I move: "That the Dáil do now adjourn."
Situation in Six Counties: Motion (Resumed).
When the Dáil adjourned last night I was speaking of some of the changes which I thought we ought to consider in this part of the country in order to remove the impression fostered in Northern Ireland by certain people that conditions in the Republic are not such as would be attractive or acceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland. I mentioned several constitutional and legal reforms.
There are two others that deserve mention and in fact were mentioned by a Unionist speaker in this city last night, taunting us on the more democratic situation that will emerge from these reforms in Northern Ireland compared with this part of the country. These are the existence there of an ombudsman to guard against maladministration, something which certainly is much more greatly needed in Northern Ireland than here but which I think we too should have. I should like the Taoiseach to tell us when he is concluding whether he is prepared to consider this proposal.
The other point is giving votes at 18 for which with one exception the Northern Ireland Parliament voted unanimously two days ago, something proposed by the two parties on this side of the House but which the Government do not seem willing to accept.
It would be unfortunate to leave Unionist spokesmen like John Taylor in a position to taunt us for being behind Northern Ireland in the franchise, in not having an ombudsman and the other points which he raised.
I was speaking last night about changes in attitudes which those of us who are Roman Catholics should consider, quite apart from legal or constitutional changes. This is something that we need to consider. We must recognise the fact that in the north the events of 1951 are still used for their purposes, are still a live issue, and that the fact that in this part of the country the events of that year could not happen again, that the ecclesiastical authorities would not interfere or, if they did, could not succeed, is not understood in Northern Ireland. I feel it is important that the ecclesiastical authorities here should do all in their power by, for example, making changes such as removing the ban on Trinity College, to remove the impression of ecclesiastical intervention of a kind which gives rise to these misconceptions and gives material for propaganda to the Unionist bosses in Northern Ireland.
There is one other thing which has been raised by Deputy Harte if not by others and that is the position of the Irish language in relation to the public service and indeed examinations. The fact is that to a Northern Unionist participation in a United Ireland which would have practices such as we have in this respect must obviously be unacceptable. How can we possibly expect, not Paisleyites but even the most moderate of Unionists, to accept participation in a State in which they would have no right to enter the public service and in fact in which their children could not get a school leaving certificate? The Taoiseach may say that under the federal system all that would be changed but we need to make this very clear indeed. I do not think we appreciate the divisive effect of these things. I remember some years ago— and I think it was an unusual experience for a member of my party— addressing a Fianna Fáil meeting. I was not then in politics. I was invited to put forward my views on the Irish language to a Fianna Fáil seminar in Dún Laoghaire. I found it an enlightening experience. I trust the Fianna Fáil Party did so also. That is not so certain. The discussion there was on the issue of the divisive role of the Irish language. I put forward my views. I was carefully flanked by Seán Ó Tuama and Donal Ó Moráin before and after me in case I should do any harm. I was sandwiched between them.
Are they supposed to be Fianna Fáil people?
No, they were the other speakers at this Fianna Fáil meeting. I meant that in case my views on the Irish language might in any way corrupt Fianna Fáil, the party was protected by having two advocates of a different viewpoint. What was interesting was that when the study groups reported back it was quite clear that about one-third of those present shared my views and this created horror and dismay among others. I was interested to see that when two of the chairmen reported back on the issue I put before them, the divisive effect of the language as an obstacle to the ending of Partition, their reaction was to call me an Orangeman. I think this must be the first time when expressing anti-Partitionist views invoked this particular epithet here. It suggests, and suggested to me, that a long process of education is necessary.
I do not suggest that this is confined to the Fianna Fáil Party. I think all of us must reconsider this, not just this issue, but our whole attitude to the North. I did have the pleasure of ending my remarks on that occasion by saying that I had not been so optimistic as to hope to convert Fianna Fáil to be an anti-Partitionist party in less than 20 years but I believed that over a 20 year period they could perhaps be brought to the point of gaining an understanding of Northern Ireland and of the divisive effects of policies of this kind enforced down here and that they would eventually, perhaps, come to accept the concept of a pluralist society in a genuine Irish community which I was attempting to put before them.
The Taoiseach, in his speech, showed a recognition of the need for us in this part of the country to move towards much greater social justice if we are to be in a position to encourage people from Northern Ireland to join us here. His remarks on this point, brief though they were, are to be welcomed as indeed was so much of his speech. I would hope that the recognition which he showed of the extent to which we are behind in this respect and how unattractive to Northern Ireland is participation in a Republic whose social policies are so conservative and whose social benefits are so inadequate, would be translated into practice in the years ahead and with the extra motivating force of this feeling in regard to social justice and Partition, that we shall make more progress than we have done in the past ten years or so on the whole matter of social justice.
For all that needs to be done we undoubtedly need an all-party committee of the House. I cannot agree with what Deputy Andrews said on this, that an all-party committee is all right for little things like reforming the Constitution — I am not purporting to quote him but I am distorting what he said in order to make my point; the Taoiseach is very sensitive to misquotation and rightly so — but that when it comes to an issue like a united policy on Northern Ireland which now exists between the three parties, with some possible exceptions on the other side, for this purpose an all-party committee is inappropriate. I cannot accept this. I think it is very important that we should have such an all-party committee.
The Government have been blessed in the past few months with a responsible Opposition which has avoided all the opportunities it could have taken in that period of playing politics with the issue, but I think it is unfair to an Opposition to expect it to continue acting responsibly indefinitely when members of the Taoiseach's Government will not do so and when we are excluded from participation and consultation in the formulation of policies on this national issue which is clearly not a party issue. It is a national issue on which all three Parties have now taken a common stance. We must be prepared to sit down together in this House on this issue. I appeal to the Taoiseach, even if he cannot do so just at this point without further thought, to think over this matter in the time ahead and consider whether it would not be in the general interest that such a committee should be established.
In what I have said in this House I have concentrated, because it is in this House in this part of Ireland that I am talking, on our share of the blame and I have concentrated also on the Government's mistakes. I want to emphasise two things at this point, that in referring to the Government's mistakes as I see them I do not wish to suggest that all the blame is on that side of the House. I did say at the outset that in the particular circumstances of the time it was inevitable that mistakes should be made. I should like to add that I am sure the mistakes are not confined to the Government in the things that were said and done over the past few months. I do not wish to be unduly critical but I think it is right that we should consider at this point the mistakes that were made so as to ensure that they are not repeated in future.
I am not in any way condemning the Government which did what it thought was right at the time but we should alert it and the country to errors and misjudgments that may have been made so as to ensure they will not be made again. We do not want to use, and in fact we have not used this occasion, as we could have done, to launch an all-out attack on the Government for its handling of the situation over this period.
I also want to say that in concentrating in what I say on the share of the blame attaching to us in this part of the country I am not suggesting that we here bear more than a fraction of the blame. Because I have devoted so much time to it, I do not want to give the impression that I think it is we who are primarily responsible. The responsibility lies with Britain which conquered and administered this country for a long time; with Britain which pandered to a group of extremist Tories in Northern Ireland and to their interests in partitioning the country originally; with Britain who has neglected this problem for 50 years.
The blame attaches above all to that group of unscrupulous people who have used the poor ordinary working people of Northern Ireland for their purposes so skilfully and successfully for 50 years. Our blame in this matter is a contingent blame, a peripheral blame and I concentrated on it here because it is the one thing we can do something about. There is a limit to what we can do as regards the British Government although we can and should influence them more than we have done, if we adopt the right tactics. There is a limit to what we can do about influencing things in Northern Ireland for the better; there is no limit to the extent to which we can influence them for the worse. We can do something about our own deficiencies and mistakes. That is why I concentrated on these. Clearly, our blame is small and it is right that this House should make clear what it thinks of the neglect of the British Government over this period and its failure to deal with this problem and what it thinks of those people who have been running Northern Ireland for 50 years and some of whom in high places today, although putting through these reforms, show no sign of recognition of the blame or the responsibility that should attach to them.
I find it difficult to control myself when seeing spokesmen for the Northern Government batting away— they find it politically necessary to do so, I suppose — pretending that nothing has ever been wrong but that there were just some little, silly complaints and that in order to satisfy the people, they are making some changes. A Government that has been responsible for what it has been responsible for should be brave enough to admit that it has been wrong even if there are some political consequences. I find it difficult to keep patience when I see people like the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland batting away on this matter on television and radio and showing no sign of any recognition of their responsibility.
It is certainly difficult to accept that the affairs of Northern Ireland should remain in the hands of people who seem so unconscious of their responsibility in the matter. That is why I would hope that we would see in Northern Ireland, and would do our best to achieve there, a Government of moderates of all Parties that would replace in time the present administration which is one doing a necessary interim job under great pressure from Britain but not one in which we could expect the minority in Northern Ireland to have any serious confidence in view of the conditions in which they have been forced to accept these changes and their obvious reluctance even now to face up to the blame attached to them.
If we in this part of the country can learn the lessons, as I think we are doing, and modify our attitudes and policies then, out of the evil of the last few months, good will have come. A fresh start will have been made after 50 years, 50 lost years that have gone so far to consolidate Partition. I am old enough to be able to remember what people's attitudes were in the 1930s. I am old enough to be able to remember the attitudes of people in Northern Ireland because of my own extraction in part from that part of the country. I know from my own relatives there, Unionists and Protestants, that in the 1930s they had no conviction or expectation that Partition would last. As far as they were concerned they had got a breathing space for a few years and all of them, from Carson and Craigavon down to the ordinary people, expected that after a few years the situation would change. Unfortunately, war broke out and the policy of neutrality which we adopted — I am not suggesting it was wrong or going into that now — had the consequence of widening this gap. Unfortunately, policies and attitudes adopted down here consolidated that and so I have seen growing among my own relatives there during my own lifetime the dawn of a realisation that Partition might, perhaps, be permanent, that it was not going to be a matter of a few years but certainly of many decades. It is we who have contributed to that. The fault lies primarily on our side. We did not create Partition, but we maintained Partition I have seen the growth of a conviction and hope among Unionists in Northern Ireland that it can last for a long time. They can see us, as we have done over 50 years, making every mistake in the book. Now we can make a fresh start. We can produce results in, perhaps, half or less than half of the period we have wasted since the foundation of the State.
Above all, however, it is our job to try to understand — to understand the fears of the Protestants as we can so easily understand the fears of the Catholics. We are beginning, perhaps, to understand this. For example, the shock effect of the welcoming of British troops by Catholics in the Bogside and the Falls Road has forced people to realise that they have not understood the position in Northern Ireland, and has forced us to try to understand both the Catholics, whose views seem so different from what our stereotype of them has led us to believe, and the Protestants. If we do that, and if we are prepared to work genuinely towards a pluralist society in which all groups in the community genuinely have equality, then we can hope for the ending of Partition in our lifetime.
We can hope, in the meantime, for peace in Northern Ireland which is of much more practical importance to the people of Northern Ireland than the issue of Partition and the division of this country at this time. This means a genuine change in attitude. It means that when we think of a thing like an Irish language test, or a law about contraception, or a constitutional provision about divorce, we think about them in the context of the whole of Ireland and not in the context only of the 26-County area. This requires an effort of imagination. It requires for example — and I had an amendment down to the Broadcasting Authority Bill in the Seanad several years ago on this very point — that if we believe this is one country and that the Unionists in Northern Ireland are a million of our fellow countrymen, then they must have their share of time on television and radio with other political Parties.
Either the north is part of our national territory, either these people are Irish, in which case, much as we may dislike their views, they are entitled to their share of time, or if we think they are not so entitled, and if we think that they should be excluded we are, in fact, saying we want to remain partitioned. It requires an effort of imagination which we have not yet made. I hope that out of this debate that effort of imagination will come.
The purpose of this debate is not to indicate what any of us or any party in this House has done over the past 40 years. Much less is it to exculpate ourselves for what we have not done. It gives us all an adequate opportunity of at least asserting what we are prepared to do and, more than anything else, of bringing on stage our views, letting our views be known, examined and considered in the same way as the views of the representatives of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of Westminster have been, particularly in the past few months. This could be the most important consequence of this debate — that the representatives in this House be given an opportunity to express to the people in the North of Ireland, the people in Great Britain and, indeed, the people of the world, the views which we hold and the hopes which we have for the future of this country. The purpose of the debate is much less, indeed, to comment on the terrible events of recent months, than to indicate the extent of our goodwill to all who would endeavour to solve and heal the bitterness that has arisen and has boiled to the surface in the recent past.
