Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 1958

Vol. 48 No. 15

Co-operation between Twenty-Six Counties and Six Counties—Motion.

Professor Stanford

I move:—

That Seanad Eireann requests the Government to set up a commission or to take other decisive and energetic steps to consider and report on the best means of promoting social, economic and cultural co-operation between the Twenty-Six Counties and the Six Counties.

That is the motion I have the privilege of proposing.

There is a significant and deliberate omission in the wording of this motion: there is no mention of politics. Why? The reason, I think, will be clear to everyone. It is this: because in the narrower sense of the word "politics", especially in matters of Government and matters of allegiance, there is—I think we would all probably agree now, rather reluctantly —no prospect of immediate co-operation with the Six Counties. In fact, I would say there has been no progress in the political sphere in the past 36 years, so far as reconciliation or conciliation are concerned. At the moment, there is no encouragement from the leaders of the Six Counties to try for closer political co-operation. So far as they are concerned, the political door is bolted and barred at present.

But it seems to me there are other doors open to unity of action, if not to unity of Government. These doors are standing open, I think, in matters of economic, social and cultural co-operation, and I hope to prove that these doors are open in a moment or two. In what follows, I shall make no reference at all to political matters, to matters of loyalty and allegiance. I shall make no reference at all to the ancient rights and wrongs of Irish history. I hope that others will refrain from referring to political and historical matters, too. I know we all feel very deeply on them and for good reason. But I am convinced that if this debate to-night is to serve a genuinely constructive purpose, it should avoid the political and historical approach. Let us enter by the open doors and not try to batter down the bolted door.

I shall now try to substantiate my opinion that the door to co-operation in economic, social and cultural matters is open. First—and perhaps it will suffice for complete proof—I shall offer a quotation from a speech by the Northern Ireland Prime Minister, Lord Brooke borough, as reported in the Irish Times of 14th November, 1957. He was speaking about the policy of the political leaders in Northern Ireland and this is some of what he said. I quote:—

"We"—he means the leaders of the Six-County Government—"have done everything in our power to achieve a situation in Ireland where North and South, each respecting the rights of the other to pursue its own destiny, could co-operate on a friendly basis in a way that would be advantageous to both."

In the rest of his speech, Lord Brookeborough made it very clear that the Unionist leaders would not consider any change in the present constitutional position, but his speech clearly indicates to me that in social, economic and cultural matters, rapprochement and co-operation between the Six Counties and ourselves is feasible, and feasible now. What I shall go on to argue is that we should seize this opportunity at once.

Many members of the Seanad may be thinking at the moment that in fact there is a good deal of co-operation along these lines already. Let me remind the Seanad of some of the forms which this co-operation takes. In economic matters we have had the joint work on the Foyle Fisheries; we have had the Erne hydro-electric scheme; we have had the co-operation —now not so happy as it was—in the G.N.R., all very definite examples of friendly and valuable co-operation.

In social matters, most of us know that, in athletics, there are many crossBorder organisations—Gaelic football, rugby football, hurling and a good many other forms of athletics—but unhappily—and this is one of the things our inquiry should look into—for obscure reasons, in other forms of athletics, there are differences, some of them quite recent. Why, for example, is there the animosity in cycling; why can we not unite in ploughing competitions? I do not know the precise answers to that. An inquiry could find out and tell us and perhaps heal the divisions.

In social and cultural matters, there has been some co-operation too and we have some excellent societies which have encouraged this co-operation. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my admiration, and possibly the admiration of other members of the House, for the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations. This is a most worthy body which has been working for many years to bring North of Ireland people and people from the Republic close together and they have to a very great extent succeeded. I do think that that is the kind of work we should study and encourage.

Again, the Churches, of course, both Catholic and Protestant, recognise no border, that is the major Churches—a very striking point. Some business firms, I think, extend both ways across the Border, but fewer far than there used to be. That seems to be a subject for inquiry, too.

In education, there is a paradoxically happy situation in many ways. One might think that, in education, the separateness would be most forced and most rigorously exacted. One would think wrong, for, as a matter of fact, good education, higher education, is on the side of unity and friendliness. It is the half-educated, not the uneducated—very often the uneducated are as sensible as the educated—who like the divisions and enmities, in my opinion, and that seems to be borne out by the position at the moment. It is a very remarkable thing that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation recognises no border. In the universities, there is some very close co-operation. There is one very striking example which may not be familiar to members of the House. It is this: Magee University College in Derry is closely affiliated to Trinity College, Dublin, as well as to Queen's University, and every year sends us some excellent North of Ireland students to finish their courses in Trinity College, Dublin—very striking, considering that most of their grants come from the Northern Government. Yet, there has been no successful attempt, and I doubt if there has been any serious attempt, to break the connection between Trinity and Derry in that way.

Also, North of Ireland scholarships, county council scholarships and others, are, I believe, tenable in National University. They certainly are in Trinity. There also are some interuniversity societies which foster meetings between professors of most universities, both North and South.

As Senator O'Quigley said at a meeting of the Seanad last December, we should, and could, do a great deal more to promote this most useful form of co-operation and working together in the universities. Here I should like to quote from a very striking and encouraging article which has been produced by a young Irishman within the last couple of months. I refer to an article by Mr. Donal Barrington called "Uniting Ireland" which was originally published in Studies, in the winter number of 1957, which has now been published separately as the first of the Tuairim pamphlets published by the Tuairim Association. If anyone in this House has not read it, I do urge them to read it with care. It is a most salutary and sensible article from a young man. It is a most encouraging phenomenon in our time. This is what he says about promoting unity in education:—

"In the educational field, there are already some points of contact. Both Unionist and Nationalist students attend Queen's University, Belfast, which seems to help in fostering an increasingly enlightened approach to Northern politics. Moreover, several hundred Unionist students come to Dublin each year to study at Trinity College, which can, and does play, an important part in bringing Irishmen together."

I should perhaps mention that Mr. Barrington is a graduate of University College, Dublin, the National University. He goes on to say:—

"A corresponding number of Northern Nationalists come to study at University College, Dublin. This makes it all the greater pity that there is so little contact between two universities which are not a quarter of a mile apart."

He means, of course, the two universities in Dublin.

"Each university has its own tradition and there may be important reasons why each should retain its independence. But there seems to be a strong case on political, economic and academic grounds for closer co-operation between the two universities, particularly in the faculties of Arts, Law, Medicine and Science."

