Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Policy on Northern Ireland: Motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move :

That Dáil Éireann formally rejects the use of force as an instrument to secure the unity of Ireland, welcomes the steps so far taken and promised to eliminate discrimination in Northern Ireland, and looks forward to the establishment of full fundamental rights and freedoms for everyone, irrespective of religion or political opinion.

This motion has been on the Order Paper for some time and was not moved because other opportunities presented themselves in debates here to discuss and deal with the problems that unfortunately have been the subject of so much concern in the North of Ireland in the last 18 months or so, The reason for bringing forward the motion at this point is our concern for the serious turn of events, so serious for all sections of people in this country and so tragic for those who have lost their lives or been injured in the conflict as well as for those who have suffered material loss of one sort or other.

Some 18 months or so ago, after the events of August, 1969, the House discussed the situation that had developed and taken such a serious turn in the North of Ireland. At that time the steps being taken to deal with the situation and provide remedies for some of the evils which existed offered some prospect of success and there was a general recognition by Deputies on all sides of the House that an opportunity should be given for the promised reforms to take effect. Unfortunately, the trend of events and the manner in which the situation has deteriorated in the intervening period, with a few brief exceptions, now warrants serious consideration by the House and the country.

At this juncture it is obvious that first priority must be given to the restoration of peace in Northern Ireland and the achievement of justice and equality amongst all sections of the community there. In order to achieve that objective, everything said and done in this part of the country must be directed towards that end. For that reason I believe, just as much as any of my colleagues, that now is the time for Dáil Éireann clearly to express on behalf of the country the basic unity of purpose and outlook which I believe the majority of the people share here as to the aim and objective of securing not only the ultimate unity of the country but agreement on the necessary steps which can be regarded as making a constructive contribution to that ultimate objective.

We believe no one has the right to play politics with the question of Partition or to seek personal advantage from that situation. The aspirations of this country and the different shades of political opinion on unity are too well known to need assertion at this time. Nor is it necessary to get involved in legalistic or other descriptions in order to emphasise the aim and objective of unity for the country.

What we must do—and this applies as much if not more to the Government than to any section of the community—is to make clear our abhorrence of and opposition to the violence that is being used in the North and our determination to do all in our power to end that either by restricting or inhibiting the activities of those who encourage or are in any way associated with violence in the North. We must be concerned, as Irish men and women, at the continuance of a situation in which ordinary people going about their everyday activities can be injured or killed by a bomb thrown or shots fired as part of a sectarian struggle or by the casual misuse of firearms.

Our endeavour at the present time must be to bridge the gap between the two communities in the North of Irelanr which has become very wide in recent months and weeks. We have repeatedly said—but it may be necessary to repeat it in order to ensure there is no confusion about the approach which we advocate—that we reject the idea of the use of force to compel one group of Irishmen to live with another group. We do not believe that any form of reunification can have a full meaning if it is achieved by the imposition on the people of the North of Ireland of a particular version of Irish nationality to which they cannot be expected to subscribe.

Such reunification can take place only on the basis of the freely expressed wish of the people and any ultimate solution will have to recognise that the political, cultural and religious traditions of the Protestants of Northern Ireland must be given their full weight in the policies and institutions and set-up, if you like, of a 32-County Ireland and that, unless we are prepared to do that, we cannot expect those who have different traditions to believe that we are genuine and sincere in our efforts to understand their thinking, or to allay their fears.

We have consistently and traditionally expressed that view and it is possibly appropriate to quote a short passage from a speech made almost 50 years ago by Michael Collins in which he said:

Let us advance and use these liberties to make Ireland a shining light in a dark world, to reconstruct our ancient civilization on modern lines, to avoid the errors, the miseries, the dangers, into which other nations, with their false civilizations, have fallen.

He went on to say:

Whatever form of free Government we had, it would be the Government of the Irish nation. All the other elements, old Unionists, Home-Rulers, Devolutionists, would have to be allowed freedom and self-expression. The only way to build the nation solidly and Irish is to effect these elements in a friendly national way—by attraction, not by compulsion, making them feel themselves welcomed into the Irish nation in which they can join and become absorbed, as long ago the Geraldines and the de Burgos became absorbed.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cosgrave

These sentiments, expressed with great clarity and simplicity, have always been followed by us as our approach to this problem. The events of the past 18 months have reinforced the conviction that the time has arrived when any form of double talk, or any form of approach that is not clear and definite, will undoubtedly mean for some the rejection of past attitudes and past approaches.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cosgrave

It means approaching the problem in a realistic and practical fashion, accepting the situation as it exists, and trying to work from that towards an ultimate settlement that will enable all sections of the community to live in harmony and concord.

