I do not think any of us would share the optimism of the Taoiseach in his review of the economy here this morning, certainly not the housewife, certainly not the unemployed, despite the statistics he gave when he dealt with the cost of living and with the employment situation. Neither would I share his optimism, needless to remark, at the conclusion of his speech when again he intimated that the Fianna Fáil Party were the right and the best party to govern and that the affairs of the country were safe in the hands of Fianna Fáil. This can be stated by the Taoiseach, but I believe that if his own backbenchers spoke their minds they would at least say that never has a Government in this country had such a low rating.
Of course, the economic situation has been overshadowed by certain events, some manufactured or caused by the Government, others over which they have no absolute control. In recent times the economic situation and debate on it has been overshadowed by the insistence of the Government and the Minister for Justice in this House on pushing through the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill. Of course, the country also, without knowing a lot of the details, is preoccupied with thinking about and speaking in private conversation about the prospect of membership of EEC.
As far as the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill is concerned, in the normal course of events I would not expect that the Taoiseach would intervene at certain stages in order to show absolute support for the proposals of the Minister for Justice, but this was a different piece of legislation. This was a piece of legislation about which people had deep feelings, where the deep feeling was demonstrated over a long period and particularly in the last few weeks by the Press. The Taoiseach mentioned this morning the editorials in the Irish Times in particular. He should also have a look, when he has time during a lunch break or some time tonight, at the editorial which appears in the Irish Independent. I have not seen the Cork Examiner. There has not been any editorial comment from the Irish Press. “Not an Inch” is the heading of the editorial in the Irish Times. It has an ominous ring. Without my having to quote from various parts of it I think it does, indeed, demonstrate the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party not alone towards the minority in this House who now happen to be the Opposition but to many other people as well. That is the reason why I comment on the fact that the Taoiseach did not intervene nor did he make any mention of it this morning. I do not think the Government have yet realised, certainly the Minister for Justice has not realised, the damage they are doing, the damage they have done, particularly yesterday, in going ahead despite opposition not alone from the people I have mentioned—the Press, Members of this House—but from the general public as well. Mark you, the editorials are, in the main, designed, I believe to reflect the feeling of people in the country.
The use of the guillotine, as I said last night, was scandalous for this or any Government. There have been complaints about long speeches, particularly speeches by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy FitzGerald on section 4. I would suggest to the Taoiseach, and maybe he would bear this in mind when the Minister for Justice or any of his other Ministers come in here to promote legislation in this House, that they should, as has been the practice up to recent years, stay for as long as they can in this House in order to hear comment from the Opposition. I do not think it is good enough that we should have the attitude conveyed in this House by backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party that no matter what you say or no matter how long you take to say it we have a majority and we will steamroll this piece of legislation, this amendment or this section, through. That is not, to me, indicative of democratic discussion.
If the Minister for Justice had listened to some of these speeches, and I do not believe he even read them afterwards, he might have had second thoughts, if not about all the Bill, about certain sections in it. I think he would also have saved the taxpayers of this country the expense that I am pretty confident will surely be incurred when the constitutionality of this Bill comes to be contested in the courts. Here he had legal arguments as to why certain amendments should be made and certain deletions should be made. When this Bill comes before the courts to test its constitutionality the arguments of the two gentlemen I have mentioned—Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy FitzGerald—and various other Members will be repeated at the expense of the taxpayers. But the Minister for Justice, who is now in receipt of something like £6,500 a year, had not time to avail of the opportunity to hear arguments from people who get £2,500 a year.
There has been criticism of the length of the debate. People are shedding crocodile tears because we are sitting into August. I have been in this House long enough to remember how long Fianna Fáil wanted to discuss certain legislation and motions, and how long they wanted to spend on Adjournment Debates over the past 25 or 26 years. It was not unusual to sit into August. In the first year of the first inter-Party Government the Dáil sat through the 6th, 7th or 8th of August—I forget which of those dates but it was at least until the 6th August.
The Government and the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party believe that, as soon as the month of August arrives, we should all shut our mouths and give them the legislation that is being discussed. We deprecate the use of the guillotine. If time is running out, as has been suggested, could we not sit longer in the week? Three years ago on behalf of the Labour Party, I suggested certain reforms to enable this Parliament to work much more efficiently and effectively than has been the case in recent years. For example, we suggested that the weekly sittings should be longer. Particularly in the past five or six months the Government availed of every opportunity not to have a Dáil sitting on particular days.