That co-operation bears directly on the unity we desire to foster. It happens that most of the 300 odd Northern Ireland students in Trinity College are probably of Unionist extraction and that most of those who go to the National University are of Nationalist extraction. If they could meet within the orbit of the two universities, it would do much to promote intellectual understanding between both sides of the Border. What is essentially desirable in all these organisations is that Nationalist and Unionist, Catholic and Protestant, should work and play, learn and teach, earn and spend, together in a friendly atmosphere. It is the difference of lives, not the difference of laws, that is real partition. The universities could do much to change that difference of lives.

I mention three other forms of co-operation which already exist. I am sure our hearts were warmed—and I know the hearts of Northern Ireland people were warmed—on the two occasions and I think, probably more, that our fire brigades went to the rescue in the case of fires across the Border. A narrow stupid politician would say: "Do not cross the Border." None of us took that point of view. From the point of view of friendship, those two cross-Border forays have done a great deal of good indeed.

Here is another example—not an entirely happy one and I shall not emphasise it: our police have worked together on certain occasions. If that has a political reference, I shall not dwell on it. However, it shows that the machinery of co-operation exists in various ways.

The schools at the Border show evidence of striking co-operation. I quote from the Irish Times of 30th December, 1957, in which there is an article which says that, out of 91 pupils in Northern Ireland at a voluntary school in County Derry, 73 were from the Republic. In other words, the Northern Ireland Government was paying for 73 students of the Republic and apparently not greatly objecting to it. Similarly, there are a few schools of ours along the Border which receive students from Northern Ireland and no hard words are spoken and, as far as I know, no complaints are made. That is a very sensible arrangement.

In my reference to schools, perhaps I may refer also to a remarkable fact brought to light by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien in an article in the same number of Studies. It is a small thing, but I think it is very significant. He tells that in a Protestant school in the Six Counties, a class of 26 boys aged from 13 to 14 years was asked to write an essay on Ireland. They were expected to comment on unity or Partition, whatever their point of view was. The result was this. Nine of those boys were positively in favour of unification in principle. One was positively against it and the rest were non-committal. It is remarkable that of the ten boys who expressed a positive opinion, nine were in favour of re-unification in principle.

It is clear that a fair amount of co-operation already exists in social, cultural and economic matters. Some of it is a survival from pre-Treaty days, —the Churches, athletics, university co-operation to same extent. On the other hand, most of the post-Treaty efforts at co-operation have, to my mind, been scattered and opportunistic, almost casual. These post-Treaty efforts have been designed to deal with crises as they arose, not planned in advance. That is the reason why I am proposing this motion, primarily. If thought and planning were applied to the present situation, it seems to me that there could be very much improvement.

The aim, then, of the proposed inquiry would be to study the existing forms of co-operation and explore how others could be developed—to consider why some kinds of co-operation have failed and other kinds have succeeded, and to explore further possibilities. The House may wonder what are the other possibilities and wonder whether I can give specific cases where co-operation is urgently called for— cases which the Northern Ireland people would recognise as demanding attention. I think I can mention a few, though I shall not dwell on them. The first, as the Taoiseach has already suggested, is the tourist trade, as separation on that is doing us harm. We could have much better propaganda, if we could advertise tourism for the whole country. Secondly, in matters of transport—I am afraid that the news in the newspapers about transport is rather sad in so far as one of our main arteries of unity has just been blocked. I am not commenting here on a matter of policy, but on the need for co-operation in matters of transport and communication.

Matters of agriculture obviously need joint study. Take, for instance, the marketing of Irish goods abroad. Then there is the most promising plan of the Minister for Industry and Commerce for all-Ireland free trade. It is full of difficulties, of course, but it is a most promising plan in theory, and I hope he will go far with it.

Lastly, and perhaps most important, Ireland as a whole—North and South— should consider its joint responsibilities and possibilities in the face of the proposed European Free Trade Area. We are obviously a unit, economically, as far as Europe is concerned, and we should really think together on this matter. I think the Northern Ireland economists realise they will have to think with us as well as with Britain on that proposed free trade area.

Here, now, is the essence of my argument. This motion aims at substituting a policy of planned and progressive co-operation for the present opportunistic and casual co-operation in economic, social and cultural matters.

Now, I think, we come to the crucial question. Will the Northern Unionists welcome such an effort, or will they regard any attempt at planned co-operation of this nature as a kind of Trojan Horse for the destruction of the northern citadel? That, I think, is the crucial question. Here, we should examine our own motives—our own motives in this House and the motives of people in the Republic as a whole.

If we in this House and in the Republic regard unity of life and unity of work as less important than political unity, less important than unity of Government, then all efforts of the kind I am suggesting would be futile and insincere and the Northern Ireland people, I think, would rightly reject them. Surely we have enough sense to see, especially in the light of our own relations with Great Britain, that friendly neighbourliness is better than a strained or forced political unity?

I speak perhaps with some sympathy in this matter. I was born in Belfast. I have spent most of my life in the Republic and my ancestors, going a good way back, have come from the Twenty-Six Counties. Therefore, I can perhaps see both sides a bit. My own view is that if full economic, social and cultural co-operation could be achieved, the problem of political organisation would solve itself. I would even go so far as to say it would hardly matter. It is unity of life, not unity of law, that I consider supreme.

To return to the crucial question: Will the Northern Ireland Unionists welcome and support any efforts we may make to achieve the co-operation I suggest? Well, it is anyone's guess, I suppose; but I think that there is a fair chance. I have already quoted what Lord Brookeborough said. He has said he is prepared to "co-operate on a friendly basis in matters of mutual advantage". That is clear enough. Besides, I would bank on this —the Northern Unionists are sensible and businesslike people. If there are practical advantages to be gained, they will join.

I would hope that they would regard this motion and its results, if they are positive, in the light of business talks, business joint conferences. I should like them to think of themselves as one big business firm and of us as another big business firm. We would like to amalgamate: they do not want to amalgamate; we are both doing the same business to a great extent; we can do things by consultation and co-operation to the benefit of both firms. It seems to me that, in terms of business practice, it is an attractive proposition. They know we want amalgamation; we know they do not want amalgamation. We can accept that position. Certainly, in my own mind, in making the present proposal, I would say it means absolutely no political commitments to any Northern Ireland Unionist who comes and helps us—absolutely no political commitments. We would have to emphasise that in our invitation.

We may hope, then, I think, that the people of Northern Ireland may be inclined to co-operate for purely practical reasons—to co-operate, as Lord Brookeborough put it, "on a friendly basis in a way that would be advantageous to both".