Unfortunately over the past 18 months, the efforts made to establish and introduce the reforms that were promised have been only partially successful. Unfortunately the reforms that have been introduced have been partial and some of them slow in their actual operation. The promised undertaking to disarm the elements that had unauthorised or illegally held arms has been partial and one-sided. We are fully aware of the difficulties involved under the terms of the Charter of the United Nations and also the practical and other difficulties involved. We recognise that the minority in Northern Ireland do not accept—and events justified their disbelief—the bona fides of the approach to disarmament. Unfortunately there has not been an impartial approach to this disarming by the British troops.

We appreciate that the majority up there, the Unionists and those associated with them, would regard a force such as a United Nations force as unacceptable. We believe that while this is primarily a problem for Irish people in both parts of the country, the British Government cannot opt out of their responsibility. There is an obligation on them too. In other areas of the world in which British influence and military power existed, there have been examples of a more enlightened approach than that which has characterised their approach to the problem in the North of Ireland.

While we recognise the difficulties in the introduction of a United Nations force, it is obvious that over the past 18 months or so the approach of the military has not been impartial, with the result that there is a lack of trust on the part of the minority. Because of the violence on the part of both sides there has been a recurrence of demands by the right wing of the Unionist Party, and those associated with it, for more drastic measures to deal with the problem, always on the assumption that the drastic measures would be used against the minority and not impartially.

Therefore we want at this point to try to get some joint authority that will enforce equal treatment and ensure that not merely is equal treatment given but that it is incorporated in legislation to be operated in practice. The reforms have been slow and incomplete. We want to try to ensure by the introduction of reforms, fully implemented and completely operated, that the feelings of hostility will be discouraged. We want to make it quite clear that, so far as this part of the country is concerned, we are prepared and have always been prepared to go more than half way. Having said that, it is right that we should rid the minds of the majority in the North of Ireland of the idea that paper changes or verbal concessions are of any real significance if they are not backed up by a full measure of equal treatment as has been made available here since the setting up of the State. There is no real merit in and no demand for some of the Constitutional amendments that have been suggested. The fact that they were written into the Constitution is a matter of regret. As I said before, they were introduced at a particular time for party political purposes. It is being suggested now that they should be removed from national political interests. It was a mistake to introduce them initially and it does not make a great deal of difference whether or not they are changed at the present time.

Any suggestion that we should legislate for divorce is bad from a social point of view, not to mention the fact that it is unacceptable to all Christian denominations. I say that as a Catholic and as a Christian and I believe the other Christian churches do not wish to have divorce introduced. Therefore, we should not be considering the unimportant matters. The important thing is to ensure that national policy, decided on here has the backing of every section of the community and of every political party, and that there is not this lingering suspicion that a minority or any sections of minority groups are saying one thing and practising another.

We want the voices of the people of this country, as expressed in this Parliament, to be heard by every section of the community in the North of Ireland. We want them to realise that any ambiguities in policy that may have existed here during the years are now ended. We want them to realise —in so far as it is possible for them to realise it from the elected representatives who were elected as a result of an election in which this particular problem was not in any sense an issue but who, nevertheless, believe that they reflect the opinion of all sections of the people of this country—that the Irish people want a peaceful solution because a united Ireland that would come through the enforcement or the subjugation of one section of the community by another is a unity not worth having. That is a unity that the majority of the people in this part of the country do not wish for. That must be clearly understood. What we seek is that the minority in the North of Ireland will be treated with the same respect and have the same rights guaranteed to them as the minority in this part of the country have always enjoyed.

Recently, as reported in the Irish Times, Major Chichester Clark said, when speaking of the minority in the North, that it was the policy of the Government that there should be no second-class citizens. He said he accepted that this meant more than mere fairness; that it meant a chance to participate at every level of society and in every aspect of its institutions. That right has been guaranteed in practice here to every section and we want to ensure that the steps that will be implemented in the North of Ireland will, in practice, guarantee these rights fully to the minority there.

In considering the different aspects of this problem, concerned and anxious as we are that no words or speeches or actions that may be indulged in either in a feeling of disappointment or anger at what has happened, should in any sense exacerbate the situation or worsen relations, we believe that the time has come when a determined effort at the highest diplomatic levels, with full support of the Government acting with the full authority of this Dáil, should be undertaken in order to get under way, either directly or under any other auspices, a joint authority to ensure that all sections of the community in the North of Ireland will have equal and fair treatment; that every possible step that can be taken will be taken to ensure that disarming of all sections who are not authorised to carry arms in the course of their duties, will be undertaken impartially. To that end, we must reinforce the suggestions that have been made to the effect that gun clubs or other groups who hold firearms licences should be examined carefully so as to ensure that no unauthorised guns find their way into the hands of those who use them for political or other purposes.

