Constitutional and Legislative Review: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved on Thursday, 8 October 1981 by Senator G. Hussey:

That Seanad Éireann notes with approval the views expressed by the Taoiseach in the course of an RTE radio interview on 27 September, 1981, on the desirability of creating within this island conditions favourable to unity through a reconciliation of its people and towards this end of undertaking in this State a Constitutional and legislative review.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"solemnly declares its support for the Constitution of Ireland and the assurance it contains for the dignity and freedom of the individual and the attainment of a true social order;

repudiates the Taoiseach's deplorable and unfounded allegations of sectarianism in our laws and in the administration of our affairs;

condemns the Taoiseach's divisive statements which have damaged the cause of a united Ireland based on reconciliation and a respect for the many different traditions in this island;

re-affirms its conviction that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution express the unalterable aspiration of the great majority of the Irish people to the unity of Ireland."

—(Senator E. Ryan.)

Mr. Ross

I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion on Friday last when the House adjourned so I will not detain the House much longer. I do not think this an appropriate time to complain about the secretarial facilities of the Independents in the House. But, as an Independent, I feel that I have one great handicap, that is, I seem to be the only person in this House who does not have a hot line to Wolfe Tone. Wolfe Tone died 183 years ago. Yet, to my mind, in this debate he has been used and spoken about more on the issue of constitutional and legislative review than anybody else. He seems to have been used on both sides and to have issued an enormous amount of contradictory statements. I was disappointed when I received this pamphlet this morning — the official transcript of the Taoiseach's interview — after his remarks last week when he said that he would try not to invoke the names of the patriot dead of Ireland again because he agreed it was a bad idea to find that, at the back of it, we had again Tone and Davis.

During the weekend, at an unveiling cermony of a memorial to Eamon de Valera, I counted, in one newspaper report, the use of the names of de Valera, Daniel O'Connell, the Fenians, Parnell, Wolfe Tone, Thomas Davis and, an unlikely recruit to the cause, Michael Collins — all used in opposition to the crusade of the Taoiseach. It is a pity that the politicians — especially Fianna Fáil over the weekend — have taken such a divisive and rather depressing attitude to this issue. There ought to be very little difficulty about all-party agreement on this. Both the major parties and Labour seem to have a common aspiration. As I understand it, all the Taoiseach is asking is not at this stage abolition of Articles 2 and 3, which I favour, but a change in Articles 2 and 3 which will express an aspiration the major parties on both sides seem to share. I cannot understand why the Opposition in this case do not take a responsible attitude and agree to sit down at the table, as they did in 1967, and come up with a formula which would be easy enough for them and which would express an aspiration to unity.

When I was concluding my remarks last week I was tackling the problem of extradition. I hope, when the Minister comes to sum up on this problem, that he will not duck the problem of extradition. I was addressing myself to the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act which was introduced as a result of the Sunningdale meetings in 1973. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act was a recognition of the problem which exists with cross-Border incursions. It was a recognition of the problem that we undoubtedly have in our midst people who have committed terrorist offences over the Border and are now walking free in the Republic. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act has been a failure. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The prosecutions under it have not successfully brought to justice the people it was meant to bring to justice. Where the blame for that lies I am not particularly interested. What is important is that the problem has been recognised, an attempt has been made to solve it and it has failed. If that is the case I believe then the law is at fault. It has not succeeded in apprehending and convicting those it was set up to counteract.

It should now be repealed and be replaced by an effective and convincing means of ensuring extradition back to Northern Ireland of those people wanted for crimes committed there.

If the Government recognise the problem — the Coalition Government did in 1973 and the Opposition here, although they made scant use of the Act, also recognised it during their period in power — they should tackle it and not funk it. It is a very thorny problem. I recognise that it is a very difficult one and I recognise also the inherent legal problems. We still have a problem of terrorists coming over the Border into the Republic being free from justice in respect of crimes they have committed in Northern Ireland.