To return to the inquiry, if we agree that it is worth undertaking and may lead to some success, we must give serious thought to the way it will work. How should it go about its job? First of all, much of the success of such an inquiry will depend on the personnel, on the people who are working together on it. Something more than intelligence, more than good judgment and more than experience will be needed in this inquiry. We need people of varied loyalties, varied points of view, from both the North and the South, if it is really to succeed. If a group of ourselves from the Republic get together and put ideas from our point of view, they probably will not work—unless some of us prove to be unusually imaginative and unusually sympathetic. If we have a genuine representation from the Unionists of Northern Ireland, there is a chance that it will work—and, in fact, the very participation will be a practical form of co-operation and unity, even if it got no further. Therefore, if possible, we certainly should have some Northern Unionists, not necessarily politicians— perhaps not politicians—but they should be true-blue Northern Unionists, as members of the inquiry. It would be no use having just Northern Nationalists and people from the Republic—no use at all, I think.

There is another class of persons living in this country—and their numbers are increasing—which I think we should enlist in an inquiry of this kind and in other inquiries. These people have been neglected, for fairly obvious reasons, but I suggest we are being foolish in not including them. The retiring age for members of the British Colonial Service and the British Service in general is now rather low. Dozens of highly trained, highly experienced British Colonial administrators are coming to live in Dublin and in Ireland. If we can enlist the service of one or two of these from time to time, I think their experience and intelligence would be extremely valuable. We all probably can name some of them—ex-chief justices, ex-colonial secretaries, and so on. We may not like these titles, but they are good men; they are lovers of Ireland; and they are citizens of our country, eager to serve. I should like to see them serving not merely in an inquiry of this kind but in many other spheres.

The make-up of the inquiry, then, as I see it—perhaps a commission, perhaps something else—should be people of varied loyalties, varied points of view and people of varying professions —businessmen, farmers, teachers, scientists, labour representatives, writers, lawyers, industrialists, economists and so on—not primarily political at all costs. There may also be a few politicians, either part-time or whole-time, if you like, but they must be politicians who are prepared to cut out politics in that sense as far as this inquiry is concerned, if it is to succeed. If the political slant is brought in, if an attempt is made to construct a Trojan Horse out of this inquiry, we will be wasting our time and might as well drop it.

How will they go to work if we get them together? As I suggested, they will study the existing successes—like the Irish Rugby Football Union, the G.A.A., the Churches, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and so on—how did they succeed when others failed? They will analyse the sources of failure, in activities like international cycling and ploughing. Why have they failed? They will explore the possible developments I have mentioned. They will publish a genuinely constructive and realistic report, a report looking to the present and to the future, a report which does not refer to and does not even think of past grievances. The watchword of the inquirers, I suggest, should be: "Planned and Progressive Co-operation."

There is a parallel to this kind of thing and it may be worth our while thinking of it for a moment or two. The Council of Europe at Strasbourg in its early days thought that a federation of Europe would come quickly, that there would be a united states of Europe. At least, many members of the council hoped for that and the United States of America, I know, was pressing very strongly in 1951 for a united states of Europe right away. I had some things to say on the matter —they were not popular, but I said them—because I thought at that time a united states of Europe was hopeless —and in fact that was so.

The Council of Europe at Strasbourg might have folded up fairly quickly when they found that a united states of Europe was not going to come quickly. There was no advance on the constitutional line, but they very sensibly did something else. They turned to economic co-operation, social co-operation and cultural co-operation, leaving aside the political and constitutional issues. In six or seven years, they have produced very remarkable feats of unity in those spheres. We have the remarkable union of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in Benelux, working very close together. Now there are six nations, some of them formerly bitter, hereditary enemies— the Germans, the French and the Italians—working together in the closest economic co-operation. We have other examples in the cultural sphere and in the social sphere, examples of genuine European co-operation in those spheres where political co-operation was impossible. Similarly in Ireland at the moment, advance on the political line is held up. Advance on the other lines could be, I think, just as quick as in the Council of Europe and just as effective if we planned it and worked it in the right way.

I must say something personal here. It was a very great inspiration and encouragement to me when I went into the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1951 and saw hereditary enemies go in side by side together—the Germans and the French, the Greeks and the Turks, the English and the Irish, with their flags flying together on the same building—because they had agreed to work together in matters where co-operation was possible, in economic and social matters as well as in cultural matters. That could quickly happen in Ireland if we went about it in a similar way.

I have not very much more to say. Other members of the Seanad will, I feel sure, add their arguments to what I have said and some will produce arguments against it. I shall be eager to hear what they have to say and shall be glad to reply. I should like to emphasise this: I want to repeat my firm conviction—I have had a year to think over this, and so has the Seanad, because this motion was put down in January of 1957—that an energetic move of this kind is at least worthy of trial now in 1958.

It is over 100 years since Thomas Davis offered Ireland a policy, if not a plan, for an Ireland united in mind and purpose. No Government in this country has had the courage or the wisdom to make his conciliatory policy a reality. We have tried arguments; we have tried threats; we have tried hostile propaganda. All have failed. They have done more harm than good. After 36 years should we now not try, as this motion suggests, to think out a better way?

Mr. Cole

I formally second Senator Stanford's motion. It is rather difficult for me to speak after the Senator and my remarks on the motion will be brief. The motion suggests that we leave all aspects of politics, and possibly geography, out of the question and that we concentrate instead on attaining a renewal of friendship between ourselves and the people of Northern Ireland through the promotion of the social and cultural gifts which are common to us, North and South. Those are the terms of the motion.

If we examine the position that obtains at present it seems there are three alternatives facing us. The first one I do not wish to deal with. The second alternative is to look for all or nothing, and the third is to adopt the motion proposed by Senator Stanford and to carry out its proposals. To my mind, these are not really alternatives. There is not one of them we can accept at the present time if we are to live in harmony with Northern Ireland but the last one— the motion of Senator Stanford. Unfortunately, there are several things, several voices, that rather hinder us from carrying out the terms of the motion. The first is that there are people in this part of the country and in the North who wish to continue, and who do continue, to give utterance to spiteful and hurtful references on every possible occasion against the other part. How often do we see in our own national newspapers—and I make no exceptions—very good articles spoiled by perhaps an exaggerated reference, perhaps an unnecessary reference and sometimes even an insulting reference, to the other part of the country?

Those are the things that will hinder a commission of the sort suggested here. How often do we find in the newspapers a report of a speech made by a county council back-bencher or by some unimportant person at a street corner, a speech that may be insulting and the importance of which may be exaggerated in our newspapers to such an extent that it seems to be the policy of the part of the country in which it is made?

Recently, the Taoiseach appealed for greater co-operation between this country and Northern Ireland. Possibly in reply to that speech the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland made a speech in which he made reference to closer relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I have not got the reference at the moment but I should like to quote briefly from that speech:—

"For many years I have advocated co-operation between ourselves and the Republic based on the recognition of each Government. I believe that a new spirit would prevail if that were accepted."