Of course, this is a problem that has bedevilled the position in the North, particularly in recent months. The fact that the position has deteriorated in recent weeks has resulted in a strenuous reaction from the right wing of the Unionist Party or the extreme elements. In the circumstances, we believe that not merely is there a clear obligation on the Government to take the necessary initiatives with the Government in the North but that it is at this point that the British Government are involved also. Undertakings were given publicly by the last Labour Government and by the present Conservative Government that the disarming of all sections would be undertaken impartially and fairly. It is now obvious that this has not been done and this is a rebuke to their undertakings. It is a rebuke to the Governments concerned that they have failed to match their undertakings by their deeds.

That is possibly the biggest single dangerous factor in the present situation and it is because of that we believe that steps should be taken to initiate discussion at the very highest level recognising that while there are difficulties, there are also advantages in a situation in which the British Government do not want to be paraded before the world as being responsible in this age, an age in which they have shown in different parts of the world, not without considerable effort on the part of the peoples of the countries involved, in certain respects a more enlightened approach, an approach uncharacteristic of previous British Governments, in colonial or semi-colonial matters. In a situation in which the glare of world opinion is directed on Britain through bodies such as the United Nations, the European union in the organisation of the EEC, and other European bodies, it is an embarrassment to the British Government and the British people to have this continuing festering problem at their own door. It is one that reflects little credit on their statesmanship and little credit on their sense of justice and fairplay.

It is not sufficient to suggest, as has been suggested from time to time, that this is a matter for solution by Irishmen North and South. We have, of course, a serious contribution to make and we have an obligation to deal with the problem directly, but they too have an inescapable responsibility to play a part, a part that will contribute towards a solution of the last remaining political question between ourselves and Britian. We believe the time has come to make a real effort to establish some joint authority, under whatever auspices offer the best prospect of success in order to bridge the widening gap between the two sections in the North of Ireland. We are concerned, as everyone in the country must be concerned, at the deterioration in the situation there in recent weeks. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the use of the word "anarchy" to describe it is not too strong.

This is a situation that involves everyone in this country because the repercussions and the reactions, social and economic, are bound to affect all of us. Indeed the ordinary day-to-day existence of people in all parts of the country and their interests are put in jeopardy. It is in those circumstances and because of our desire to bring to bear as much goodwill and statesmanship as possible on the situation that we decided to bring forward this motion to make it quite clear, without any doubt or ambiguity, without any inhibitions because of past attitudes, that whatever lingering suspicions may exist because of speeches made, phrases used or claims asserted, whether constitutional or in any other form, we seek the reunification of our country on the basis of the right of every section of our people to co-exist in harmony, guaranteed equality of treatment, fairness in appointment to public positions and in the implementation of legislation.

We want to make it clear that this Dáil speaks on behalf of the people as a whole, that it will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that whatever policy is decided upon by the Dáil will be effective, effective because it represents the view of the people of this country and represents that view irrespective of our own political attitudes on economic, social or other questions. We believe we could make a contribution towards allaying the suspicions which, rightly or wrongly, exist among certain sections, suspicions that have caused not merely the recent outbreaks of violence, bloodshed, loss of life and suffering, but suspicions that prevent people coming together in the realisation that nobody, with the possible exception of a dwindling number of people in Britain, are interested in this problem. Its solution devolves on the Irish people themselves and, if we do not settle our own problems, no one else will settle them for us. We must realise that other countries, other peoples and the world generally are more preoccupied with other matters, domestic, political and economic and, if we do not solve our own problems, or make a realistic attempt at solving them, we cannot get and will not get anybody else to solve them for us.

Our approach has been consistent. It has never changed. It has been clear and definite. The fact that it is now more widely shared is some satisfaction to us. No matter how difficult it was politically we never flinched from asserting what we believed was in the national interest and in the interests of every section of the people North and South. The fact that our approach is now more widely shared may be a source of satisfaction or gratification to us, but the only real success any of us wants to see is the success of a policy that will bring peace to every section in this country and particularly peace to the North of Ireland.

Mr. R. Burke

Is mór an onóir domsa cuidiú leis an tairiscint a mhol an Teachta Liam Mac Cosgair, Ceannaire Fhine Gael agus lucht an Fhreasúra sa Dáil. Um an dtaca seo caoga bliain ó shoin—i 1920— reachtaíodh an tAcht a chuir tús le críchdheighilt na hÉireann le bunú Pharlaimint Stormont. Is mithid dúinn, mar sin, breathnú ar an dul chun cinn atá déanta againn i rith an tréimhse sin.

The concept of the use of force is not very far from the political mind of this country and has not been for the last 100 years or more and it does not come easily to some who have sat in this Dáil to admit that the measure of freedom which we enjoy in this part of the country was achieved not alone by the use of physical force but by the coming together of people of that mentality with those who were constitutionalists and acted in a constitutional way.

It gives me great pleasure to second the motion before the House and especially to draw attention to the fact that Dáil Éireann is asked formally to reject the use of force as an instrument to secure the unity of Ireland.

