had Mr. Gorbachev yesterday apparently solving with one great sweep issues of much greater magnitude which one could never anticipate even in this century.

I will just list one or two of these contradictions. The North is certainly from the British point of view an integral part of the United Kingdom; and if we accept that why then should we in any way be agitated at what happens in a foreign country? The contradictions are indeed further emphasised when we hear a British Prime Minister say that the North is as British as the London borough of Finchley, but then if there is an atrocity this is an event that must be attributed to the Irish, yet the people who may be responsible for this atrocity are citizens of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, while Dublin has no real say in the governing of the Six County area, yet Britain often appropriates blame and even holds the Government here responsible for acts over which they have no control whatsoever.

Returning to the core of contention, the northern state was artificial from the beginning and its continuation depended on the full support of Britain. This permitted stable periods of varying duration representing time when Britain was able to cope successfully with any perturbations that arose. As a result, a stable equilibrium existed. But there were also periods when the system was unable to continue previously successful tactics in the face of changed conditions. Such a period commenced in 1968 and the source of these changes that started then can be attributed to the accumulated effects of the system's history, not due to external pressure.

The trouble is that the North was always an unstable system and therefore in such a condition even a small displacement can of course, give rise to wider displacements. This is due to the fact, as I tried to suggest, that the internal regulating system was not able to fully control events at all times. Therefore, the system collapsed. I believe that is what happened around 20 years ago, that the entire system there virtually collapsed and, of course, when you have such a collapse all is literally up for grabs. All sorts of developments can ensue: indeed, many of the developments need not at all be welcome, but it is a fact that these things can emerge.

With regard to the North, a revival of the system was attempted. This proved difficult so in order to aid the process it follows that the ensuing regulating system should seek the incorporation of a political input. Now, the obvious place to look for that help was of course from Dublin. As a result, the Irish Government now find themselves in the role of a catalyst by which controls are introduced into the system, but this is not enough. The Government here should broaden their functions. Their role must be more than helping to bring about the displacement of what Britain might regard as an intrusive organism.

In all of this the Government need to be careful so as not to become too fully incorporated into this regulating system. There has been an enormous number of events taking place in connection with Anglo-Irish relations over these past 20 years. Certainly, a notable one was the Forum which discussed at some detail the various issues and the various problems. I think the Forum did isolate that there were various broad issues that had to be solved. Yet, as far as I am concerned, the whole concentration of effort still seems to weigh very heavily on generating legal codes and not a lot on producing a political system that is relevant to both Nationalists and Unionists within a framework of mutual relationships and in an all-Ireland context.

Too much energy can be placed, not only on maintaining certain legal systems but also on maintaining a status quo. Such attitudes produce fossilisation and literally inhibits any further development or, indeed, further new thought on the issue. On the contrary, what is needed is the creation of a dynamic organism which will allow living societies — and I said at the beginning that it is people that we are concerned with—and will allow people to escape from the present and develop into coherent communities and, in so doing, bring about a new harmony between human societies which constitute the Ireland of today, or, in other words, let this lead to an outbreak of peace. A system must be established that is capable of initiating change, but also of generating a progressive series of transformations. This means that a system is needed that is dynamic and continuous, so that the disparate parts with their own values can be coupled or connected for the benefit of everybody. Certainly, different people have different attitudes with regard to living in Ireland and the nature of the Government under which they live. There is nothing unusual or wrong with this. As far as I am concerned, human diversity need not at all be a problem. On the contrary it can be the yeast in the dough of human dynamism.

I think it is fairly obvious that since its inception, Partition has been a great divider, in human terms as well as in others. It has a destabilising effect on society and it is also an impediment to economic progress. Incidentally, that is not something just confined to Ireland. As we know, where partitions were introduced into other countries, notably the Indian subcontinent, Palestine, Cyprus and so on, it has led to untold misery. Apart from untold misery in human terms, there are also the side effects of this. Some people say that we cannot afford a changed Ireland. I would ask can we afford the present situation?

I sometimes read in newspapers — I cannot say that these figures are correct but I have certainly read — that Partition is costing this State about £1 million a day. I am only quoting; I am not saying that is true. If that is nearly true, that is an extraordinary amount of money to spend on something that is not moving towards an end result. If it were, it would be a totally different matter. Incidentally, if even one of those millions was spent in building a by-pass around the village of Dunleer in County Louth it would allow people, at least, to move more freely, probably between Dublin and Belfast. To me, it is a total waste of good money, and especially in this day and age when we hear so much about poverty and disadvantaged people. It is a totally immoral situation that must be looked at very quickly in the light of proper changes in this country.

Therefore, I think we must look to the future and to a fairly immediate future, not something in a totally distant future where you may even have a Europe that has become so transformed and parts of Africa and Asia that we will not recognise. Are we still going to remain as our old fossilised selves? However, despite Partition, Ireland is an organism that shares so many common features and consists of connected and interdependent parts. For me, the evidence is clear. The future rests not in maintaining the status quo, or in some construction of what one might call a sort of lean-to extension to an already shaky edifice. What is needed is a fully congruent and redesigned political structure. The Hillsborough Agreement has made some steps in the right direction, but it has provided a very limited role for the Irish Government, for the very good reasons that the range of permissibles open to the Irish Government is limited. As a result, there are certain aspects of Hillsborough which to me seem to be more in the nature of a model for procedure and the provider of a framework for limited structuring and investigation.

Naturally, there are various ways forward. One of these is one that comes up in most discussions. That, of course, is the unity of Ireland. Even to think along these lines, at least in some quarters, would appear to proclaim that the individual is somewhat strange and even working at some sort of disadvantage. This itself, I believe, is part of the contradictions that the whole Partition problem and the following on Anglo-Irish relations bring to light. It is an extraordinary contradiction as far as I am concerned for the very good reason that one of its opponents prides itself on being a United Kingdom and, furthermore, we hear all the talk about various schemes in Europe for a United States of Europe. This seems all right; this seems permissible; it seems logical; indeed, it seems rational. But such views for Ireland are too often considered as strange and certainly unobtainable.

Therefore, we may ask: why has the clock always to stand still as far as Ireland is concerned? There are many ways and means in which changes, which I believe are for the benefit of everybody living in this island, can be brought about. Surely a concerned England can be of the utmost help, in view of her experience in overseeing new nations coming into being and her recent very sensible attitude in connection with Hong Kong. In considering any meaningful future condition, one thing I believe is necessary is that the range of permissible variations as far as the Irish Government are concerned must be widened and then brought into harmony with another. For this, the Hong Kong model is surely relevant. None of this means that the Government here or in Britain should go over the heads of the people who live and work in the North. All must be involved through their representatives in discussions. In this connection, the Unionists, if they have hesitation in getting involved in these discussions, should remember a straightforward fact, that is, that they do not have a voting majority in over half of the area.

Like Hong Kong, a timetable should be set for the emergence of a post-British phase in Ireland. Again, there are various ways of doing this but as a temporary arrangement, or as a first step, one might consider a binary system. If a binary system were established this would allow the English and Irish Governments to work the North as equal partners and by doing so they would be bringing about a true balance. Perhaps consideration should also be given to UN involvement. After all, the UN recently received the Nobel Peace Prize and furthermore — and this is very relevant from the Irish point of view — Ireland has participated in a very meaningful, constructive and valuable way in UN involvements in different parts of the world and in doing so the Irish contingents have made very positive contributions to peace efforts.

Unless we move forward, the inhabitants of Ireland and also of Britain have nothing to look forward to but an arid stalemate characterised by killings, jailings and various acts of aggression against people. There is an alternative to this and this need not result in any act of triumphalism but something pragmatic which would at long last allow the Irish people to achieve peace and economic and cultural stability that would, of course, be part of it. Equally important it would allow the emergence of true harmony with Britain and in so doing at long last Anglo-Irish relations would have reached a stage of maturity.

Mr. Ross

Amendment No. 2 reads:

After "relations" to add the following:

"and calls on the Government to announce its intention to introduce a constitutional amendment relinquishing the territorial claim to Northern Ireland.".

I should like to thank Senator Eogan for his very careful analysis or diagnosis of the problem over the centuries but I am afraid the patient died a very long time ago. Senator Eogan, for his great virtues, in his analysis is proposing something which is totally impractical and, I suggest, unrealistic in the present context. There are people in this country who now live in a sentimental world as regards Anglo-Irish relations and Northern Ireland, in a world which will never come to pass and one which they should recognise will now not come to pass. It is not helpful to live in the romantic ages of slogans and folklore. We have to deal, as a House of the Oireachtas, with the realities of today. The realities of today are extremely complex and extremely unpleasant, but that is what the Government have to do and it is what we have to do.

I am rising to propose, with Senator Murphy, an amendment to this motion on Anglo-Irish relations. This motion on Anglo-Irish relations is a very long time coming as the House knows and, indeed, this may be because for the past year there appears to have been — and I may be wrong about this, but we do not get full information on this all the time — inaction on the part of the Government as regards Northern Ireland. It appears that the Government have been happy to allow things to carry on as they were, reacting to events as they happened without having produced any particular policy or any ideas for the way forward. This may not necessarily be a bad thing but, as a result, we appear to have lived in a certain vacuum.

It is incumbent upon us in the Seanad, and especially in this part of Ireland, to try to suggest measures or action that we can take to help the situation which at the moment, as Senator Eogan so rightly said, appears to be one of stalemate. This is the principal reason the amendment which is down in my name and that of Senator Murphy is on the Order Paper today.

The amendment, as I think the House knows, proposes to delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and to drop the territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The first question which should be asked about the dropping of the territorial claim is why we want a United Ireland at all. I cannot understand what the obsession which exists in this country for a United Ireland is based on. If we rationalise it and if we think about it seriously, we cannot come up with any really good, compelling reasons why this should be the case. Is it that we are just an island, or is it based on tradition? Have we been indoctrinated for generations to think it is necessary?

Whereas it would be nice and it would be neat and it would be convenient and it would, as Senator Lydon said, be helpful in the areas of trade, industry and commerce and tourism and in all sorts of practical areas, if there were no Border, it will not be a major tragedy if that Border remains for the foreseeable future. I am asking Members of the House with this commitment to a United Ireland to ask themselves why they have that commitment because I believe it is something with which they are born, which they cannot get out of their system but which they cannot actually rationalise.

The recommendation to remove the territorial claim to Northern Ireland is nothing new. The surprising thing about it is that it has not been tackled before, that it has not even been debated before in this form in the form of a serious amendment in this House, and certainly not in the past 20 years. A similar type of recommendation was made by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution over 20 years ago and that included members of the Government, members of the Opposition, some of whom are still in this House and in the other House and, from memory, members of all parties. They came up with the conclusion that that territorial claim needed changing, but unfortunately, which is so often true in uncomfortable recommendations of that sort which can be reached in committee, that is as far as it ever got. That, unfortunately, seems to be the purpose of committees of these Houses, that they can come to what appear to be sensible, realistic conclusions at the time but the idea of actually producing those proposals to the Oireachtas is unthinkable. They serve their purpose, they waste a lot of parliamentary time and money and at that stage they are then dropped and put on the shelves for many years to come.

Thus, this is not a new revolutionary suggestion. It is a practical suggestion which was recognised at least 20 years ago and proposed at least 20 years ago. Certainly, many things have happened in the years since 1967. The troubles in Northern Ireland have got worse but to me that makes a measure of this sort even more necessary.

It is a great pity that last year — I again speak in the dark because these things by their very nature are kept in the dark and I understand fully why they are kept in the dark — when there was obviously a very strong possibility that maybe some movement or some form of dialogue might emerge between the Unionist population in Northern Ireland and the Government here, we did not take the chance to make the grand gesture which would have made that dialogue possible. I believe that chance is now gone. I think that the possibilities for that dialogue are diminished enormously. Had the Taoiseach, the Cabinet and the Government at that stage announced, as we ask in this particular amendment, their intention at some stage to delete and drop this claim to Northern Ireland, I believe that talks with the Unionist population would have taken place. But apparently this will not be done, apparently it remains Holy Writ, inviolable.

While being irrelevant in practical terms, it has enormous symbolic and offensive meaning to the people living in the North of Ireland. Can we expect that population to come and be friendly and have talks on equal terms when it is in our Constitution — not our law — that we claim their territory? It is offensive, it is wrong and it gives them justification for their siege mentality. If we want to lift that siege mentality, if we are serious about the generosity about which we talk so often, it is a prerequisite that we remove that Article or declare our intention to remove it. That chance, unfortunately, has gone.