Later, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said: "I repeat, we are prepared to work with the Republic on the basis I have previously outlined."

Those suggestions, coming immediately after the Taoiseach's appeal, form the essence of what we look for in this motion. There you have both sides aiming towards the same thing. Even though these two speeches did not at the time get the display they were entitled to in the newspapers, they show there is a feeling on both sides and that there is a demand on both sides for social, economic and cultural co-operation. There are certain sections in the country who are prepared to barter this co-operation for perhaps a few votes at an election or for cheap applause at a meeting.

Surely our patriotism or nationalism means a little more than spiteful references, references which have never succeeded in getting us anywhere and which will be always irritating. Could it not mean that we would like instead to co-operate with our neighbours and with the whole world for that matter and to share our economic, social and cultural gifts with them? How often have we found—and I make no apology for making this reference—that things are said with the object of trying to do something in the name of the Churches, in the name of religion? So much is said with an appeal to religion behind it which, to my mind, has no reference to religion at all. I am reminded of a supposed saying of an Archbishop of Canterbury years ago who was faced with execution. He had previously been a great supporter of the King and he is reputed to have said: "If I served my God as I have served my King, He would not have deserted me in later days." I feel many of us in this country might say at some future date that if we had served our God as we have served our Church we might be much better off. Finally, I would ask the Seanad to support this motion and try to accept it in the letter and in the spirit.

Mr. Barry

Senator Professor Stanford's resolution has my sympathy and my support, my sympathy because I think he will get only verbal enthusiasm for his proposal, and my support because it is never too soon to begin thinking on right lines.

I doubt if a commission would be the most useful way of setting about this work. I believe there are more direct methods at hand. As a back-bencher in Dáil Éireann three years ago I made four proposals to the then Government. I said we should set up a trade commission in Belfast, invite northern people to set up a trade commission in Dublin, admit goods of Northern Ireland origin at the lowest possible tariff, and build our ships on the banks of the Lagan. I knew, of course, what I said would not be listened to and I tried to sit back and find out why what seemed to be simple and elementary things that should be done could not even be considered; what sleep-walking dream we were in down here that had let this problem grow and become more insoluble as the years went by. I decided it was really because the big Parties in this Republic are completely bound by the set pattern of the past as imposed upon them, and that, I think, is the greatest tragedy of our time. Some of our leaders have been there quite a long time; the nature of the revolution has meant that the majority of the men in our Parliament who took part in the revolution are still in Parliament; young men have not found it easy to get into that Parliament, and young ideas and new ideas cannot find a place to flourish.

I was very glad that Senator Stanford referred to the Barrington Pamphlet. I was very much impressed by it and any Senator who has not read it should do so. I agree with him that in any of our dealings with the people in the North we should certainly give no impression that we are attempting to create or use a Trojan Horse. We should talk to them as Irishmen without any double talk, but, above all, we should work with them. After all, we do play with them and it works out pretty well and I think they like playing with us. We should buy goods from them and sell our goods to them, and we should certainly have our ships built by their workmen.

From now on we should abandon all the catch-cries, and if we do all these things we might escape from the straitjacket that history has imposed upon all of us down here and up there as well. We are told the Orangeman is very set in his ways and cannot change. But the world is changing and I think we have changed a bit ourselves down here. Can anybody tell us what the next five years will bring? In Europe there is a changing pattern in many spheres, economic, defensive and national, and it will affect us. May I say for Senator Stanford's comfort, in case he gets depressed by the reception his motion receives, that he should keep going because as somebody once said: "Even in Ireland the impossible frequently comes to pass."

Mr. Murphy

As a Senator representing the trade union movement, I must rise to support this motion. It is a fact that the Irish T.U.C. caters for unions with members on both sides of the Border and in spite of Partition it has been possible for delegates from these various unions, North and South, to co-operate. Probably the most important and encouraging development in that respect is that there is every chance that the split in the trade union movement will be healed on the basis of having affiliation from unions catering for all workers, whether they come from the North or the South and that there will be one congress of trade unions in Ireland irrespective of any Border. It is in the light of that background and of the fact that the T.U.C. has, year after year, called on the two Governments to co-operate on social and economic problems that I rise to support the motion.

I think that our difficulty on this side of the Border in regard to co-operation is a fear that, by co-operating with the people in the North, we in some way recognise the existence of a separate Parliament, a separate State, and in some way prejudice our own stand on the question of the unity of the country. I do not want to go into what might be termed the political problems. Senator Stanford is very wise to advise that we should not go into that aspect, but I would like to say that this fear of co-operating with the other people has had the unfortunate result that the barrier of the Border seems to be rising higher and higher year after year. Any of us who have experience of the North and the South must get that unfortunate impression, that, as year follows year, we are tending to drift farther apart. If we do not face up to the problem, if we do not overcome our fears in this respect, then it will be more difficult, to put it at its mildest, to get genuine co-operation between both parts of the country.

It could be that we suffer from another sort of fear, a political fear in the sense of the Party political problems. None of us wants to say anything that might hurt people who have extreme views, but I think we shall have to have courage and I think it would require courage, courage which is there for the asking—not physical courage but moral courage—to face up to this problem and to say, irrespective of what blame may be put on us or what odium may be cast on us—we might be called unpatriotic or anti-nationalist—that we in the Seanad are in favour of the utmost co-operation between both parts of the country. We should say that we are not afraid to take the initiative, perhaps to face snubs, and to keep on overcoming those snubs, and to keep trying to get genuine co-operation between both sides of the Border, between all Irishmen, whether from Belfast or Cork.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I rise to support what has been said in favour of this motion and I should like to express my approval of the fact that it has been brought before us. I think it represents a courageous and hopeful effort to ensure that something, even in a small way, can be done in order to show goodwill in an effort to bring a little bit closer together the two parts of our country. I do not believe in the present situation that we need renounce our hope of one day seeing all Ireland united and of taking our place as a united island among the countries, perhaps as a federated Europe.

As one Senator stated things are changing, we are changing and other people are changing. I think for the present it would be healthy for us to recognise, in all humility, that a duty devolves upon us to make such a union possible and also attractive for the North as well as for us. The best way of doing that is by the method outlined by Senator Stanford; free co-operation in whatever field such co-operation proves feasible. There is one field among those referred to about which I would feel a little doubt, and that is the economic field, because I know we are conditioned by the fact of being a separate entity and having separate tariff policies. I recognise that co-operation in that field would be difficult, but by no means impossible. In the other fields mentioned co-operation is certainly possible and could bear rich fruit.