I suggest that that proposal should be given serious consideration by the Government. The British Parliament sits from Monday to Friday. Westminster can sit four and five days in the week and, if we are to have serious and effective debates on a measure such as the Forcible Entry Bill, we should give ourselves time and, as I said, the Government should not be shedding crocodile tears and throwing in the face of the Labour Party the staff of this House who are members of the trades union movement. Of course, the Government forget their lack of concern for the staff during the long debate in May, 1970. It was only because of the—I will not say insistence —persuasion by a Member of this party that some members of the staff got some compensation for the long hours they had to spend here, particularly the Official Reporters.
It is not good enough for the Government to accuse us of either filibustering or prolonging the debate because since it was introduced—if the first week in August was the deadline —they had ample time to have all Stages of the Forcible Entry Bill debated. The guillotine has an ominous ring about it. What I am afraid of is that in future somebody else, or the present Ceann Comhairle, will act as he did yesterday and refer back to the precedent of 4th August, 1971, in effect giving himself licence by referring to that precedent to do whatever he likes, or whatever the Government like, to stifle any contribution from the Opposition.
I do not want to dwell on the implications of the Bill but a few simple questions must be asked and have been asked in the editorials to which I referred: why the rush to get it through? Why go into recess now? Why the deadline of 6th August? I have a suspicion, which I hope can be disproved by the Taoiseach, that the Government want to go into recess and have a long recess so that they may have government by order or government by edict. We saw a relatively small example of that—but with big repercussions for those involved—in the introduction of the order which completely wiped out the payment of unemployment assistance.
I also have a suspicion that during the Recess the Government or the Taoiseach may intend to introduce internment without trial. I am asking the Taoiseach now to recall the Dáil in that type of situation. If he has decided now, or if he decides during the Recess, that internment without trial should be introduced, that must not be done while the Dáil is in recess. It must not be done without adequate discussion and consultation within this House.
I mentioned that the economic picture has been more or less blotted out by certain events, including the prospect of Ireland becoming a member of the European Economic Community. We were regarded as being somewhat eccentric or troublesome over the past ten years when we expressed our opposition to Ireland becoming a full member of the EEC and when we expressed our fears about what will happen if we become a full member. We were ridiculed in the same way when the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was discussed during a special sitting of the House. At that time we were told we were traitors.
In recent months a Government Minister described those who oppose full membership of the EEC for Ireland as traitors and enemies of the country. Now we see that more and more people are becoming more and more concerned about our terms of entry. It may be a little too late, because the Government have lulled many people into believing that, as soon as we become a full member, everything will be all right and that they would be very tough in their bargaining. Of course that has not happened. People are concerned, but the blase Minister for Foreign Affairs does not appear to be concerned and his attitude is reflected in the attitude of the other members of the Government.
The trade unions of this country are concerned and they are the people who will be vitally affected. Many of the unions are holding special conferences to make up their minds on what course of action they should take in certain eventualities. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, to which the Taoiseach paid a fitting tribute this morning, will also hold a special conference. Whether or not the full terms of entry will be available when these conferences are held, I do not know. As I said, we were told that we were the odd men out, that we were the troublemakers, that we were against everything.
The fishermen of Ireland are beginning to think now. They are beginning to appreciate the damage that can be done to their livelihood by full membership of the EEC unless their interests can be protected. The fishermen of Ireland are not irresponsible. They are certainly not affiliated to the Labour Party. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, I am certain, have no affiliations with the Labour Party, but they also have expressed more than reservations about what appeared to be the terms that will be negotiated or are being negotiated, for fisheries in Brussels. Bord Iascaigh Mhara have said to the fishermen of Ireland, to the Government and to the Irish people that they should not give away their present fishing rights. I think that is a very clear message which the Minister for Foreign Affairs does not appear to have got yet.
I would like to ask him, if he intervenes in this debate, or the Taoiseach when he concludes, what is our position with regard to fisheries and to ask him the blunt question: Is there going to be a special deal for Norway? Will there be a permanent arrangement for Norway whereby she will have a greater limit than this country would have even during the transitional period? It has been suggested that there would be a limit of six miles for this country and again we are not certain whether or not this would be a permanent arrangement or obtain only for the transitional period, although the attitude again of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as far as fisheries are concerned is, "Look, let us agree to this, whatever it is"—I assume he means the six miles—" and then let us negotiate when we get into the EEC."