Let us tell them first of all of the strife that existed in this nation, in this part of the nation, of the bitterness that existed between those of us on all sides of the House some 40 or 50 years ago. Let us tell them of the progress we have made since that time. Let us tell them these things in hope — in the hope that if it can be achieved here that the bitterness of the past can be solved, and that at least we can reach a reasonable stage of progressive political activity, there is every reason to believe that the same thing can be achieved in a united or a federal Ireland.
Let us point to the tolerance — not by way of praising or shouting our virtues —that does, indeed, exist certainly in this part of the country, a tolerance that is enshrined in the Constitution of this State — the public office held by men of minority religions, the responsibility held by people irrespective of what their views may be. One of the happy aspects of life in Ireland nowadays — there may be something we still have to remove from the Irish scene so far as tolerance is concerned — is that no enlightened person in public life, or on the fringe of public life, stops to think of the religious persuasion of anybody with whom he may be associated. When one considers the history of this country, a history which was based in many ways on, and closely associated with religious oppression, with the fight for religious freedom, one sees that in such a short time we have got to the stage of political maturity that we can, in fact, afford to forget the differences which might have existed some 40, 50 or 100 years ago and build on the unity that exists at present.
Let us tell them, too, that we acknowledge in this part of the country that there are ills in our society. We acknowledge that there is, for instance, still much need for improvement in housing, much need for improvement in our employment situation but, while acknowledging all of those things, let us point out that we have come a long way, in a very short time and, that for a nation which had so little of its own resources such a short time ago, we have now achieved what in many ways is the envy of so many countries. This should be the basis of our approach, of our views and, indeed, one would hope that it would arouse a reaction from those in this island of ours who feel that our destiny is quite exclusive from theirs and that our pasts can never be combined.
Let us tell them that this island of ours does not need any subvention from any British Exchequer to maintain its existence. One of the weaknesses I found in the television address of Captain O'Neill was the fact that the great persuasion which he offered to the people of the North of Ireland at that time was that should this terrible event happen, this UDI of Ulster, as he referred to it, they were going to deprive themselves of that subvention from Britain. This appeared to be the major plank which he was offering to the people of that part of the country. Surely any self-respecting Irishman, north or south, does not want to live constantly on the charity, subvention or otherwise, of any other country.
Let us tell them that instead of that subvention, which we could still be drawing if we had not changed our economy to modern times, we have geared ourselves to being an independent separate entity rather than a State which is dependent on what was a major world power. Let us tell them that in the modern society, in the Ireland which we all hope for, yes, maybe they will not have the social welfare benefits immediately which they have in England and, yes, maybe they will not have the immediate benefits of the Health Act which they have in England, but they will have much more instead. They will have the opportunity to work on an equal basis with the rest of us in this country. They will have the opportunity to earn rather than be supported by the efforts of others.
I refuse to believe that this island as a unit is not economically a viable unit, that this island does not contain within itself the fundamental wealth and, much more important, the fundamental determination of its people to make it a viable economic unit. I cannot for a moment imagine that any Irishman, north or south, is prepared to accept that he needs a constant subvention from another nation to maintain him in this country which is, after all, basically a wealthy if an undeveloped country. If that is the loss with which the people in the North of Ireland are concerned — the loss of the social welfare and unemployment benefits — we can tell them that to compensate for that loss the gain of independence and self-pride and the gain, indeed, we hope of full economic development is something we can give them instead. This means, of course, then, that we must continue even at present, as in recent years, to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the people and the Government of the North of Ireland in the promotion of industry in both parts of the island. We must continue as has been done — I do not know if it has been referred to in this House — in the private commercial sector, to extend co-operation between both parts of the island. We have been encouraged to hear, for instance, that the commercial banks have from time to time directed would-be industrial promoters from other countries either to the Six Counties or from the Six Counties to this part of Ireland when the environment or the opportunities in one particular area did not suit.
Let us continue this, knowing that, if we cannot help the part of the country within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, by far the best thing we can do afterwards is to help the part we hope will be within the jurisdiction of a united Ireland in the not too distant future. I would not go quite as far as Deputy Andrews when he suggests we might give tax-free concessions to industry established in that part of the country, but I would go as far as to say that whenever we are not in a position to promote certain industrial activities we should at least ensure that such projects will be given every opportunity of being established in the North of Ireland. To this extent I should like to encourage and commend the commercial banks, insurance companies and other such institutions who I know at present are engaged in this activity.
I was not one of those who were in Bogside, in the Falls Road, in the Shankill Road or any other of those troubled areas in the last few months. I was instead further from Ireland than normally when these events occurred, in France, and the sad impression that was conveyed to all the people in that country, both in the local and national papers — and I do not know how representative that view may be for other Continental or world newspapers — was that this was a war of religion, that here you had ranged on either side Catholics and Protestants, and people asked, is it possible in this century to have a war of religion. It was said that this was exclusively a war of religion.
What else was it?
While this may have been a major consideration in it, it certainly was not the only one. In any event, one of the sad ironies of the situation is that, at a time when so many of the churches are endeavouring to come together, the creeds which people profess should be used as a wedge to drive between people who have very much in common. It is sad, indeed, that the only source of division between equally deprived areas and equally deprived people in the Falls Road, Shankill Road and other areas of Northern Ireland should be the division of the creeds which they profess. It is sad when an opportunity is found to prey on those fears, fears of what one creed represents and what the other creed does not represent. Can we again tell those people that while religion did have this connotation here for us at one time, it no longer has? Can we express the hope that they, too, will be given the opportunity of taking religion from the forum of political discussion and that when the question of civil rights is raised the religious aspect will be removed from the discussion?
I agree with all who have said that it was not opportune for us during the course of these recent troubles to discuss the matter here in our Parliament. We could have stood up and like a cock on a high wall crowed as loudly as possible, but would we be relieving the situation for those who were suffering at that time? I think the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs, by the immediate action they took, by the tolerant views they expressed, and by seeking the bar of world opinion did all that anyone in this part of the country could do. The only concern I have at discussing this matter even at this time is that any of us would say things that might in any way arouse further animosities in that part of the country. Our silence and, indeed, the silence of the Opposition Parties — a silence for which they have been commended in this House — is not to be taken——
It did not happen in 1956 when the Deputy's party were in Opposition.
Deputy L'Estrange has the advantage of political and historical knowledge that I do not have. I hope to speak towards the future and not towards the past.
The Deputy ought to say what he means by 1956. I do not think there was any parallel situation.
A resolution was passed at a Fianna Fáil convention in Westmeath that the only way to solve the Border problem was by armed intervention. It was passed also in country councils where Fianna Fáil had a majority at that time.
That is not so.
That is a typical intervention.
That is so and it is on the record. They embarrassed the Government in every way they could.
Order.
I was going to suggest it would appear to be a matter for Westmeath to set the record right on what happened 12 or 13 years ago. It is something I am not aware of.
I know the Deputy is not one of those.
Order. Deputy O'Kennedy.
Our intention now is to impress upon all the people up there that our silence down here should not be interpreted as a lack of concern, that if we here in the House do not express views which sympathise with the plight of the minority, the view that these reforms are long overdue, if we do not express these views in a very determined fashion it is only because we restrain ourselves from so doing in an effort to assure all up there that we hope we can build a nation for all the people of the island. All of those people enjoy our goodwill. Whether they belong to the majority or the minority, they enjoy our goodwill because they are citizens of the same island. At a time when the Unionist Party have admitted discrimination which has been rampant for so long, it is not for us here to ask them to wear sackcloth and ashes. They have set themselves out now, I hope, to achieve reforms and it is to be hoped that the Government in England and the representatives at Westminster will ensure that these reforms are carried into effect. If they are not and if there is any halting of the reforms which have been announced — and, remember, that when reforms are announced it presumes the reasons for reform have existed for a long time; I do not want to dwell on that here now — then let them be fully aware that we are still concerned and that we shall use every possible opportunity before the bar of the United Nations and of the world to ensure that what is now being promised will be quickly fulfilled.
One of the things of which I think we are all personally guilty here is that we know less about the people in the north by and large than they know about us. Deputy Cosgrave referred to the fact that the leaders of the Unionist Party were at fault in not telling the people up there what we were really like when, in fact, they knew sufficiently well what we were like. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave if they were convinced we are what we would like them to think we are they would have told them. At least it can be said they came amongst us in a way we did not go amongst them. What is left now is for us to go amongst them. Let us promote a campaign — and I must admit I have never considered this in my own mind before — of spending our holidays in any part of Ireland, including the Six Counties. Let us promote Antrim and Down, Tyrone and Fermanagh. Let us not regard that part of the country as being an excluded part of the country. Let us find out more about the people; let them see what we are and let us see what they are.
Bord Fáilte, in recent times, in co-operation with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, have done very important work in this particular field but many of us down here have not availed ourselves of these opportunities. Let us recommend to our friends and associates, urban councils and county councils that they extend the pairing of towns. Anything that we can learn about each other can only do good because we will find that many of the doubts that have existed in our minds for so long are not justified.
Even as late as last night a gentleman called Mr. Taylor, a representative from Stormont, whose views I seldom find myself in agreement with — indeed, may I say, that there are many people in this House whose views I seldom find myself in agreement with — got a reception in Trinity College which I do not think any of us would be proud of, when he was not even given the right to express the views he had been invited to give. I think it was a disgraceful situation when he had the courage to come down to this city to express his views, that he was not allowed the opportunity to do so by a group of young men who are supposed to be educated and who are supposed to be giving a reasonable example to the rest of the people. The only way we can show Mr. Taylor and people like him that we do not associate ourselves with this kind of hysterical reaction is to express that view in this House.
The Taoiseach, and, indeed, all speakers with very minor exceptions, has given the lead that we all hoped would come from this House, that we do not pretend we are perfect but we do have a fundamental goodwill towards all. The Ireland we envisage, as the Taoiseach has said, is not an Ireland dominated by Government. It is an Ireland that has as much the genius and determination of the Orangemen as it has the genius and determination of the Catholic nationalist wherever he comes from. This is what has created the main stream of culture in this country in centuries past. The people of the north should be told what their history represents and what they can contribute to present-day Ireland. History should not be the basis of bigotry; history should be the basis of united co-operation.
The Taoiseach has welcomed the acknowledgment from Major Chichester-Clark that we here, at least, are entitled to hope that our aspirations, our plans, our programme, our work and our dedication to this country can be shared by all without the assistance of any other country and certainly without the recrimination of past political or religious prejudice.
To follow the contributions of my colleagues in the Labour Party, to hear the contributions of Deputies Harte and FitzGerald and to note, with a certain disappointment, the absence of contributions from members of the Cabinet, notably Deputies Blaney, Colley and Boland, notwithstanding the balance and the great concern—"the low key" as the newspapers have put it — of the Taoiseach's contribution, it can be said that there is now an opening up both in this House and throughout the country of a new attitude towards national unity. There is a new political attitude in the Republic and a new political dimension which I would certainly hope to see bearing fruit in the lifetime of this Dáil. We are very much a post-Treaty generation and I would hope to see these new attitudes bear fruit in the next four years.
At the outset we should assure the Taoiseach, who seemed somewhat agitated by certain of the reproaches against the Government last evening, that it is not our intention within this debate to adopt a purely party political attitude as may appear on other occasions.
I tabled a question in the middle of August last asking for a statement from this House and yet we have had to wait until late October to have an elementary statement made within the House itself. We had the rather cursory expressions of the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Dr. Hillery, which were mere repetition, put rather poorly, on his actions over the past few months when he was at the United Nations. We have not had any coherent account of the discussions he had with any other Governments. The Government must take responsibility for failure to consult with this House more effectively during the past three or four months.
In relation to our national aspirations, the newspapers, radio and television have been giving us tremendous up-to-date, informative and comprenhensive reports, and I do not share the rather ridiculous comments from my colleague in the same constituency, Deputy Cosgrave, when he censured the Irish Times yesterday on its attitude to Fine Gael's role in relation to Northern Ireland. His comments were rather petulant and unbecoming, and unacceptable to the vast majority of Deputies.
I can assure Deputy O'Kennedy, though I am disappointed with the contributions of other Deputies, that it is the sincere aim of all parties to try to reach agreement on which a solution can be based. Unfortunately, during the years Fianna Fáil have paraded as though they were the sole repository of this central aspiration. This has been illustrated in every epilogue to every Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis speech. They have done it with great overtones of force and coercion which most of us have found appalling during the years. I have no doubt that at the next Ard-Fheis, Deputy Colley, Deputy Boland and Deputy Blaney, nonspeakers in this debate, will be back with the same claptrap, completely unimaginative military-type argument which, in the context of the situation in 1970 in the matter of hopes for national unity, is completely unacceptable to the Irish people.