I have read with admiration the paper of Mr. Barrington and I think he writes with courage and with charity, and with great clarity of vision about a problem which some people in this country do not dare to look at in an unimpassioned way. His thesis, as I understand it, is that we ought to give up blaming Britain, and if we do blame Britain we should give up blaming Britain alone for the present situation and we should make it clear to the Government of the Six Counties that we do not intend to try to coerce them into union with us, nor to try to get Britain to try to coerce them to come in with us—in other words, that we should make it clear to them that we recognise the present position, and that not only will we not make an attempt to have them, but we do not think it possible for them to be, coerced by us, by Britain or the I.R.A. or anybody else, to join with us.

I think he suggests also that we ought to cease to employ, both on this side of the Border and on the other side, the argument that all our ills spring from Partition; that the reason we cannot solve this problem or that problem is because "our country is divided". I think he suggests that that convenient excuse is too often put forward on both sides of the Border, and that the existence of the Border is too often used as a pretext for not tackling problems which are quite capable of being tackled within the ambit of our present situation. In other words it is untrue to suggest that the existence of the Border is a major factor in whatever failure has been ours to grapple with the problems besetting our people.

I think the vast majority of the citizens of the Republic—I say that advisedly because the issue has been tested, it was tested in the recent election—do not want a policy of force to be employed against the North. I know there are some who say that: "All we ever got was got by force", but those same people refuse even to recognise the value of what in fact was so obtained in this country, as represented by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is also obvious, too, that if we were so silly as to appeal to the tribunal of force there would be rather a tacit suggestion that we would also be prepared to abide by its verdict. I do not think any of us in this House, nor many people outside it, would really want the methods of force to be used, and, therefore, the far more healthy methods suggested by Mr. Barrington, and Senator Stanford here this evening are the ones to which we must turn, methods of persuasion, if you like, preliminary efforts of co-operation, and a genuine effort on both sides of the Border at peaceful co-existence. In order to set about that I feel that on both sides we must recognise the present basic facts, the facts of the situation, the facts of the Border itself, and the existing facts both in the North and in the South.

Some of these facts may be awkward for us to recognise. Some of them may be awkward for the Unionist Government to recognise, but I think a healthy basis for future conduct would be provided by a preparedness on our part to see things as they are. In relation to the Six-County area we must recognise that something like 64 per cent. of the inhabitants of that area want that area to remain a part of the United Kingdom. There are all kinds of arguments against that, all kinds of emotions involved, all kinds of tests as to whether they have any right to think such a thing, but I am convinced that we should not conceal from ourselves the fact that 64 per cent. of the people in that area do desire Partition.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is now going very much outside the terms of the motion.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I accept your ruling, a Chathaoirligh, but I should just like to suggest, in that case, that if it were possible for us to accept the situation, if I might quote, "being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship", then I feel real progress could be made in the various fields that have been mentioned. "Being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship"—I am quoting from the 1925 Agreement which was signed on our behalf and ratified in this House and in Dáil Éireann in December, 1925, —the agreement which consolidated the Border and recognised its present line. I am aware, of course, that there was a large feeling against such an agreement, against such a spirit of neighbourly comradeship on such a basis, but I think we must recognise that that agreement was ratified by us by 71 votes to 20 in the Dáil, and that the Government that ratified it in 1925 remained in power for another seven years after that.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is again going outside the terms of the motion.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh, but it seems to me if we were to aim at co-operation, my argument is that we must recognise the basis for the situation as it now stands. It is essential also for us to recognise that a restricted form of franchise in local elections, which was abolished in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Labour Government in 1946, is still obtaining in the Six-County area to the detriment of nationalist voters.

An Cathaoirleach

May I direct the Senator's attention to the terms of the motion and to the feeling of the House, of the proposer and seconder particularly, in what they desire in regard to this motion?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I bow to your ruling, though I rather regret that it is not considered in order to examine, as I have been trying to do, the basis for the present situation. However, I shall leave out that portion of what I intended to say; but it does seem to me that what we can usefully do now is to accept, however regretfully, the present situation; to look at it as it is; to accept, in other words, the status quo; I personally would be inclined to say: under protest in relation to Fermanagh and Tyrone, who never asked to be separated from the rest of Ireland, but to accept it nevertheless, even with that protest, as it were, and to work in order to make this Republic of ours, over which we have complete political and economic control, a place from which Irish men and women will no longer emigrate at the rate of 40,000 a year. We should work to make it a place to which they will be eager and proud to be enabled to return in pride to live and work in decency and health here. I feel it is our duty, in aiming at co-operation with our neighbours in the North, to aim at providing a way of life here for all our citizens in which we can be proud to invite them at some future date to join us.

If we are going to appeal to the North, and when I say appeal to the North, I do not mean at governmental level, but on the various levels referred to by other Senators, cultural, social, athletic and so on—if we are to appeal to the North to develop further the very real measure of co-operation that already exists, as Senator Stanford pointed out, I think there are many of our problems of unemployment, poverty, under-production, and sometimes alas under-education, upon which they can help us and upon which, perhaps, we can help them. Many of them are, however, problems which we must solve ourselves, before we can decently invite our brothers to join us in a united Ireland.

I think that in the solving of these problems—and they in the North have their problems too—in the solving jointly of our several problems we can seek their help, and offer our help and co-operation, and I believe that in such co-operation we can both learn for the good of the whole island the very simple lesson of what is meant in practice by neighbourly comradeship.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not intend to say much on this motion, but I feel that I ought to speak on it because I am of a generation which is not the generation of most of the people in this House. I welcome the putting down of a motion of this kind, for the reason that it is an effort to do some thinking about the question of Partition. I believe that too little real thought has been given to the whole subject. If one were to go through the public Estimates, one would see a great deal of money devoted to a whole lot of matters concerning the running of the country. In particular, one would see a great deal of money devoted, and properly so, to the revival of the Irish language. That, the Taoiseach has said many times, is perhaps the more urgent of our two great national problems.

But I do not think that, in the public Estimates, you will find any specific attention given to examining the various problems associated with the partition of our country. It may be that in the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Industry and Commerce and other Departments of State, consideration must of necessity be given to the impact of Partition upon all our problems; but dealing with the question of Partition as the first, even the more urgent, of our two great national problems, it does not seem to me that sufficient time and thought have been given to the question. There is no doubt that, unless time and thought and money are spent on a problem of this kind, solutions to it will not be found.