Force is not confined to one or other section of the country. In the founding documents, if one could call them that, of the two sections of this country, mention either explicit or implicit is made, and I quote:

...all whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of H.M. King George V ...do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn covenant to stand by one another in defending for ourselves and our children our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland.

One can see from that the implicit appeal to arms. The second quotation is:

We declare the right of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.... We hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a sovereign Independent State and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.

Why then is it opportune that this Dáil should at this time unequivocally renounce the use of force as a means of achieving what we all desire, the unity of the two parts of this country? The simple answer is that we have moved fifty years on from those times. Times have changed and what may have been useful and proper at a previous time no longer suits the exigencies of the political situation in this country. It is important that we in this Dáil, in formally rejecting the use of force, appeal particularly to those sections within the Twenty-six Counties who are still misguidedly calling upon the youth of this country and on others to bear arms in the cause of Irish unity. It may take courage to do this but it is necessary that we do so and do so unequivocally.

If there is trouble in certain parts of Belfast let us be honest enough to admit that some of the trouble may, in fact, be caused by groups who arrogate to themselves the right to arms to achieve political ends. It is not going to be easy to change the mentality of that section of the Irish people who still appeal to arms.

Is there anybody here who will not admit that the teaching of history which he received in his education in school was coloured, to put it mildly, to some extent by a romanticising of the physical force element in our history? Even in such an innocuous fashion as the taunt to King James as he rode away from the Boyne; the taunt about O'Connell and his alleged cowardice at Clontarf in 1843; the lauding of the Fenian tradition. I submit that in questions of social and agrarian reform in the last century there may have been some justification for resorting to arms. In fact, there may have been some justification for it in the achievement of our freedom but we must now unequivocally send out a message from this House to all organs of opinion and all the people we can influence as Deputies to cease forthwith any one-sided, romanticised, glorification of physical force.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. R. Burke

I, perhaps, more than most Members of this Constituent Assembly, can appeal to my former colleagues in the teaching profession, that we, as a profession have something to be blamed for in our presentation of the facts. I remember two or three years ago a colleague of mine felt it necessary to send his child, a teenage schoolgirl, back to her history teacher to point out that the facts of the history lesson, as presented to her, were not complete. Lay teachers and religious teachers are equally at fault in this regard. It is about time we faced up to this matter.

It may be said that some of the difficulties which this party has had to face is that it has never deviated from the democratic line it took in the early years of this State. I would ask my fellow-teachers and colleagues to examine themselves to see if they, in fact, are in any way to blame for the perpetuation of this glorification, this idea that young people have that there is something romantic and something to be achieved by taking to arms.

I do not hesitate in this House on behalf of this party to repudiate and condemn in the strongest possible terms the shooting and the killing which has taken place not only last week but over the previous months and years. If we are honest with ourselves and examine our mentality honestly we can ask ourselves: Did we, in fact, experience a shudder of horror when we heard of these events? Are there any citizens of this part of the country who felt that there was something good in these killings? if so we must, as a Parliament, appeal to them to reexamine their attitude towards these affairs.

August, 1969 was a watershed in the evolution of politics in this country because for the first time in many years we were faced with a concrete situation where decisions had to be made. It is not for me, with a limited experience in public life, to criticise those who are my seniors in this Parliament, but I suggest we take note of the fact that since 1968-69 a new type of politician has emerged in the North of Ireland, one who to me is worthy of the utmost praise. I refer to the young men who have, perhaps, at some risk to themselves politically forgotten the old orthodoxies of nationalism and have come out in favour of civil rights, social and economic rights for all the people. It is also opportune at this time that we appeal to our people to move away from the rigid orthodoxies of what I might call mystic republicanism which have dominated political life in this country to its detriment for so many years.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. R. Burke

Would it be too strong to say that we in this part of the country have not had a worthwhile policy in regard to the North of Ireland for the 50 years of the existence of this State? I do not accept that pious statements of aspiration or talking about the inalienable rights of the people or the injustices perpetrated on this unfortunate country by the British are substitutes for worthwhile policies. In this regard, without making too much political play out of it, I would draw the attention of the public to the fact that in September, 1969, Fine Gael, with characteristic courage, produced a policy document, many of the provisions of which have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. I quote from page 3 of that document:

Towards these ends the Government should press the British Government to reconstitute the RUC as a civil unarmed police force, similar to the Garda Síochána, recruited from all groups in the community, and confined to normal police duties.

We do not claim that it was solely our advocacy of that policy which achieved the disarming of the police. One is heartened by today's news that the Prime Minister of the North of Ireland is resisting calls for the rearming of the police. It has been rightly said that guns will not protect policemen in the carrying out of their civil duties.

In the quotation from the 1912 Covenant which I read out at a further point it states:

The people in the North of Ireland refer to the following: being convinced in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well being of Ulster as well as the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship...