This is very important because, while in the eyes of the moderate Northern majority, Articles 2 and 3 are a vital gesture and a prerequisite to good neighbourliness, the problem of extradition is a tangible one. They believe that we are responsible for harbouring people who actually commit murder in their area. What they see as hard evidence of our ambiguous fellow-travelling attitude to the terrorists would be gone if we could do something concrete about this. I believe firmly that if we acted to ensure extradition we would see overnight a dramatic transformation in the attitude of the majority in Northern Ireland towards us. The extremists would not be impressed but the vanguard of moderates would undoubtedly respond.

Already the Alliance Party, who are, I gather, coming down to see Senator Dooge tomorrow — this is a party that support the Union, have significant support in Northern Ireland and should not be dismissed — have issued an unqualified welcome for the Taoiseach's statement. This is significant and should be noted by the House. The Unionist Party have been strangely less welcoming for a policy they have always demanded. Of course, this can be explained by their fear of losing ground to the extremists on the Unionist side by welcoming anything at all that comes from us. If we show the will to pursue the necessary amendments to our Constitution and laws, this will change; and, as our goodwill becomes more evident, the extremists on both sides will become more isolated.

While I welcome the Taoiseach's remarks and the views expressed by him — and I shall be voting in favour of this motion — I should like to question, and no more at this stage, a fundamental objective of unity which appears to be the purpose of constitutional and legislative review. I think it was Senator Murphy who said last week that there was no underlying or overriding reason why the island of Ireland should be a unit. It is a very neat idea, a neat geographical unit, but I do not see any absolutely fundamental reason why there ought to be unity. I detect a growing feeling of this in the Republic as well. I believe that the younger generation now believe that unity is no longer the unalterable priority it was. Too much has been done in the name of unity at too great a cost to make it such a mythical attraction to this generation as it was to the last. There are many idealistic aims of equal importance in the public mind: the creation of a liberal, just, non-sectarian society here; the fight against poverty and unemployment; the solution of the housing crisis; and the development of industry with its resultant prosperity for all our people. Besides these aims I believe that perhaps the impulse towards unity is beginning to fade. Perhaps at last reality is beginning to take over from mythology.

Mr. Blennerhassett

I did not intend to speak on this motion but after listening to what was said last week on both sides of the House, it is my duty to speak on this occasion. I happen to be a member of the Protestant community living in the Republic. The Taoiseach has brought before us something that is to be made available to Protestants both in the Twenty-six Counties and in the Six Counties. I as a Protestant living in the south of Ireland in the great Republican county of Kerry would classify myself as a Republican as well as any other person who was born and reared in the Republic of Ireland. We sometimes are referred to as British and as Protestants living in the south of Ireland. My family goes back as far as 1523 and came from England to live in this country. So I claim to be as Irish as anyone in this country.

I believe people are under the impression that the Protestants in the south of Ireland are downtrodden and discriminated against completely. Down the years I have been active in politics since I was a teenager. No one has ever done me an injustice at any time. The first election I ever contested happened to be for chairman of a trade union. On that occasion I had to defeat my fellow trade unionist, a Catholic. I was proud when I was elected chairman. That was exactly 15 years ago and I am still chairman of that union in my own town. I have never felt discriminated against in the south of Ireland.

In 1972, six years later, I was appointed a member of the national executive of the same union and that union today is the second strongest in the Republic. In 1967 for the Fine Gael Party I contested a Tralee Urban Council election. Never before, since the foundation of the State, had there been a Protestant elected on behalf of a political party. There was a Protestant elected as an Independent. I happened to be the first person and I have been elected to Tralee Urban Council on three different occasions, heading the poll for my party on each occasion. When I contested the Kerry County Council election I was elected on two different occasions.

As regards this House, you could say on the first occasion, eight years ago, I came in by the back door. I was appointed by the then Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave. In 1977 my name went forward and I had to go around the country as many other Senators here had to. All of us know what it is to do this long journey around the Twenty-six Counties. In 1977 many people thought that it would be impossible for a Protestant from the south of Ireland to be elected to Seanad Éireann. On that occasion everyone I met helped me in every way possible. Never was I asked what religion I belonged to. I was elected to this House.