I should extend this by saying that were we to hold a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 the Government undoubtedly — and the Opposition maybe — would reply by asking what could be the point, that such a proposal would be defeated, that the Irish nation wants a united Ireland and to put such a referendum to them would be divisive and pointless. I do not know the answer to that, although I suspect that the result might produce some surprises, not necessarily that the proposal would go through but, I suspect, that the loyalty to this doctrine is being diluted as the years go by and the pointlessness of it could be highlighted.

However, I would say that what has to be considered in that situation is not just people in the Republic but the people of Northern Ireland should be included in such a referendum, too, and it is quite conceivable that were there an all-Ireland referendum on unity such a referendum could be defeated. That might be unpalatable to people down here, but it also might be true because some of the measures which we have taken, some of the attitudes which we have taken, have certainly ensured that the vast majority of those over the Border would not conceivably vote in favour of a united Ireland and would vote against it with alacrity.

Indeed, we ourselves, while proclaiming our wish for unity, have taken specific measures over the years to divide this country in the most decisive way. It seems that we have done more to cement the Border than those over the other side of it because no two states — if that is the right description for them and it is always a problem as to what to call Northern Ireland and the Republic and I travel there very often — could be more different and we have done much to accentuate those differences. It is absolutely true that we have a distinctly Catholic ethos, to which Senator Murphy referred, not that that is a bad thing at all. We are perfectly entitled to have that Catholic ethos and, indeed, we should be proud, if we want that Catholic ethos, of having it. That Catholic ethos was emphasised and underlined by the referendum we had on abortion and the referendum we had on divorce, two particular measures which would not be acceptable in Northern Ireland simply because they appear to be the Church dictating to the State. That may or may not be true but the fact of the matter is that we have those Articles in our Constitution; we chose as a people to insert or to retain them in our Constitution and as a result we divided this country even further.

We cannot go to the population of Northern Ireland and say that we are friendly with them, that we want them to come in with us, although we have a Constitution that they do not like, which is anathema to them and, anyway, we claim their territory. That is not the way to go about being friendly neighbours. If we drop the claim to Northern Ireland, it would be quite reasonable to have these things in our Constitution if we so wished. I personally deplore them, but I acknowledge fully the right of the people of this country to insert them or to keep them there but I do not acknowledge the right of the people in this country to insert those clauses, those very, very denominational clauses and at the same time to claim that they are going to take over the people of Northern Ireland. The two cannot be reconciled and are not reconcilable. We have to come to terms with the fact that we will either impose our ethos on them or we will not have a United Ireland. It is my contention that we will not have a United Ireland.

Coming specifically to the amendment which Senator Murphy and I put down to remove this Article, I understand why the Government, the Fianna Fáil Party, should oppose it. I fully understand those deep rooted republican traditions in which it is sacred. It is almost the raison d'être of the Fianna Fáil Party to have a United Ireland, whatever that means. I understand that it would be a great leap forward for them to dilute that, to oppose that or to delete those offensive Articles.

The attitude of the Opposition is very difficult to understand. The Fine Gael reaction is very difficult to understand. Indeed, when Senator Murphy and I put down this amendment we were asked why we did so by various members of the press. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party were asked what their attitude to such an amendment would be. Like the Fine Gael Party do so often, they made excuses and ran for cover. I have more respect for the Government's opposition to it than the Fine Gael attitude of not being able to make up their mind. They muttered in the old time-honoured way that it was not the right time for this particular measure. That is political jargon and code for saying they want it both ways. They said we should be doing other things at the moment like seeing that the Anglo-Irish Agreement works. Saying it is not the right time means they might approve of it at some later date but are frightened of tackling this problem at the moment.

That is very disappointing because I was in this House — I think it was my first day here — when the then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, introduced his now defunct constitutional crusade in 1981. I am sorry that the Opposition do not have enough interest in this debate to provide many Members here today although I welcome Senator Harte. There was, for many people, the possibility of a great new dawn breaking, not just in Anglo-Irish relations but in relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic and England and the Republic. At the time that crusade was greeted enthusiastically by many Independents, by the Labour Party and by some members of Fine Gael, but not all it should be said. Unfortunately that crusade which implied specifically that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, the claim to Northern Ireland should be dropped as part of this new dawn and this new era is now, by the Opposition attitude to this amendment, a dead duck. Deputy FitzGerald, despite what was mainly his achievement in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of which he is proud, must be disappointed that his crusade never came to anything and that Fine Gael as a party are now happy to bury it and forget about it.

The Fine Gael Party have to be dragged into progress on Northern Ireland. They are very good at fine words and very bad at taking any practical measures. It will be a great disappointment to many in Northern Ireland to read that when this motion was put to the Opposition, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party, they were found wanting. Among many of the more moderate Unionists in Northern Ireland there was a feeling that maybe — they still felt the hostility of Fianna Fáil — among the Opposition there was some reasonable understanding of their point of view and that maybe they had some political courage to being able to tackle this problem and to see the other man's view. To me this is the greatest disappointment of this debate. I had expected, as had Senator Murphy, that because of their fine words in the past the Opposition would support us on this. I am very disappointed that they will not do so, that they have failed to find it in them to tackle this problem. I know we are stuck for time so I will not go on for very much longer.

I would like to say one or two things about Senator Eogan's contributions. It is very dangerous for people like Senator Eogan to say what they said today without any balance. Senator Eogan gave us a very sophisticated historical analysis of the problems but his message really was that the UK had failed and that the ultimate answer was undoubtedly a United Ireland. He gave us a dialogue of the offences or the wrongs committed by the UK in Northern Ireland. I agree with many of the things he said but let us all be honest in this House.

Much of what the British have done in Ireland in the past 20 years has been mistaken and some of it has been wrong. In relation to the 800 years before that undoubtedly Senator Eogan gave us a very good historical analysis. He talked about the high intensity operations in south Armagh and he said that the Armagh curtain, as he called it, was offensive to the environment. Senator Eogan's condemnation of the British in Northern Ireland would be more convincing if he had once — and I listened to his speech — balanced it by condemning the terrorists in the North. To me they are principals at fault and they are the cause of all the wrongs there. There are wrongs on all sides but the principal cause starts with the terrorists.

Senator Eogan did not once in his speech condemn the atrocities of the Provisional IRA. I would hate some child in 100 years or 50 years' time to pick up Senator Eogan's speech and read it because he or she would think that all that was happening in Northern Ireland was that there was an army of oppression there for some reason suppressing the people and that there was no cause for the presence of the army. It is misleading to make speeches of that sort without any balance whatsoever. Conclusions are perfectly fair but to make a speech like that which blamed Britain for every single wrong there is misleading, is not balanced and not responsible.

Senator Eogan is perfectly entitled to come to the conclusion that the whole problem could basically be blamed on Partition. He talked about a changed Ireland, but basically he was talking about a united Ireland. His implied threat to the Unionists that they may be a majority in number but not in fact because, in his own words, they do not have a voting majority in over half the area is the sort of threat that we must avoid because it is guaranteed to send them back into their ghettos and to resist any overtures from here, however genuine.

One of the great problems of debates of this sort is that a united Ireland seems to be a nice neat solution but we do not seem to recognise that people there matter. When Senator Eogan talked about the post-British phase he did not recognise that he will have to deal with at least one million people there who do not want anything to do with us. Whatever is offered to them, they still do not want to be part of this State. That is the unpalatable fact and something with which this State seems incapable of coping. There are a million people who do not want to be part of this State, and will not be whatever we say. Finally on Senator Eogan's speech, it is dangerous to use code words in this argument, it is better to come straight out and say what we mean. With regard to the relationship between Ireland and England, he said that Government must not become too fully incorporated with the UK into what he called the regulating system. This applied to South Armagh and the fortifications there and means only one thing, that we should not fully co-operate with them, that we should not become over-identified with the British in terms of security. It is very dangerous to say things like that in this House because there is also an implied threat that if we do not assist the British as regards security we will be giving full rein or leeway to the forces of terrorism. That is far from what is happening.

Let me take this opportunity again, as I did yesterday, of saying that what the British Prime Minister said about this country last week in the House of Commons was unforgivable, untrue and offensive because the role that this Government have played in fighting terrorism has been unsurpassed by any previous Government. There may be historical reasons for this being even more difficult for this Government than it had been for others. I would like personally to commend them for that.

Before I finish I want to say one or two words about Senator Lydon's contribution. His blunt, straightforward approach to this topic was honest and very refreshing. Senator Lydon said unequivocally that a unitary State was his answer and indeed he made some very constructive comments about the great value of co-operation between this and the other side of the Border. Unfortunately Senator Lydon could not resist the traditional, regrettable — and far too frequent habit in this House — of having a long bash at the Brits. I do not believe it is right that the emphasis of what goes out from here today should be Brit-bashing, just as the House of Commons should refrain from having a go at the Irish. It is incumbent on us to put our own house in order and the same applies to them.

When Senator Lydon suddenly mentioned in a long list the appalling record of the UK Government on human rights I thought "well, here we go again". He talked about the Diplock Courts, the shoot-to-kill policy, internment without trial, torture, the supergrass trials, I lost track then because he was going too fast for me. However, that is simply unhelpful and achieves nothing except to whip up a certain amount of hatred for Britain. Senator Lydon and anybody on that side who wants to talk about the injustices in Britain and deprivation of human rights should tell us what sort of Government or judicial system they want in Northern Ireland.

It is introducing a red herring to say they do not like the whole entity up there so they pick holes in it. You can pick holes in any entity if you want to. Does Senator Lydon want a judicial system up there which is as akin to normality as you can get? Does he want us to pretend that there is a normal situation up there? Perhaps Senator Lydon has not noticed, it is not normal up there. There are terrorists killing, maiming, bombing and murdering every day and if he thinks that a system can work normally under that sort of threat he is wrong. The Diplock Courts are there for a specific purpose and nobody likes them. They are there because jury courts simply do not work in Northern Ireland. We all know what happened; jurors were intimidated by paramilitaries on both sides and it was impossible to get convictions.

If Senator Lydon wants to return to that situation he should say so. The result would be quite simple; it would mean that you would not have a single terrorist in Northern Ireland brought to book for what he has been doing. Of course, we all dislike supergrass trials and internment without trial. It is offensive to those who believe in human and civil rights but it has to be remembered that it is an extraordinary situation up there and it requires extraordinary methods to fight it.

It is wrong to maintain that there is a semblance of normality. It makes me wonder when I hear the Provisional IRA crying "foul" about systems like the supergrass trials when they do not even accord that sort of trial to any of their victims. They really do not deserve any better and I do not see why we should say they do. I would remind the House that we ourselves, in a situation which is not comparable to Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, have been living in a state of emergency since 1939. We found it necessary to introduce the Special Criminal Court and special rules of evidence to counter a much smaller problem of terrorism. If we are going to bash the sort of judicial system they have in the North and the methods used in Britain, let us suggest a substitute but let us not say that all these extraordinary measures should not be introduced because, if we drop them, the terrorists will have a field day and a free run. I concede that in a situation like that of course there will be wrongs and the less that happen the better but it is preferable to allowing paramilitaries on all sides to run riot, to be released and not to be convicted of any of the crimes for which they are charged and are undoubtedly guilty.

I would like to say a few words about the Anglo-Irish Agreement because that is the emphasis behind the absent Fine Gael Members' argument in this debate. Those who promote the Agreement undoubtedly do so with an enormous degree of enthusiasm and genuine goodwill. There is no doubt that from this side it was introduced with integrity and goodwill. However, it has not yet been realised what an enormous culture shock that Agreement was to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland. They felt betrayed. They felt that they had been ignored, shut out and not consulted, which was of course true.

One of the most remarkable things about the Anglo-Irish Agreement — I am in touch with people in Northern Ireland very frequently — is that the opposition to it on the Unionist side, far from disintegrating, dying or being reduced, is increasing and hardening as the years go by. Whereas it was thought at the time that there would be an initial vocal and perhaps civil opposition — I mean in terms of civil disobedience — from the Unionists, it was also thought that this would die down and that eventually they would knuckle under and agree to this. From what I gather this has not happened and the opposition is stronger than ever. That is a reality and something we will have to deal with. We just simply underestimated that sort of opposition.