In this part of the country we must face the fact that there is a section of the population which would regard the reunification of the country as being bad from a material point of view. If we are serious about seeking unity, is it not appropriate that everyone in this part of the country should do everything possible to improve our economic and social situation so that if—and we do not concede it—our standards are not yet as high as those in the North of Ireland, with effort and a short passage of time we may attain a standard of living that would be attractive to the people in the North of Ireland, so that the taunt about depreciation or lowering of material standards will not carry the weight it did formerly.

I must confess to a personal difficulty in regard to the references made in the media and throughout the country to the question of reform in the Constitution. As the Leader of this party has rightly said, the much-maligned Free State Constitution introduced by Cumann na nGaedheal is now turning out to be a liberal Constitution and the 1937 Constitution is fraught with many alleged difficulties with regard to civil rights and so on. I do not speak for the party on this but I personally am not able at this point to advocate the repeal of section 41 (3) and (2) about the absolute prohibition of divorce. All I can say is that this was not in the Cumann na nGaedheal Constitution. These provisions were put there in the 1930s, at a time when we were supposed to have a radical, progressive Government. What price now that radical, progressive Government?

With regard to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935, section 17) forbidding the sale and importation of contraceptives, again, personally I would have difficulty—as I am sure would others—in relation to the repeal of this type of legislation. However, I speak only for myself on this. It behoves everyone in this Parliament to respect the moral courage of those who advocate changes in these matters. Their moral courage should not be thrown back politically in their faces for the purpose of securing votes. That is as far as I am personally able to go in relation to these matters at this time.

What does the future hold for the unity of Ireland? Obviously the extension of the 1937 Constitution to the whole of Ireland is not a foreseeable possibility. In this connection, the Article in it which claims sovereignty over the territory—even though suspended in its application at the moment and even though every nationalist would like to assert such a right—is undoubtedly by statement of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland giving offence to that section. If I remember correctly, the Constitution Committee suggested that it should be replaced by some pious wish that the Irish nation seek the reunification of its territory. I must confess I do not see the necessity for such pious aspirations. Matters put into the Constitution, such as Article 44, which had no legal bearing should not be put into the Constitution. If we want to take out an Article, let us do so, but why substitute it with a meaningless phrase?

Having been educated and brought up for a period in a part of the country which, if I am not too unkind, was clouded in a fog of obscurantist Republicanism in the '40s and '50s, I would put it to the Dáil that quite a number of people in the south and west and in other parts of the country do not really understand the Northern Ireland population or situation. However, things are improving. The filming of all the events that have taken place in the North and the propagation of the films to all parts of the country will do something at least to give everyone in this part of the country a knowledge of the real facts of the situation. No longer will there be justification for anyone to counsel action on false information.

It is piteous that the youth of this country in the '40s, '50s and '60s were led astray by propagandists of the physical force mentality and that they went to their deaths in the North of Ireland in a futile effort to change the situation there. I would point out that there were Deputies on the other side of the House who followed the funerals of some of these unfortunate men who were killed. Their motive might have been one of Christian charity but one begs to suggest that it might not have been. In such circumstances, Fine Gael could never be accused of doing anything which would lessen the authority of the existing Government in these matters. I should like to draw the attention of all, North and South, to this fact.

People in the North of Ireland, as I read out in this quotation here, regarded people in the South as somewhat backward. Historically this may have been so. We realise this from reading of the differences between the system of tenancy and the holding of land in the South and in the North. We have witnessed the gradual economic development in the North of Ireland, as distinct from the South. We realise perhaps, why these ideals were in the minds of the people in the North of Ireland. However, even if it was true some 50 years ago, this is no longer the case. This part of the country is no longer backward and credit must be given to all Governments. It should be characteristic of this Parliament that, in future, generosity in handing out compliments for achievement should be the order of the day, not the contrary as is sometimes heard here. I should be very glad to congratulate those people of all parties, in all Governments, who have helped in the development of this part of the country.

I do not want to continue for too long as I wish to give an opportunity to others to speak. I will conclude with a quotation from a man who, if anyone could be said to be a friend of Ireland from an English point of view, was a friend of this country. This is a quotation made nearly 80 years ago when the question of a limited freedom for this country was first adumbrated, or at least seriously so. Maybe it is impolite to praise a British statesman in this House but I am not afraid to do so because his sentiments were right. He was referring to those in the Opposition of the day who were making it difficult for him to hand out a measure of freedom to this country. On a Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill, 1886, Gladstone, speaking to the House said, looking into the future

As to the harvest of the future, I doubt if you have so much confidence—

Referring to his opponents,

—and I believe there is in the breast of many a man who votes tonight against us a profound misgiving approaching to a deep conviction that the end will be as we foresee and not as you, that the ebbing tide is with you and the flowing tide is with us. Ireland stands at your bar, expectant, hopeful, almost suppliant. Her words are the words of truth and soberness. She asks a blessed oblivion of the past and in that oblivion her interest is even greater than yours.

