Prior to the recess, I asked the Taoiseach if Leinster House was not ready would there be some other place where the Dáil might sit. I am suggesting that, even if repairs were being carried out to the House, it should have been possible for us to assemble in this city in order to discuss the subject matter of this debate. Maybe the Government and the Taoiseach believed that some Members of the House would run amok and further inflame an already too-inflamed situation. But, after all, this is a democratic Parliament. May I also point out that the British Government regarded the situation in such an urgent fashion that they devoted the first day of their session to a discussion of events in the Six Counties during the past two months. I understand the responsibility of the Government as far as decision making is concerned.
The Government have this important responsibility, but Parliament, Dáil Éireann, is more important than the Government. If there were any fears as to what line a debate might take on the 16th August or the 15th September we should have been able, as democratically-elected representatives of this nation, to live up to our responsibility and to treat Dáil Éireann and the subject with the utmost dignity. We should not have been treated as second-class Members of Dáil Éireann, as if all wisdom and knowledge were in the custody of the Government or of Members of the Government Party.
I believe Dáil Éireann should have been recalled. We have expressed concern for the Six Counties. For the last fifty years we have spoken about Partition in this House and in various assemblies throughout the world. Here was a situation in which people were being shot and killed, houses burned, people forced to evacuate their homes and in many cases to flee down to the Republic; yet it was not considered opportune to call a meeting of the national Parliament. If a meeting of Dáil Éireann had been called and if we had had a debate the Government would have been fortified in any actions they subsequently took. Important and far-reaching decisions were taken. Some decisions were taken that could have had far-reaching consequences and which, in my view, normally would be the responsibility of the whole of Dáil Éireann. We do not mind criticism. We in the Labour Party do not believe anybody can criticise us too severely for our activities during the crisis.
The Parliamentary Labour Party did what we believed was the right thing to do in order to try to prevent further loss of life and property and to ensure the preservation of law and order in the Six Counties. To that end, we visited London on the 17th or 18th August. We found ourselves in a position where we had to defend the right of the Government to be concerned and to express its concern. We were in this position without being given the opportunity of assisting and co-operating with the Government through discussion in Dáil Éireann. This was a matter of vital and urgent concern, not alone for the supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party but for those of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party as well. A discussion in the Dáil would have enabled a united front to be presented not alone to this country but to Britain and the whole world.
In addition, our brethren in the Six Counties would have been given a sense of re-assurance and of the concern felt for them by their countrymen in the Republic. A meeting of Dáil Éireann would have given the people of the Republic a spirit of involvement rather than leaving them with a sense of frustration which many of them undoubtedly felt during that critical time, particularly during August.
I have made my protest so far as this matter is concerned. I do not want to pursue it further. My party discussed the situation for many hours. We belive that in a national crisis, such as that in which we were all involved at that time, the fairest and most responsible thing to do would be to have a discussion in which the three Parties in this House would participate.
With regard to the situation in the Six Counties I believe — and the Taoiseach and Deputy Cosgrave have subscribed to this view — that Partition is not a matter on which to score political points, particularly at this critical period. The Taoiseach may resent my criticism of him as leader of the Government in not recalling the House. He may not agree with some of the views and may resent some of the criticism in this debate, but I want to reassure him, the members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the House generally that my views are being given sincerely and honestly on matters which affect the livelihood of the people of the whole country. It must have been obvious that the political parties in this country and, indeed, the people in the country generally were concerned about the events in the Six Counties. This must have been obvious, particularly during the past 12 months. It must have been obvious from the activities in which we engaged with regard to the Six Counties. We were in constant consultation with our colleagues in the Council of Labour in the Six Counties. The Council of Labour has a membership which includes people like Paddy Devlin and Gerry Fitt, who were at the centre of the heat in what can be described as the battles of the Falls Road and elsewhere and in the city of Derry.