We must ask what the Anglo-Irish Agreement achieved, if anything. Many who oppose it say that the level of violence has increased since. I am not sure if you can measure the success or failure of it by the number of violent incidents. That may be an unfair way of judging the Anglo-Irish Agreement. What one should ask is if it has lived up to the expectations of those who promoted it in 1985 on both the British and the Irish side. What has it achieved in concrete terms? Has it won the hearts and minds of people on either side of the dreadful divide? Unfortunately, it fails the test on both counts.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement appears to have promised two almost irreconcilable things to either side of that agreement. It was seen in the Unionist camp as a great Nationalistic victory. It was seen by the Unionists as a betrayal and by the British as something else. The Nationalists certainly saw it as the fulfilment of their hopes of becoming equal citizens in Northern Ireland and getting equal treatment. They really felt that the input Dublin would have into the situation provided by the Anglo-Irish Agreement would give them that guarantee for which they had been looking for 50 years. The Dublin Government would, in the words of Jack Lynch, become the second guarantor of the rights of the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland. The Nationalist people of Northern Ireland are bitterly disappointed with the results of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has not changed their lives dramatically; it has not changed the system of justice dramatically; and it does not appear to have given the sort of protection from discrimination for which they hoped. On that count it has failed.

From the British point of view the Anglo-Irish Agreement was seen as a means of improving security between North and South. The British believed that this Agreement would improve the co-operation between the Garda and the RUC and possibly between the two Armies, that they would have a structured meeting place where they could sit down and improve security. From the British point of view that has been a disappointment. The British complained last week without justification about our attitude to terrorism. They certainly felt that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would solve and completely get rid of the sort of difficulties we have had with extradition in the past two weeks. If the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed from the British point of view, it has certainly not provided the Nationalist population with what they had expected. We should consider a review of it with a view to finding some other type of solution.

It is also true that the Government here are not as enthusiastic about the Anglo-Irish Agreement as those who initiated it. The Taoiseach himself initially opposed this; has gut reaction was that it was not a solution or a way forward. Since this Government took office they have operated it but not with the sort of enthusiasm the previous Government had. That is their right but in the light of the fact that the two Governments are disappointed with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Nationalist population are disappointed with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Unionist population are as opposed to it as ever, we should probably review it very seriously with a view to replacing it.

It may have some virtues which you cannot see. It may have the virtue that it will lead on to devolved Government or a solution like that but I see no sign of it. I see no sign of the intransigence on all sides being lessened by this Agreement. Finally, I suggest to all Members of this House and to members of the British House of Commons that when we are debating a subject like this we should be far more sensitive about the emotional and historical difficulties suffered by the other side, that we understand fully the difficulties which the United Kingdom experience and the frustrations which they experience as regards extradition and problems like that. But I would appeal to them from this House that they should cease making irresponsible comments on the way our legislation operates and they should cease putting pressure on our Taoiseach, on our Parliament and on our Attorney General on matters of this sort because that will do nothing for Anglo-Irish relations. The deterioration in Anglo-Irish relations in the past ten days lies squarely at the feet of the British Prime Minister and no one else. The Taoiseach has, as was said in the debate yesterday, behaved in a dignified, responsible fashion which will stand to his credit when the history books are written.

Conversely, I would ask those who feel strongly on this side of the Irish Sea that they desist from making outspoken, irresponsible and ill-informed statements about the British form of justice because nothing is more guaranteed to damage relations between our countries than people saying that Irish people cannot get a fair trial in England. There may well be, as I think Deputy Kelly said, occasions when Irish people have got the rough edge of British justice in England but to make it a blanket cause is equivalent to declaring war on the UK system of justice. If we want to do that, so be it, but the result will be retaliation and that is not what we want. I appeal to those whose emotions are involved in this issue and in this particular struggle to use restraint as far as possible, that where they have specific causes to represent them and promote them quietly and effectively but not to do it so publicly as they have done before. The sort of public row we had last week which emanated from Britain and the sort of possible public row that may emanate from here, both the result of open criticism of the other country's system, should be avoided.

Mr. Cullimore

This debate offers a timely opportunity for comment on events which caused much concern. Three years after the signing of the accord is not a time for resignation or despair but a time for calm appraisal. While progress has been made and the Government are to be congratulated on their achievements, areas remain where improvement is required. Given the unfortunate history of the six north eastern counties of this island, it is a truism that success in the resolution of complex problems entails embarking on a long and arduous process.

One of the most pressing concerns is the question of confidence in the administration of justice. Article 8 of the accord places special emphasis on the enhancement of this confidence among members of the Nationalist community. Decades and indeed centuries of alienation pose critical problems in this regard. We must be conscious of the fact that even minor improvements can be wiped out overnight by a single act of provocation or intolerance. In any State public faith in institutions can be a delicate bloom and easily damaged by the icy blasts of cynicism and suspicion.

It is regrettable that recent developments have led to a re-awakening of old doubts and suspicions concerning the legitimacy of the legal system in Northern Ireland. Often on this island images are more potent than any public stances or pronouncements. For many people the intervention in a dramatic fashion of a respected former Member of this House, Séamus Mallon, in the Craigavon inquest served to confirm that their worst fears regarding Northern justice were well based. Mr. Mallon rightly noted that many of his constituents and others saw the proceedings and I quote "as an empty charade unworthy of a democratic society". Such occurrences inflict grave damage upon the well-intentioned efforts of Government Ministers and may lead to support being given to subversives by people scenting betrayal.

It is bad enough that such events should occur singly but other events can compound the trouble. In an interview with The Irish Times on 14 January 1988 the British Attorney General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, made comments which displayed a rather flawed understanding of Irish public representatives. His most trenchant comment was reserved for Irish politicians who comment on the outcome of court cases. Offence was taken by the Attorney at alleged, and I quote, “thinly veiled aspersions on the independence of the judiciary of Northern Ireland”. I appreciate the need to refrain from intemperate comment. However, I would point out that many public representatives articulate the sincerely held feelings of Nationalists and in the wake of often highly controversial decisions to remain silent could be seen as a tacit recognition that a satisfactory position existed and that there were no grounds for concern whatsoever. I submit that such silence would be a dereliction of duty on the part of committed people and must be avoided when genuine points are to be made.

It is highly ironic that one member of the British Government should be so sensitive regarding observations made in court cases while his own British Prime Minister displayed scant regard for the due process of the law in this State even before any prosecutions have commenced. Further in The Irish Times interview, the British Attorney General said, and I quote: “You could walk for a week in West Belfast before you heard any anxiety about the quality of justice in the Diplock Courts. It is not a real issue”. This I contend strains credulity. A recent survey published by the prestiguous Policy Studies Institute found that 38 per cent of Catholics lack confidence in the fairness of the Northern Ireland courts in dealing with them. Just as such a finding makes a compelling case for acceleration of work under Article 8 of the Agreement, it points to Sir Patrick's lack of appreciation of the problem. I suggest that in the unlikely situation that if the Attorney General were to go on a walking tour of West Belfast, it would take him less than a week to be enlightened.

In addition to these occurrences there has been the announcement by the British Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd, that the right to silence on the part of suspects is to be removed. The implications for public confidence may be profound. Respected members of the Northern Bar have expressed their concern at this development and unease is not confined to practitioners from one tradition but cuts across the spectrum of opinion. It is an unhappy state of affairs that the State which proudly claims it gave the world a noble legal system should permit such disfiguring knots to exist in its grain.

I would like to congratulate the Taoiseach on his calm, courageous and very competent handling of the current situation. In all of this he has shown the true quality of a statesman. I believe we must continue to extend the hand of friendship to the Unionist people in Northern Ireland. As the great Eamon de Valera once said, and I quote: "We should show to the people in the North that their future lies with us and not with strangers". Now is the time to join together the orange and the green of the flag in peace, harmony and unity. We must not be intimidated by British intransigence but instead we must use all our energies to focus world opinion on the benefits and indeed the necessity of bringing together the two traditions in peace and harmony on this island.

Mr. Harte

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion and indeed the amendments. However, I feel it necessary to say by way of prefacing my remarks on the Northern Ireland situation and the Anglo-Irish Agreement in general that we should all be concentrating our energies on dealing with the question of how laws dealing with peace, work, health and welfare can be arrived at. However, again I must respectfully suggest that while we may have strong feelings about a united Ireland or the behaviour of the British press, they are at this time not relevant to the needs of the majority of the mixed community in the North of Ireland because what the people in the North of Ireland want to see emerging is real hope and real prospects for stability.

To a great extent the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is irrelevant to a lot of the working class people. Their first priority is the question of jobs and indeed peace. I am not departing from my own party's political standpoint but I would like to make the observation that if after all the debates we have had in both Houses of the Oireachtas and all the experience we have gained, we discover that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an impediment to the development of structures that would bring about peace, work and health, then we should think seriously about suspending this to allow those structures to be put into place, not necessarily forever but certainly to see if the structures are working. People believe it is a hindrance, particularly the Protestant people and a substantial number of the Catholic population feel it is a hindrance to proper political structures. It is preventing the use of other structures and, therefore, has to be seriously looked at in the context of all the experience we have gained plus the whole question of where we are trying to head for the people in the North of Ireland with regard to this question of laws that will give them peace, work and health and indeed welfare.

I would like to try and go over this matter a little historically. I am not interested, in this debate anyway, in the question of the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six or the Winchester people. That, to my mind is not relevant in this particular debate. It is not going to help or assist it but we have to go over the history of the development of the present situation. We all know that the problem began in 1968 with the marches for civil rights and developed after 1970 into armed opposition to the North of Ireland's constitutional status. The result of that, of course, has been the loss of over 2,000 lives plus many thousands of people who are very badly paralysed and have suffered very grave disruptions to family life. The violence itself that has been legitimised by the Provisional IRA and the paramilitaries on the Protestant side has brought about not only the loss of 2,000 lives but has created a situation in the North that makes it much more difficult for anybody to bring about any peace. Nevertheless, there is sufficient room there to start moving in the direction of putting proper structures in place. If, as I said earlier, there are any impediments in the way over which we in the South have control then we should begin to remove those impediments.

I am not talking about Articles in the Constitution. I do not think it would make one bit of difference to the people of the North because it would not hold up finally in international law. I do not think it makes one bit of difference. As far as we are concerned, the Unionist parties, the paramilitary organisations, the whole Protestant community, see it as an attack or as an incursion into their democratically expressed right to remain within the United Kingdom. Whatever the rights or the wrongs of the situation, we must make it clear that we have now reached a stage where a new initiative is needed which accepts political institutions that will work towards ending the violence and bring about peace, work and health. It is very urgently needed now.

That is not to condemn the Anglo-Irish Agreement nor is it to make a proposition that it should be done away with immediately but on the basis of what we have discovered and the experience we have built up over the three years through our inter-Government exchanges and through debates in both Houses of the Oireachtas, we have the experience of looking at the various options. For example, we looked at the question of continuing with direct rule. We have thought about the establishment of a devolved power-sharing Government. We have talked about negotiating the establishment of a united Ireland. We have had talks about restoring majority rule in Northern Ireland and we have even heard propositions and submissions on the question of a confederation of the British Isles and, of course, independence.

All of these options have their own supporters. The social democratic people and the Labour Party in the North of Ireland have always campaigned for power-sharing but they do not seem to have got anywhere with it and it does not seem, in the context of British policy at the moment, that it will work. Neither will the forms of Irish unity that Sinn Féin and the other parties have put up. In the case of Sinn Féin there is too much emphasis on the question of a united Ireland and in the case of the Unionist people what they are talking about is a return to devolved majority government. Obviously that is not a runner either. These are not acceptable options. It would be difficult to say that power-sharing should come back in a majority sense. Certainly that is an option that has to be ruled out.

There are other problems with the other options also. For example, you would have to rule out majority rule, devolved Government, you would have to rule out an independent North of Ireland and, of course, you would rule out the confederation of the British Isles. From the dialogue and discussions held in both the North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the evidence submitted by study groups, both to the New Ireland Forum and other places, it is clear that none of these options would actually be workable or acceptable. It might have been workable for some of the people making the submissions but certainly it would not be acceptable to the people receiving and considering the submissions.