The Taoiseach spoke in glowing terms about the prospects for agriculture, and I suppose that if one had regard to the weather and so on in the country over the past six months, one would say that as far as this year is concerned, the farmers can do pretty well, but apart from that, we who were the eccentrics and described as traitors and enemies of the State have now in our company, even though they may not share our opinions entirely, the National Farmers Association who are now not so enthusiastic as they were two or three years ago or during the period in which our application lay dormant in Brussels, because their president came back from a European farmers organisation conference and appeared, and I think said he was, worried indeed as to what would happen Irish agriculture. He is concerned at the way the Irish negotiations are being conducted. We were the odd man out 12 months and even two years ago, and I am glad to notice, from their speeches and from contributions made at their Ard-Fheis, that Fine Gael are also concerned about the terms of entry, and as far as I can gather—I may be wrong in this—they have said that they will not make a final decision until the full terms of entry are known. Our concern is also about the terms of entry because our economy frankly, in our opinion and in my opinion, is underdeveloped.
We are concerned at the lack of a regional policy because above all the other countries, and particularly the applicant countries, there is none which needs a regional policy as much as this country does. We want a regional policy in order that we can further develop this country and not run into what would be tantamount to industrial disaster. It is ironic that in Britain, considered here to be a pretty well developed country industrially, the Labour Party is opposed to the terms of entry, again because of lack of regional policy, a regional policy that might be of some benefit to areas like Scotland, Wales and the north-eastern part of England. They are also concerned at the lack of a regional policy and this is one of the reasons they made the decision the other day not to give their support until they saw the final terms.
We have been chided also from the Fianna Fáil benches that the socialist parties of the EEC countries have not shown any opposition to EEC. They are concerned—they are also concerned about regional policy. There is no point in anybody telling us that the Treaty of Rome provides for such and there is nobody in the Community now pretending that there is one, in fact. I would like, if we are being twitted about our socialism and our connection with the socialist parties of Europe, to quote two paragraphs from a document by the Italian socialists who appears also to be concerned about the way Italy has developed since membership of the EEC, but again without the application of a regional policy. I quote from a submission of the Italian socialists at a congress of the social democratic parties in Russia. It says:
The customs union which has provided the great capitalistic companies with a larger market, thus enabling them to make better use of their production capacity than was possible on a national scale led to an intensive process of industrial concentration, and has also favoured temporary and permanent emigration on a massive scale from the economically depressed areas to the more developed regions without ensuring a substantial improvement of the social order.
It goes on to say:
The enormous increase in trade within the Community and with nonmember States which has facilitated the expansion of the European economy and helped to improve the standard of living of the European people has also widened the gap between different regions and social classes.
It appears to me therefore that if there is not a regional policy and if that regional policy is not applied to Ireland, we may find ourselves in the same situation as parts of Italy and, as they now are, Scotland, Wales and even the West of Ireland. If the Treaty of Rome provides for a regional policy, I think our negotiators should also press for this.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed concern—at what stage he expressed that concern I do not know —when he announced recently that he had submitted a paper on regional policy and the necessity of such for Ireland. Where that is going to go in the files in Brussels I do not know, but in any case I think we can legitimately criticise, from what we know from the Government, the way in which they have negotiated. The Taoiseach this morning talked about negotiations and about the car assembly industry. There are thousands employed there at present, and according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as far as their jobs are concerned, they will have a reprieve for so many years. That is a good thing, but there are other industries in the country which are vulnerable and there is no indication from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, from the Taoiseach or from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the negotiators give a damn about the people employed in these industries. It is not real negotiation. We were given to believe, as I said some time ago, that where an industry appeared to be vulnerable in a particular district, the Fianna Fáil cumainn were assured that there would be special negotations in order to get a good deal for them, in order to ensure that they would last. It is difficult to know in any case how our negotiators are doing their job in Brussels and what sort of information they give to Brussels as far a the economy of this country is concerned.
I have here a document, an information document, the product of the European Economic Community and perhaps the Tánaiste would try to get hold of it. It is called "The Facts" and on page 22, there are tables giving, as they say, some international comparison figures for 1969. This document has been produced by the information service of the EEC and it purports to give facts about the six member States and the four applicant countries. I presume the facts in regard to Ireland were given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, therefore, they should know all about us. How they can be aware of facts concerning Ireland if they are dependent on the kind of information contained in this booklet?