I would address those very same words to those who influence opinion not alone here but in the North of Ireland. Let us remember that blessed oblivion of the past and in that oblivion the interest of all sections of this nation will be the greater.

Mr. Keating

At the outset I would like to try to define what I mean by "full fundamental rights and full freedoms for everyone". For us to talk about full fundamental rights and full freedoms for the people of the North without also and at the same time talking about those things for the people of the South would be an impertinence. We have the right to talk about what happens there precisely to the extent that we have the right to talk about what happens in the whole country. I choose therefore to consider that the last sentence of this motion refers to the whole country.

"Full fundamental rights and freedoms for everyone" means not simply a series of negative things: freedom from want and the freedom from fear that we recall from a quarter of a century ago at the end of the war. It means positive rights and positive freedoms. If you were to express those in the briefest possible terms you would say it was the right of every individual born to develop his or her potentialities to the limit of what lies in them. However, in order to do that you must have a whole series of positive freedoms. For example, regardless of the income of the house into which you happen to be born, you must have the right to education.

I welcome, of course, progress that has been made in giving that right more widely in this part of the country in recent years. Everybody does, but it would be a mistake to pretend that the freedom of education exists in this part of the country now. It will exist when we have university students going to university in precisely the same proportion as their different occupations and background exist in the country. It will not exist until then. If we are talking about freedoms and rights it is fair to say that availability of education, of State assistance for education, in this part of the country at this moment is not equal for Catholics and Protestants. There may be reasons for that but that is the case.

Then there is freedom of health, protection from disease, protection from the economic disaster that comes from ill health. Health is bought and sold here. The progress that has been made here is welcome but let nobody pretend that access to every sort of medical treatment is equal here as long as medical care is bought and sold.

A great freedom is that of knowing you can defend your rights before the courts of your country but that freedom exists for those with money to pay, with money to buy legal aid. Our legal aid system is a rather trivial joke. Therefore the freedom of access to one's legal rights exists for the rich and not for the poor. We have the right to point a finger at the gross and scandalous inequities in regard to housing that exists in the Six Counties. However, here we may not differentiate on a religious basis; we differentiate often because the houses do not exist or if they do exist people do not have the money to pay for them.

There are basic democratic rights, for instance, that every institution of the State, be it be the public service, be it the health service or the educational service, is open to be influenced and to be participated in by the people as a whole. There is the basic right, in one case, of the worker in a factory, for example, participating in the management. That basic right does not exist North or South. It seems to me we have the right to talk about the lack of certain fundamental human liberties in the North if we recognise the lack of those in the South, if we recognise that we may not legislate for certain areas which are properly the preserve of individual consciences.

In this context let me make specific reference to the beam in our own eye. The great inadequacy in the situation in regard to contraception is a good example. It is a good example because it is a matter of private conscience to be forced on no one who has the least reservation about its use, to be denied to no one who feels the right and the duty to avail of it. We cannot seriously talk about uniting a country where one million-odd people will have an absolutely sincere conscientious feeling that they have a claim, without breaking the law, to that basic right.

One might make a list of the basic liberties about which we try to legislate about which, in my view, we have no right to legislate. When we face what exists here we shall have the right to look across the Border. We have the right to express all the horror and sham and disgust that in us lie in regard to the differentiation against one part of the population on the basis of the religion they happen to possess. But let me give three examples from this House in the limited period of my membership of it which indicate that we have some putting in order to do.

The greatest moment of shame I experienced since I came in here was hearing Deputy Billy Fox shouted down in his maiden speech. A campaign had been mounted against him that he was a B Special. It has been a sectarian campaign against him and when he produced evidence to refute it he was shouted down in this House in a sectarian way. Over and over in this House I have heard the phrase "non-Catholics" used—a trivial phrase perhaps. I would be deeply offended to be called "non-Fianna Fáil". I belong to a party which has a name. If a person belongs to the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church or any other recognised denomination I am saying something offensive towards him if I call him "non-Catholic". Our contact with them must be so limited if we do not know that. How do we not know that it is a rude thing to say?

The other day the Minister for Education referred to the "Hierarchy". The first time he said it I said nothing because anybody can say it casually just once but weeks later he said the same thing, the "Hierarchy". Embedded in this was the feeling that this is the way you describe the Hierarchy of the majority Church. You do that once by accident. You do not do it repeatedly if you are really non-sectarian. These are three examples of sectarian thinking in this House in my time. My experience of life in the Republic is that every aspect of our thinking is permeated and invaded by these attitudes. It is like saying: "Some of my best friends are Jews. Some of my best friends are Protestants. Am I not great to have Protestant friends?" You claim benefit for it. You offer it up. We are aware of the differences and we think that it somehow proves our emancipation, being aware of them that we somehow transcend them.