We, as a political party, believed that the most useful thing we could do would be to use our contacts with the British Labour Party in order to emphasise the risks and dangers in the situation and in order to emphasise the necessity to speed the pace of reform. We felt our duty as a minority party was to refrain from criticism of our Government's action. Incidentally, on occasions we had to rebut some British criticism of our Government's actions. We did this, not because we thought that the Government's action was not deserving of criticism but because we felt that the right place to make that criticism and comment was here in our own national Parliament to which we had been sent by the electorate so shortly before. There may be risks involved, as the Taoiseach has stated, in this debate. We believe it is our democratic right and duty to express our point of view on behalf of those who sent us here. All three Parties are concerned in this situation because we have to be concerned. Let us face it — we are all not blameless in the attitudes we have adopted towards the Six Counties and the people who live there. Prior to October of last year it could not be said there was great concern in this Parliament about civil rights. It was only the events at Burntollet and the situation in Derry that brought home to the people, not only of the Six Counties but of the Republic, the demand for civil rights and the abysmal absence of civil rights so far as the minority were concerned. None of us is blameless in that. We can all share various degrees of blame. There has been a certain amount of complacency in our attitude towards the Six Counties in recent years and for many years back.
In recent years the Government pursued a policy which I, as leader of this Party, applauded. I am speaking of the policy of fraternisation between this Government and members of the Stormont Government. The policy was initiated by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass. We supported it at the time. Not only did we express our support at that time for fraternisation between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, or between Ministers from each side of the Border, but we also advocated that there would be greater fraternisation so far as the rank and file were concerned in other institutions in the two parts of this country. I am afraid the Government in pursuing that policy fell into the error of ignoring the systematic denial of rights to the minority in the Six Counties. The Government must take its share of the blame for that action. They just cannot ignore the situation. All of us who were Members of the Eighteenth Dáil remember questions being asked by various Members of the Labour Party with regard to civil rights. When a question was raised about a meeting between Ministers either in Dublin or Belfast — as Deputy M. O'Leary was wont to ask — as to whether there had been discussions on the question of discrimination in housing and jobs and local government franchise, invariably the reply was that these matters were not discussed. On other occasions Deputy O'Leary was ignored and I remember occasions on which he was shouted down by members of the Government front bench who told him he was trying to create trouble. We should reflect on that at a time when we know from our contacts with representatives from the Six Counties that this was the vital question which concerned not alone those of the minority, who are usually described as Catholics, but many hundreds of thousands of others as well. Attention to the speeches and comments made by people like Deputy Michael O'Leary might have obviated a great deal of the misunderstanding and trouble that the people in the Six Counties have experienced over the last two or three months.
Our concern, needless to remark, became much greater after 5th October of last year, after the events of Burntollet and Derry. Prior to that, because we knew what the situation was we visited London with two parliamentary colleagues — I describe them advisedly as colleagues — Paddy Devlin and Gerry Fitt who, at all times, have been and still are in the forefront of the fight to ensure that civil rights will be fully applied. I do not think it is any secret because we declared publicly through the press, radio and television that we were disappointed when, in the month of May of last year, there seemed to be a certain amount of complacency, or ignorance, on the part of the Home Office in Britain. If we did not take notes I am sure Lord Stoneham's private secretary will see in the notes he took, if he refers to them, that we warned that the Six Counties was developing into a situation which would, if not corrected and taken notice of by the British Government, degenerate into a virtual state of civil war. Unfortunately, this to a degree did happen. The British Government did not concern itself and was not prepared to act on the question of civil rights.
I must confess again that, when we visited in May and met some people, Members of the House of Commons, who were not entirely au fait with the situation, they dismissed the matter as another row between Catholics and Protestants or, globally, as another row amongst the Irish. I do not know whether it was, as I say, complacency or ignorance on the part of those who met us in the Home Office, but they were quite unable to see any necessity for urgency in this particular matter. I accept what the Taoiseach has said with regard to the visits of the Minister for External Affairs to Lord Chalfont and others and I accept his efforts in the United Nations. We made efforts as a minority Party. How much more effective could our Government spokesmen have been had they in February, or even May, of this year made these things known to the British Government, the Government which says it has responsibility for affairs in the Six Counties? It would be an understatement to say how disappointed we were that the Taoiseach did not meet the British Prime Minister. I cannot conceive of any reasonable excuse by either for not meeting at some time from the end of April or at the beginning of August before the trouble started in Derry and Belfast. I do not know whose fault it was, but had such a meeting taken place a great deal of the trouble that took place over the last two months might have been avoided.