Just a few weeks ago the same thing happened and I was told by several different people that the odds were against me. I never feel I have odds against me and I knew on this occasion that my chances of coming back to this House were pretty good. As far as the Protestants in the South are concerned, it is up to every person to pull his weight and work where he is earning his livelihood in the Republic. If we had many more Protestants who were willing to let their names go forward and contested local elections, Seanad elections and Dáil elections I believe we would have more of them in this House and in the other House.

We could possibly spend days speaking about our Constitution. The Taoiseach has asked us to review what can be improved so that we may be able to have better relationships with our own people here in the South and then with our Northern brethren. A few things baffle me. Senator Ryan spoke the other day about minority communities and referred to the poorer sections of our people. I am not going to speak about the minority Churches but rather on what Catholics are a bit confused about just as I am. One matter is Article 41 of the Constitution. Quite a few annulments have taken place in the Republic since 1977. There were 109 in 1977. Everyone is confused. I find it very hard to accept that if I am the father of four or five children, I can think if I happen to be a Catholic that my marriage never took place. If this is so, the children in that family would be classified as illegitimate. About 20 per cent of the people who obtained annulments in that year were allowed to re-marry in the Catholic Church. At that stage it becomes more confused because such a person who re-married in the Catholic Church can, if at all possible, produce another family. At this stage we are more confused than ever. The children of the second marriage are illegitimate according to our Constitution, so we find ourselves with one lot of children here and one lot of children there and all of them illegitimate. This is very confusing. The priests in the Catholic Church can be charged with carrying out those ceremonies, as also can the men and women concerned, but our Constitution and our laws seem to be protecting them. It is about time something was done to rectify the situation. In England the Catholic Church will not annul a marriage unless the state has dissolved it first.

In County Kerry, as in other places, there are wives with young children but whose husbands have left them. We also have, of course, cases where the wives have left the men. I have been speaking to quite a few people about this problem in the past few years. In one case a young woman with three children was deserted seven or eight years ago and the husband cannot be found. That woman cannot obtain a legal separation and neither can she have her marriage annulled, so the only alternative to living without a partner is for her to live in sin. Do we not respect those people's rights or do they have any rights? I believe it is about time that this minority of people — and possibly not so small a minority — are looked after. If a person in such circumstances decides to live in sin, he or she is in an unfortunate situation so far as our laws are concerned. The Constitution is not looking after them. If, having decided to live in sin, such people produce families, these families are again illegitimate. Are we ever going to do away with this ugly word "illegitimate"?

It is about time that we did something to alter Article 41. There were changes from 1922 to 1937. In 1937 Éamon de Valera decided that we needed a change, but 44 years later we find ourselves here today debating the matter. There was an attempt by the late Seán Lemass in 1967, when he set up an all-party committee to deal with this question, and I give him credit for what he was trying to do.

If we do not legislate for the younger generation they will do their own thing. What I mean by "doing their own thing" is that we will not have marriages such as we had in the past. They will live as they like, and where does this leave us? It leaves us in a situation of not making any provision in our laws for illegitimate children. If we do not cater for them, all churches may find themselves in a predicament because the younger generation will not be going to the churches. It is very difficult for a woman to rear a family single handed. She must depend solely on what she gets from the State. The people opposite must be aware of the problems about which I am speaking. I hope that in the near future an all-party committee can be set up to look into these matters.

Professor Hillery

I should like to make a few comments on behalf of Fianna Fáil regarding the Taoiseach's speech to the Seanad last Friday. It was the third version we now have of his views on the Constitution. First, we had the original broadcast which, importantly, was heard by the nation. It is this we have been asked to approve in the Government's motion. Then we had the booklet which was circulated to Senators but which omits the aspersions on de Valera's reputation and the partisan attacks on Fianna Fáil. Finally, we have the Taoiseach's speech, which withdraws or softens many of the things said in the previous two versions.

We welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has partially retracted some of the elements in his broadcast, those elements which caused enormous offence to Irishmen and women at home and abroad. We welcome his retraction on some of the aspersions he cast on the memory of de Valera and his retraction of the description of this State as sectarian, though he still claims there are sectarian provisions in the Constitution. We welcome his recognition that he was also really attacking his own party's record and traditions, which on at least a couple of occasions caused real scandal and we welcome his recognition that we as a people have nothing to be ashamed of. We also welcome his acknowledgement, for the first time, of the breakthrough achieved by Deputy Haughey as Taoiseach in the Anglo-Irish talks. We might, of course, have wished that he had gone further still, but we note that he admits that he did not express himself with the objectivity he would have desired during his ex tempore broadcast. Therefore, in view of the fact that he has retracted or modified a significant part of what he said — and, indeed, the Government Information Services have produced a partially expurgated edition of his remarks — we feel that the Government motion which calls on the Seanad to approve the views expressed in his broadcast should be withdrawn as no longer appropriate. The Seanad motion no longer makes sense as it stands.

If I may turn to one or two points I would like to point to some fundamental contradictions in the arguments of the Taoiseach and his supporters. It is now apparent that the real purpose of the Taoiseach's crusade is not to win over the Unionists at all but to induce the British to put the constitutional guarantee on the table and thus to pressure the Unionists. If this is the intention then the Taoiseach is engaged in a dishonest and almost certainly ineffectual manoeuvre. Fianna Fáil have always stated openly and honestly that the British guarantee should be removed. That way the Unionists know clearly where they stand in relation to us. If the effect of changing Articles 2 and 3 is to recognise the validity and legitimacy of Partition and of the Northern Ireland state, what reasonable argument can be put forward for asking the British to modify the guarantee which underpins the majority in Northern Ireland? The British might ask the Unionists to be more reasonable vis-à-vis the minority and the neighbouring state, once the Unionist position had been so strengthened, but they would be very unlikely to go further or to take sanctions against the Unionists if they did not comply.

The second contradiction comes where in one passage the Taoiseach says the Constitution is imbued with a specifically Catholic ethos — that implies that the Constitution is saturated with this Catholic ethos — but in another passage in the same statement the Taoiseach says that the sectarian elements in the Constitution amount in effect to only 5 per cent of that document. However, there is clearly an enormous amount of confusion in the way in which the word "sectarian" is interpreted. "Sectarian" in most peoples' minds means actions or laws which reflect a narrow, dogmatic ethos which discriminates against all those who do not share it. This is a definition that the Taoiseach would appear to share and I was particularly interested to hear Senator Blennerhassett's contribution in which he underlined that he had not encountered discrimination as a Protestant living in the South. It will come as a surprise to most people to learn that Article 45 — Directive Principles of Social Policy — which contains such clauses as the state pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, in fact reflects Catholic social thinking of a certain period. This does not make Article 45 discriminatory or in any way detract from its validity. The American Constitution is based on an eighteenth century ethos but that does not automatically invalidate it today, far from it. We do not have to be ashamed of any taint of Catholic or Christian influence. We can, in fact, be proud of it.

On education the Taoiseach seems to be at a loss to understand exactly how the Constitution is supposed to be sectarian since in matters of education there has not been discrimination against the Protestant minority. They have been assisted in maintaining their own schools and institutions sometimes to a point which amounts to discrimination in their favour.

This effectively leaves the sub-article on divorce. It is difficult for anyone to argue that the ban on divorce discriminates against people of the Protestant faith when the principal Protestant denomination in this part of the island do not themselves recognise divorce for purposes of re-marriage in church. The ban on divorce affects all citizens, not just Protestants, and the arguments for and against change are not being conducted on sectarian lines, so politicians should not conduct them on these lines either.

The third contradiction is the Taoiseach's proposal that the Dáil should legislate as if for the whole island, having first removed from the Constitution its actual right to do so.