The problem with majority rule goes back a long time. The North of Ireland was set up in 1921 and has been beset with problems from the beginning. It was set up against the wishes of the people in what we consider six of the nine counties of Ulster and was boycotted by the Nationalists and Sinn Féin leaders who were elected to it in 1921. It came under attack from the IRA which was matched by Protestant violence. Again we are going back to the question of many deaths of Catholics and Protestants. In the midst of all that the British Government remained indifferent. Faced with all this the Unionist people resolved to consolidate their authority in power and we know what the result of that was over the years. Some Unionist politicians, and if we can believe opinion polls the silent majority of Unionists, still to this day are anxious to see the return of a majority devolved Government in Northern Ireland.

The other option is a pro-union alliance, and a majority of the Catholic community would vigorously oppose that. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that, given the past experience of a majority devolved Government and the current opposition to it in the minority community, it could ever be made to work. It would not provide representation. We have got to think about where we came from in that respect. No matter what guarantees we got the success of a devolved Government would depend upon receiving the confidence and support of a substantial number of people and in particular a cross-section of both communities. If it is not present in the North of Ireland, then it has to be rejected for all time. The Protestant people have got to realise that it has been rejected for all time. There are other ways in which, while we are waiting for some fuller political structures to emerge, we can deal with the question of working towards a power sharing devolved Government. You can deal with the local government and parliamentary boundaries, for example, which were gerrymandered years ago and which would not be recognised by the Catholic people and people who gave their allegiance to the Free State in the South. These things can be done. No opinion has been tested yet on the question of support for independence, no real opinion. The Catholic people have not been tested. I do not think they would go for it anyway.

The reality is that people are thinking about it. We have shown objections to independence. Our objections are political and economic. We are talking about independence in the sense that the Unionist people are putting it forward. It can be interpreted that what they are talking about is a majority devolved Government. Certainly that will not work. Even though the Westminster Parliament would still have ultimate authority over it you cannot protect minority interests in that way. However well meaning the advocates might be in their intentions in this direction, they cannot give an ultimate guarantee of the protection of minority rights. It will never work in practice. It may be claimed that an independent State would be the guarantor of those rights. It certainly could not be, even if you wrote a bill of rights into the Constitution because experience shows that, no matter where constitutions exist, the Soviet Union, the USA, protection from discrimination is very difficult to achieve.

Economically an independent state would find it very difficult to survive without substantial outside help. You have not got the traditional industries now such as linen and shipbuilding. They have declined dramatically over the past few decades. Very few labour intensive industries have been established. There are no indigenous energy sources with the possible exception of the potential gas reserve in the west. Even those would not be sufficient to prevent imports of a substantial nature. It would not work economically. There is the whole question of the subvention to the North in the area of security and social services. The British are putting approximately £1,600 million into it. Even if that contribution were to continue in an independent state, having regard to the obstacles to imports and so on, I doubt very much that we would see the social services being maintained at their existing level and that would also be disastrous.

It is inconceivable that public opinion in Britain would allow a Westminster Government to support heavily any sort of independent State to a greater extent than the taxpayer in England is paying now. Therefore, I doubt that there is anything in the independence idea. There is nothing attractive about the idea of independence to Britain, Ireland, or the minority in the North. Eventually Britain might see the North in the light of a Cuba on her doorstep and I doubt that they would want that.

The advocates of independence make the argument that the people of Ulster are culturally and ethically different from their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom and also from their neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. I cannot see any difference between the man in east Belfast who has not got a job and the man living in Tallaght who has not got a job. When you look at them in a collective way, they have a lot in common and the Anglo-Irish Agreement becomes a very insignificant thing.

The argument about the question of confederation of the British Isles has not been given any serious consideration by any political organisation in Britain or Ireland. It would again find favour in the majority community. It is not a political structure that would find immediate favour certainly with the Nationalists. We feel that if it were to be given consideration, which it is not going to get on this side of the Border anyway, it would be impossible to achieve. I am trying to eliminate things that are past and I am trying to be consistent with the remarks I made earlier. We have looked at all these options. We can talk about them again and we should eliminate them so that we can talk about something that will work in the present context.

The idea that each constituent part of the British Isles should be given a certain autonomy sounds attractive, the idea of giving legislative powers to parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland, or to Ireland as a single nation within the British Isles. The latter would be similar in its intentions to what was intended in the original third Home Rule Bill and, therefore, it would require the Republic of Ireland to give up its status as an independent sovereign nation. This would be totally unacceptable to the great majority of Irish people. It would be another non-runner. It would be opposed by the Nationalist and Republican organisations. The Provisional IRA would step up their campaign. It would mean giving up our aspirations to a free and independent Irish Republic. It is not a runner in any sense of the word particularly when one thinks in terms of about 54 million people dominating us here with three and a quarter million. In the long run it would not work.

It is very hard to talk about what would work having regard to all the options that have been considered and put forward. There is an opportunity to get something going now between the two communities in Northern Ireland. So much water has gone under the bridge that hopes for reconciliation are that little bit better between the two parts of Ireland. In this respect we should lean on both the English Labour Party and the Conservative Party in Government to make sure that their programmes will always have regard to the fact that reconciliation is ongoing and we must work at it on a daily basis. In order to do that we have to think about new structures and adopt them at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the options I mentioned there would be three constitutional structures that you could really seriously talk about: direct rule from Westminister on an ongoing basis; a power sharing devolved Government; and the unification of Ireland. No matter how you look at it you cannot look at one option separately from the others. While you might conclude that they might be seen as separate alternatives, the fact of the matter is that in the long run they have to be seen as an integral part of a practical political programme with one set of arrangements giving way as soon as possible to another. For example if you had a power sharing devolved Government, direct rule from Westminister would still be in place.

If Séamus Mallon happened to be the Minister for Industry and Commerce and played the same role as the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Reynolds played for us could you imagine how the Catholic people would feel on seeing Séamus Mallon going out to Hong Kong, to Australia or to India on their behalf trying to attract industries etc. into the country? Could you imagine the benefit there would be if John Hume was looking after the health of the people in the North of Ireland? It would be much more powerful than many of the arguments we have been making. It is a wonder the British do not come to their senses in this respect and lean a little bit more heavily on the Unionist people. There are ways to do things. We should not continually harp on security, saying we must put more money into security and must persist with something that is not working to the best advantage.

Consequently, I believe that a devolved power sharing Government is close enough to being there if the British just take their courage in their hands. If that happened and if Séamus Mallon and John Hume were seen to be part of the process in a real power sharing authority with the ability to go out and do things for the people in a practical way, that would have the effect of cutting the para-militaries down to size and isolating them. If, for example, the British were prepared to start talking about a phased withdrawal of troops side by side with devolved power sharing, that would be much more effective than all the talk about solutions by peaceful means. I doubt that the Unionists are as entrenched in their position as they were. We and the British want peace and if people want it they can have a devolved power sharing Government.

Direct rule from Britain, devolved power sharing and a united Ireland are integral parts of the same thing. You cannot talk about the end and leave out the means to achieve the end. A devolved power sharing Government must be a priority for us even if it means giving up the argument about the question of a united Ireland for the time being. They are not fools. They know that aspiration will always exist. Any brow-beating process will meet resistance and will make it more difficult for us to get them to realise that it is in their own interests as well as ours to have this power sharing devolved Government working well.

Protestants down through the years have qustioned where they belong. That made the opposition to a united Ireland that much stronger. It is a difficult problem and it has been difficult to come as far as we have come. In our own interests we should be very careful about the hard argument for a united Ireland being the only solution to the present problems in the North of Ireland. I admit it is an integral part of the whole thing but I do not think a condition of setting up a power sharing Government in the North should be that eventually we would work towards a united Ireland because it just would not work. You will not get the Protestant people to the table. Nevertheless I have no doubt in my mind that after it had been working for some time, the working class in particular would begin to see that it was the best thing for them. That is the move we should make now.

We cannot go back to 1918 and talk about our claim to Home Rule. We can talk about the general election of 1918 where Sinn Féin got 48 per cent of the vote and won 70 seats in the Twenty-six counties and three seats in the Six Counties. That was out of a total of 105 seats but the fact is that all of that has passed and all the arguments against it have resulted in the terrible bloodshed and hardship that is being imposed on the people of the North of Ireland. The opposition to Irish unity which has a solid working class base, has been expressed electorally by pro-Unionist parties in favour of staying within the UK for over 60 years. We all understand that there is a big problem there.

We must bear in mind that other things have to be thought about and in the sense of moving towards devolved power-sharing would it not be possible, for example, to start looking at the local government situation in the North? Is there no way in which the trade union movement, which represents both sides of the community, might have the right to nominate people to be elected to bodies like that in the interim? They would be able to express in a more balanced way what affects the community locally and they would not come down on one particular side. It would be very useful in making political progress.

There must be greater unity between the working classes in the North of Ireland if we are to move on. We want the majority people to be reconciled. You cannot have discussions just between the Irish Government and the British Government and part of the community in the North of Ireland. You must work towards a way to get the two communities involved because there are four parts to it, among whom are the Nationalists, the British Government and the Irish Government. A way has to be found to understand the Unionist point of view. It is not enough to get it through the media nor is it a question of talks about talks. The Taoiseach invited the Northern people to talk with him and he was going to have an open-ended, no conditions attached meeting which I thought was a very good idea but, unfortunately, I do not think sufficient has been done in this respect. Something can still happen in this area as it is not too late. A step-by-step plan by the Taoiseach to bring this about might not be a bad idea. The constitutional Unionist people would see some substance in it and it would assist them to move in the direction of power-sharing devolved Government in the North of Ireland.

In the end the problem has to be solved by the people of Ireland. It is all right talking about guarantees, whether we can go it alone or have a united Ireland but it cannot be done that way. Our political discussions must be with all parties even though there is down right hostility from the Unionist leaders. At the end of the day it must become part of our attitude — and particularly since the Taoiseach started this initiative — to encourage people into seeing that we do not have horns and that we have a reasonable attitude to their right to want to stay in the United Kingdom. We can show them that not only are we talking about the idea of coming together on a power-sharing basis in a devolved Government based on consent but we are also talking about being prepared to work with them to win consent for peaceful unification.

Since there is a power vacuum in the North of Ireland we should try to involve trade unionists and see how far they get with both communities, what the working class communities have in common and what are their medium-term goals. Let me emphasise that I am not talking about a united Ireland at this time but rather about consent for devolved Government. If in the future the people in the North decide that they would be better served by being in a united Ireland, that is open to them but we should not harp on this in such an emotional way as to suggest that the priority is a united Ireland.

It is not easy to get common agreement. We must all express our views. As I said earlier, there is a strongly held view in the Catholic community and in the working-class community that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is of no significance and does not matter a damn. They would be more interested in talking to somebody who would create jobs and so reduce the numbers on the unemployed list.

There is a lot of co-operation in a number of economic and social areas and there is evidence that it can be developed further. There could be further development in the industrial field and in the field of security. We can show how co-operation between the North and South can become much more effective and we can also show that there is no reason why we cannot strengthen the links between North and South. It is all there for us if we can get the constitutional Unionists to come off the fence. We must recognise that direct rule from Westminster will have to continue for some time to come and that there are difficulties in setting up power-sharing devolved government in the North. That is something we have to start thinking seriously about and we guarantee that we are not interested in taking away direct rule at this time.

One of the real problems is if we do not start thinking seriously about devolved power-sharing, if we do not start thinking seriously about having another look at the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and if we do not start thinking about something to fill the political vacuum that exists at the moment while we are working towards power-sharing devolved Government, then all we can expect is many more deaths, more trouble, more hyped-up views from the media, more emotional debates in both Houses of the Oireachtas and more entrenched attitudes on both sides.

We all know the history and the background to this. We all know the difficulties that exist. I appeal to everyone to recognise that we are now at a point where pressure must be put on the British Government to understand that the only solution at present is that of power-sharing. More would be done to eliminate violence if a Minister was seen to be acting on behalf of the whole community, particularly the Catholic community, going abroad to seek jobs for them, to seek opportunities and to look after their education and welfare, etc. Those are the sort of things we need. We should also get it across to them that we feel that since the trade union movement represents both sides of the community we would be prepared in the interim to look at area boards and so on. We are talking about housing, health, welfare and structures that would allow Catholics and Protestants to see that somebody with a balanced view was sitting on those boards and having regard to their problems.