On page 22 of this booklet there is an item headed "Some international comparisons for the year, 1969". There are errors in this but they have not been corrected. We must not forget that this booklet is read by people in all countries in Europe, if not throughout the world, and it is certainly read by the Governments of the EEC countries and the four applicant states. In this publication our gross national product is given as 3,000 million dollars; I have checked this matter and have found it should be 3.5 thousand million dollars. Our imports for 1969 are given as 416 million dollars, instead of 1,413 million dollars. This booklet gives Ireland's exports in 1969 as 203 million dollars when, in fact, they were 891 million dollars.
Is this typical of the state of our economy? I would suggest to the Tánaiste that he should look at this document and check if the facts are right or wrong. I submit the facts are wrong, that the document should be withdrawn, and an apology should be demanded by the Irish Government.
I said at the beginning of my speech I did not share the optimism of the Taoiseach so far as the economy is concerned. Unemployment now is greater than it was this time last year. In saying this I am not armed with the statistics issued by the Department of the Taoiseach. There have been so many fiddles and changes recently it is difficult to know in precise terms the number of unemployed. However, I can see many more queuing up at the exchange in my home town, not with the prospect of employment but in order to draw the meagre allowance obtained through social welfare benefits.
Of course, there was the fiddle in regard to the dole. If the Taoiseach thinks there is less unemployment at the moment than existed last year he is mistaken. In addition, redundancies are running at about 5,000 per year. None of us wants to gloat about this, on the contrary, but we read every few days in the newspapers about the closure of factories. I know from investigation that this is the result of the decision the Government took in 1967 when they negotiated and signed the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. At that time we pointed out the industries that would be vulnerable and now we know we were right. With regard to the textile and footwear industries, there is fear among workers and management about the future.
I do not think the Taoiseach spoke about tourism but it would not be an exaggeration to say that so far as this industry is concerned it has been a disaster this year. Again, we do not need to wait for statistics from the Minister for Transport and Power. From travelling around the country one can see there are not the same number of British or foreign cars on the roads or parked outside hotels. I will not say the hotels are empty but there are not the same signs of the boom in the tourist industry evident four or five years ago.
People may say that the northern situation has been responsible for this decline but this is not the complete truth. To a large extent the blame lies with the Government, in particular with the Minister for Finance. Visitors from Britain in particular do not find Ireland attractive any more. What attracted these good spenders from Britain was the price of the pint, the bottle of stout, the bottle of ale, the price of spirits, of cigarettes and tobacco. However, since the introduction of the wholesale and turnover tax it is no longer attractive for these visitors to come here. I am not speaking about the people who bring over boats to sail on the Shannon or those who fish around the coast—although we are very glad to see those people— I am speaking about "the chap with the cap" who travels in a limited area and who looks forward to a few pints or a few half-ones at night time. The responsibility for the decline in this sector of the tourist trade lies with the Government, and with the Minister for Finance in particular.
There is also the problem of marketing. I do not think it would be unfair to say that so far as publicising the attractions of this country is concerned we have had very bad marketing. It was pathetic to hear the Minister for Transport and Power when questioned at the beginning of the year about tourist prospects saying that there was "no problem".
The Confederation of Irish Industry and the Economic and Social Research Institute produce a quarterly report which does not bear out the optimism of the Taoiseach in regard to our industries. This report suggests that industry is working below its labour capacity and it states "there is an increase in the number of firms who felt the level of exports was lower than for a similar period last year". According to this report a certain percentage of firms say they exported less in the first quarter of 1971 than in the quarter ended March, 1970.
The figure of 5,000 redundancies per year was given by the Minister for Labour. In the survey I have mentioned it is stated "there is a more pessimistic outlook than any recorded since the survey started in 1967". Incidentally, I would point out there is no affiliation between the group producing the survey and the Labour Party. I do not know whether we should believe those people who brief the Taoiseach or the people who are in industry who suggest that so far as the present year and the coming year are concerned the outlook is pessimistic.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the north. Before the Dáil meets again, unless the Taoiseach has a special session of it, he and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, will have met. I do not want to score any political points arising out of the questions that we had to the Taoiseach over the last two years but it seems very peculiar that last October the Taoiseach was in New York at the United Nations and there he met Mr. Heath and they solemnly decided they would meet again in 12 months time in October. I cannot understand the reason for the delay nor can I understand the reason why it was kept such a secret because it was only when a question was tabled by Deputy John O'Connell and myself last week that we got this information.
We have advocated this type of meeting for 18 months. We remember the attitude of the Taoiseach when we questioned him about his proposed visit to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, in May, 1970. He did not appear to be too concerned to press for such a meeting. However, I am not making any point of that nor do I intend to pursue the matter.