The hopes of the people of this country are for the removal of the last remaining obstacle to national unity. The fact that we are a very divided people in any national debate is of major importance and I hope we shall try to thrash out methods by which we may bring about a greater sense of unity. One of the major difficulties in the situation has been the continuing failure, the perpetual failure, of successive Ministers for External Affairs to differentiate seriously between longterm aspirations for the ending of Partition and an attempt to bring about normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland, particularly by failing to bring into the political arena, nationally and internationally, the problem of civil rights. Fianna Fáil's approach towards normalisation in the matter of civil rights has been completely disappointing and one must be harsh on the Government in that respect.
In many ways we have seen and we can be proud of Ireland's foreign policy and the lead which we have given during the years on many world issues. As the only ex-colonial country in Europe, we have given tremendous help towards the solution of many African and Asian problems. We have in the United Nations spoken at length on the problems of Czechoslovakia, Algeria, Tibet, Hungary and other countries but though we have had ample opportunity within the United Nations to raise the question of civil rights in Northern Ireland, Fianna Fáil Ministers have not availed of such opportunities. It is of grave importance that this should be placed on record—the fact that notwithstanding the attendance of successive Ministers for External Affairs at human rights meetings of the United Nations, no effort was made to bring before these assemblies the position in regard to civil rights in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong in a debate of this type to give chapter and verse of the violations that have taken place down through the years. For it, the Government here must be indicted generally.
What do we have in terms of a solution? During the years we have had from Fianna Fáil the proposition that there was one of two solutions to by constitutional methods. I do not by constitutional methods. I do not think that any Fianna Fáil speakers have made up their minds as to the precise method they want. There have been overtones, there have been implicit assumptions, there have been internal Cabinet disagreements and disagreements in the Party generally——
Will the Deputy tell the House what he will do?
I will assure Deputy Burke——
We have listened to him for 15 minutes attacking Fianna Fáil. Will he come to the point and tell us what he will do about the North?
Will the Deputy cease interrupting and allow Deputy Desmond to continue?
I am sorry. This is a national assembly and I am anxious to get from some Deputy over there a contribution of a national character, not a continuing attack on Fianna Fáil.
If I may continue, as I indicated, there is within Fianna Fáil the harking back to either of two solutions in relation to Northern Ireland, one being by long-term, and I mean very long-term, constitutional methods and the other by military methods. Frankly, I find fault with the Taoiseach's strategy in the recent events in that his statement on television did contain the germ of a coercive concept. We welcome very strongly his repeated statements in Tralee and to this House in which he ruled out the use of force in the foreseeable future unless general disaster overtakes us in the form of total civil war. He has repeated his rejection of the use of force or armed invasion of Northern Ireland but I should like to see confirmation of this from the Cabinet Ministers associated with him on this particular approach. This assurance is overdue.
I would point out to the Taoiseach that the movement of Irish troops at the Border, admittedly on humanitarian grounds, had, I think, an overt tendency to raise false hopes in the Bogside, to raise particularly false hopes in Belfast and to escalate a situation which admittedly we may now criticise by hindsight. However, the decision made was the Taoiseach's: he did not consult with leaders of the Opposition; he held his Cabinet meeting and made his decision. I felt at the time and I still feel—and I would have stated this had there been a meeting of Dáil Éireann in August—that this strategy of the Irish Government was an error of judgment, and I am glad to see that in many respects it has not been defended.
The whole approach of Fianna Fáil to the Irish people, of course, has been that if we cannot have a kind of coercive solution to the problem then we must have a half-coercive federal solution. In other words, London will get out; London will insist on an Ireland in the context of Dublin and Belfast being involved in a federal solution. This is equally specious, and I think the Taoiseach in advocating the federal solution must be living in the Sea of Tranquillity, having gone up to the moon in the last rocket. Therefore, the sooner the pretence is dropped the better, because otherwise we will meet with a complete lack of comprehension on the part of the people of Northern Ireland. These are harsh words but they must be said because I think all the shibboleths and the nonsensical approach to the national question that have been built up in this country will not contribute to a solution.
I think, therefore, if we have to state that the Taoiseach was over-reacting on the question of force and in then advancing the federal solution as a solution to the national question, equally one can say this is simply going from the frying pan into the fire in terms of a general solution. It was a mistake and the sooner the Government forget about it the better.
I would ask the Taoiseach to agree, as a basic premise to the reunification of Ireland, that this issue is one which can only be resolved among the people of this island, more specifically by direct agreement with no threat of coercion, with no propositioning for a federal solution between the Protestants and the Catholics, North and South. I would put it to the Taoiseach that there should be a general statement of principle to the people in this island that the only resolution of Partition is by agreement, nationally, jointly, on a unilateral basis between ourselves.
We must be very careful in our approach. We had the Minister for External Affairs, for example, going to the United Nations and talking in very histrionic terms generally about Partition and, as Deputy FitzGerald so rightly analysed, talking in the language of the 1920s and the 1930s, which has no relevancy to the situation today. His double shuffle at the United Nations, when he could not make up his mind whether he wanted to talk about civil rights or about Partition, simply made him look even more foolish. The Minister would have been much wiser and certainly would have received much greater support from this House if he had concentrated on the more appropriate question of civil rights in Northern Ireland as at that time. It would have been more real; it would have been more immediate and would have evoked far greater response among the people of Northern Ireland. In the long term it would have evoked a far better response, particularly from the British Government, who had a major responsibility at that time.
I am afraid that instead his speech writers—I doubt very much if they were from the Government Information Bureau: I suspect they were from the "Colley Bureau" if anything—got 1920 speeches mixed up with the needs of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I would say that in some respects the Minister's statements at the United Nations if anything confirmed the worst fears of the Northern Ireland Protestants and they confirmed the worst fears of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland which particularly did not want that speech then.
I would, therefore, come to a number of conclusions which I think can bear examination. We have thrown out the concept of force, we have thrown out the concept of a solution for reunification along federal lines on the grounds that it is not within the present bounds of possibility. It is certainly not in sight so far as our generation and certainly the great majority of Ulster Unionists are concerned. I do not accept the statement made by the Taoiseach yesterday that he was willing to seek a solution along federal lines, to examine all the possibilities, to have a scrupulously fair deal for all, that financial and economic links with Britain would be preserved and so on— that all those things were currently being studied by the Government. This is a lot of brouhaha and I do not think generally it bears very much examination now.
I am equally critical, quite frankly, of the attitude of both the Taoiseach and of Deputy Cosgrave in relation to the operations of British troops in Northern Ireland. We cannot have British troops in Northern Ireland notwithstanding that for decades there have been some thousands of troops in Northern Ireland and at the escalation of the crisis 6,000 or 7,000 troops were in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, the Government were trying to take the old classical anti-Partition line and, on the other, they were trying to bring pressure to bear on the British Government to resolve a situation which they knew was incapable of resolution.
What then are we faced with? We have the rather obvious fact that to persuade the vast majority of the Northern Protestants, or even any sizeable section of them, will take a very long time. It will take a generation. It might in fact take much longer and there will be quite a long period, whether we in the Republic like it or not, in which our country will remain partitioned.
Those are not easy words for me to speak. I come from a family who have been involved in the Republican movement. Having made the earlier statement that one must accept that for quite a long time to come this country will remain partitioned, one must be content to see the unity question evolve over a number of decades.
Are we then to suggest we do nothing about it in the interim period, that we simply stand back and say it is none of our business, that it is out of our hands, and is insoluble? I do not think that we should adopt that kind of attitude. There is a basic obligation on the Government to ensure the most democratic possible structure of government in Northern Ireland, to ensure so far as it is within our powers to do so, civil rights in Northern Ireland. We have every opportunity open to us to bring about those changes.
In relation to the disbandment of the B Specials, which is certainly welcomed here, in relation to the support given by the Irish Government to the civil rights movement we still have obligations to fulfil, leaving the Partition issue aside, on the basis that this will erode itself in the future. There has been a complete underestimation on the part of the Government of the tremendous role played by the Northern Ireland civil rights movement.
I am afraid there has been a little bit of late catching-up on the part of some Cabinet Ministers fostering such movements in certain parts of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I would suggest that the Government might investigate some reports that money has been passed in certain quarters. Frankly, I do not want to embarrass the Government any further on that point beyond suggesting that, in relation to the publication of certain documents nationally and internationally from outside this Government, in relation to money going to certain organisations in Northern Ireland, there is a point to be made that Fianna Fáil will not try to do a little cosy takeover of the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland on the basis that they ignored it for so long and found themselves, the Nationalist Party here, bereft of general involvement in the civil rights area in Northern Ireland and suddenly had to try to get involved in the Northern Ireland civil rights movement.
On a point of order, would the Deputy tell the House what contribution he will make to settle the Northern Ireland question? All he has done since he came in here is to criticise Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy will make any contribution he thinks fit.
I am Nationalist first and party afterwards but I am concerned chiefly about some constructive statement from the Deputy.
I am afraid we must accept that the Northern Ireland civil rights movement has been a tremendous new force which, for the first time in half a century in Northern Ireland, united a great mass of non-Unionist people in the north which heretofore was divided into mutually antagonistic groups of individuals. It is a matter of profound regret that there was no coherent opposition in Northern Ireland until the civil rights movement emerged. It is to the credit—I do not think we in Ireland should in any way underestimate it — of that movement, and the many young people in it, that it achieved a political earthquake in shaking Northern Ireland out of the completely reactionary attitude of the Unionist Government, grown old in office themselves. We must appreciate the tremendous work done. It is certainly very much underestimated.
I remember the Fianna Fáil attitude to organisations such as the Connolly Association, which campaigned on civil rights when Fianna Fáil were campaigning on more esoteric aspects of Partition. As a trade union officer and as a former industrial officer of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I met union officers in Northern Ireland and I certainly know something of the work done in that area. I recall the work done by the Belfast Trade Council. I recall the tremendous work being done for civil rights in Northern Ireland by people like Gerry Fitt and our distinguished visitor of this morning, Paul Rose. Tremendous work has been done for civil rights in Northern Ireland when there was not a word from our Government, and indeed, in some respects Opposition Deputies have also been silent, but in all fairness it must be said that Deputy Michael O'Leary and many of my colleagues are on the records of this House as having raised the question of civil rights in Northern Ireland.
While I am critical of Fianna Fáil on this matter I am equally critical of the British Labour Party. I remember my father who was very much involved with the IRA movement here and who was associated with Fianna Fáil in the early 1920s—in fact, we have a good deal of correspondence relating to the movement at that time—saying that if one were to scratch a member of the British Labour Party it was probable that one would find an imperialist underneath in some respects as well. This is very true. There is no particular credit due to the British Labour Party and certainly there is no credit due to the British Tory Party because they were well aware down through the years of the discrimination by the Unionist Party towards the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. They were aware of the acts of terror committed by the B Specials, and indeed, some of the acts of the RUC could also be questioned. These things were brought to the notice of successive British Governments during the past 20 or 30 years but in law, in practice, in observance and in reaction they were condoned by successive British Governments until things got too hot.
It was the civil rights movement and not the Nationalist Party of Deputy Blaney vintage which was responsible for bringing these issues to the public forefront. Neither was it a particular outmoded political operation of a certain jingoistic type of republicanism that brought about the tremendous change of heart in the British Labour Party and the British Government.
I strongly suggest to the Government that under no circumstances should any State aid—to use a polite term—be subvented from the Republic into the civil rights organisations in Northern Ireland lest we provide succour to any Unionist reaction on that basis. There is another aspect to which I should like to refer because it is of great importance. There has been a tendency among certain elements of the People's Democracy in Northern Ireland to arrive at instant political judgments on every issue. I know that there has been a tendency to bring in what might be called ideological approaches which do not seem entirely relevant now. The main issue in Northern Ireland is clearly the struggle for civil rights and when that issue is won it will be possible to build a new and healthy and political atmosphere.
It is not wise for any particular sections in Northern Ireland to talk at this stage about unrealistic demands, about workers' control or about the setting up in Northern Ireland of a small farmers' and socialists' republic. There have been overtones of this in certain areas of the Civil Rights Movement and it has only clouded the civil rights issue now. This has been a dangerous development because it is confusing the struggle of the minority in relation to their particular demands. I should not like to see this happen any more than I would like to see the introduction of any Fianna Fáil outdated republican concepts which would equally confuse the people of the minority in Northern Ireland.