We are not in a position to go beyond the question of a power-sharing devolved government or to go beyond the question of getting some representation onto area boards or into the local government structure but we are in a position to say that while power-sharing devolved government, direct rule from Britain and a united Ireland are all integral parts of the one thing, we are not at this time making the demand for a united Ireland. People should realise that. They should also realise that the political vacuum must be filled.

It would be wise to look at the local government side of it also. If there is an opportunity to have a trade union voice on area boards, etc., then an effort should be made to do so. Naturally there will be opposition to it but if the Taoiseach pursued the initiative he took earlier on he could put it to the Protestant leaders. They may have it in their minds that power-sharing devolved government is considered by us to be an essential step in bringing North and South towards a united Ireland. That should not be an impediment because it is a long way down the road.

We are not saying at this time that we want a united Ireland. We accept direct rule from Britain. We accept that the devolved power-sharing Government will be working for many years before any assessment can be made of its value. But we believe over all that it would be worth the risk to go for devolved Government, coupled with some representation from the trade union movement on local area bodies, coupled with some guarantee of a withdrawal or a phased withdrawal of some of the troops. I believe we could convince the Protestant people that power-sharing devolved Government is the only future for them. It is regrettable that they were left out of all the arguments and it may be argued that they were not consulted. When we measure their emotional attachment to Great Britain we can understand their attitude to the lack of consultation in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Industries have been closed down for months over the question of consultation and communication. We should understand that.

We have come through the question of Sinn Féin being elected. We have come through the attitudes that were taken by the Unionists over the years to hold on to their British heritage. We have listened to the contradictory argument that they were separate and had a different culture from both the South and the British. We have listened to all that. We have listened to the emotion about the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and we have listened to the arguments but none of it relates to what needs to be done now in the North of Ireland to bring about the peace and stability that the people deserve. The people have suffered for over 20 years. There have been over 2,000 casualties and many families have been broken, particularly in spirit, due to the terrible conflict that is going on at present.

If we do not make up our minds to take these initiatives then we must make up our minds that we are not interested in changing fear to faith because that is what must happen: we must change this whole matter of fear to faith. You can bring in anti-discrimination legislation under direct rule but it would be no good. You can bring in better rights in the area of sexual discrimination but it will not do. What is needed is real structures that people can relate to, particularly the Catholic people who want to see somebody going out and actually working on their behalf and not causing problems for them like the Provos. We have the alternative but have we the stomach to put the pressure on and hang on until we get what we want? I think the Protestant community now would not take unkindly to the idea of their leaders breaking out of the present impasse and starting an initiative towards a devolved, power-sharing Government. After all they are going to be the majority in it and the protection will be there for the majority from Great Britain.

The whole fabric of society has been affected by the behaviour of para-militaries and by the emotion that is expressed, by people who ginger it up, by those who deliberately provoke people and by the people who let others shed blood on their behalf, influenced by the tone of their arguments and tendency to incite. We must get over that. I urge the Taoiseach to take the initiative once again and to push it that bit harder, with more evidence presented to the working class people of the Protestant community that there is a future for them in power-sharing devolved government.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I call Senator Mooney I would like to remind the House that on the Order of Business we decided that the Tánaiste would be coming in at 2.30 p.m. I would like the two remaining speakers to bear that in mind without my having to curtail them.

Mr. Mooney

I shall try to be brief. Without casting any aspersions or reflections on the contributions in the debate so far, it seems to me that the Committee on Proceedure and Privilege might look at the possibility of restricting time on these in order to allow people to get in. It seems that if one cannot say what one wishes to say on any subject within the specified time then it needs to be looked at. I do not wish to waste any further time on that. I am sure the Cathaoirleach shares my views on it.

The disruption of relations between this country and Britain as a result of the recent extradition affair — and indeed the current extradition affair — is nothing new but it is unlikely that the good neighbourliness necessary between states who are so close to each other as Ireland and Britain will ever reach its ultimate while Britain remains here and involved in the administrative structure of this island. The aspiration to nationhood is not a new one nor is it a peculiarily Catholic republican concept, which would put me almost in direct disagreement with Senator Ross's contribution earlier where he tended to talk of unity or of nationhood and the concept of Irish nationhood as being a uniquely Catholic republican concept.

I might remind him that Grattan's Parliament, while it was unrepresentative, was at that time an expression of the aspiration to separateness among the Protestant aristocracy of the period. Who is to say, if one were to speculate, that with the electoral reforms of the early and middle 19th century in Great Britain where the franchise was extended, where the repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 gave access to a wide variety of concessions to Catholics including parliamentary rights, that by the end of the 19th century if Grattan's Parliament had been allowed to continue that we would not today have a representative, democratic, uniquely Irish Parliament? However, that is in the realms of "what if" subjects in history. That parliament, electing Irishmen to a national Parliament was the role model used by Gladstone 100 years later when he attempted to give Home Rule to Ireland. Again, this particular proposal over a period of 30 years of agitation by Irish Nationalists was to founder in the 1914-18 period.

The role of the Ulster Unionist in all of that period has not been one of total opposition to the idea of a united Ireland but, as time went on, and particularly as the early part of this century passed and the political developments of the 1916-21 period arrived, Unionism hardened considerably and they are now, as their forefathers were in that generation, totally opposed to any diminution of what they perceive to be their Britishness. Indeed the definition of Northern Unionists' Britishness is something that they themselves sometimes have difficulty with. I have been unable to find in any of the volumes of writings on the subject any clear-cut definition of where Unionism and where Ulster Unionists are in the whole concept of the totality of relationships between Great Britain and Ireland or where they see themselves in any future development. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have the ongoing conflict in the North.

It is not surprising therefore that they are currently opposed to any involvement by a Southern Irish administration in the affairs of the North. The idea behind the Anglo-Irish Agreement is well known. It was to reduce the level of violence and to give the Nationalists of the Six Counties an equality that had been denied them since 1921. Sadly, the level of violence has increased rather than diminished while the limited role of the Irish input into Northern affairs has not impacted to any great degree on the broad mass of the Nationalist people. I think this is a theme which has been picked up by many speakers in this debate, more recently by my colleague on the Labour benches.

I would have to agree that I do not think that the lofty aspirations that were expressed in Hillsborough in 1985 have come anywhere near realisation. However, that is not really a criticism of the architects of the Agreement on either the British or Irish side. I would not question their motives; rather it is an indication of how entrenched positions are on both sides in the Six Counties. The Unionists see themselves as excluded from a process in which they had no input. Sinn Féin and the IRA see the Agreement as a sell-out of the traditional right of the Irish people to self-determination.

Looking at the Unionist claims I must confess to being somewhat perplexed whenever I hear their leaders talk about being denied a voice. It is well known that from 1921 to the abolition of Stormont in 1972 that Unionist hegemony held sway and since 1972 successive efforts to persuade the Unionist politicians to involve themselves in shared government in Northern Ireland has been spurned, indeed at the point of a gun in 1974. The result of this intransigence was the discussions leading up to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe that the response of the Unionists since that time to the Agreement and its workings is hypocritical in one respect, hypocritical because for many, many years in that period, particularly between 1972 and 1985, they held centre stage in the political forum of Northern Ireland. The British Government bowed to their wishes although there were several attempts made by successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland to introduce electoral reform to provide an elective forum in which all of the community in Northern Ireland would find expression.

We find ourselves in 1988 in a situation where the only answer that the Unionist leadership are offering to their followers is that Ulster says "No". I again find the statement that "Ulster says No" somewhat arrogant. I am not living there; I am sure many Nationalists find it equally arrogant but to that portion of Ulster that says "no" to this Agreement, and in essence "no" to any progress in the political development of the island, surely there must come a time when they will face the reality of their situation.

In recent months criticism has been levelled at the quality of the Unionist leadership, that they have backed themselves into a corner, that the more moderate wing of Unionism has been looking over its shoulder at the extreme wing of Unionism as exemplified by perhaps the one man who in my opinion is as much responsible for the violence and for the impasse in Northern Ireland as any other, that is Ian Paisley, There must come a time when those who are the middle North, if one could borrow the expression that is used on occasions about middle America, the silent majority, when they must see that their best future lies in dialogue initially about whatever the structures of government are to be not only in this island north and south but between Britain and Ireland and in a wider European context — but that is something for the future.

I am always confused somewhat at the ambiguities in British policy towards Sinn Féin, and to a lesser extent the attitude of successive southern administrations to that bloc of Nationalist voters in the Six Counties who continually return Sinn Féin as elected representatives. Indeed, at the last local elections 59 Sinn Féin councillors were returned to councils in Northern Ireland and in the last general election one MP, Gerry Adams, represented West Belfast, the most impassioned or emotive hotbed of Irish Nationalism in the north-east. Eighty thousand people voted for the Sinn Féin councillors. Sinn Féin have never made any secret of their support for the physical force tradition —"the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other". Despite all of the opprobrium that is heaped on the IRA and on their fellow-travellers, Sinn Féin, 80,000 people in the north-east corner of this island chose in a free, democratic, secret ballot to vote in that way.

I say I am confused by the ambiguities in British policy and in southern attitudes but I find the ambiguity more perplexing among the British rather than among southern Irish politicians. The reason I say that is that one can understand the reluctance and indeed perhaps the abhorrence of sourthern Irish politicians to be seen to be parleying with Sinn Féin, the political party who have until very recently not only refused to recognise the legitimacy of this Parliament, of our Judiciary and of our elected institutions, but who have been pledged to its overthrow by violent means. I can understand the attitude of successive southern Irish Governments towards Sinn Féin. In that context, I welcome the policy change of at least the more substantial wing of Sinn Féin in deciding recently that they would now, if elected sit, in this Parliament.

I am more surprised at the attitude of the British Government. For many many years they were telling us and telling the people of the North and telling the world at large that the people of Northern Ireland, the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland, did not support any politicial party that would espouse violence. They, therefore, encouraged people, the Nationalists particularly, in the Six Counties to involve themselves in the political process. They positively encouraged Sinn Féin to involve themselves as a political party in the political process but, having done that, the British yet again moved the goal posts. They are now introducing legislation which is going to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for that expression of the Nationalist will to be represented in the council chambers of the North.

I have to ask the British Government which way do they want it? Do they want to support democratic ideals and in so doing permit people to be elected to Parliament or to local chambers, people with whom they would be at total variance, whose point of view they would find abhorrent or are they prepared to deny the right of people living in the Six Counties an opportunity to vote for whoever they wish? They cannot have it both ways. This is not an apology for Sinn Féin: my views on Sinn Féin and the IRA are very well known but I am a democrat and I believe in a democratic process. Therefore, I think part of the problem in Northern Ireland, particularly on the Nationalist side, is that those people who are supporting Sinn Féin in successive elections in the full knowledge of what they stand for, are being excluded ever further and further from the process of dialogue in Northern Ireland if the people they elect are so excluded.

I do not believe that the Irish Government should be involved in discussions directly with Sinn Féin for reasons I have outlined earlier. Perhaps I do not even believe that the British Government should be directly involved in discussions with Sinn Féin unless that they totally renounce their violent aims. I do believe there should be some avenue, some channel, through which those people have access so that their point of view can be not only discussed but also challenged. Nobody challenges Sinn Féin in a political forum because Sinn Féin are, in the main, excluded. I talk, for example, about the New Ireland Forum in 1984 here and the discussions leading up to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and subsequent to the signing, the setting up of the Secretariat in the North which seems to be operating in some sort of a vacuum. It does not seem to be receiving representations directly from elected representatives in the North and that that perhaps is a mistake.

I do not have all the answers. I am not proposing that there be direct talks but I do not think that the long term solution to the problem of the North will be solved by ignoring people who put themselves through the democratic process and who are elected in a free, fair and secret democratic election.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, in the context of my observations on Sinn Féin and the North because I see them as two distinct entities: the Sinn Féin operation in the North and the people who support them as distinct from the Sinn Féin political operation in the South where they do not receive any support — less than 2 per cent of the population voted for them and I am sure many of my colleagues will agree that within that 2 per cent there are more than likely people who voted for personal reasons rather than for ideological reasons. The actual percentage of the vote for Sinn Féin's ideological stance would be minute.