I want to say, as far as I and my party are concerned, if this mission is to promote peace and reform we welcome the meeting. Unhappily it is true before this meeting takes place there will be a long and difficult period and there is likely to be further trouble, unfortunately of a grave character, because all of us recognise the significance of the date, the 12th of August and this can be a very dangerous date indeed. It can be most dangerous if the apprentice boys' parade is allowed to proceed. I, like Deputy Cosgrave, hope it will not be allowed because we know now the terrible dangers that could arise and we know the terrible trouble that occurred on a similar occasion two years ago.
The danger of this situation was impressed on the members of the Labour Party who met them by the Social Democratic and Labour Party. According to the Taoiseach in his replies to questions he is also aware of those dangers and he says he has conveyed his concern about the holding of the parade to the British Government. We in turn have impressed on senior members of the British Labour Shadow Cabinet the danger there would be if this parade goes on. We did this in the hope that if Mr. Heath decided that the parade should be cancelled he would know that the British Labour Party Opposition would support him and so offset any defections by right wing Unionists and their friends in the north of this country.
I am bound to say, however, even if the parade is cancelled there still may be dangers and maybe for different reasons. The march might be attempted. We have seen things like that happen before. Marches have been held even though officially banned. There are too many grounds for fearing that by October, when this meeting will take place, that the situation will be worse than it is now, even though all of us hope and pray that it will not be. It might be suggested, as I have, that Mr. Heath and the Taoiseach might have met earlier. When I say earlier I mean months ago but to insist now that they should meet between now and the 12th of August might have worse than negative results. If the result of such a meeting was the cancellation of the parade, the repercussions of this combination might be the reverse of what we want. Frankly, none of us wants trouble, none of us wants to provoke trouble.
I should say as well that in any case we should beware of expecting too much or indeed too little from this meeting between the British Prime Minister and our Taoiseach. It is also fair to say that no Prime Minister, whether he be a Stormont, a Westminster or a Dublin one is in full control of the situation in the North or even of the will and the actions of either of the communities up there. We know there are forces at work that have no respect for the three Prime Ministers, whether they be from Stormont, London or Dublin. We have got to face up to that sort of situation and think much more about it than we have in the past.
May I repeat, therefore, that we must not expect too much from this meeting? Some of the Irish newspapers and the British newspapers seem to suggest that these talks could produce a formula for the unity of Ireland. They cannot do that at that sort of meeting no more than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, could do it in August, 1969, when he made his submission to the United Nations Organisation. Unfortunately, there were people at that time who were glued to the radio expecting—we did not—that as a result of that submission, as a result of discussion at that particular meeting, the unity of Ireland could be obtained.
I am not criticising Deputy Dr. Hillery's effort at all. All I am trying to emphasise is that the unity of Ireland is not and cannot be around the corner as long as we have the situation that exists there at present. In any case anybody who hopes that negotiations between an Irishman and an Englishman can produce the unity of Ireland is indeed in grave error. It will only be by negotiation and understanding between Irishmen themselves that unity will be produced. The whole world can see how far we are away from that sort of agreement. We are seeing now the result of an attempted settlement imposed over 50 years ago, a settlement which was unacceptable to one-third of the population in Northern Ireland. Again, we have got to ask ourselves, particularly those of us in the South, what would be the result of an imposed settlement unacceptable to two-thirds of the population there. These are questions we should think about more seriously than we have in the past because, as I have had occasion to say, we did not care about the North for decades until we had the civil rights marches three and a half years ago.
We have also to ask ourselves if we want a north where one-third of the population are held in suppression. We do not and we in the Labour Party feel deeply about this. We have got to ask ourselves another question: Do we want a united Ireland where 1,000,000 Ulster Protestants would have to be held by force, whether by an Irish Army, a British Army or a contingent of soldiers from the United Nations? We do not. Or do we want a solution on the basis of driving one of the two communities out of the North? We do not.
Therefore, if we reject those outcomes, as I believe we do, then we must realise there is not an instant solution. If it is unity by consent we want, then we should not demand a unity which the other party do not even want to discuss. It is not because we desire the unity of the Irish people less than others. On the contrary, we desire it much more, and we have reason to know more about the situation in the North than those who make more noise about unity.