When the crisis was at its height, again as a minority Party, as a group who had visited the Six Counties twice during the week in which 12th August fell, we asked again for the recall of the Dáil in order that we might be at one. I am not breaking any confidence when I say that I spoke to the Taoiseach and told him we were going to London to see certain people and he remarked: "As long as we are all on the same lines". I gladly accepted that. We visited London to emphasise again the seriousness of the situation. We met Lord Chalfont. The Minister for External Affairs had met him previously. We met our colleagues; I say "our colleagues" deliberately despite the ridicule to which we are at times subjected by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. We met members of the British Labour Party and members of the Executive. Even though most were on holidays they were available to meet us because they could gauge the temperature in the Six Counties. We told them what the situation was and what we believed should be done in order to save lives and property. At that particular stage the urgent necessity was to ensure law and order in Belfast, Armagh, Derry and elsewhere. That was the important thing, not talk about the Constitution and Partition.
In mid-August the Catholics in Derry and Belfast were in imminent danger of their lives. Unfortunately, some lost their lives. As far as law and order were concerned, they were in the hands of the B Specials and other groups of armed Orange fanatics. It was quite clear to us, as it must have been quite clear to everybody, that the RUC would not protect these people. Indeed, they went so far as to threaten this minority in danger of their lives. Our Government hinted at armed intervention. The Taoiseach has referred to that, but he must have known that we were in no position to protect the minority in question. I may be unpopular for saying that, but it is time that truth and honesty prevailed. Had the Government through its agent, the Army, intervened to save Derry there is no doubt at all but that that would have precipitated in Belfast and elsewhere further tragedy and disaster. The Taoiseach had no intention of intervening. Nobody thought our Government would intervene. Even Major Chichester Clark seemed to appreciate the difficulty; he stated recently that he knew there was no intention of moving the Irish Army over the Border.
In an effort to prevent lives being lost the Government decided to call for a United Nations peace-keeping force. The Government must have known that at that particular time there was no possibility of getting that peace-keeping force. Even if they had succeeded in getting a peace-keeping force they must have known how impossible it would be to organise such a force in a matter of days or hours. That was the degree of urgency to ensure that the situation would not go entirely out of hand. There was also a call for a joint Irish and British peace-keeping force. I suppose, if that could have been got at the time, there would have been no objection to it.
The situation was that you had the RUC and the B Specials, the B Specials who ran amok in the Falls Road, in Derry and elsewhere. You had the RUC who openly showed their hostility to the minority. We ask ourselves now, as we asked ourselves on 13th August, who was there to protect those who were being attacked, shot at and killed. They needed some protection. They could not get it from the United Nations. There could not be agreement on a British-Irish peace-keeping force; they could not depend, to put it mildly, on the RUC. They certainly could not depend on the B Specials. What was the only alternative? It was to utilise the armed forces from Britain in order that they might preserve law and order. Instead of being an occupation force they could be turned into a peace-keeping force. Nobody deplores as much as the Taoiseach and Deputy Cosgrave the presence of British Forces in the Six Counties at any time, but it was to be protected by them that the people in the Bogside and the Falls Road asked.
This is what they told the delegation of the Irish Parliamentary Labour Party who visited these stricken areas that week, because they realised better than anybody else that this was the only protection they could get. I firmly believe that if that force had not intervened the toll of lives would have been much greater than it has been. The people in Bogside and the Falls Road welcomed this force as the only protection available at that time. As a matter of fact, they went further and asked that it be made more effective by the addition of further strength.
We supported them in their demands and we are not worried about the cheap jibes that may come — not from this House — from people outside in criticism of the attitude we took in regard to ensuring that people's lives and property would be safeguarded in the Six Counties. The Government, again at that time, renewed their call for a United Nations peace-keeping force and I am aware that many people in the country were encouraged by this, encouraged by the speech which the Minister for External Affairs, Dr. Hillery, made and they honestly believed there would be a very successful outcome. As a matter of fact, many people believed that there would have been a decision by the Security Council in about three or four hours from the commencement of the debate. However, let us face it, the Government must have known, and the Minister and his Department with their special knowledge of the United Nations must have known, that this was not "on" either.