Many of the militant young people in Northern Ireland could learn a lot from the attitude of James Connolly while he was campaigning for civil rights there. As we know, he advocated a workers' republic as a long term solution to the social and economic ills of the people of his country but he simultaneously campaigned for the setting up of the workers' rights in Northern Ireland to organise the trade union movement. This was the binding force of his direct action.
Some groups in Northern Ireland have called for the abolition of Stormont. I do not agree entirely with that approach. This, too, could be a dangerous development. We should not get directly involved in that argument because, while I have no doubt that the powers of Stormont have been eroded in recent months and will be eroded even further and while their overall control of the areas will be substantially circumscribed in the Northern Ireland area with successive and developing legislation from Westminster, it would be a mistake to advocate the abolition or the suspension of Stormont because that would above all abolish the parliamentary franchise of Northern Ireland which must be preserved in the context of the ultimate unity of this country. We should not seek the abolition of this elected and representative assembly. However, what I would like to see happen is the setting up of an impartial Westminster boundary commission who would have power to draw fair local government areas and electoral division boundaries in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of disquiet about the gerrymander in operation in Northern Ireland in this respect and in particular to the delineation in many areas as outlined by Mr. Faulkner in his recent White Paper. Perhaps our Government could make representations on this matter to Westminister.
The stage of political maturity between those in Opposition and the Government in Northern Ireland has not yet been reached where we can hope to see the drawing up of fair local government boundaries. While we are on this subject we might also have a look at the manner in which our own boundaries are drawn up, and, perhaps, we could set up a constitutional boundary commission who would be responsible for the drawing up of our parliamentary and local government boundaries so that the allegations made quite rightly by people in Northern Ireland will no longer hold their validity. There is a new gerrymander in Northern Ireland with regard to the local government boundaries as anybody who looks at the sections of the particular areas will realise, particularly in relation to area 14, stretching from Kilkeel to Donaghadee, and area 2, stretching from Ballycastle to Larne. These should have the attention of our Government. These electoral areas have been extended deliberately to take in areas of Unionist majority. Our Government must speak with their tongues in their cheeks in terms of general application.
I would ask the Government to stress at the United Nations that the Special Powers Act is still in operation in Northern Ireland. Some complacency has grown up here. Last night it was stressed that so much has been achieved in the recent past in Northern Ireland that we are inclined to say that things have improved, but in Northern Ireland the Special Powers Act is still in operation. We here are in a bad position to talk about it when we have the Criminal Justice Bill as impending legislation. Nevertheless, we should point out at the United Nations that the Special Powers Act is in operation in Northern Ireland. The police there have power to arrest without warrant, and there is the power of imprisonment without trial, and power to enter homes without notice. There is the declaration of curfew and even a permit to punish by flogging. In Northern Ireland we have the denial of a claim to trial by jury. We, in this part of the country, should continue to look closely at the position there. At times we have had even a conservative trade union action but on many occasions the trade union movement in Northern Ireland has demanded the withdrawal of the Special Powers Act. Its withdrawal is one of the major acts of purification which should occur in Northern Ireland. It is long overdue.
I welcome the statement of the Taoiseach that the Criminal Justice Bill will not be introduced here in the immediate future. May I say in relation to the Northern Ireland trade union movement and the skilful and perceptive trade union organisation, particularly in Belfast and elsewhere, that credit is due to them for preventing sectarian strife from spreading throughout the shipyards and the various engineering works and factories, both in Belfast and elsewhere. It is important to praise their general approach of solidarity. It is an important component in preventing the spread of sectarian strife in that area.
It has been suggested that we should have an extension of Telefís Éireann, to show the people in the north our cultural and economic developments, through the medium of booster stations along the Border. We should resist the temptation at the moment because we will only confuse the situation further. We should concentrate on television in this part of the country and not introduce it into Northern Ireland until we develop a more acceptable televisionradio communication medium here. Telefís Éireann have done tremendous work in relation to the Northern Ireland situation but I do not think it is a very practical possibility to extend its programmes into Northern Ireland even though it would cost very little.
There is, unfortunately, tremendous ignorance in the Republic about economic, social and political affairs in Northern Ireland. The ignorance here among the population at large in relation to Northern Ireland affairs can be described as abysmal. Irish people may not find this an acceptable statement, but it is a fact that there is total unawareness of the general social, economic and cultural development in Northern Ireland among our population. This is an aspect which needs change; it is an ingrained attitude here in the south. I was amused to hear Deputy Andrews suggesting that we might set up factories in the north. The reverse might be a more appropriate suggestion.
The industrial development in Northern Ireland has been phenomenal in recent years. They have done wonderful work in terms of industrial training and growth centres and in preventing exploitation of land. It is ironic that a community which has been so stricken with sectarian strife is so progressive in terms of economic development. The Northern Ireland community is extremely progressive in many areas. I would recommend to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, to have a look at the Craigavon general development. In the north thousands of acres of land have been taken over under the Land Development Act. Gross capital gains exploitation has been prevented by the Northern Ireland Government notwithstanding the landowners objecting strenuously to the Government's moves.
We must bear in mind that Northern Ireland educational developments are very much superior to ours. We would not like to admit this. The number of post-primary pupils in the north and south of the country is approximately the same, but we in the Republic have twice the population. We tend to ignore this factor altogether.
The personal income per capita in the north is one-third higher than it is in this part of the country. It is nonsense for Deputy O'Kennedy to wish to tell them in the north how well off we are here or to try to assure them that we are better off than they are. We are very much behind the north in social and economic matters and in general development. Likewise, I would stress the changes advocated by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald in respect of the Constitution. Deputy Cosgrave said there is no shred of justification or evidence that there was intolerance in relation to sectarian attitudes in the Republic. Deputy O'Kennedy said we should tell the people in Northern Ireland that we in this part of the country did not know the religious affiliations of our friends. There is some hypocrisy in the Republic in relation to our attitude. We are not totally unaware of the religious susceptibilities of our neighbours, or unconscious of our inbred attitudes in relation to the five per cent minority here in Ireland.
Many other changes are needed. I do not agree totally with the statement of Deputy Cosgrave yesterday, nor do I agree with some of the rather blatant anti-clericalism displayed by some Deputies. One can read their statements in today's Irish Times. Many areas of co-operation are open.
I must express disappointment in regard to Article 44 and the equivocal attitude of the Taoiseach on the changes requested. It is a matter of regret. Likewise, there is a complete failure generally on the part of many Irish people to face up quite bluntly to Article 41. I agree with Deputy FitzGerald that no law should be enacted providing for the dissolution of a marriage on grounds other than those acceptable to the particular religion involved. The alternative wording recommended by the Committee on the Constitution in regard to Article 41 is, as Deputy FitzGerald pointed out, so much specious "hoohah" in terms of the caste system. It is remarkable that an all-party committee should produce such rubbish, if I may say so. There is need for review and the Constitution Committee should have another look at Article 41, but I suggest they acted courageously in relation to Article 44.
There is need for an ombudsman in the Republic. There is a demand for votes at 18. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government have failed to respond to pressures in this respect. I have met numbers of young people completely disenchanted with Dáil Éireann and quite cynical about politics. It is difficult to blame them because they have no opportunity of voting until they are, perhaps, 23 or 24 years of age. If we want to involve youth we must introduce votes at 18. The Government will have to make up their minds very quickly even though the benefits initially may be small.
I was impressed by Deputy FitzGerald's courage on the question of divorce. He said, quite frankly, it should not be written into the Constitution. I support him in that. We should at all times avoid bringing into the political arena this social and religious issue. An all-party committee could usefully consider this matter in the light of the major developments in Britain from the point of view of legislation there. We must at least consider the matter.
I share Deputy FitzGerald's attitude, too, on the question of contraception. It is essentially a personal matter and it is not proper that anything in regard to it should be enshrined in legislation. We should calmly and dispassionately look at all these aspects of modern social life.
With regard to our national games, I should like to see all the churches involved in these and not just patrons drawn from one particular denomination. That would be of tremendous benefit in breaking down barriers in Irish life generally and, from that point of view alone, it is an important matter.
There are reservations expressed in regard to integrated education in Northern Ireland. Certain fears expressed in Northern Ireland have been justified, but the Catholic Church, in particular, has not been as forthcoming, perhaps, from the point of view of education as it could have been. The fears were understandable, but this whole aspect needs consideration now.
There are other matters, equally difficult, equally delicate and equally embarrassing for many Members of this House and equally capable of crucifying, perhaps, some particular Deputy in the event of his becoming very deeply involved. To what extent can one say it is a question of right of freedom, right of holding public meetings or issuing a newspaper? Is it that which makes up the ethos of a non-sectarian society? Social and cultural implications are intertwined. Attitudes are of major importance. We cannot just ignore the tremendous role of the churches. I have been very embarrassed in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown when constituents have said to me: "It is all very well for you to defend this, that and the other, but if my child marries a Catholic the Ne Temere Decree is in operation and any children of the marriage must be brought up as Catholics. A Catholic clergyman must officiate at the wedding ceremony.” I am myself a Catholic, but one has to ask oneself to what extent do these inhibitions and internal regulations to which we subscribe conduce to a more democratic and a more integrated society, particularly in Northern Ireland.
The Chair understood the Deputy intended to finish at midday to give an opportunity to another speaker.
Certainly. I will conclude.
Otherwise there will be two Labour speakers following one another.
I shall finish almost immediately. There should be an examination into that aspect of our lives. It is not for this House to suggest to the Catholic Church what should be done. May we, in our personal capacities, decide what we sonal capacities decide what approach we should make?
I shall conclude by referring to a man with whom I have often discussed the Northern Ireland question, a trade union official under whom I worked for a number of years, a former Deputy of this House, the late James Larkin. He was not the most flamboyant of speakers on the question of Partition. He was one of the most understanding personalities one could meet and he presented to the people of Belfast one of the most acceptable approaches to this whole matter. In his speech to the Trade Union Congress in Belfast almost immediately after the introduction of the Government of Ireland Act in 1949 by the British Labour Government he said, on the question of national unity:
If our struggles to build and maintain a united Irish Trade Union movement carry their own justification then should we not, with equal frankness and fortitude, face the logical corollary — a united, political, economic and social system, attuned to the real needs of the working people and their future welfare— a united nation and people living together in amity and liberty, bound together by a love for and an acceptance of democracy in its true sense, respecting each other's views and acknowledging each other's rights.
Well I know this is political dynamite——
This was in 1949—
——but dynamite is not only a destructive agent, it also has its positive use in clearing away obstacles so that the builder may create a new edifice — and our history of 30 years, with their record of frustration, twisted thoughts and sterile politics, shows clearly the need of clearing the ground so that we may build something positive and enduring for our people.
He went on to ask, if this underlying sense of unity is still deep down in the minds and hearts of our people, and why should it not be when these same people live together and must therefore find a common purpose and a common interest in the one hundred different facets of life, how much greater must that instinctive sense of unity be at national level than it is in the trade union movement.
There is only one comment in which he attacked the British Government for bringing in the Government of Ireland Act and he made an impassioned speech at that time. It is a matter of regret. It is a matter of hope that perhaps after 26 years since he made that contribution we in this House may reshape our attitudes, the Government may reshape their attitudes now that they have a majority for four years and in the next four years take fresh initiatives and adopt new approaches to the Partition problem in the social, religious aspirations, and economic aspirations and in co-operation and harmony, in ultimate acceptance, so that we will bring into a united Ireland that vast majority of Northern Unionists who at this point of time abhor everything that we stand for but I have no doubt that with no coercion and no force and no overtones thereof over successive generations we will succeed in this aspiration to bring about national unity.
Deputy Fox rose.
All that is left, according to the order that has been adopted, is approximately 2½ minutes.
If I may facilitate any other speaker, I understand that 45 minutes has been assigned to me. I am prepared to sacrifice part of that time and to start at 12.30 instead of 12.15, if other Deputies feel that they are being cut off.
That is a very commendable attitude.
If Deputies wish to speak, they may do so.
I stand here in this Chamber today in a unique position. I have some reservations about my opening remarks but due to certain incidents—indeed there was one last night—I have no alternative but to proceed. We have been told here in the Taoiseach's speech that it is his desire to see all sections of the community in the 32 counties living side by side. I have no reason to doubt the Taoiseach's sincerity when he spoke those words but I should like him to know that there are sections of his party who I am afraid do not agree with the sentiments he expressed.