The trade union movement have shown how to unify workers for industrial objectives. They have tried it during a long period of years and it has been a slow, painful process which has been interrupted now and again by those who, under the pretext that they are defending one or other of the communities, use the gun to terrify the others. The very existence of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions testifies to a great deal of success by the trade union movement in the whole 32 Counties and I have seen my colleagues in the last three years demonstrate this at gatherings of the ICTU, specifically at annual conferences. I saw it in July this year, I saw it last year and the year before. I saw hundreds of Northern workers, the majority of them, I think Protestants, sitting for four days hammering out social and industrial policies not for the Twenty-six Counties but for the whole Thirty-two Counties. There was no bitterness or acrimony. There were Protestants and Catholics. That is an example of how by dialogue and conversation we can unite Irishmen.
The ICTU have been eminently successful in getting Protestants and Catholics together in a very difficult task, to unify workers on industrial policy. It is very much more difficult on political questions and we have got to face up to it as Irishmen that in many cases we are not guided by our heads but by our hearts and that when political questions are raised we tend to become emotional.
We hope that the emphasis in the discussions between the Taoiseach and Mr. Heath will be on reforms which will improve relations between the two Northern communities. Specifically, the need is for urgent reforms, establishing Catholics for the first time as fully equal citizens with Protestants. This requires that the minority have a share in political power proportionate to their numbers. That cannot be ignored any longer because if it is the present system will collapse.
I am not concerned about individuals in the Stormont Government. The Social Democratic and Labour Party have produced such proposals but have withdrawn from Stormont until such a principal of proportionate participation is put into operation.
There may be two points against that argument in favour of a share in political power proportionate to numbers as far as membership of Stormont is concerned. It may be said that any reforms suggested would arouse hostility among the Protestant community. This is unfortunately true among some Orange-men but not true about a greater number of Northern Protestants. Orange resentment is not sufficient to delay the principle of immediate reforms and the British Government should not be allowed to use this argument to delay reforms. For our part, the Dublin Government should help the introduction of these reforms by reassuring Northern Protestants that they will not be forced against their will into an Irish State.
The second objection may be that the time has gone for reforms. This has been suggested by some people in recent days—those who say the present atmosphere of violence is not conducive to the type of reform I have proposed. Some say that the only solution is the gun. I and my party have always resisted that. What is the situation when one-third of the people in the North are against the present system? What would it be if two-thirds were against it? I do not think there is room now for a drastic solution by either side. All we can hope and work for is that the Taoiseach should insist on reforms which will allow Catholic and Protestant, however grudingly, however suspiciously, to get together on equal terms. This would be a new departure for the North but it is the best hope for the people because the only unity worth having is unity by consent.
I have tried in my contribution on the Northern situation to avoid scoring political points in this very grave matter. However, there is one point I should like to relate to Twenty-six County politics and I propose to be very brief on it. We in this party repeatedly and vehemently have been accused by Fianna Fáil, by the Taoiseach and Members of his Government, of seeking to promote violence and anarchy. This is a suggestion which, seriously or in the heat of the moment, has been hurled across the House. It was done particularly during the last general election campaign when we were accused of being in favour of revolution.
If this were true we had ample opportunity of demonstrating it and exploiting it in the last two years. All we had to do was to encourage the dissidents of the Fianna Fáil Party and to encourage and to incite members of other semi-political parties or organisations. We could have encouraged the dissidents in Fianna Fáil by whipping up mass emotion in denouncing a peace policy as national treachery. These words must ring ominously in the ears of Fianna Fáil Deputies in this House.
We could have done that if we had been troublemakers. The whole country knows we have never attempted, particularly in the last two years, to try to get a single vote through the courageous stand of the Labour Party. The Taoiseach and the Government know that we favour peace and persuasion, peace by persuasion. He also knows we do not oppose him when he genuinely pursues a policy of peace. We have contributed towards all efforts to attain stability in a most difficult situation. We do not want credit for that. There is no political kudos to be gained from it. Sometimes, in certain quarters, the contrary is the case. In view of what has been said, in view of this malicious criticsm and these malicious attacks that have been made on us, we have the right and I, on behalf of my party, have the right to demand that these slanders should cease and that the Taoiseach should ensure that they cease.
Much more could be said about the North; much more could be said about the campaign on one side or the other or, should I say, on four or five different sides. I do not propose to delve into these things here today and I hope that in the time left for this debate nothing damaging will be said by any Member on either side of this House which would aggravate the situation there, a situation which could become so explosive in a very, very short time indeed. I hope that the meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, will be a step towards ultimate peace and unity, not alone in the Six but in the Thirty-two Counties.