In that context of widening the dialogue, if you wish, I believe that the key to any serious discussion of my proposals lies with the attitude of the IRA. How can the IRA possibly talk about uniting the people of this island when they constantly shoot fellow Irishmen and women. How can the IRA talk about the eventual unity of minds and hearts in this island when they kill innocent civilians — 26 this year? I say to the IRA: stop killing your fellow Irishmen and women, stop killing innocent civilians and stop justifying your policy by invoking the memory of those, who throughout Irish history, have followed the physical force tradition, because they have never spoken for the majority of the Irish people at any stage and you certainly do not speak for them now.

I find incomprehensible the policy of the IRA, which seems to be well stated, and certainly it is constantly executed — if one can use that horrible phrase in this context — of continuing to shoot and kill members of the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment because they are perceived to be collaborators, because they are perceived to be propping up the British regime in the North. How can they possibly kill these people, watch the scenes of grief and horror that are regularly paraded across our television screens, of cases of fathers who have been lost to families, of cousins and brothers and sisters and at the end of it all say, "we will sit down with these same people or with their representatives and we will talk about a glorious, new, free, happy island of Ireland? I fail to see the logic of it.

There may be criticism of what I am saying as being somehow historically inaccurate, about the lack of consensus throughout Irish history. An interesting book indeed that I would commend to my colleagues in this House and to the public at large was published recently called "Green against Green". It is a definitive history of the Irish civil war by Michael Hopkinson. At one point in it he talks about the attitude of our leaders at the beginning of the State towards Northern Ireland. He says: "Collins, Mulcahy and O'Duffy"— military leaders at the time —"had attached a much greater importance to the North than was being generally applied in Southern Sinn Féin circles. While the desire for national unity was continually re-affirmed on all sides"— as it is today —"there remained a considerable amount of apathy in the South concerning the North. There had been attempts during the Treaty negotiations to understand and make concessions to Northern Unionism. There was, however, over-optimism concerning Northern willingness to join an independent Irish state if local autonomy was allowed. O'Duffy declared; ‘The position of the Six-County nationalists has been treated with complete indifference by the rest of Ireland, except at election time or, when it served party purposes to exploit it.'"

One of the most telling comments came from Sean Milroy, one of the few Sinn Féin TDs with a Northern background who sat in this Parliament and who "said in the Dáil on September 1922: ‘There is as little appreciation in Dublin and the South of the state of mind, and habit of thinking, and the point of view of the people of the North as there is in the North of the people in the South'. That impression was reinforced by the choice of Southern TDs to fight Northern seats in Six-County elections. For all the Irish talk of unity the emphasis had been on winning independence for the Twenty-Six Counties and then on the Treaty division as it applied to the South.' "

I put that into the record of the House because I think it puts the whole question of Anglo-Irish relations and North-South relations in a context to which perhaps those of us who have come through the Irish educational system might not have been exposed. I am not putting it on record in order to deny that there was not then and is not now a strong aspiration for unity. In the context of my attitude towards Sinn Féin representatives in the Six Counties I place it as an argument for not excluding them from ongoing discussions so long as they take part in the democratic process. The level at which those discussions and dialogue should take place is a matter for the Government and for the Anglo-Irish Secretariat.

In relation to the Agreement, one of its great flaws is that is was left open to too wide an interpretation, in my opinion. Yet, at the time that was seen as one of its strengths. We had on the one hand the Taoiseach of the day talking about the first step to unity. We had the British Prime Minister talking about defeating terrorism and, indeed, that has been the main approach of the British Government towards the working of the Agreement, certainly as it is seen through Southern Irish eyes. The United Kingdom sees the ending of violence as a prerequisite to the beginnings of any solution in the North. The South, however, sees political action as the way forward and believes that, if the system is reformed those who support the IRA and Sinn Féin will wither away.

I have to confess that there is a certain merit in that argument. When the British Government talk about defeating terrorism, they are looking at a history of almost 800 years. It is something that is not going to be defeated in the lifetime of this current British administration. That still does not mean that both Governments should not ensure that the actions they take lead to that situation.

I do not wish to deny my colleague on the Independent bench an opportunity of making a contribution so I will conclude by offering a number of proposals which I think might be of some help in the ongoing deliberations between the British and Irish Governments about the North. I would like to welcome An Tánaiste to our debate in the House and to say how pleasing it is to see him here. I believe there should be more information on the South, on southern attitudes and the southern way of life through the media in Northern Ireland, specifically in the area of television. Television is now the great communicator. There is a television in every house, yet it is amazing to find that in Northern Ireland, particularly the farther North East you go, there is appalling ignorance of the South and of Southern attitudes and myths have grown up which are, in my opinion, preventing a proper discourse between both sides of the island.

An interesting example of it was that a group of school children came South about 12 months ago to visit school children in Galway. They were invited on to "The Late Late Show" and one of them — from Belfast — admitted that, first, she had never heard of Gay Byrne, secondly, that she has never seen or heard of the "The Late Late Show" and thirdly, despite the fact that you can get RTE in certain parts of Belfast she and her family never felt the need to have their set tuned to RTE television. That is a sad reflection on what is happening in the North.

Senator Harte referred to the working class in the North. There should be encouragement at Government level for a unified body in the field of soccer because soccer is one of the diverse areas in North-South relations in the sporting area and yet it can be one of the great unifying areas because it is mainly supported, particularly in the North, by working class people, those who would subscribe to and support the more extreme form of Protestantism and Unionism. I believe there should be joint radio and television programmes between North and South. This is an area, with the expansion of the radio services and television services in this part of the island, where there is an ideal opportunity for the Government to act and encourage more programmes between North and South so that more and more people will earn more and more about each side of the Border.

There should be an improvement in the infrastructure of the Border counties in particular. I know many Northerners who perhaps do not travel very far into the South and who look disparagingly on the infrastructure and the roads and the topography of the Border counties which have been sadly neglected over many years — perhaps because of historical and political reasons more than anything else. Perhaps that is an area where, with the new structural funds coming on stream the Government would see scope for action, I know they are committed to further cross-Border enhancement.

Finally, I fully support the concept of the setting up of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. I know this is something that the Government are actively involved in through my good friend and colleague, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the other House, Deputy Jim Tunney, as Joint Chairman and I hope that will come to fruition in the short term because in the long term it can only lead to a proper and better understanding of the ideas and attitudes that exist in this island.

An Cathaoirleach

As it is the Order of the House to call the Tánaiste at 2.30 p.m. Senator Norris really has only a few minutes left.

Mr. Norris

I shall take the five minutes. I thank the Tánaiste for indicating his willingness to hear me and also in particular, Senator Mooney for graciously allowing the remaining five minutes. I am particularly pleased to be allowed this opportunity to speak because I speak as a member of the Protestant minority in the South of Ireland. My father was English but my mother was Irish from an old Gaelic family. I was actually brought up as a Southern Unionist. I had the experience, which is unusual in this country, of being brought up with certain ideas, certain cultural identities and values which were quite at discord with the majority view in the country.

I had the painful experience of having to re-adjust my judgment of my surroundings and my country and it was for me, although painful, an opportunity for growth. This, I would have to say is something the majority of people in the South do not have through no fault of their own, because the society in the South is so apparently homogeneous. Very often we may be unthinkingly insensitive to certain areas of our public life and, in particular for example, to the voices that come from the North of Ireland, and I would have to say that if we are serious about a united Ireland — and I think the vast majority of people have at least an aspiration towards that — we should listen as carefully as possible to what may be sometimes grating and raucous voices from the North of Ireland.

In this context I am sorry that Government Ministers from all Administrations consistently speak about representing the interests of the Nationalist people in the North of Ireland. If we are serious about a united Ireland then surely we should consider also the interests of what constitutes an historically-cornered minority in the national context and that is the Unionist people, however unpleasant some of the things they may say. I would like to say something to them.

I would like to say that there is not existing in this Republic at the moment the kind of danger of which they are afraid. I hope that the presence of certain members of the Protestant community in the South, very comfortably in both House of Parliament down here where their voices are listened to with the respect that they command, the same as everybody else, will indicate that there is nothing much to fear. It is a pity there is hesitation in the South for members of the Protestant community to be involved in politics.

I deplore the action of Archbishop Gregg who went to Michael Collins in 1922 and asked if General Collins wanted the Protestant people to stay in the South. If I had been Collins I would have said "No, you can get to blazes out, because we do not want pusillanimous, gutless, spineless citizens with nothing to offer". I am glad to say that a number of people did remain and found that the situation has changed, particularly over the last 20 years.

I would like to place on the record of the House, however, how very uncomfortable I was in 1966 during the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of 1916. I think that is precisely because the majority of people in the country were not aware that not everybody shared that narrow definition of Nationalism. We must encounter the voices of people like Padraig Pearse, one strand of whose personality was a noble one, but I remember so often dealing with American students in Trinity and when they come in "The Plough and the Stars" to that section where a figure behind a screen comes out with violent bloodcurdling political emotions saying that the old earth of Ireland needs to be revived with the pouring of a libation of the blood of young men, they find that overwritten by O'Casey. I find it chilling because, like the phrase that bloodshed is a glorious and a sanctifying thing and that the nation that is afraid of bloodshed has lost its manhood, I know that that is Padraig Pearse at his worst and that is a tradition that we need to examine critically however painful that process may be for the majority of people here. The emotion itself is a portmanteau resolution and that is fine.

The Minister, I am sure, will note that there are a number of considered amendments. There is not time for me to go into them in any detail at all and I accept that. However, I am sure that he will consider them and will review what positive aspects there are contained in them.

I would like, though I realise I have to come to an end in a very short time, to make a couple of points about the North of Ireland which are deeply felt. I noted the conduct about two years ago of the Reverend Robert Armstrong, a member of the Presbyterian community, who crossed the street at this time of year, Christmas, to wish a happy Christmas to the Roman Catholic congregation in the chapel across the road. For that he was driven out by the voices of narrow xenophobia in the North of Ireland, despite the fact that 70 per cent of his congregation agreed with him. What we need is a situation where the congregation show solidarity with the leaders on those occasions when they are wise. I honour that man, Robert Armstrong. It is very much in the tradition of Gandhi who in a similar situation moved with his coreligionists into areas where other religions were being threatened by violence. I believe we could learn a great deal from that.

I believe that there is a possibility for ordinary Irish citizens to do something about violence. I speak as a pacifist. I will finish on this substantial point. I resent very much the arrogance and presumption of the Provisional IRA in assuming for themselves the right to take life in my name as an Irishman. I resent that very bitterly, indeed. I do not think they have the right. It is an arrogance. In extinguishing even one life you are extinguishing a whole universe. There is no New Ireland, no Éire Nua, for the victims of bombing and butchery, none whatever. However, I would not recommend a kind of coercive policy. I believe we can approach it more subtly and I would ask the Tánaiste to consider if there is a possibility, for example, for people convicted of terrorist offences to go right to the heart of their sentimental adoration of Mother Ireland and remove the privileges of citizenship so that they can no longer do this in our name.

I have one final practical thing that all people in this country could do. It is adopted from the Amnesty International policy of sending cards to prisoners of conscience. I would like to recommend that perhaps people should send one extra Christmas card to Provisional Sinn Féin in Parnell Square with a simple message that I heard today all around the House: "Stop the Killing". Names do not have to be put on them; offensive messages I would deplore. In order to be even-handed, might I say that in proposing this I am well aware that there have been iniquitous acts carried out by the British Army and by Protestant paramilitaries in the North of Ireland, but the difference is this, they are not doing them on my behalf.

I wish people will take on this Christmas card campaign. I hope they may. I would like just to end on one note to show that I am even-handed. I often express sympathy to people in the North of Ireland who are the victims of this kind of violence. I would like to extend that today, in addition to the others who have been mentioned, to the family of a brother of a Sinn Féin councillor who was gunned down while playing an accordion in the kitchen of his farmhouse home and who leaves a widow and small children. They also, in my opinion, are innocent victims. It is always the families who suffer and whatever the political affiliations of these people, they are certainly in my heart and my thoughts as we approach this Christmas season.

An Cathaoirleach

You are most welcome, Minister.