I go back to the Presidential Election. I visited some booths in the constituency that I represent. I came to one where there was wholesale intimidation by the Fianna Fáil Party. When I sought to have these matters rectified the county secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party in that constituency, who lives close to the polling booth, came and was very aggressive. A member of the Garda Síochána who was in attendance had to restrain that gentleman from using physical force. One of the things this man said was that I had no right to intervene, that this country did not belong to me.
Subsequent to that, in the local elections, an ex-Deputy of this House, a County Monaghan Deputy, a Fianna Fáil Deputy at that time, when speaking in the part of the constituency which I was contesting in the local elections—there were five seats and eleven candidates, I being the only Protestant—said that he would like the people to vote 1, 2 and 3 in the order of their choice for the three Fianna Fáil candidates but under no circumstances were they to vote for a man who did not worship in their church. Fortunately, his party decided that he should not speak in that area on any future Sundays. I am proud to say in this House that I was elected to the county council, the only representative of my party in that area. I am proud to say that I was the first Protestant ever to be elected to the county council in South Monaghan.
Then we had the elections which took place this year. There were a number of points raised. I was forced by a lot of people of different political persuasions and different religious beliefs to raise this matter at the time. I took it as a joke and most people who knew me took it in a similar manner but, as the constituency, which was one of the gerrymandered constituencies, extends for 65 miles over portion of County Meath, County Louth and the entire county of Monaghan, it was only reasonable to assume that many people in that constituency did not know me personally and I have been forced at this time to make this statement. I was accused by members of the Fianna Fáil Party of being a member of that special force in Northern Ireland, the B Specials. I was accused by an ex-county official of Macra na Feirme, a man from Inniskean, a Fianna Fáil supporter. He saw fit, with his brothers, in their car, to tour the town of Carrickmacross in South Monaghan and to announce that a vote for Fox was a vote for Paisley. He could see fit, further, to produce a poster to post on every telephone pole in South Monaghan which read "Vacancy exists in B Specials. Must be anti-Catholic. Contact Billy Fox or Paisley". That is the evidence of the tactics that were carried on by the Fianna Fáil Party in the Monaghan constituency.
They did it in Longford—the very same.
No cries of "Shame" over there?
What is this? This is a silly exhibit. He is a young Deputy. We are not going to interrupt him.
Then do not interrupt him.
I am commenting on Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's comment.
I can assure the Deputies on the other side of the House that if their interjections are meant to distract me, the opposite will be the result. We have the agricultural wages representative for the Monaghan area, a man from Rockcorry, who toured part of the constituency with the present Tánaiste. He spread similar scandalous rumours. They are well known in that part of the area and I am only bringing it to the notice of the House. There was a public meeting in the town of Carrickmacross at which one of the Fianna Fáil supporters in that area, a member of the South Monaghan executive of Fianna Fáil, shouted that I was a B Special and continuously insisted that I was. The Chairman of the Comhairle Dáil Cheanntar, a solicitor, who incidentally is employed by a Protestant firm, toured the constituency and scandalised me on a sectarian basis, that I was a member of the B Specials. These are facts. It is well known in many of the business houses in Monaghan that these things took place. We had, subsequent to that, a civil rights meeting in Monaghan town. On the evening it took place, I happened to be touring the Bogside and Belfast. It is a well-known fact in Monaghan town today that the exFianna Fáil Deputy in that town had a certain group organised to boo me from the platform. He made reference later to my election and said he was a better Irishman than I. He did not give his method of determining that but he publicly made that statement. I am in a unique position. Despite the unscrupulous and, indeed, unchristian attacks made on me during the election campaign, I am glad that I stand in this House today—and that can be interpreted as a symbol of the tolerance and the fairplay that exists among the majority of people in the Monaghan-Louth-Meath constituency.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I might add that one of the Government Deputies—I do not see him in their benches at the present moment—went out of his way last night to intercept me and to tell me that I had no right at this stage to be crossing the Border. When I replied that I had, and that I should like to think that all inhabitants of the Thirty-two Counties were free to travel from Cork to Antrim, he informed me that he could not do it. The very same man stated in this House only three or four hours earlier that he had lived and worked and earned his first money in the northern part of this country. He then told me that he could not cross the Border. I asked him why and he said it was because of Paisley. I told him I did not think about that man, and he told me that I was a supporter and inferred that I was a B Special.
I am going to ask the Taoiseach to see to it that members of his Party do not accuse other Members of this House of being B Specials or followers of Paisley. I can categorically say that I am neither a supporter of Paisley nor a member of the B Specials—and never have been in any other sectarian organisation.
Subsequent to visiting the Bogside and the Falls Road area we had a meeting of the county council in Monaghan. Following a certain speech which I made, I received this note and this document which I shall now read for the House:
You should now withdraw your statement made at county council meeting recently that the B Specials were the cause of the recent troubles in the north. The B Specials are a gallant band of men. Read this booklet and it will give you some enlightenment (which you badly need) as to the true position. This booklet is being sent to all parts of the world, including a lot of people in the south who do not know what they are talking about.
From: A true loyalist and native of Co. Monaghan.
NO SURRENDER.
I and several other County Monaghan and Cavan men are assisting in the dispatch of these booklets—it is all in a good cause. It is the B Specials who have kept the north from being incorporated in an All-Ireland Gaelic Republic.
Not only was I elected but I was elected the second representative for that county. That in itself is evidence of what the vast majority of the people in that constituency thought of me. This is the situation in which I was—a situation that the B Specials took exception to what a person says and an elected representative, a member of the Government Party in this House, can see fit to accuse me of being a member of that terrible band. But I would not like to paint the picture that all the people and all the constituents in that constituency are mad men because were it not for the fact, as I said, that tolerance and fairplay prevailed, there would not be two Protestant representatives of that constituency. I think from an historical point of view it is the first time ever in that constituency that two Protestant people were eleced as representatives in the same election.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
On that note I would say that I am rather disappointed that the other Protestant representative had not the courage to come here and assure the people of Northern Ireland that the evils that are supposed to exist do not, in fact, exist despite what they may have read on the roads and the walls in County Monaghan. I am sorry he did not see fit to stand up and be counted.
A number of remarks were made here as to why the people in Northern Ireland claim to have fears. I believe what I read in the papers that they have. I believe that it is up to the Taoiseach to allay these fears not only as leader of this country but as leader of his own party. Some speakers said that the question of the Irish language may be one of the obstacles, that the people in Northern Ireland say that if this country were, in fact, a Thirty-Two County Ireland we would not have the opportunity of procuring jobs in the Civil Service. I am not sure that that is so. I am not sure Protestants dislike the Irish language. However, I think one thing that is wrong is that a certain type — not all — of people have associated themselves with these things which have put a certain slant on the Irish language — such as the Deputy who could see fit to make the remark he made to me last night.
Only a matter of hours ago, we had an MP in this city — it was referred to earlier by some speakers; I do not think any of us here agree with his theories — who was able to point the finger at some things they intended to do and which the Taoiseach stated yesterday, he was not prepared to do at the present time. I refer to giving the vote at 18 years of age. As one of the younger Deputies in this House, I think it is about time that people were given the opportunity of voting when they attain the age of 18 years. They are asked to pay taxes and contribute to the upkeep of the Government and the country. I think it is about time they were given the opportunity of participating in the election of that Government. I do not propose to go on much longer, as time is nearly out. I should like to assure those people who seem to have fears of the Republic that I do not believe there is foundation for such fears, that I do not believe religious discrimination exists, at least to any great extent, although I believe we have political discrimination, speaking for my own constituency and it is on my own constituency that I am basing part of my theory. Whether or not political discrimination or religious discrimination is the worst I am not prepared to judge but I know that we have political discrimination.
Again, I am very honoured to have the privilege of speaking here, as the second representative elected for the constituency of Monaghan-Louth-Meath and I think my presence here can be taken as a symbol of the tolerance, fairplay and equal rights which exist in that part of the country.
If our proceedings here yesterday and today had been televised and if they were shown to people in Northern Ireland they would have done something to disarm the fears and suspicions there and to give on the whole a favourable impression of the quality of our public lives. That impression might be qualified by some things that Deputy Fox has had to say just now but that in turn would be qualified by the fact that, as Deputy Fox said, despite the methods which were used against him, to which I shall have to return, he was elected and he is here and he is able to speak as he has spoken. I feel that is a better testimony of tolerance in our public life than the tributes which we ourselves pay to our own tolerance from time to time and which do not perhaps impress other people very much.
The Taoiseach at the outset of our debate did much to set its tone by the statesmanlike tone of his own remarks following the tone of his important speech in Tralee. This was taken up, certainly on the Opposition Benches, by speeches of the quality we have had from Deputy Harte, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, and as a Labour Deputy, I may perhaps be allowed to express pride in the distinguished contributions which have come from these benches beginning with Deputy Corish.
The core of all the statements round this semi-circle was "no coercion", that there will be no attempt to end the partition of this country by forcing in people who are not prepared to come in, who do not want to come in. I support those who have urged that we give solemn all-party expression to this and the all-party factor is very important here. I would respectfully urge the Taoiseach that he take that into consideration perhaps a little more strongly than he has shown himself prepared to do. I would say here that there is a distinction between all-party solidarity and simply giving the necessary support to Fianna Fáil policy. The Minister for Education the other day invoked the concept of national solidarity on national unity in a rather peculiar context, the context of nominating a Fianna Fáil candidate in a by-election in this city. Apparently the electors were invited to express their desire for national unity by voting Fianna Fáil. I do not think any of us, outside of those benches, can accept that doctrine. However, we can and do welcome this emphasis, new emphasis though it may be, on non-coercion.
What we must ask and what some Deputies have asked is whether we have drawn the logical consequences of this, this idea that there can be no unity without removing the suspicions and fears of the Protestants in the north. The Taoiseach rather poohpoohed the existence of these fears. If I may say so that is not wise. These fears are very real, they are strong, they move people to violent and foolish action and we should take them into account and weigh very carefully the question of how we deal with them. We have to ask ourselves, and this is the most appropriate moment to do it, whether we have even begun to lay the foundations of a serious and coherent long-term approach to this matter which is pre-eminently one in which all parties here, and everybody in public life, must take part if it is to make progress. There are serious reasons for doubt that this is yet the case. There are disquieting signs that attitudes quite at variance with this grand objective of national reconciliation to which we all pay tribute are at work. I shall mention some of these. I hope I shall be doing so, not in a polemical spirit, but in an attempt to indicate the kind of thing we must avoid if we are to make any progress on this.
The Minister for Local Government was reported the other day as saying at a public meeting that we must get rid of the wrongs not of 50 years ago only but of 300 years ago. I do not know what he meant by that. We had not the privilege of hearing him in this debate when he might have explained it but it will suggest to many people that the wrong that is to be undone is the plantation of Ulster in the 17th Century. How? By uprooting the descendants of the planters? Is that it? If it is not it, it is time that it was made clear because it was a statement not of a character to conciliate people in the north whom we are supposed to be trying to persuade. If we renounce coercion we have no alternative but to persuade and in order to persuade you must take into account the other man's feelings and opinions, his fears, even his prejudices. We have shown very little sign I fear of doing that.
I do not want to make this just an attack on any particular party or people and I have to say here something about the statement made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave. I have great personal respect for Deputy Cosgrave. I worked under him in the Department of External Affairs some years ago. I learned to appreciate his consideration and his courtesy. Unfortunately, like many people in our public life, sometimes perhaps when he stands up he gets a little crosser than he would deem it appropriate to be in private life. He attacked the Irish Times. Now it is all right for him to attack the Irish Times just as it is all right for the Irish Times to attack him. This is part of the normal progress of debate. I have no comment on that whatever. However, in the course of doing so he referred to the “alien background” of this newspaper. The alien background ... The editor of the Irish Times is a Belfast Protestant. Is that what is meant by “alien background”? If it is, the sooner we give up any thought of conciliating or persuading these people the better; it will be better for us to retire into our own self-organised ghetto because that is what that expression conveyed. I think it was an unguarded expression but I feel that Deputies who use that kind of expression should consider carefully what their attitude really is towards their fellow Irishmen, the more so as the Deputy concluded his remarks by drawing on, of all people, Theobald Wolfe Tone and his famous doctrine, more often quoted than respected, about “the common name of Irishman”. The background of Theobald Wolfe Tone was every bit as “alien” as that of Douglas Gageby, the editor of the Irish Times. It was in fact the same. We should think about that.