Having said that, we all realise that the crisis is not by any means over. It may have assumed a different aspect but it is not over. There is slightly less danger to the minority who were in such a dire position in August but it is significant that for the first time, because they had to, a British Government have shown their concern. They had to because they had no option. British Governments have been indifferent for too long not necessarily to Partition, about which they have been reminded so often, but about the denial of civil rights to about one-third of the people in the Six Counties. The Labour Government in Britain must accept responsibility for their indifference to this situation as well. The Labour Government have been in office on three occasions in the past 50 years and as far as we know they have done very little to acquaint themselves with the real situation there. They were a minority Government in 1930 and in 1949 they were in office again and their only act of interest in the Six Counties at that time was the passing of the Ireland Act of 1949. The Government, since they came into office, seem to have been unable or unwilling to act until the situation developed into crisis proportions, of which we now have ample evidence.
We saw no awareness of their interest in our talks with the Home Office, particularly in May. They were better informed when we visited them in August but it was not until the 12th August, with the Apprentice Boys parade, that the British Government became alive to the seriousness of the situation, a situation highlighted not on the question of Partition but on the question of the denial of basic civil rights to the minority. It was also highlighted to a lesser extent for the people in the Republic of Ireland. I would subscribe to what the Taoiseach said that even at this late stage there must be recognition of the initiative of the British Government, led by Mr. James Callaghan, the Home Secretary, and the steps taken to insist that reforms be decided on as a matter of urgency and a further recognition of Mr. Callaghan's apparent determination and insistence that the reforms be carried out as quickly as possible.
We will certainly maintain our contacts with the British Labour Party who are now, and I hope after the election will continue to be, the British Government. I have not seen the Taoiseach's script yet but I do not think he mentioned what, if any, discussions there will now be between the British and Irish Governments so that they also can insist and pressurise as much as they can on the particular reforms which are so badly needed. For our part, in our meetings with the British Labour Party, we shall continue to insist on these reforms, on the granting of civil rights, in regard to housing, jobs, local government franchise and reforms in regard to discrimination in any form in which it exists now.
One of the most important reforms that must be carried out and about which pressure must be continued is the implementation of the Hunt Report on the RUC and the B Specials. I find it confusing to read the various interpretations of the recommendations in the Hunt Report. One wonders if they are to be abolished and if they are to reappear under another name, in another guise, but with the same role in which they have been employed over a long period of time. Under whose control will they be? That will be a very important factor. Certainly it is not quite clear from reports in the press and statements from various Ministers of the Stormont Government what is intended.
We had the position in which 117 B Specials in Newtownards resigned because, I expect, they believed that they were to be disbanded and shoved into a backroom, but, after certain promises were made by the Six-County Prime Minister, they decided to change their minds. There must be a clear recognition of what the recommendations mean and if the Stormont Government cannot indicate what they mean it is up to Mr. Callaghan to give his interpretation — I know what it will be — and to make sure that it will be implemented. There is recognition that the RUC should not be predominantly a Protestant force but again there is no indication from Stormont as to what the real recommendation is in regard to the RUC. In any event, one is prompted to ask, if there was any necessity for the B Specials at all, why they are necessary now.
The Taoiseach said, and I agree with him, that there is no real armed threat to the people of the Six Counties. If they have fears, real or imaginary, in that regard I do not know if we can dispel them. I believe if the real Hunt proposals, with their proper interpretation, are truly accepted the minority in the Six Counties should be prepared to play their future part in the preservation of law and order in that area. Law and order in the past has meant to the minority fear and suspicion and also the promotion of the interests of the Unionist Party, but if a properlyreorganised police force, in which the minority would participate, is set up most, if not all, of that fear and suspicion would disappear in a short time.