Fianna Fáil would draw the attention of the House to the way in which the Taoiseach is shifting his ground. His broadcast is already out of tune with his latest thinking and apparently it is no longer the Northern Unionists he is appealing to but the British to put pressure on the Unionists, for which he criticised Fianna Fáil a short time earlier. This lack of consistency of approach is the reason why Fianna Fáil have put down their amendment appealing to certain clear, fixed principles. If we trade those in for others superficially more attractive to some, we will soon find ourselves in a complicated mess of our own making and without any clear directive, principles or guidelines.

Mr. Conway

The case for reform of the Constitution is a very valuable exercise which can be wasted if we devote too much time and energy to Articles 2 and 3. The case for reform in other Articles will fall and a golden opportunity will be lost if this debate were to centre around those two Articles. Fifteen years ago Seán Lemass set up an informal all party committee to review the Constitution. He thought that the Constitution was in need of review. How much more is it in need of review in 1981? Deputy Haughey and his party consider the present Constitution the next best thing to the Ten Commandments as handed down by Moses. Is this the great and noble document that Fianna Fáil say it is? Clearly Seán Lemass did not think so when he set out to review it.

Since 1937 the world has undergone fundamental change. We have seen a world war, man has travelled in outer space and has set foot on the moon. Our way of life has changed dramatically. This country has become a young people's land. Our schools are now highly competitive. Inner city life has broken down and violence has become a way of life. Distress is reflected in the breakdown of many marriages today and it threatens the very fabric of the society we live in.

The interim report of 1967 signed by Seán Lemass suggested that Article 3 be amended to make it less offensive to the people of the North of Ireland and to reflect the true position more accurately. If we believe in unity of this isle and its people by peaceful means and by consent, how can we claim in our Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over people in the North of Ireland? The first 39 Articles, with some limited exceptions, deal with matters that should never have been in the Constitution in the first place. There is a lot of padding in it. Some of the provisions are necessary to define the role of Government and so on, but there is a great deal of what is unnecessary and useless for the needs of modern Ireland. Section 40 deals with personal rights — the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. These personal rights are too qualified and, were it not for the liberal decisions of our courts under judges like the late President Ó Dálaigh, they would mean very little. The Constitution should be specific. It should not rely on the interpretation of the courts.

The child law section of the Constitution caused major difficulties in the area of child welfare which affected adoptive parents, children's social workers and institutions for children. In the area of industrial relations the rights of public servants should be protected and enshrined in the Constitution. Article 41. 1. and 2. would be deemed offensive to working wives as many women are forced, for economic necessity, to take employment. Article 41. 3.2º says that "No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage". This is completely unacceptable in modern Ireland. Every social worker, every solicitor and anyone who deals with personal problems could personally testify to the breakdown of marriage, to the appalling human problems created without assistance from the law or the Constitution. Have these unfortunate people no constitutional rights? Deputy Haughey, in his speech in Ennis on Sunday, claimed that Éamon de Valera would urge us now to create a just, compassionate and tolerant society. Is there justice when the wealthy of this land can obtain a divorce by changing domicile? There is still a law for the rich and a law for the poor. How can the Church grant so many annulments and the State remain unmoved in this respect?

In the section on education many of the provisions seem far removed from the present day Ireland and prospects for the planned economy, for the common good are made secondary to the so-called rights of public property. It is generally recognised that the Article on private property is too heavily weighted in favour of the rights of private property. The difficulty in implementing the provisions of the Kenny Report is testament to this. There are two options open in a re-written Constitution. There is need for a statement to include the rights that exist with the possibility of a new social and economic right — for example, the right of women, the right to work and the right to literacy.