Similarly, in the course of this debate, which as I have said was on the whole at a high level, there was an incident yesterday which you, Sir, will recall. My friend and colleague, Deputy Keating, used an expression which caused considerable anger in this House, and was responsible for a very angry reply, and you, Sir, rose in the dignity of your office and rebuked him and called on him to withdraw it. What was this terrible reference? It was the comparison of the Taoiseach to Major Chichester-Clark. Major Chichester-Clark, whatever we may think of him, is respected by the very section of the people whom we are supposed to be trying to persuade and conciliate. Yet, we all take it for granted that a reference to this man constitutes a gross insult, that this man, therefore, must be some kind of moral leper from whom we all shrink. The psychology of persuasion does not seem to be at work here and again we should look into our hearts and minds on these matters and see whether we are really trying to persuade.
There have been tributes here to our own tolerance. There is a strong and generous vein of tolerance in this society but, as in other societies, there are also streaks of intolerance. We pride ourselves on our treatment of the Protestant minority here but I do not think it should constitute a matter for pride and self-congratulation; in so far as it is even-handed and decent we should be able to take it for granted. Even granted that it does shine — and it does by comparison with conditions in the North — let us ask ourselves this question: if instead of having this tiny minority of five per cent we had a Protestant minority of 33 per cent and if that minority disapproved of our political institutions here and was believed to wish to subvert those institutions, how would we behave? We should ask ourselves that very serious question.
Nobody who has heard what Deputy Billy Fox said today can be sure that we would behave in those circumstances very much better than they do up there. When Deputy Fox spoke, when he exhibited that shameful placard and held it up before those benches opposite I looked for any sign of shame. There was none whatever. One Deputy sitting behind the Taoiseach suggested that Deputy Fox had fabricated or forged this placard himself. That was the authentic accent of intolerance and bigotry. It is in that tone that certain Protestants in the North of Ireland when they hear that a Catholic house was burnt out, say: "They burned it themselves." That indicates arrogance and intolerance, things which we must try seriously to banish from our public life, not just by lip service to toleration but by its actual practice and conduct.
I think it is established that there is need for a change in the tone of our public life and that this debate is helpful in that direction. What else is needed? I have a little less time than I thought I should have to develop these ideas but then I am glad I surrendered time because it enabled us to hear Deputy Fox in his significant statement which should be commended. I suggest the following as things we ought try to do: first, actually to reach the Protestants of the north, not with an anti-Partition message at this time but with a firmly worded and unanimous message that we have no intention of trying to coerce them or get others to coerce them into an Irish State. We have said it; the Taoiseach said it at Tralee and we greatly welcome that, but our message, I believe, has not yet effectively reached them. It is on this problem of reaching these people with that message that the services of all these able public relations experts that we have are needed. We do not need them explaining this matter to the populations of Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, or wherever in the world they may have been sent. It is in relation to this, the only population that we need and want to persuade, that we require them.
A crew from Ulster Television was here very recently. When I saw them they were looking for people to interview on this question. I believe they interviewed Deputy Garret FitzGerald and they did interview a representative of our party but they told me they were having very great difficulty in getting any spokesman of the Government to talk to them. I do not know if anybody ever did, or whether they went away without being able to get a Government representative to talk to the people whom we are supposed to be trying to persuade over a medium which can reach them, an opportunity which does not present itself every day.
I can confirm that.
In order to make this message, this beginning of an attempt at persuasion, credible we need to drop altogether, I suggest, all forms of anti-Partition propaganda addressed to third parties. We must cut them out and also say that is what we are doing. I make a distinction here between anti-Partition propaganda and the publicising of the grievances, real and serious, of the minority in the north. We are right in publicising those; we publicised them too little; we used too little pressure to bring about change in that domain where it was needed and also, as other Deputies have said, we confused the issue by mixing up civil rights and Partition so that nothing was really heard on the civil rights issue. I hope — it is still only a hope; we cannot be sure — that with the implementation of the Hunt and Cameron Reports, supposing Mr. Wilson's Government stands firmly behind them and supposing these reforms are carried out, in that case, given equality of rights existing in reality, all forms of propaganda addressed to third parties on this subject should be cut out, and we should make that clear. What is the use — if we are determined that we wish to persuade these people and that only by their persuasion will unity be obtained — of trying to persuade other people that there should be unity? We sent a man to Australia about this, a very gifted and able man. Suppose he does convince the Australians that Partition is wrong — so what? We are wasting a man's time and talents on a quite futile mission.
Again, we should let it be known that the implementation of the Hunt and Cameron Reports will open the way for better relations between the two parts of the country. I believe the Taoiseach may make it specifically clear and that this is a beginning of better relations and not the signal for a stepped-up take-over bid. Here, certain symbolic matters are important, such as how we refer to this entity. We say "the Six Counties" and various other things. We avoid, particularly in times of stress, the term "Northern Ireland". "Northern Irelan" is how the majority of the people of that entity wish their entity to be described. We may say this is not geographically descriptive, that it leaves out County Donegal and so on. It is not geographically descriptive but if we want to allay passions and persuade, it is better to use the official name of the entity. To refuse to use it implies that we do not recognise any kind of legitimacy on their side and that we are only biding our time until we can go in. There is too much of that thinking about and we should discourage it courageously by the use of proper words.
Again, it should be recognised that before the forms of political unity can be profitably discussed there must be agreement that unity is actually desired. That is the first requirement. The discussion of a federal solution may sound very reasonable to us and may one day be very relevant but in so far as it is expressed while they still show no wish even to talk about it, it can only appear to them as expressive of a stubborn wish on our part to dispose of them against their will. On some of our walls there used to be written up by a certain element in our population a slogan, "Damn your concessions, England". I fear the reaction of many Orange people — and we have to think of them also — to talk about a federal solution is: "Damn your concessions, Dublin". They have not got that far; they are not thinking in those terms and while they are not thinking in those terms we are only soliloquizing if we speak in such terms.
I should like to touch briefly on the question of constitutional amendment. Again, the Taoiseach's statement on Article 44 was very much to be welcomed and it helped also to set the tone of this debate. I should like to express, however, some regret at the suggestion in the Taoiseach's language yesterday that this matter was not urgent. I agree it is not a panacea. It will not solve or end Partition overnight or otherwise speedily. But it is symbolic; it is important; and therefore it is urgent.
It is urgent because a Constitution should be an integrating document. It should be something which is respected and can earn the respect of others. It now appears that one section of it at least — and I believe other sections also — lacks the support of, as far as I can find out, anybody in the Parliament of the State of which this is the Constitution. Are we content that that should be so, that when children are taught the Constitution in classes they should be told: "Oh, you can forget that bit. You know, the Taoiseach said that was not much good the other day."? I do not think that helps or that it engenders the right attitude towards the Constitution. I think it also encourages a tendency, already quite strong enough in our national life, towards intellectual dishonesty, that is to say, affecting to profess things in which you do not actually believe.
Then it has been suggested that we should remove from our Statute Book all legislation that would not have been enacted in the conditions of a united Ireland. Now, that suggestion was made. It takes some courage to make it in public life here. That it does was shown by the quality of an interruption from the Fianna Fáil back benches. One interrupter asked Deputy Desmond what the policy of the Opposition on this question was, and another interrupter answered the first interrupter in the antiphonal manner these gentlemen sometimes have, by giving him the answer: "Divorce, contraception and get rid of the Irish language," as a summary of what the Opposition are saying. We sometimes get here a whiff of life as it is actually lived in certain strata of the political life of this country — and it is probably healthy that we do get it occasionally here, and we got it there. Unless that method of treating grave national issues is actively discouraged by the Taoiseach it will continue and it will damage our national life and, above all, it will damage this effort at persuasion we are supposed to be engaged on. It is not enough here to pretend not to hear these things. It is as well to hear them.
There is also a serious need for education in our country on this subject, in this part of the country specifically, in the 26 Counties. Children have been brought up and elderly men are continuing to live on the idea that this region is "occupied Ireland," that it is held down by force. Mind you, many of the Protestants are beginning to sympathise with this point of view, but it is a gross and dangerous oversimplification of the actual position. We must teach the children and teach those adults who do not know it, that Partition is not the root cause of this matter. The troubles which we have just seen, the terrible troubles there, and Partition, are both off-growths of the same thing, that is to say, the deep historical division between the two main religious communities. People must be exhorted to see that and must not be encouraged to see this in oversimplified terms.
There is certainly a need for more contacts with people there, more informal contacts, more effective contacts. My party have been trying to play their part in that and Deputy Corish and others have described what we did. I think this is of use. We believe that the Labour movement is one important integrating force in relation to this matter. In connection with that I should like, like other Deputies, to praise the splendid work which has been done by the trade union movement, by the shop stewards in Belfast, in keeping sectarian violence out of the shipyards and elsewhere. That, I think, is the best thing that has been done throughout this period. I would think that these men deserve very high recognition for that. They belong in the category of people who might be considered for the Nobel Prize for peace and I should like like-minded Deputies at some time to develop that idea.
Most important of all, however, is this — and I am going to give a quotation here. The quotation is this — it is syntactically rather odd but it contains an immense deal of wisdom under the idiosyncratic syntax:—
The only policy for abolishing partition that I can see is for us in this part of Ireland to use such freeddom as we can secure to get for the people in this part of Ireland such conditions as will make the people in the other part of Ireland wish to belong to this part.
I wonder does the Taoiseach or do any of the gentlemen on the opposite benches recognise the source of that quotatiton? It is Eamon de Valera, 1st March, 1933, here in the Dáil. I would draw the attention of the Taoiseach respectfully to the fact that Mr. de Valera on that occasion did not say just that this was a nice policy, or an attractive policy, or one of many possible policies to be alternated with others. He said it was the only policy for abolishing Partition that “I can see”. Unfortunately after that he tried looking around for other policies and that was not so successful but on that day in March, 1933, he told it, as they say in New York, “like it was”. I think we ought to try to follow in his footsteps there.
There are very serious social problems in both parts of this island but it is for this part that we here have responsibility. Yesterday one Deputy lamented the fact that the population of Derry was being driven by unemployment to emigration. I wonder does the Deputy consider that this ill is peculiar in this island to the city of Derry? It is not. I would agree with those Deputies who have urged that our first attention must be given to setting our own house in order and that it is not in order and that in some ways it is economically and socially behind — in some ways only — the situation up there.
The tragic time through which the north has been passing will not have been in vain if it leads us all in both territorial parts of the island and more importantly — much more importantly — in both the main communities of the Irish people to re-assess the position in the light not of the sins of the other party but of our own responsibilities for what has happened. For the future our study should be in terms not of how we can get rid of the Border but of the immediate thing: how we in the two main communities can live more decently together in this island and how we here can make that part of the island for which we here are responsible into a society whose example, performance and style of living will attract people of both communities together. It is in that way only that we will begin to move towards the achievement of what is the ideal of us all, a united Ireland.
In his reference to Deputy Cosgrave at the beginning of his speech Deputy Cruise-O'Brien took a phrase entirely out of context. If he reads the speech carefully, even as reported this morning, without going to the verbatim report of the debate in the House, he will see that he was referring to a policy of 40 or 50 years ago and not in any way referring to anything that could by any stretch of the imagination be taken to refer to the present editor of the Irish Times. In fact, anyone who knows the facts in that regard knows quite clearly that it was a reference to the manner in which the paper in those days used to lecture us from across the sea, not from any part of this island. Apart from that there is one other sentence that perhaps one might pick out of Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's remarks in that regard and note particularly, because one of the complaints about Deputy Cosgrave is that he does not get cross enough so I was glad to hear Deputy Cruise-O'Brien saying he got cross when he was on his feet.
I do not think there has ever been any case in the past 40 or 50 years in which the Government of the day on a national issue got as complete cooperation and as reasonable an approach as this Government got over the past couple of months. They got it in spite of the fact that one major approach, to which I shall refer in a few moments, was rejected completely.
This has been and will be for some time to come a matter on which it is easy by a wrong word to do incalculable harm; it is easy to get carried away, easy in the heat of the moment to say something that, on mature reflection, one would wish not to have said. It was in that spirit and in that knowledge that we in this party made it clear all along that we were not going to play party politics on this issue. In doing so we recognised that we might be criticised in certain respects perhaps because we did not object, because we did not criticise, because we did not repudiate steps that the Fianna Fáil Government might have taken and with which we did not agree. It was of much more value nationally that one would make it clear to the world at large, and particularly to those in Britain as well as those in the North of Ireland, that we were at one on national issues though we might differ in details on the manner of implementation.
The fact that we did not raise criticism does not mean that we accept everything, does not mean particularly that we think the handling by the Government does not in many respects leave something to be desired. However, the principles are the same. The basis of the whole trouble at present is the division of our country, the manner of that division by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and the fact that that brought about in Northern Ireland a government which has not changed its outlook for 50 years.