Until we get to the stage in our feelings, and not just in our public image, where these things are of no importance to us, we will not have got the deep feelings out of our own systems. We can say why they are there. We can cite the past to justify them. We also know that the great glory of Republicanism, back to Tone, is to replace the names of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter with the common name of Irishmen. We know that this is central to Irish Republicanism. We know that the abhorrence of sectarianism is central to Republicanism, and yet we feel it. It will take a long time to root that out but, if we try to root it out from all aspects of our national consciousness, we will be morally justified in pointing the finger of scorn and contempt at people north of the Border who do the same thing the other way around. Of course we have the right to condemn it in part of the country. Of course we have the right to condemn it in the North. We also have the right, of course, to condemn it wherever it comes from.

I want to talk about Irish unity since Irish unity is mentioned here and is in a sense what the motion is about. I hope I do not misquote him but my recollection is that the Taoiseach said in an important speech that this is an Irish question. I do not see it that way, with respect, and I am not trying to score political points. Ireland has suffered and gained by being close to a stronger and larger power. Ireland was partitioned by Britain in an Act of the Westminster Parliament. Ireland has suffered from British imperialism. The persistence of British imperialist power in Northern Ireland, in my view, is the political and economic motive for the fomenting of sectarian differences systematically by Unionists in the North of Ireland. It is not just an Irish quarrel. It is an Irish quarrel which is continually intruded into. It was originated and fomented and rolled on and encouraged by British imperialism for what is, to me, a fairly easily identifiable purpose.

It is not fashionable to talk about imperialism any more. The last person, apart from myself, I heard doing it in this House was the man who was then Deputy Boland who is no longer a member of the House. I disagree with him in many ways but I cannot accept that the problem is just an Irish problem. The centre of the problem is Westminster. Reunification of Ireland will not be possible except with the benevolence and encouragement of Westminster or against Westminster. We cannot depend on the neutrality of Westminster.

The other strand in this motion is the question of force. I will be referring to some people in the North later on, but let me say one thing now in illustration of what I will say about force in a moment. I have been in the house of a man I am proud to know, whose courage I find extraordinarily inspiring, and whose recent speeches I find even more inspiring. I am talking about Gerry Fitt in Belfast. I have been in his house when his wife has picked up the telephone and an anonymous caller at the other end of the line has threatened her husband's life. This is what people like Fitt live with, day in, day out, month in, month out. One might almost say sadly, year in, year out. Gerry Fitt and Paddy Devlin have found the courage in recent times to denounce a certain sort of use of arms and force inside their own community. It is easy to do that from here. It is an extraordinarily noble action to do it from where they make their speeches.

We have to make a distinction. I do not know if I am being honest about it or about how I would respond in the circumstances. I believe that in defence of my family in my own home I would use force if it were available to me. I believe I would, and I certainly could not point the finger at anyone else who did just that. I believe it would be the action of the vast majority of humans, on their own ground, under attack. The distinction we have to make is the distinction between an entirely protective and defensive action which is, perhaps, worthy of being condemned but which, in honesty, I find it extremely difficult to condemn, and the offensive action on the other hand which is aimed at killing people who are citizens of the same country and who very often are also working people who are not then attacking one. This action is very often the carrying on of a sectarian feud which culminates in the sort of horror we have to admit has occurred as, for example, after the accident at Ibrox Park where Rangers supporters died and Celtic supporters did not, and this was made the subject of widespread sectarian comment in Belfast by Irishmen, by citizens of this island—such a degree of shame as one would never hope to reach.

We have this horrifying situation on which I do not propose to comment now, partly because of my membership of the Committee of Public Accounts, and partly because I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss these matters here in greater detail at another time when we are not discussing a motion of this sort. We have the situation where a chain of command has been broken up in the North of Ireland and where, with connivance from this side of the Border, moneys have been used and arms procured, not in a protective or defensive way, but in a sectarian way, in a way that can only drive on the killings between religious groupings, and drive on the bitterness, and drive further away the day of national reconciliation and national reunification. It seems to me that people who do that have the most appalling crime on their hands in terms of national honour, national unity and national reconciliation, and that it is a total travesty of the Republicanism which some of them profess, in my view absolutely falsely.

We are not a party, and we never have been a party, of guns or of violence. That is not the tradition of the Labour movement and it never has been. We are very proud and very glad that we have not got a civil war tradition either way. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we are a little less bitter. The point has to be made that there is a fountain-head of sectarian feeling in Northern Ireland, which is the determination of a Protestant ruling class to go on ruling. Therefore, they benefit from the divisions, from the weaknesses, from the hostilities, from the conflicts, between two sections of the working people. They have a vested interest in persistent sectarian disorder, and in the oppression of both sections, but the greater oppression of one section, the Catholic section.