Mr. Manning

Minister, on behalf of the Opposition, you are very welcome to our House and we are pleased to see you in good health.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

Thank you. First, I shall respond to Senator Norris and to Senator Mooney, both of whom I have heard. There is no question about it that the whole emphasis and thrust of the Forum report was to accommodate the different strands and different identities that exist on this island. I reject absolutely the suggestion of Senator Norris — it may have permeated through some language that he has heard — that people in this part of Ireland who aspire towards a united Ireland are in any way motivated by a sectarian concept which seeks merely to accommodate Catholics in Northern Ireland and not Protestants, or accommodate Nationalists and not Unionists. The whole thrust of the Forum report was to accommodate all the diverse traditions that exist in this island and in particular, the two main identities and to reject absolutely any secretarian approach in regard to these identities. In other words, as Wolfe Tone rightly said, to substitute the common name of Irishman for Protestant, Catholic and dissenter.

Professor Murphy

What about the divorce referendum?

An Cathaoirleach

Senator, the Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Lenihan

I am surprised at the Senator. Indeed, the very essence of the meaning of our national flag is the green of the South at peace with the orange of the North. There are other traditions and other identities within the island as a whole as well, but taking the two main ones, there is a very real need to emphasise that Irish Republicanism and people with an aspiration towards a united Ireland are people who do not think in secretarian terms but in terms of accommodating those two traditions and those two identities. In my view, this will be excellent for both traditions and both identities. This island as a whole can only reach its full potential economically, socially, politically and culturally when the two identities, if you like, cross-fertilise and each makes a contribution to the other and in doing makes a contribution to the wellbeing of the island as a whole.

I have no doubt about it that this State suffers enormously by reason of the absence of a strong Protestant tradition. Equally, I believe that the North of Ireland is a State that has failed because of the two traditions there being driven apart and treated as two separate identities which do not merge. That was done in an institutional form for a number of years and more latterly, with the introduction of the virus of violence, in a far more ferocious polarisation in Northern Ireland. What we must get away from is a concept that is basically sectarian and wrong as such and to substitute, as I say, the common name of Irish for all of us. In doing this, I would emphasise that aspect to our Unionist brethern — and I use that phrase advisedly — that they can come aboard here and help us, and we can help them, in getting this whole island working peacefully and fruitfully. We can secure enormous gains in economic prosperity and social justice if we are harnessed together as one team in the island as a whole.

It may take time to do it. I have an expectation that the European process will help in that to a very substantial degree. The European Community regard the whole island as one at the moment. Although the transfers the investments and aids are channelled through London into the Six Counties and are channelled to us for the Republic, the criteria used in both cases are the same. We are both getting the same special treatment accorded to us as a peripheral state that needs such aids, transfers and credits and whatever help is necessary to build up a structure here — we are behind much of the rest of Europe — and to close the gaps that exist between here and the rest of Europe in regard to transport, infrastructure, technology, where there is a very real technology gap, and any one of a number of areas that are set out by the Community under the whole cohesion umbrella by the Community and which the Community is now committed to adopt and set in place between now and 1992, starting from 1 January 1989. This will provide the basis on which policies with a social and economic content will gradually mesh together to a far closer and more integrated degree, North and South, the nineties and further onwards.

I mention that aspect because it, along with the cultural aspect, represents the best way in which we could make progress. It is very heartening that many societies and groups in the North of Ireland have now taken on the old Gaelic culture and old traditions of this country in a very practical way. There is an excellent theatre, there are excellent culture activities, excellent archaeological activities and examinations taking place into the whole history and traditions of Northern Ireland, townland by townland and county by county, which match what we are doing here and in some cases exceed it.

There is a growing consciousness that within the present diversity of culture there is essentially a cultural unity that comes from the basic fact that all of us, Catholic, Protestant and dissenter, no matter which identity we follow, were born here and have lived here for one generation, or ten generations, or 20 generations. We are all on this island together. Inevitably and increasingly, this island will be looked at from abroad as one island and it is up to us to balance the social disequilibrium that exist at present which separates us socially and culturally but which need not separate us. If unity is achieved by that method, we will, slowly but surely, completely isolate the people of violence. That must be our long-term philosophy. In the short-term we must reject violence per se as a means towards achieving any political, cultural, or one island objective. If we proceed in the short term with a total rejection of violence by everybody with responsibility in this island and, secondly work towards economic, social and cultural unity in this island, well, that makes sense. Senator Mooney made some excellent suggestions in this area. One very practical one concerns the international soccer team, for instance. It is an example where sport could be a unifier, as it is in many other sports in this island, where there is unity of participation and administration.

Coming to the motion as set down by Senator Lanigan, it is wide ranging in scope and provides a basis for a comprehensive Seanad discussion, much of which has taken place already on the current state of Anglo-Irish relations. I propose to speak to the terms of the motion and also to the amendments which have been tabled.

I would like to refer briefly to a matter that has dominated our headlines in recent times and that is the question of Fr. Ryan. We all know what has arisen out of that matter. I want to emphasise that for our part as a Government we have been conscious throughout of the need to maintain perspective and above all else in this matter, to maintain objectivity and restraint. No matter how emotive the issue has become in recent days, we have followed a particular line which emphasises the moral ground which we should always occupy in this or in any other sensitive matter relating to Anglo-Irish relations. It is essential that all of us — and this applies to the other side of the Irish Sea as well as here — avoid the use of language that has no place in a matter which is now part of the legal process in this country and should be part of the legal process in every country, which should be part not just of the national rule of law but of the international rule of law.

I do not have to emphasise that Anglo-Irish relationship is complex. It is complex for historical reasons into which I do not propose to go at present but with which most of us are familiar. It is a relationship conditioned by our history and by our geography and, unfortunately, in latter years by a violence which runs counter to the essential nature of the Irish people. However, since 1973 there is our common membership of the European Community. There are ties of trade and tourism, as well as the human ties that result from the free movement of people between the two countries, Britain and Ireland.

The capacity for productive bilateral co-operation was well illustrated last month when Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs, and I signed a far-reaching agreement to delimitation of the Continental Shelf. I just mention that as one of a number of areas of bilateral interest which we share. While we all welcome advances in Anglo-Irish relations in whatever sector they may occur, we nevertheless recognise that at the heart of the relationship, determining its overall tone and tenor, is the situation in Northern Ireland. There has been welcome progress in the way of bilateral improvements and advances, but this matter to which we are very committed as a people and which influences us all, North and South, is also a determining factor in the relationship between Ireland and Britain.

It follows from what I have just said that positive developments in relation to Northern Ireland do a great deal to improve the atmosphere in which Anglo-Irish relations are conducted. That is self-evident. There has been a very genuine welcome here for progress on a variety of fronts since the signature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. These developments include improved policing of the marching season, which has now resulted in annual processions being held peacefully, with identification with particular traditions, but in peace, by reason of much improved and more sophisticated policing. Supergrass trials were another factor which ran counter to the whole rule of law in the sense of justice and they have ended since the signing of the Agreement. The introduction of a code of conduct for the RUC is a very real advance. There is now the beginning of a desperately needed economic programme for one of the key areas in Northern Ireland, that is, west Belfast. Substantial funds are being devoted, under both the International Fund and the regional programme as far as Britain is concerned, towards ending the economic and social ghetto situation that has bedevilled west Belfast over a number of years and the major city of Northern Ireland.

We were pleased to have confirmation, in the Queen's speech to parliament, that new, fair employment legislation — which again, arose out of the conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement — with teeth in it and which will be effective in scope will be introduced in the current session. It is our very real expectation that the scope of the legislation will respond fully to the dimensions of the problem and I can assure you that we have had a substantial input into that legislation which has been welcomed by the British authorities.

If positive development have a beneficial impact, the reverse is also true. Where there are shortcoming in implementation of the Agreement or a failure to build on its potential, the disappointment naturally is sharply felt and the frustration is widely shared. The Irish Government have consistently pressed for further steps in improving confidence in the administration of justice which is the key area. It does require, in my view, substantial improvement, particularly in the confidence building aspect of it.

We would like to see an end to the harassment that has undoubtedly taken place and here I take cause with the Nationalist community. There is undue harassment taking place, particularly in cross-Border regions, which is not acceptable. I wish to accelerate progress towards reform across the widest possible spectrum of issues of concern to both communities. It is now a matter of urgency that significant advances be made in these areas. A series of problems affecting Anglo-Irish relations over the past year are well known.

British people sometimes find it difficult to understand the response in Ireland to developments such as the failure to prosecute following the Stalker-Sampson report, the shooting of Aidan McAnespie, the release of Private Thain. Indeed it is generally, though not always, true that events which relate to Northern Ireland do not command anything like as widespread media attention in Britain as they do here. One consequence is that for many British people events such as those I have mentioned are seen as isolated incidents, lacking any particular context and, therefore, lacking any particular significance. By contrast, for most Irish people doubts and concerns about such developments are reinforced by their familiarity with the context in which they occur and their fears about a pattern of which they may be part.

There is one area where the sensibilities and sympathies of British and Irish people are fully and equally engaged. We do share a deep sorrow for the numbers, now over 2,700 — and it is a staggering figure — who have died since the outbreak of the troubles. We share an abhorrence of the violence that has brought about these deaths and a determination that the threat of terrorism will be dealt with effectively and comprehensively. Security measures, including effective cross-Border security co-operation, are unquestionably necessary to respond to the terrorist threat but, necessary as they are, they are not in themselves sufficient for they cannot address the circumstances in which violence takes hold and gains adherents. The effective combating of violence requires both strength of purpose and subtlety of analysis.

In some respects, the scope and necessity for governmental action is quite clear. I have little doubt, for example, that there is widespread acceptance that power to seize terrorists' funds is an important and appropriate implement in the hands of Government. In other respects the likely long-term effects of governmental action is much less clear. It is imperative that this long-term calculation be carefully made in each case. The Prevention of Terrorism Act also, of course, operates in Britain. We have consistently sought to ensure that the Act would be implemented in a sensitive and non-discriminatory way and have been troubled at times by indications to the contrary.

We have made no secret of our reservations, shared with Lord Colville and others, about the use of exclusion orders and we are naturally disappointed that it is proposed to continue their use under the revised PTA legislation. It is nevertheless our hope — and we are engaged in dialogue to this purpose with the relevant British authorities — that the operation of the PTA in the future will give less cause for complaint to Irish people living in or travelling to Britain. If it is to be there, let it be used in a sensible, sophisticated manner rather than as a crude instrument against most Irish people living in Britain who are seen, unfortunately, to be objects of its administration when, in fact, more investigation and a more sophisticated approach would reveal that the operation of the PTA is only necessary, even in British eyes and under a British administration, in very few cases.

We note the judgment announced last week by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg regarding maximum length of detention under the PTA and compensation for loss of earnings while in detention. The decisions by this court on these issues accord with the view in favour a reduction of the seven-day detention period which we have expressed to the British authorities and to the reviewer of the PTA, Lord Colville.

A further focus of concern over the past year has related to possible miscarriages of justice for Irish people in British courts. The rejection of the Birmingham Six appeal evoked a particularly strong response and the decision of the Home Secretary on referral of the Guildford Four case has been anxiously awaited for some time. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that the genuine concern about possible miscarriages of justice does not for one moment imply sympathy for those who perpetrate horrific crimes. It would be fundamentally mistaken to confuse those whose concern is born out of a deep respect for law and justice with those whose purpose is to undermine everything the law stands for.

While on the subject of possible miscarriages of justice, I would emphasise my agreement with what was said two weeks ago in this debate by Senators Lanigan and Manning concerning some sections of the British tabloid press. I find it hard to restrain myself in discussing this particular matter. I mentioned earlier that events relating to Northern Ireland do not always receive the same prominence in the British media as they do here — that is, in a constructive manner — but there are exceptions to this where a disproportionate section of the British media gets into the realm of sensational presentation of Irish and Anglo-Irish issues. We have grown accustomed to hysterical headlines in some sections of the British tabloid press when Irish people are suspected of terrorist crimes in Britain. This trail by tabloid which we have seen in case after case must surely be a source of concern to all fair-minded people and, in particular, people who wish to see their rule of law maintained and the courts and juries operate in a fair and reasonable environment, considering each case on its merits. The whole approach by the British tabloid press is interfering seriously with the independent operation of courts and of juries in Britain and that it carries further dangers with regard to respect for the rule of law in that country, a country that has been one of the originators of the whole philosophical notion of the rule of law. All fair-minded people would subscribe to that point of view.