Dr. Sheehy-Skeffington, in his open letter to Thomas McDonagh, said: "To achieve any purpose one must internally train and discipline one's self". If we are to obtain a just society we must examine ourselves, we must not get carried away by words when action is needed. I come from Newbridge where the labour exchange is not large enough to cater for the queues of unemployed. In County Kildare we have 2,000 families in need of housing. Some of these are young married couples who live in caravans with no water and no sewerage on rat-infested sites. Many of our young people have no hope of employment and are destined to walk the streets and make places like Loughan House a continued reality. Ask these people about the changes in the Constitution and they will answer that unless the spirit of the law is upheld, unless they can have employment, enough to eat and a house to live in, this debate will become meaningless.

Mr. Hanafin

The Taoiseach, in addressing this House last week, stated that the issues before us were no less than the identity, the hopes and the destiny of our people. It should not be forgotten, in the light of these sentiments, that we are being asked to note with approval the comments the Taoiseach made on the radio on September 27 last. In those comments the Taoiseach said that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution should be deleted. He accused us of having divided this island and he branded this State as being sectarian. The only specific items raised in the course of the Taoiseach's speech here were Articles 2 and 3, Article 41, dealing with divorce and Article 45, which is concerned with principles of social policy which are not binding on the Oireachtas or the courts.

I am suspicious of the Taoiseach's motives in raising these specific issues at this time. Almost a decade ago the Taoiseach was the author of a book entitled Towards a New Ireland. An entire chapter in that book was devoted to changes in the Republic that were desirable. Summing up that chapter the Taoiseach said:

Summing up the specific steps that might usefully be taken in the Republic at this stage as an earnest wish of its people to seek a reunification of the country in terms that could be acceptable to Northern Protestants, the changes that seem to be most needed are the repeal by referendum of the constitutional provisions on the special position of the Catholic Church and divorce; amendment of the law banning the import and sale of contraceptives; a modification of the system of dealing with obscene printed matter, substituting a new version of the older system of control by prosecution for the existing censorship system and the removal of Irish language requirements in examinations and in recruitment for, and promotion within the public service.

Many of these reforms have been carried out already and there is no mention whatsoever in that chapter, or in that book, of Articles 2 and 3.

The people in the six counties of Northern Ireland are Irish, not because of Articles 2 and 3 but because it is their birthright. The majority of those people are proud to be Irish and many of them aspire to being governed by their fellow countrymen in a just and humane fashion. I believe that Articles 2 and 3 do no more than assert the moral right of the people of the thirty-two counties to govern themselves and I am not going to renounce that right. When the Taoiseach stated that we somehow partitioned this country, he was wrong and acting in a mischievous and ill-considered fashion. Partition is a direct result of the decision of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to opt out of the Irish Free State. They took that decision under Article 12 of the Treaty and it was that which caused Partition and not any act or attitude adopted in the Twenty-six Counties.

It has long been the belief of Fianna Fáil that Ireland is one nation and that nation has a moral right to self-determination and self-government. As long ago as 1918, Éamon de Valera stated the views that Fianna Fáil still believe when he said:

Judged by every criterion of nationhood, Ireland is a nation — one of the oldest in Christendom — with geographical boundaries clearly delimited and defined, and with a tradition, history, language, culture and a characteristic national consciousness of its own.

That is the belief of the great majority of people on this island. Fianna Fáil are determined to achieve that aim by peaceful means. Discussions were started between the two sovereign Governments in London and Dublin so that Irish people might be peacefully united by consent. We now face the situation that the Taoiseach's outburst suggests that his Government are submitting that many of our fellow countrymen should be disowned by Dublin. Have any of the consequences of this unpremediated outburst been thought about? Are the proud people of the land of O'Neill and O'Donnell to be denied the right to call themselves Irishmen? Are they to be denied the right to carry Irish passports?

I am suspicious of the motive behind this crusade and particularly suspicious of the fact that it was launched in a radio interview, amid accusations of sectarianism and partitionism, by the leader of a Government in the midst of an economic recession fuelled by their own monetarist policies. If the Taoiseach wishes to launch a debate on sectarianism and the Irish Constitution, he should put both issues in a suitable context. He should have said that if the six Northern counties had a Constitution with personal rights provisions such as ours, the discrimination and oppression which have given rise to the present troubles would never have been allowed. I reject the allegations of sectarianism at this stage. I reject the toned down allegation contained in the Taoiseach's Seanad speech that this State is constrained. He has given ammunition to the enemies of Irish unity.