When one says that, it is not to talk of Partition as such. It is the fact that the division of the country enabled the government in the north to be so constructed that it would not be representative and would not consider it necessary to reflect in any way the views of such a very large minority in that area. I agree with Deputy Cruise-O'Brien that it is a mistake to refer to the "Six Counties". It does not really matter in one sense; it annoys them as it equally annoys me when I hear them referring to themselves as "Ulster". These are typical of the things we must try to avoid. If they have, by their 50 years of domination by one particular party, grown up to believe until a very short time ago that this was the right way, we too on our part down here cannot escape some of the blame for having allowed them to do so.
There is at present in Northern Ireland a recognition — it has come only in very recent times — amongst the members of Stormont belonging to the ruling party that they have sadly neglected the rights of the ordinary people and that they have endeavoured in those years to copperfasten their role as second-class citizens. The moderates to whom I refer realise now that that was so and are making efforts to alter the fact. However, what we must not forget is that because this has been going on for 50 years, there has been, apart from the extreme right wing element symbolised by two people who seem to feed on hate — Paisley and Craig — a build-up at local authority level. That is the level at which we must make a particular effort to show them that there is no real justification for their fears and that they have been brought up in an atmosphere that was not justified by the facts.
I can remember in 1945 going up to Belfast to speak as the President of the Irish Tourist Association at a luncheon at which the then Lord Mayor of Belfast, Mr. Crawford McCullough, was the chairman and Mr. Basil Brook, as he then was, was also one of the speakers. Even at a tourist luncheon like that one got the same outlook predominating, an outlook that one was not really to be considered as being in the same country. I am bound to say that when I got that reaction from both of them I probably did not help by coming back with a strong reaction about Partition, a reaction in a speech which they resented very much.
We must not do anything that will give people any sort of excuse not to accept the realities of the situation. Speaking for myself and for Fine Gael, I accept unreservedly the bona fides of the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, and that it is his policy as the head of the Government to adopt the outline of the speech he made in Tralee. I welcome that conversion by Fianna Fáil back to the policy of Griffith and Collins and I accept, as I say, unequivocally that that is the policy of the Government.
We are operating in this part of the country under a written Constitution, a Constitution which sets out in Article 28 that it is not the Government but Dáil Éireann that has the right to determine whether there shall be armed force used or not. I think, therefore, that the Taoiseach and the Government were very badly advised not to accept the motion we put down that this House declared that force was not something we believed should be used in dealing with the problem of the division of our country. I cannot help feeling the only reason the Government did not accept that was because they felt, for party reasons, it would be undesirable to do something which had been suggested by us. It would have been infinitely stronger to assuage the unjustified fears if that resolution had been put to this House at the end of the debate and had been accepted— as I think it would have been accepted — unanimously.
I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way inpugning the bona fide acceptance by the Taoiseach, as the head of the Government, of the policy he has adumbrated. I think he made the mistake of not realising that it is not the Government, as such, who have this right under our written Constitution but it is Dáil Éireann who have the right and who should have made that declaration. Indeed, when the declaration was made by the Fine Gael Party one of the things that was at once noticeable was the reaction from the other side of the water. It was stated in the editorial of a newspaper not always friendly to Ireland that they readily accepted it as being part of a policy which was going to assist both in the defusing of the present situation and in the consideration of long-term solutions.
Some people have criticised the fact that the problem which we are discussing today was brought to the United Nations. I do not criticise that; on the contrary we in Fine Gael thought, even before the Government moved, that it was a good thing because we believed then, and on looking back one cannot but believe now, that the introduction of the problem to the United Nations, whether it got on the agenda or not, was something that brought home to the British people their responsibility and the need to take urgent steps if a pogrom was to be avoided.
As I have said earlier, we did not believe in seeking publicity for the sake of publicity. When delegations from this party went to the north we did not look for any publicity in doing so but one of the things we discovered on all sides there was an acceptance of the fact that very much worse disasters were only avoided by a matter of hours. I think there is little doubt that the early suggestion of the matter being taken to the United Nations helped to ensure that steps would be taken to avoid the confrontation that was so nearly imminent. I do not suppose for an instant that anyone really believed we would succeed in having a formal resolution accepted at the United Nations. I do not think that should have been the purpose. I think the purpose should have been to ensure that there was an appreciation of our views and an appreciation of the urgency of action to avoid a confrontation of the sort that would otherwise undoubtedly have arisen.
As a result of acknowledgement of the problem outside Ireland we have travelled a long way in ensuring that in any part of our island there is not going to be any acceptance of a second-class citizen in the future.
It became clear that there could be no solution of the immediate problems without three things. First, without the reform of the RUC and the disbandment of the B Specials, because without that there could not be any possible confidence such as is accepted internationally in any police force. Secondly, there must be — if there was going to be the abandonment of a sense of fear — very radical changes in the powers of arrest exemplified by the Special Powers Act. And, thirdly, there must be a clear and proper reform of local government administration for two reasons. First of all because of the gerrymandering at that level up there; and, secondly, because it was at that stage local government had the allocation of housing.
It was a measure of criticism of us here that someone from Northern Ireland was able to come to Dublin last night and say that for a population half our population they were building more than double the number of houses that we are building at present. I accept in certain respects there is more of a backlog in one way there but I must say for that statistical reference to be able to be made was something that must put us to shame. There must be more than mere reform of housing allocations which are now going to be taken away from local authorities. There must be real reform in local authorities and this reform must mean fair constituencies at local government level in order that we get rid of the type of gerrymandering which existed before by which parts of one county were taken into another and which exists at present whereby 36,000 people in Derry are enabled to get only eight seats because of the housing ghettoes crowded into that ward, whereas 22,000 in the other area can get 12 seats.
Again, when I was in Derry I experienced some shame in being told that of course in the new proposals published in a White Paper by the Northern Ireland Government, the taking of part of a county from one administrative area and putting it into another was only in keeping with what the Minister for Local Government did here last year in the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. Be that as it may, it is something that one wants to make sure will be in any local government reform — a provision not merely ensuring one man, one vote, but also one man, one vote of equal value.
The worst thing the Government here did was the rejection by the Taoiseach of the proposal from this party for the formation of an all-party committee. Many people throughout the country assumed that the Government, on a national issue of this kind, automatically passed confidential information to the leaders of the Opposition — I do not mean either one leader or the other. Many people assume that governments do this. Of course, it does not happen. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Taoiseach did not see Deputy Cosgrave when Deputy Cosgrave asked him to see him, but from that day to this there has not been a communication of any sort on this matter.
That is bad. It is wrong and it is not a national approach. I believe that in relation to this problem it is not even yet too late to form an all-party committee. The formation of such a committee could do a lot to develop our consideration of the ways and means in which we can allay fears. It could do a lot to ensure that we have a bipartisan approach rather on the lines of American foreign policy in certain respects. I believe the implementation now of the suggestion we made then for the inception of an all-party committee would mean that there would be less danger of anything being said in an unguarded moment that might play on fears which were not justified. It would mean there would be a constructive approach on all sides to harmonise and to co-operate and to weld together the efforts we need if we are to get an Ireland which is thinking on the same lines. Unless we get all thinking on the same lines we will not be able to deal with the division of our country.
If there was such an all-party committee there would not be the danger of a repetition of the inept handling by the Government of the information in relation to the call-up of the reserves and the establishment of medical stations along the Border. The handling and the timing of the dissemination of that information was so inept as to warrant great criticism, and we all know that once rumours get out it is twenty times harder to chase them and to correct them. If in a clear and concise way the Government had made their views known at the same time they were taking action there would not have been rumours on all sides.
As I have said, it was in the spirit that there was to be reform in relation to civil rights, in relation to the abolition of second-class citizens, that those of us who were at the Council of Europe took an entirely different line from any line ever taken by an Irish delegation abroad. It was concentrated on reasoned amendment to human rights conventions to ensure that it would operate not only at Government level but also at local authority level.
The success of that, the manner in which that resolution was accepted and signed, not merely by delegates from Northern Ireland and Great Britain but by many delegates from other parts of Europe at the Council of Europe meeting at Strasbourg, shows we got across the necessity of trying to make certain that the fears of others were wiped out, and it was done in a constructive fashion. That resolution will be coming up again from the Legal Committee to the Council as a whole and the fact that it will come up will be an added urge, if urge there need be, to those who are responsible for seeing that these reforms are put through, whether at Stormont or at Westminster.
Some people have said that it is too soon, too early, to talk of federalism or federated solutions. My colleagues at Strasbourg with me can bear out that one of the extraordinary things on that occasion was that, whether talking to Members of Parliament on the Labour side or the Conservative side from Britain, or to Members of Parliament from other parties, one got the same reaction all the time — that something must be done. There were certain fundamentals they wanted to protect but they were prepared to talk and to see how solutions could be achieved. That is something that never existed before and is something of which we can take advantage. Let us be fair and generous about this: on the one hand there is a moderate element in Stormont doing their utmost to put through the civil rights reforms so urgently needed, and on the other hand there is the declaration by the head of the Government here and by the other parties that they will do their best to allay any fears there may be in the north.
This is something we can get across much better by a united approach; first, by a formal resolution in this House and, secondly, by the formation even at this stage of an all-party committee so that all the world will know we are speaking with one voice, and without reservations, on the same line. The formation of such a committee would probably in the future mean we would be able to add to it by the inclusion of moderate opinion from Northern Ireland as well.
I think we can claim this debate has been conducted generally on a moderate note and in an objective way. There have been one or two offerings that were not quite consistent with the general tenor, but one can ignore that, I suppose. Nevertheless, one must conclude, having listened to the objective approach of the three different parties that nobody can say that in any way there was a pre-debate arrangement that all would be on one note. There was no contact so far as I know between the parties. Nevertheless we can congratulate ourselves that this debate has been a mature one and I believe a very helpful one. I am not going to refer to some of those jarring notes which were made during the course of the debate. Rather would I prefer to confine myself to general observations and perhaps some in particular later on.
As I anticipated, and as I said at the start, I did not expect everybody would agree with everything the Government did and everything I said during the course of the days and weeks following the 12th and 13th of August last. That would have been unreasonable. Again I would like to acknowledge the general support given to the Government's point of view. Nevertheless, as I anticipated here yesterday and today, there would be some criticism of Government actions during those few days and especially the Government action immediately after the events of the day of the 12th and the morning of the 13th of August. I want to say here and now I stand over everything the Government decided and and did on that occasion and I stand over everything contained in my statement on that occasion.
We were faced with a very grave position and a very grave situation that had developed. I believe the actions we took were in the best interests of securing a quick remedy to the most serious aspects of that situation. Everybody here knows the feelings of tension that existed not only in the northern part of the country but in this part as well. Everybody knows a lot of people were thinking in terms of taking strong action. I am not suggesting that this was confined to what we might call subversive elements. I believe the Government action in all its aspects held the situation here, which could have been a very serious one in the context of all the developments that took place in the north during those few days. I believe when objective reviewers come to appraise that situation that will be the consensus of opinion. I do not think I need develop that to any considerable extent or at any great length at this stage as everybody has admitted during the course of the debate one must be temperate, one must be moderate and one must avoid any words or phrases that would in any way tend to upset the present situation.
Criticism there was of Government action and the criticism having been made one would ask what alternatives might have been suggested. As far as I can make out the only two tangible things suggested were (1) that I might have recalled the Dáil and (2) that I should have paid a visit to the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson. Again, I would like to refer to the temper of the country as I understood it, and in fact, knew it to be at that time, not only just then but for the weeks which immediately followed the events of the 12th and the 13th August. I believed then, as I believe now, that it would not have been advisable to recall the Dáil at that time and to have a debate. I said that it was with some degree of trepidation that I agreed to have this debate during those few days. Perhaps my trepidation was not justified in anticipation. Certainly it was not justified in the event but I believe such trepidation might very well have been justified had the debate taken place in the third or fourth week of August or the early weeks of September.
Every one of us at that time, after the 13th and 14th of August, and having heard of the terrible events, woke every morning and turned on our radios apprehensive lest we hear of some more serious happenings. If we had had the debate at that time even more serious happenings might in fact have taken place and it would have been very difficult for us to absolve ourselves against charges made that what was done or said here in this House would have contributed in some way to those happenings. So much for the recall of the Dáil. I know I have not dealt with it to any considerable extent but the last two Deputies who spoke will appreciate how difficult it is to pace a speech when one is limited to a very certain stricture of time.