I now turn to the amendments to the motion. The Fine Gael amendment is addressed to the present review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and calls on the Government to take certain actions. In my statement to the Dáil on 16 November, I gave a very comprehensive account of the Government's approach to the review exercise. I emphasised the thorough and serious exercise that is contemplated by both Governments and our determination to emerge from the review with a positive programme of action for the future. Since my comments on that occasion and, indeed, the interventions of eight other Government Ministers in the course of that debate — they are all available in the Dáil Official Report — it would hardly be a productive use of time for me to reiterate those comments here. However, I propose to comment briefly on the six proposals contained in the Fine Gael amendment to this motion.

The language of the proposals in paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) seems to imply that these are matters not already in hand. In fact, the implications of 1992 for Northern Ireland and for cross-Border co-operation are already being dealt with within the framework of the Agreement. Indeed, a joint seminar on the subject attended by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Burke, and the Northern Ireland Industry Minister, Mr. Viggers, took place at the Irish College in Louvain last week for some days and was attended by businessmen and industrialists of a very prominent nature from both sides of the Border, again emphasising what I said earlier on, the European dimension to where this island as a whole must go. The issue of relations between the security forces and the Nationalist community is a matter of the utmost importance. Harassment, reform of the Diplock Courts, lack of accompaniment by the UDR and other related matters have never left our agenda and continue to receive priority attention. These will be the areas we will be seeking to accentuate in the current review process because, unless there is a balanced confidence in the system and the administration of law, the very bedrock of society is eroded and one cannot build the proper foundations.

We are fully committed to the regular scheduling of Conference meetings. I want to emphasise this. We are committed to the full implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in all its practical aspects. We have our own points of view as a party on Article 1. We respect the fact that that is now a solemn international Agreement and we are fully committed to the regular scheduling of meetings and to the broadest possible level of activity in the directions I have mentioned within the framework of the Conference — an improved Conference hopefully after the review process — and an improved Agreement after the review process. Because it is in the Fine Gael amendment I want to emphasise this because it is a canard that has gone abroad and has no basis. The record speaks for itself.

If we include the scheduled December meeting, which will be held shortly, ten meetings of the Conference — eight regular and two special — will have taken place in 1988. This is a more intensive rhythm of meetings that at any previous time and contrasts with the total of seven meetings — six regular and one special — held during 1986 when the previous Government were in office. I hope that is an end to that because I do not want to play our own party politics with this matter. I am compelled to say — and I want to finish at that — that an effort has been made by Fine Gael spokesmen in the Dáil and here to suggest in some way that we are less than committed to the workings of the Conference and to the workings of the Agreement. The record I have set out there spells out that the reverse is the case and I am well aware personally of the number of times I have been in regular telephone and bi-lateral communication outside the scope of the meetings altogether with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and with other Ministers and officials there. There is just no truth in that allegation. I will not refer to it any more and I hope that it is understood.

Indeed, I would like in this same context to rebut suggestions along those lines made last week by Senator Fennell and today by Senator Ross, that this Government, in effect, are not operating the Agreement to the full. I invite Senators to look at the communiques issued after each of the Conference meetings held since this Government took office, to examine the breadth of issues addressed and to recognise that, far from neglecting the machinery of the Agreement, we have consistently sought to use to the full any and all of the possibilities for progress which the Agreement may offer.

With regard to the proposal in paragraph (6) relating to the inter-parliamentary body, the Government are encouraged — as I am sure every Senator is too — by this idea, which has been clearly and publicly stated and is now working towards a successful conclusion in the very near future. Real progress has been made towards the establishment of the inter-parliamentary body and that progress is being made exclusively in the lifetime of the present Government. I would like to pay tribute on our side to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Tunney, for his part in seeking to achieve this together with other Members of the Dáil and Seanad who have been active.

Naturally, this subjective view will form the core of what will be a very useful inter-parliamentary body representative of elected parliamentary representatives in Britain and Ireland, covering all shades of public opinion and all parties and we hope to have this off the ground in the early months of next year. This is a very real step forward in getting information and communication and a mutual understanding of the issues involved which has been notably absent, even among parliamentarians. As these parliamentarians are a step ahead in ensuring that they will have this forum for regular meetings and through their influence, with their constituents and their people in every part of these two islands, the message will percolate home that there is far more that unites us than divides us if we work on it.

I am very glad that this initiative has been taken by both Parliaments, that it has been at parliamentary level because that is the proper tier on which to start. I would see much success growing out of that parliamentary exchange which will eventually spill over and benefit all exchanges — inter-Governmental exchanges and social partner exchanges — in the two islands. We will continue to support and encourage this valuable work which has been taken on by the respective core groups in each Parliament and I look forward to very early progress being achieved.

Deputy Dukes, in his statement on 9 December, talked of "this valuable bridge being built within the next 12 months". I am glad to re-echo Deputy Dukes' sentiments in that respect. I regard it as a very valuable bridge and one on which we can all walk and traverse hopefully to a greater degree and in greater comradeship in the years ahead once the foundation of the inter-parliamentary nexus has been laid. For our part we would hope for a real sense of urgency in this regard and from what I can gather such a sense of urgency now permeates the parliamentarians of both Westminster and here and we will have results in the early months of next year.

I return now to paragraphs (1) and (2). On paragraph (2) I would just briefly say that the previous Government when in office did not appear struck by its merits. However, it would not be appropriate for me to deal with the issue here today given that the Leader of the Opposition has put the proposal forward in the context of the proposed consultations between the parties on the review. That is a matter for teasing out in the review process.

Paragraph (1) deals with devolution. The Government's position in relation to devolution has been made quite clear. In the Dáil discussion on 16 November I quoted Article 4 of the Agreement which speaks of devolution "on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community". Subparagraph (c) of that same Article goes on to say: "Both Governments recognise that devolution can be achieved only with the co-operation of constitutional representatives within Northern Ireland of both traditions there". As I have previously said, on the basis of the stated positions of the parties in Northern Ireland the prospects at the moment do not appear very high in this aspect. That is not a negative appraisal. It is a realistic appraisal of the present state of play as far as the parties in Northern Ireland are concerned, and in particular the major parties of the two respective identities.

The second and third amendments to this motion deal with the Constitution and call for the introduction of a constitutional amendment. I can perhaps best comment on these amendments by quoting from the Forum report to which Members of this House and the other House have subscribed, which represented the considered view of all the constitutional Nationalist parties in Ireland. I quote:

Among the fundamental realities the Forum has identified is the desire of Nationalists for a United Ireland in the form of a sovereign independent Irish State to be achieved peacefully and by consent. The Forum recognises that such a form of unity would require a general and explicit acknowledgement of a broader and more comprehensive Irish identity. Such unity would, of course, be different from both the existing Irish State and the existing arrangements in Northern Ireland because it would necessarily accommodate all the fundamental elements in both traditions. The particular structure of political unity which the Forum would wish to see established is a unitary State achieved by agreement and consent, embracing the whole island of Ireland and providing irrevocable guarantees for the protection and preservation of both the Unionist and Nationalist identities.

There are two very clear ideas reflected here. The first is the reaffirmation of the desire for unity to be achieved peacefully by consent which is espoused by the large majority of Irish people. The second is the firm commitment to full accommodation in a new Ireland of the Unionist as well as the Nationalist identity. The position of the Government and all political and constitutional parties here has, therefore, been set out in the Forum conclusions quite clearly and explicitly. The suggestion of a constitutional amendment along the lines of the amendment proposed in the Seanad is, in the Government's view, misplaced and a mistake taken in the context of the Forum conclusion to which I referred.

The Constitution has served and continues to serve us well. I see absolutely no reason for asking the Irish people to suppress their legitimate aspiration to unity. I believe that such a proposal, either directly or indirectly, is not helpful to effort to achieve peace and political progress in Northern Ireland. Any movement in that direction would merely add division to existing division and we do not want in Ireland further divisiveness. We want to bridge divisions that exist without creating further divisions for which we must build bridges again maybe in the future. Let us contain the viewpoint of one identity if they are agreeable. There is another viewpoint that can be contained under the Forum conclusion; let us just have two identities or two traditions to deal with. That can be dealt with by peaceful democratic means and through political dialogue. If one introduces into this part of Ireland further divisiveness and further divisions one is doing no good to Ireland, South or North, in creating that sort of artificial and phoney division within ourselves in which we start arguing again about what an aspiration is or who is more republican than the other fellow. We do not want that. It is not in anybody's interest, North or South, Catholic, Protestant or dissenter, Orangeman or Republican.

Professor Murphy

We will settle for hypocrisy now.

Mr. Lenihan

Senator Murphy had better go back to his books and read them properly.

An Cathaoirleach

Let the Minister continue without interruption.

Mr. Lenihan

There is no reason for asking the Irish people to suppress their legitimate aspirations to unity and such proposals are not helpful to efforts to achieve peace and political progress in Northern Ireland.

Professor Murphy

The Minister shows an anti-intellectual bias.

Mr. Lenihan

That applies to everyone. Senator Manning has responsibility in this regard as well. If I understood his comments on the third amendment, he suggested that while his party could probably support the substance of the proposed amendment, it would not do so on the grounds that the Fianna Fáil Party were likely to take a different view and a referendum would, therefore, not be carried.

Mr. Manning

The Tánaiste just said that.

We have had enough anti-intellectual bias. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Lenihan

Before concluding I would like to comment briefly on the Unionist community. The openness and genuineness of the Government's invitation to dialogue is beyond doubt and I believe the Government's sincerity is accepted by the Unionist leaders themselves. As Senator Ferris said here last week and I thank him for his remarks: "I do not believe that there is any party in the Republic committed to peace and dialogue who can take issue with this invitation from the Taoiseach." It was surprising, therefore, to say the least to hear Senator Manning dismissing the Government's attempt to reassure Unionists as meaningless gestures while, at the same time, indulging in criticism of Unionism as an impoverished political creed and attacking its leaders as narrow and obstructionist. This negative and carping approach whether to Unionists or to the national Government in this island is not helpful and will not advance the achievement of real political dialogue in this island.

It is far more productive to note Senator Robb's comment in his very eloquent portrayal of the real Unionist position and his remark that the mass of Unionists, which I know from my own experience, are ordinary people like ourselves. That is true. The Government welcome the Seanad debate on these important issues as we embark on the review provided for in Article 11 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The general tone of the debate has been constructive and positive, despite a slight difference of opinion and emphasis. All contributions, including the very detailed statement by Senator Robb in particular, provide much food for thought. I referred to Senator Robb earlier. Indeed, Senator Ross is also included among the Senators who made constructive and positive contributions as are Senator Manning and others.

Professor Murphy

I feel left out.

Mr. Lenihan

I was coming to Senator Murphy. We thank Senator Robb coming as he does from a part of this island with which this debate has been mainly concerned and representing the finest in that very fine tradition. He does provide much food for thought. All the views have been carefully noted and they will be extremely useful in the very intensive work that will take place over the next few months.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Senators

No.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Mr. Manning

Vótáil.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 19.

Tá

Bohan, Edward Joseph.
Byrne, Sean.
Cassidy, Donie.
Cullimore, Seamus.
Eogan, George.
Fallon, Sean.
Farrell, Willie.
Fitzgerald, Tom.
Fitzsimons, Jack.
Haughey, Seán F.
Hillery, Brian.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kiely, Dan.
Kiely, Rory.
Lydon, Donal.
McEllistrim, Tom.
McGowan, Patrick.
Mooney, Paschal.
Mullooly, Brian.
Mulroy, Jimmy.
O'Callaghan, Vivian.
O'Toole, Martin J.
Ryan, William.
Wallace, Mary.

Níl

Bulbulia, Katharine.
Cregan, Denis.
Doyle, Joe.
Fennell, Nuala.
Ferris, Michael.
Harte, John.
Hogan, Philip.
Kelleher, Peter.
Kennedy, Patrick.
Loughrey, Joachim.
McCormack, Padraic.
McDonald, Charlie.
McMahon, Larry.
Manning, Maurice.
Murphy, John A.
Norris, David.
O'Shea, Brian.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Ross, Shane P. N.

Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Cregan and G. Reynolds.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Ross

I move amendment No. 2:

After "relations" to add the following:

"and calls on the Government to announce its intention to introduce a constitutional amendment relinquishing the territorial claim to Northern Ireland.".