There is historical evidence of this going back well into the last century when the Orange card was the card to play. Therefore particularly noble is the emergence in the North in the past year or so of people who have said in the face of the most appalling physical attacks with stones and bullets and pickaxe handles, and also the most appalling vilification, that the issues were issues of basic civil liberties and basic human rights and that it was as important to secure these for the Protestant working-man as it was for the Catholic working-man who approached the deprivation of civil liberties in a non-sectarian way, who approached the demands for the enrichment of life and for the granting of all liberties to all sectors without asking the question. It is not that we want more for, or that we want a levelling for, Catholics but what is required in the North, as in the South, is more for everybody. The question of religion in regard either to the granting or the withholding of civil rights is an irrelevance. It is one that, although it has been forced in consistently during hundreds of years, from the point of view of my party and from the point of view of the Labour movement in general, has always been declared to be irrelevant. We are proud of that.

The other thing that must be put forward as a key to the sort of thinking that can bring unity is the concept of the multiplicity of Ireland. Of course, there is a Celtic Ireland, undisturbed in its language and in its culture, stretching back for a long time, for almost longer than any other European nation. We are right to cherish this culture of which we are proud. There is the Ireland of the Scottish settlers, there is the Ireland of English settlers, there is the Ireland of the Pale, the Ireland of the Norman times as well as the Celtic Ireland.

The source of our richness, the source of the special things that make Irish people so proud to be Irish is not to belong to one or other traditions but to recognise and be proud of and love every tradition. When we appreciate and love sufficiently every tradition, we will be unable to fight for the civil liberties of one or other just as we will be unable to refer to people as non-Catholics, as we will be unable in ways that indicate that, although we may put a non-sectarian veneer on our conversation, deep within us we are profoundly hostile towards other groups. It will be a long time before we reach that stage but it is the only sure key.

It is the love of the diversity and the recognition of every strain of this nation that is required. I agree with Deputy Richard Burke as to the need to teach this more deeply in our schools. The multiplicity of Ireland and the love and recognition of all strands is the basis of the unity of people. If we wish for a unity of people on the basis of love, it is obvious that force is irrelevant and is against ourselves in seeking national unity.

I suggest that the only way we can bring about the unity we all seek with justice, with honour and with equality is, firstly, by the love of all these strands of the country and, secondly, in all parts of the country, by deepening all of the liberties for all of the people that I have tried to enumerate. We are entitled to make the demands and to carry on the struggle in the Six Counties only to the extent that we make the demands in 32 counties.

Mr. Harte

In supporting this motion I, as a Deputy from the North, would ask the House to consider that, after 50 years of trial and error, we have matured politically enough to realise that, north of the Border, there are almost 1,000,000 Irishmen who, up to this time, have not been persuaded by the use of force that they have anything to gain by rejoining this part of Ireland. I have spoken here on a number of occasions on this particular matter. I have said that, irrespective of whether the present generation of public representatives of Irish people, Catholic or Protestant, Nationalists or Unionists, believe that Partition was right or wrong, no one has yet said what could have been the alternative to Partition.

Personally, I had many misgivings as a young man as to whether Partition was right or wrong. Possibly this was due to the type of education I received at school or it may have been due to the upbringing I got from my late father and his family. Nevertheless, my views were strong in that this country should be united and that Partition was wrong. That period in Irish history of August, 1969 will be long remembered but perhaps, that terrible week did some good because I believe that it forced a complacent Irish people—complacent in the political sense—to rethink and think clearly about the Irish problem.

Deputies who, like myself, come from the northern part of the country, meet North of Ireland Unionists in their everyday life. From conversations I have had with these Unionists I am satisfied that they have certain thoughts about a united Ireland. A united Ireland would be acceptable to them in a certain manner but certainly not in the manner in which misguided Irish people, who proclaim to have pure Republican principles, projected their image to the Northern scene.

Partition may not have been right but no one has said what would have been the alternative. Surely after 50 years, and in circumstances in which it has become as much a part of Irish history as has the Battle of the Boyne, as has the Plantation of Ulster or indeed the many other aspects of national and historic importance, we, at this point of time, should realise that the Northern Ireland Parliament is there by some right or other, irrespective of whether we accept or reject that right. When the Taoiseach says that this country will not be united except by the majority of the people north of the Border—let me say now that I support him completely in that statement—what he is telling us is that the majority of the people north of the Border will be given a democratic right to decide, if and when they wish to decide, to rejoin this part of Ireland.

If this is to be achieved and if this Government, this Parliament, and the Irish people wish to make that abundantly clear to our brothers north of the Border, then I believe that the time is now ripe when we must endorse and adopt the motion before the House.

Debate adjourned.