We have been partitioned now for nearly 50 years. I cannot say, the Taoiseach cannot say, Deputy Cosgrave cannot say, any honest Member in this House cannot say precisely, nor can anybody at present say, when this country will be reunited. But there was the Partition that was enforced by a British House of Commons and I think we must again take some share of the blame in that we have tolerated two Irelands in the one Ireland over the last 50 years. To all intents and purposes, even though, on either side of the Border, we call ourselves Irishmen, we are poles apart, may be much farther apart than we are from people from England or Scotland or Wales. Our communication is very limited, indeed, save for the excellent communication that there is, for example, in the two organisations that come to my mind — the trade union movement and the Gaelic Athletic Association — and to some extent, I suppose, in some of the other sporting organisations. For the future there must be the closest possible communication with all sections of those who really believe in the application of human and civil rights so that we may act in concert with them in the aspirations, which I believe they have, for a united Ireland and accepting that force, the withdrawal of troops, the abandonment by Britain of the Six Counties, will not of itself solve the problem of Partition.
As the Taoiseach, I think again has said, there is no use in ignoring the attitude, even though we may regard it as a stubborn attitude, of the Northern Unionists who have fears, whether they are real or imaginary. These fears, whether they are real or imaginary, are there and must be taken into account in the solution not alone of Partition but certainly of the other problem also.
Let me reiterate, I do not believe for one moment that if the British troops were taken out of the Six Counties in the morning this would provide a solution. I think we could run ourselves into much more trouble than there has been in recent times. There is no consolation now in beating our drums or our chests and telling ourselves that Partition was created by a British Parliament and that no Irish man or woman north or south of the Border voted for it. Partition now exists and, let us face it, if we do not believe in coercion and the use of force, it exists because there is a majority, in the main Unionists, who want this country partitioned.
Therefore, if we want to see the country united we must make our own contribution. There will be a contribution by those now in the minority in the normalisation of politics in the Six Counties where the electorate will be attracted to policy, to political philosophy and abandon their attachment, and, in particular, the working-class will abandon their attachment, to the Unionist Party. The only way this can be done, in my view, is by full equality, by these reforms which we hope will come pretty soon, to operate for some years.
Those who now oppose the régime have a responsibility to offer an alternative. It is not for me to criticise the public representatives in the Six Counties, whether they be from the Unionist Party or this party or that party but I think they must recognise, and seem to have recognised, that the time has come when, collectively, those who believe in the application of human rights and those who believe in the reunification of this country, under conditions, have a responsibility to offer an alternative in the way of policy and in the way of attitude.
At this stage there should be a tribute paid to the trade unions, particularly in the city of Belfast, for the fact that in the riots in Belfast city in August, in the shipyards and the various places of work sectarianism was virtually ignored. For those who can remember, this is a far different situation from that which obtained in the pogroms of so many years ago. We, too, can certainly give a lead. This point will be further expanded by members of my party who will speak in this debate.
The repeal or deletion of Article 44 is not the complete solution. I do not say that the Taoiseach has put this up as the complete solution. There are other constitutional changes that we must consider. I do not think we should have a referendum. I do not think it would be necessary to have a referendum — may be we will have to go through the motions of it — in order to delete Article 44.
Not alone must we have constitutional changes but we must have changes in our economic and social policies. The Taoiseach has said this. The Taoiseach must recognise this. But the Taoiseach as Head of a Government who, it now appears, will be there for the next four years must take steps to provide for these economic and social changes in accordance, for example, with what he said in an interview to a British magazine — I think it was the Director, in October, 1968. I do not purport to quote him entirely but I do not think he will say that I quote him wrongly when I say that he said apropos the reunification of this country:
We must improve our standards so that unification would not mean material loss to people in the Six Counties.
There is a genuine fear, and not because they are Catholics or Protestants, in the minds of people that reunification for them means a diminution in their standard of living. I know this from personal conversations with people in the Six Counties. They may be very fervent about their religion, they may be very fervent about the reunification of Ireland, but they have a genuine fear when they think in terms — I do not want to flog this — of social welfare and so on.
For us, force is out. Unless subsequent speakers may say the contrary, it appears to me from the two speeches made, and I have known from my own party and have known for years and years, that as far as reunification is concerned force is out and, further, coercion is out. In the long run we believe and have always said it, there is a solution and it is James Connolly's solution. These are not his exact words but Connolly, when he talked about the unity of Ireland, to which he was devoted, said that when ordinary people in Belfast and Derry recognised their identity of interest with ordinary people in Dublin, Cork and Limerick we would be well on our way to a united Ireland.