For that reason, I think that this motion contains elements which are very desirable. Some effort in some direction should be made to ease the solution of Partition. The method suggested in Senator Stanford's motion is one which would prepare the ground and certainly would get people's minds thinking on broader terms in relation to the whole question.

The manner in which Senator Stanford has opened this debate rather precludes one from considering other steps that might be taken. He has left out all political considerations. Senator Sheehy Skeffington found considerable difficulty in discussing this motion without bringing in political considerations, and so do I. For that reason, I find myself somewhat restricted. But I would think that the motion is somewhat remarkable for the antithesis it contains. I should have imagined that if there was one way of not dealing energetically with a problem, that way was to set up a Government commission. It rather surprises me therefore to find the Senator suggesting that the Government should set up a commission. I think that commission would have interminable wrangling and would probably end up, if constituted on the basis he suggests, with a majority report coming from the people on this side of the Border and a minority report from the people on the other side of the Border, and not leading us very much further.

In regard to the whole question of social, economic and cultural development, I think there is much that can be done. I do not say that the Government itself is the best medium for bringing about these desirable changes. The establishment of a commission by the Government immediately imports into this motion political action. If it does not necessarily do so, I think it would be so interpreted by people in the Six Counties. Therefore, I think the establishment of a commission by the Government would import into the whole matter the political considerations which Senator Stanford urges us to keep out of the debate.

The Government could take decisive and energetic steps otherwise. Those of us who have grown up under an Irish Government have perhaps got too much of one side of the story. There is no party to any dispute that has right on its side all the time. I venture to suggest that if there was a recognition that perhaps the other party to the dispute might not be wrong all the time and that there might be possibly some justification for their point of view, however wrong they might be, we might make more progress in dealing with questions of cultural, economic and social relations between ourselves and the Six Counties.

It would also diminish that aspect of our relations with the Six Counties which Senator Cole was discussing— the outbursts, by what he called the people at the street corners, which could give the impression that that is the view of the majority of the people in this country. I think that by reorientating our view, by, perhaps, a more dispassionate writing of history and by more emphasis on the real bonds that exist between ourselves and the Six Counties, we might get further along the road towards easing the strained relations existing at the present time.

I think that a commission is not the way to deal with it. There are other ways in which the Government, through the agency of its different Departments of State and the different organs at its disposal, might create a better climate. Any person who in his ordinary business or profession meets people from the other side of the Border will find that they are decent people, meeting them at that level. I venture to say that the differences existing between the people in this country and the people in the North in relation to the Partition question are an exaggerated form of the differences existing between the members of the different political Parties in this country. Still, members of political Parties in this country can co-operate and join together. By a greater number of exchanges between people at cultural, social and, perhaps, economic levels, I think the differences which are imagined to exist will probably diminish in time, as people meet more frequently.

At present we are all interested in seeing whether there will be summit talks and we all hope that, if there are summit talks, they will lead to an easing of world tension. The differences between ourselves and the North are small compared with the differences that exist between the democracies and the eastern bloc. If we have regard to that fact, to the hope we all have that these differences can be smoothed out and that increasing contacts between the nations of the west and east will result in peace in our time, we ought to have hope that the time will come when Partition will be ended and that, by promoting the relations which are urged in this motion, we will go some distance along that road. For that reason, I would support the motion as a step in some direction to bring about the ending of Partition.

The Taoiseach

I was anxious to hear the views of different Senators. There is no doubt but that the majority of the people in this part of the country desire co-operation in the matters indicated by the motion. I, too, was glad that the motion did not deal with the political aspects but it is true, as Senator O'Quigley said, that it is political facts that brought about the present situation and that help to maintain the present position. Senator Sheehy Skeffington found it difficult to keep within the barrier also.

I do not want to go against the spirit of the mover of the motion who, as he pointed out, very carefully restricted the sphere of this debate. All I can say on it, having listened to the views which he has expressed, is that I share them very largely but I do not think that the method which has been suggested in the motion will be one which would achieve success. The moment the Government, as has already been pointed out by some Senators, sets up a commission of this sort it is immediately given a political aspect and unless you could have people in the other part of the country setting up part of the commission and co-operating in it, I do not think it would be of any use.

If you could get a combined commission then it would be of the greatest value, that is, if the two Governments agreed on setting up a commission to examine in what direction we could have greater co-operation in regard to economic, social and cultural matters. It would be a tremendous step forward but I do not see that happening. If I saw the slightest hope of it happening I would certainly be very glad to encourage that hope and to seize any opportunity that would be presented in that regard.

The Government is in duty bound— certainly in my opinion and in the opinion of the present Government—to do everything in its power to foster economic, social and cultural relations, but any attempts that we have made have not been very successful. They have been limited in their scope, but that is not due—I do not want to talk altogether for our side—to any unwillingness on our part. I think it is due to the fact that there has been no response of any kind except in the limited sphere that has already been mentioned. I hope there will be greater response in the future.

If any body is to be set up to examine the lines upon which you could extend any co-operation that exists at present, along the economic, cultural and social lines, I think it will have to come from groups of private individuals, from ad hoc arrangements between groups of business men, cultural societies and bodies interested in social matters; for instance, from the cultural side it would be possible to get both the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six Counties to agree in regard to matters of sport. It is to the advantage of the people of the country as a whole that any divisions that can be ended should be ended. The next thing on the purely business side must come, I think, through business organisations.

I fear that a commission set up by the Government would not effect the purpose but would be harmful to the very purpose at which those who put down the motion are aiming. The commission would be suspect from the start, I fear. Therefore, I would urge on the Seanad—whilst we agree in principle that further consideration should be given to the method by which the idea might be brought to fruition —in passing this motion, we would not achieve what is designed.

From the point of view of the Government, whilst I would certainly not like for a moment that it should be thought that we are against the idea of the co-operation referred to, I would not like to think that the Government, in response to this debate, would be bound to set up a commission. I cannot see the personnel of the commission. If you could get people from the other side to nominate half of it, then certainly, if there was co-operation, it would be of great value. I am afraid I do not see that. I cannot support the motion as it is, that is upon the basis of setting up a commission.

There is, of course, an alternative mentioned in the motion, that we should take energetic steps. Now the question is what are the energetic steps that are envisaged, what are the energetic steps that the Government can take. As far as we are concerned, we never ceased, whenever an opportunity presented itself, to be willing to co-operate.