I think the Dáil could agree to give you an hour.
We have a lot of other business to do as well.
It is very important.
The only other suggestion made was that I should have gone to London to see Mr. Wilson during those few days. I believe, although I must say I contemplated a possible visit, I would have made little progress at that time in relation to the situation that had developed in the north. Let us review, for examination of that suggestion, the sequence of events as they occurred. The Apprentice Boys parade took place on the 12th August. We had the events of the 13th and 14th August in Derry and Belfast. On the 15th August the Minister for External Affairs did in fact go to London and saw on that occasion Lord Chalfont, even though he hoped to see Mr. Stewart who at that time had left London on his holidays. Nevertheless he was able to put the Irish point of view to Lord Chalfont at that time.
On the 18th August the British Prime Minister returned from his holidays and summoned a special cabinet meeting to deal with the situation in the Six Counties. On the following day, the 19th August, the Stormont Prime Minister saw Mr. Wilson. When the British Government met on the 18th August obviously they did not just decide that Mr. Callaghan would visit Belfast and Derry. Obviously they made a more far reaching decision as well as to what approach Mr. Callaghan might make and what remedies he might suggest to relieve the situation there.
Immediately after the meeting of the Stormont and British Premiers there followed the announcement of the visit of Mr. Callaghan to Belfast and Derry. That visit took place, as far as I remember, on Wednesday, 27th August. That was almost within a fortnight of the decision. Had I gone to see Mr. Wilson is it not obvious he would have told me he had the situation well in hand? British troops had already gone into Derry on the 14th August and into Belfast during that weekend. Mr. Callaghan was going to the north to see what he could do to defuse the situation and I would have been told that it would be better before we had any further discussion to see what would come out of those activities and initiatives. When I was young I remember learning a nursery rhyme that went something like this:
Pussy cat pussy cat, where have you been?
I've been to London to see the Queen.
What did you get? Bread and jam?
What did you say? Thank you mam.
I have no doubt that I would have received extreme courtesy from Mr. Wilson.
The argument was that you did not do anything from May to July.
I will come to that. At the end of April the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Aiken, went to the UN to apprise the Secretary General of what we saw to be developing. We also apprised Mr. Wilson indirectly of the situation but he was involved at the time in the big wages controversy. He had meetings day after day with the trade unions and he told me indirectly that because of these meetings and because of his preoccupation with that problem he was not then able to see me. I appreciated his difficulty. Soon after that we had the general election here but shortly after that Dr. Hillery went to London to warn of the possible effects of the augmented Apprentice Boys parade. I do not think that anybody can suggest that in these circumstances we were in any way neglectful of trying to prevent the events that we saw were likely to build up and which, did come to pass in the north.
Our action in relation to our publicity campaign has also been criticised here. As Deputy Sweetman knows there is a maxim in law res ipsa loquitur which loosely interpreted means “facts speak for themselves”. Unfortunately, the facts of the situation in Northern Ireland were often not let speak for themselves and the facts as they developed during these days were certainly not let speak for themselves. Therefore, we decided that it was necessary to recruit these specialists in journalism and in press relations in order to make sure that the facts were made known and that correct information was given and incorrect information refuted. That was the sole purpose of augmenting the staff at the Government Information Bureau and, again, I should like to express my appreciation of the work they have done.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald made many assertions and many criticisms on behalf of Fine Gael. After the Fine Gael ten point plan was announced I said that it did no more than reiterate Government policy declared on a number of occasions; there is nothing new in it.
Would the Taoiseach give a reference to where the Government previously stated that Partition should and could only go with the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland?
I can bring the Deputy very far back, as far back, in fact, as 1921 and I quote from Dorothy MacArdle's book on The Irish Republic in which Mr. de Valera is quoted as having written to Lloyd George with reference to a statement made by Sir James Craig on the 19th July, 1921:
... I have made it clear in public statements, which reflect the views of the Irish people, that Ireland, so far from disregarding the special position of the minority in North-East Ulster, would be willing to sanction any measure of local autonomy which they might desire, provided that it were just and were consistent with the unity and integrity of our island.
That is totally different.
I am going back a long time in order to indicate where the first thread of the fabric was taken up. Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien has obliged us with a statement made by Mr. de Valera in the House in 1933. At the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis of the 12th October, 1954, Mr. de Valera referred to the entrenchment of the majority in the north as reported in the Irish Press of the following day. I admit that he referred to that majority in the neighbourhood of Belfast and, again, he spoke about inducement of them. At the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis of the 22nd November, 1955, Mr. de Valera referred to the injustices that were being wrought on the minority—this is in reply to Deputy Michael O'Leary, who said that we were insensible to the injustices and the discrimination until the 5th October, 1968—and said that a large number of the majority were alive to them. Mr. de Valera's statement may be found in the Irish Times of the 23rd November, 1955. On the 30th October, 1956, Mr. de Valera said that “our plan is to win over the majority in the North”. At a press conference on the 8th March, 1957, as reported in the Irish Independent Mr. de Valera said:
We think force is not the real solution. We do not want to coerce anybody.
At the same press conference as reported in the Irish Times of the 9th March, 1957, Mr. de Valera said that “real unity could not be achieved by the use of force”. In another statement made not by Mr. de Valera but by his immediate successor, Mr. Seán Lemass in addressing the Oxford Union on the 15th October, 1959, spoke of similar conditions operating in other areas, the outnumbering of people and their being outnumbered being the cause of their being denied their rights. He said that similar conditions operate in other areas and contribute to petty acts of discrimination in such matters as housing and employment which characterised the local administration there. Coming to more recent times, the Fine Gael statement was made on the 10th or 11th September. I had spoken on at least two occasions on the current crisis in terms very close to this supposed novel ten point plan of Fine Gael. I want to say this in refutation of this claim because this seems to be a watershed in the mind of Deputy Dr. FitzGerald. It is far from it. The London Times acknowledged my statement and said that the Fine Gael ten point policy was only a reiteration of previous Government policy in this country.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that the only way in which it can or should be modified is with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland? There must be consent and force is abhorrent. This is a technical point not covered in the Taoiseach's statement.
What I said is a development of a line of policy. It is quite clear. It is implicit in everything I have said. First of all, there is recognition of discrimination and recognition, too, of the need to win over a majority in order to solve this problem.
It is a development which has not been announced in that form before.
It has been consistently stated for years.
It does not matter who started it so long as we are on the right road. I wish to acknowledge Deputy Sweetman's reference to our initiative at the United Nations. The colleague sitting beside him now referred to it as our "antics" at the United Nations and as a distasteful effort. He referred to the result of it as being humiliating for the Irish people. I am glad his senior colleague on the front bench has seen fit to laud our efforts and acknowledge that what was done was useful and important at that particular time in order to ensure that certain actions were taken by the British Government.
After we said what should be done.
Our actions were in logical sequence which led up to our going to the United Nations with the suggestion of a peace-keeping operation and with the request that Britain make use of the United Nations, knowing that unless Britain did make the request it could lead to unsurmountable difficulties. It was a perfectly legitimate and logical sequence of events to go to the United Nations when Britain had refused to do so. It did not take any promptings from Fine Gael to bring us to that point.
To guide the Taoiseach along the right lines.
Before going on to other generalities, I wish to deal with another point which Deputy Dr. FitzGerald made. Deputy Dr. FitzGerald is a man who, I know, likes to examine matters from a very scientific viewpoint. He seldom makes loose statements and if he does he says: "I hear it being said and this is how it goes." He asserted last night that we had a Special Powers Act here and it ill-became us to ask the Northern Government to repeal their Special Powers Act.
I suggest to Deputy Dr. FitzGerald that there is a world of difference between the Special Powers Act in the north and our Offences Against the State Act. Our Special Powers Act is in full conformity with the Convention of human Rights, which we signed and agreed to implement. The British Government ratified the Human Rights Convention but derogated from it to the extent of its application to the Special Powers Act in the north. Any relationship between our Offences Against the State Act and the Special Powers Act has long since been abolished. Anybody who feels aggrieved under our Offences Against the State Act has full right to go to the courts and, if he is not satisfied there, he has access to the Court of Human Rights. I notice Deputy Dr. FitzGerald nodding his head in agreement with what I have said but he put it in a different context last night. I do not wish to go into detail on the powers of the Special Powers Act or the powers of the Home Secretary at Stormont. They are so extensive that anything in our Offences Against the State Act pales into insignificance in comparison with them.
The possibility of amending the Constitution was referred to on a number of occasions. An ombudsman was mentioned, and voting at 18 and various other provisions of a religious nature. First of all, as far as the ombudsman is concerned, I do not believe we have a real need for an ombudsman in this country. I hope Deputy Keating does not draw me out on him with his wry and cynical laughter. Deputy Keating must know there is no subject of appropriate public administration which is incapable of being discussed here. We have Question Time here every day, and every day each Minister is liable to be examined on any aspect of his administration. I have not heard citizens complaining that they have not had an opportunity, either through a Minister or through local representatives, of having any grievance aired or any remedy that should be applied put into effect. If there were a necessity for an ombudsman or a desire among citizens for one I would not be adverse to examining the possibility.
With regard to voting at 18 years, I wish to say that we have votes at 21 enshrined in the Constitution. The amendment of the Constitution cannot be a light matter at any time. I do not agree with Deputy Cruise-O'Brien that we should dash in and amend the offensive part of Article 44 with relation to the position of the Catholic Church. There is more in the Constitution that must be examined. People here might suggest that if we were amending the Constitution we might include things that might appeal to the people in the north, for instance, divorce. We might find that some people in the north might not go along with facilitating divorce. There are many other points to be examined as well.
Would the Taoiseach agree that revision of the Constitution is an urgent matter?
It is. The Constitution has been in existence since 1936 and it came into full effect in 1937. It has served us well. My predecessor, Mr. Lemass, knew that there were provisions needing attention and, perhaps, even urgent attention. In the meantime I do not think we should dash in now to amend the Constitution. We seem to agree there is no need to acknowledge the special position of the Catholic Church. Other points need objective examination also. I have no inhibitions about getting all parties in on this.
Why was the committee set up to review the Constitution?
It was set up in the context of reviewing all aspects of administration so far as they affected this House.
The Taoiseach knows what happened.
Would the Taoiseach reconvene the committee?
No party had any responsibility for it. Any party was entitled to accept or reject the recommendations of the committee. Any member of the committee was not bound even by unanimous recommendation of that committee.
It was set up by the Government.
I do not want to use more than my time.
With all due respect to the Taoiseach—he gave way, I assume —I do not think the Taoiseach has replied at all adequately to the debate.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There is no doubt in the minds of my colleagues and in the minds, I am sure, of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Parties, that very important issues were raised here in this debate. Changes were suggested. We have got nothing in the last half hour and I think the Taoiseach would be doing a disservice to the House if he continued like that for another half hour.
Will the Deputy allow me the courtesy of saying what I want to say and not what Deputy Corish wants me to say?
I do not want that.
I made the Government's position clear in my opening statement. It is normal for a speaker replying to a debate here to deal with as many points as possible and I have dealt with all the points I can. I was given half an hour to reply and I have taken the half hour I was given. Our approach is the right approach. I assert again I have no apology to make for anything the Government did or I said on 13th August, or since. I believe that what I did and said then was right. I also believe that what I have said since was right. I believe everyone is agreed on the fundamental issue, namely, the legitimate desire of the Irish people for reunification. There may be different ideas as to how that may be achieved, but there is a reasonable degree of unanimity with regard to certain steps that might be taken in this House. Let us work on that basis and not introduce acrimony into this debate at this stage. I could have introduced acrimony by replying to some of the references made to me by Deputy Corish's own colleagues, but I deliberately refrained from doing so. As far as this party is concerned, we regard ourselves as the party of reunification. Fine Gael claim they are not responsible for Partition. The Labour Party claim that only they acted with any degree of responsibility, and that only they were forward-looking in this situation. As far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, we are, as I have said, the party of reunification and so long as the other parties come along with us in that course they are welcome to join us.
The Taoiseach certainly exposed his nakedness by his last remark.
Would the Taoiseach give any sort of indication that there will be a move by him and the Government to ensure all-party action in this very delicate matter?
I will keep the matter under review. I will not say when exactly a move will be made or something will be done.
Do nothing.
It is the Taoiseach's responsibility. It was agreed by all parties here to approach this problem in a sane, logical and rational way——
Which approach I have acknowledged.
——but I do not think the Taoiseach should keep the problem to himself and his political party. We are all anxious to help and the sooner he makes a move towards an all-Party approach the better.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.