The question of free trade within the island is very attractive, but we have the difficulty there that, since the Six Counties are politically at the moment a part of Britain, whatever arrangements might be made for the free trade with the Six Counties must take that fact into consideration. I do not know whether it is possible. I think it has been examined to some extent. I do not know whether it is possible, by arranging about the origin of goods and so on, to limit the free trade to goods that would originate within the Six Counties. It is worth examining certainly, but I do not know that it is quite feasible. It has been a difficulty in the past. You had this union between the Six Counties and Britain, and if our industries in this island were to thrive, if they were not to be smothered in their infancy, we had to protect them against the developed power of Britain's industrial machine.

I am in the difficulty that I do not think that anything would be gained by passing the motion as it stands, by recommending the setting up of a commission and by urging the Government to do that which it is only too willing to do already. I dislike very much having to oppose a motion of this sort except on the ground that it is not feasible. I think the purposes aimed at are admirable, and we would all support them. I assure the members of the Seanad that the Government will support these aims, but to put that into practice is not so easy.

Strasbourg has been referred to as an analogy. It would be an analogy if we had some assembly in which you had representatives both of the Six and Twenty-Six Counties. That is where the Strasbourg analogy fails, it seems to me. I was there in the first week at the council, I think, and I was one of those who believed, considering the situation, that it was not at all feasible to have a political federation such as was aimed at by very many. There were some there who were actually forming parties, regarding it already as a Parliament of Europe. I feel that was a dream as far as present conditions are concerned.

In fact, I think I expressed the view that the best way to bring about that sort of solidarity which would ultimately be expressed in a federation would be to take particular problems or spheres of action and get unity, where unity was likely to be possible. Here, if there are any directions in which unified effort would be possible, that would also hold. You had at Strasbourg, at any rate, representatives from the various countries of Europe, including France and Germany, and you had present individuals from these countries, and people could meet there, and in that you had the first step taken—the representatives had met together.

We have not real representatives of the various shades of opinion in the Six Counties and shades of opinions here meeting together. In the 1920 Act, an attempt was made to have a Council of Ireland in which you would have representatives from the different parts coming together. The existence of that, even though at the start it might not have very great power, would ensure that these people came together and would supply what Strasbourg supplied, a coming-together of authoritative representatives of the two parts. Even though it was not on a fair proportional system, the mere fact that they were coming together would give a centre on which to work. If such a body existed, we would not have to speak of one side setting up a commission, and I would not have to appeal for another half to come from somewhere else. It would be there already. That body would naturally seek to bring about, between the two parts, that co-operation which has been suggested here.

Having heard what has been said, I suggest that the Seanad should not proceed further with this motion and, if what is aimed at is to be done, I think it has to begin by ad hoc arrangements between cultural, social and economic groups. Certainly, as a member of the Government, I would welcome such a coming-together, but how to start it or get it going is the question. If there was the desire on the part of these groups and if they wished to do it, they could come together very easily, but I have seen no evidence or desire on the part of groups to do so. Where that desire exists the way is open.

I would further suggest that no good purpose would be achieved by passing this motion, because the moment the Government took action, it would be suspect from the start and possibly would do more harm than good. As far as other energetic measures are concerned, I assure the Seanad the Government will be only too happy to take such measures in this direction if there is any hope of their success.

One point has been made—and it is a good point. It has been asked: Has there been a systematic survey of the situation and of the facts to see whether, and in what direction, co-operation is possible? That is the duty of the Departments of State. Knowing the policy of the Government as a whole, the various Ministers would naturally be interested in finding out what the possibilities were in these various directions. That side of the work will certainly be done. The examination can take place, and if anything of value, or anything that would seem to be of value, emerges, the present Government—and I am sure any Government that would be here—would be only too anxious to consider it.

Professor Stanford

I should first like to express my gratitude—and I am sure I am speaking for the House—to the Taoiseach for spending so long with us to-day, listening so carefully to what we had to say and answering by such a conciliatory speech.

If I may, I should like to comment on one or two of his remarks, but, first of all, I should like to emphasise one or two valuable things that have been said earlier in the debate.

I noticed the silence as well as the eloquence in this debate, and a colleague has pointed out to me that it was a significant silence, in this way, that, with perhaps one exception—and also the exception of the Taoiseach, whom I regard as timeless and ageless —he does not come into the age group I am going to mention—only one speaker of over 50 has spoken this evening. Is it not rather strange that the young people have spoken with high representation, but there has not been a word, except in one quarter, from the wisdom of the aged ones?

I find something symptomatic in that. The Taoiseach has an ever-young mind —I am not expressing my own opinion in saying that, but the opinion of many of us—but why did not at least some of the wiser and experienced leaders of the two chief Parties give us the benefit of their wisdom this evening? It saddens me greatly. I do not think it is a good sign.

Mr. McGuire

Silence is sometimes golden.

Professor Stanford

I do not see that that much-quoted proverb is going to change the significance of what I have said. I feel there is a holding back here: there is a caution, a fear of committing themselves, which is natural in the members of a big Party, but if we are to solve this problem, can we do so in the terms of a Party motion? We cannot, and I deplore the silence of the wise grey heads of this Assembly. I am a grey head myself, but not necessarily a wise one.

Professor Hayes

The Senator has said it for me, but I was about to say it myself.

Professor Stanford

I wish I could see into the minds and the hearts of the older ones, the experienced ones who kept silent this evening. That is where the secret of our problem lies, here, now, and for the next ten years. Perhaps in ten years' time there will be a difference. Possibly they have looked into their hearts and made up their minds, but they have not given us any indication. Possibly, there are difficulties that we do not see but I wish they would have the frankness to tell us what they are. After all, we are a vocational Assembly representing agriculture, industry, commerce, administration and we have them all more or less silent as far as the older generation is concerned. I am glad one member of the Cultural and Educational Panel, Senator Barry, did speak.

To take what was said rather than what was unsaid—which it would be unfruitful to speculate about—I welcome Senator Barry's support and Senator Cole's support. I am saddened when the one senior who spoke to us speaks of the proposal as impossible here to-night. Heavens!—impossible for us to sit down and take thought for practical co-operation—impossible! Yet, he was frank and he was sympathetic.

Senator Murphy gave us a healthy sign. Labour, I believe, will become more powerful politically in this country. It ought to become more powerful politically in this country. I hope he speaks for the younger generation of Labour. I see hope there. He said something that we must face and, with due respect, I will mention it again in commenting on the Taoiseach's statement. We must at times be prepared "to face snubs" from Northern Ireland. It will be hard to do, but I think it will be a sign of the stronger person, the person of greater conviction, that we are prepared occasionally even to be snubbed by them.

Senator O'Quigley spoke—and he is perhaps the youngest of us—and there were signs of hope there too. He agrees that there is need for time and thought and money to be spent on this problem, if solutions are to be found. The only people who will find the money for it, I am pretty sure, at this stage, will be the Government. Will they find it? He says, and the Taoiseach agreed, that a commission would be a mistake, that a commission, more or less, is the negation of energetic action. Well, generally, that is so. Perhaps I am an idealist, but I think a good commission could be energetic and could produce a practical proof of the desire to co-operate, but perhaps he is wiser about that.

I only mentioned the commission in passing. I deliberately did not put it into the motion because I did not want to tie either myself or the House in any way. But I want some action, official action, now. And if it is not going to be a commission, what is it going to be?

Senator O'Quigley suggests that certain Government Departments should take the matter up. I agree. I think that would be just as good if they will take it up officially and if they will be seen by the public in general to be doing an energetic job quickly, not merely doing the job but seen doing the job. If it gets into the secrecy, at least for a while, of a Government Department, much of its efficacy will, I think, be lost.

The Taoiseach very generously said that he shared my views on the whole. But he thought the method was wrong, that a commission would be suspect, as a governmental move, from the beginning, while a combined commission appointed by the North of Ireland Government and our own Government would be ideal. Then he said he thought the second was impossible. Well, he is a very wise statesman, but is it not conceivable that we could make an overture here and now, risking a public snub from the North of Ireland Government, asking can we have a joint commission on this matter? Let it be done publicly, with suitable preparation, of course, and let Lord Brookeborough, if he likes, eat the words that he has spoken within the last couple of months and, more or less, say: "Although I said we want to co-operate, we do not want to co-operate."

I do not think acceptance of such an offer is an impossibility. I think politically it would be a bold deed. I also think that politically it might succeed. As a Senator said, the world is in a flux at the moment. People's minds are shifting and changing, and a practical move towards co-operation, a practical indication of the desire to work together with our neighbours, might succeed. I am quite sure the Taoiseach would not like in any way to comment on this but may I urge him personally, and I hope I am speaking for some others, that he might at least privately sound the possibility of a joint commission. I would like it done publicly. I would rather our Government did it and was snubbed than have it done in camera. But perhaps we are not prepared to accept that—and I realise the implications from the point of view of Party prestige that would result perhaps from a snub. An unkind hostile Party might make a great deal of such a snub. I realise most of that but I still think it would be a bold statesmanlike action and I cherish the hope that our present Taoiseach would consider it.

I agree with Senator Murphy and I am glad he said it—he is a young man —we must be prepared to be snubbed at times. I have great sympathy for that. I belong to what was once a privileged kind of people in this country, although I was too young to enjoy the privileges. But my parents did and our people before that. Our policy now must be much the same as I have advocated for the country to-night. We of the once privileged people will have to be prepared to be snubbed for the deeds of a generation before. The more sensible of us realise that, and go about being snubbed, if necessary. If anyone snubs me in the Seanad, I say: "All right. I am paying the price for some massacre committed by somebody perhaps 500 years ago." But I assure the Taoiseach and you, Sir, that being snubbed sometimes is worth it, if one has the conviction that it is the right thing to do, and I think a lot of people in this country will accept that point.

The Taoiseach's suggestion is this, that groups of private individuals, private citizens, should take the necessary steps. I must be frank. I speak with great deference. I think that is no good. I think that simply is passing a buck which is primarily a Government buck. That is what I believe. Private citizens will not have the prestige. They will not have enough moral support; and the powers, the secret powers, that are working against unity in this very Republic will frustrate them. I am not talking about secret societies or anything of that kind. I am talking about people who know full well that they will lose money, prestige or jobs, or that there is a risk of it, if unity comes in Ireland to-morrow. They will be able to hold down any private groups of citizens very effectively if it has not official backing. And much as I would be eager to do anything I could as a private citizen to promote unity, I do not think it would carry the necessary weight.

The Taoiseach referred to Strasbourg and showed me that there was not an exact parallel there. But he mentioned the Council of State. Very well. Why not summon the Council of State, constitute the Council of State this year? The North of Ireland Government, I understand—the Taoiseach will correct me if I am wrong—is bound to constitute that Council if we take the necessary steps, or it was so bound. Is it perhaps because of the change in our status to the Republic that this no longer holds?

The Taoiseach

I am not sure but I think that it was in 1925 that it was put aside.

Professor Stanford

I withdraw my suggestion. In that case it does not arise. The Taoiseach mentioned the need for a systematic survey and a Senator suggested it. Yes. Would some Government Department undertake that, specifically and energetically, right away and make it public that they are doing so? That would be something. That would be action, at least. I think that they should do it, that money should be set aside in the next Estimates, in a Supplementary Estimate, if necessary, for the purpose of promoting or studying the possibilities of co-operation.

There is one other drastic step that I suggest. I will not press it for obvious reasons. Some time ago an anti-Partition council or committee was set up, under semi-governmental support, I think. All right. I do not think it did any good. Some people may think it did. That is a matter of opinion. It did its best. From what I know, I think it was a harmful best on the whole. Their intentions were right, their methods wrong, the results, I think, negative. Very well. Let the Taoiseach and the Government set up a pro-co-operation committee. He can think of another title. Mine is a very poor one. But the positive side of anti-Partition is pro-co-operation. Let a suitable title be thought out, the same backing given to it, an all-Party backing if possible, as was given, I think misguidedly, to the anti-Partition committee. Then we would be getting somewhere.

I want action of some kind because, in fact, what the more committed Government Senators implied by their silence to-night is: better for the Government to do nothing. Similarly the Parties have tacitly indicated that their point of view is: better for the Parties to say nothing. It amounts to that. There was no representative speaker from the front bench. Does that mean no response to-night, no vote, no Government action, only the pious hope that some private citizens will get together and think up something very nicely? I think it would be a great pity. I hope something more will come of this debate to-night than that. I am sorely tempted to ask for a division, but I shall not do so because I realise that it would be misinterpreted. I know, and the whole country knows, that, in different ways, all are united on the principle behind this.

The Taoiseach has kindly said he agrees. There is only a difference about methods. If the House will allow me, I shall withdraw the motion without pressing for a vote, but I hope some of the suggested lines of action will be pursued soon, energetically or publicly. Otherwise, are we to wait for another ten or 15 years?

The Taoiseach

Would it be completely out of order if I said just a few words now in answer to one point?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Taoiseach may intervene.

The Taoiseach

I here and now—I am taking a very big responsibility without consulting my colleagues— wish to state that we on this side are quite prepared to take part in a joint commission to examine the possibilities indicated by the Senator.

Professor Stanford

If the Taoiseach would take the initiative, it would be a most brave and noble thing to do. In personally requesting such a commission, he might do a great service to the country.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.