The Taoiseach also spoke of divorce and the need for reform in the area of law. He wrote:

The making of such a constitutional change (the elimination of articles 41, 3 and 2) might suffice to meet Northern Protestant opinions on this matter, without going beyond this to introduce actual divorce legislation in the Republic,...

Divorce should be looked at in the context of family law in general. If the Taoiseach still believes that the ban on divorce should be removed from the Constitution but not legislated for in the Republic, he should say so. I cannot find anything in Article 45 which would give rise to any allegation of sectarianism and I wish the Taoiseach had been more specific in his treatment of this Article. It outlines worthy objectives and should not be changed merely for the sake of change.

The motives behind this crusade or debate are suspect. It was launched in a radio outburst and not before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a deplorable attempt to distract attention from the dismal state of the economy. It will not work and I do not believe that the Irish people will be fooled by it. I support this Constitution and condemn the damaging statements of the Taoiseach concerning sectarianism. If the Taoiseach is serious about a crusade, let him lead one against the evils of unemployment and poverty. Let him lead a crusade against the plight of the elderly and infirm, grappling with inflation. If there is to be a crusade, then let it be a meaningful one.

Mr. O'Connell

First of all, I would like to join——

Mrs. Hussey

I am sorry to interrupt. By agreement of all parties, it is proposed to adjourn the House at 5.30 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would move the adjournment at that time, from 5.30 to 6.30.

Mr. O'Connell

I would like to join with other Members in congratulating the Cathaoirleach on his election and also the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I would ask the forbearance of the House if what I say and how I say it appears at times a little incoherent and stumbling. This is for me a poignant moment. I will not bore the House with personal details but merely say that for some of us the road to this House was a short and relatively easy road and for others it was not quite so short or as easy. Apart from that, there is a great personal significance in this debate and in the motion before us in that in talking about the Constitution and the other matters which have been raised in this House on this debate we are emphasising the importance of that Constitution and also emphasising the importance of the Legislature.

The Legislature, needless to say, has a certain importance since we are Members of it. We live in a time and at a stage in the history of this community when constitutional democracy and the institutions which form part of that constitutional democracy are, frankly, under threat. They are under threat not only from those people who explicitly say that they wish to tear down these institutions and to replace them, presumably by a pile of rubble, but also from those people who lack faith in the ability of these institutions to cope with the problems of our society. I hesitate to arouse the accusation that I might be too serious but we must remember that constitutional democracy is not something shared by everybody in all parts of this world at the present time. It is a precious gift that was won for us, not just on one occasion or a few occasions, not just briefly but by a very long and difficult struggle by our ancestors. It is up to us to ensure that that gift is cherished and preserved.

Consequently, we must admit to ourselves that we in this House, and particularly we in the Upper House who have read, over the summer and at various other times, allegations of the irrelevance of this institution, are on trial as an institution of politics and of government. We are on trial here to see whether, in fact, we can confront the realities of our society and come up with answers and comments which are relevant and effective. We are on trial not only before the bar of History, but also before our contemporaries and, possibly with the exception of one or two of our colleagues, we are on trial before our young people. When I say "contemporaries" I mean people of a certain age and respectability.

Consequently, this debate must go a little further than just the contents of one small grey book, however important that small grey book may be, and I am glad to see other Members feel the same. We must consider where we are going and how we are going to get there.

Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Connell

I believe this debate is an opportunity for us in this Assembly to consider where we are at the moment and where we are going. It is something of a cliché to suggest that when we are involved in that kind of operation we should consider where we came from in the first place. In order to understand where we are at the moment we must look at our past and consider what our past involves.

As part of his very eloquent contribution to this debate Senator Murphy underlined some of the dangers of regarding history as a kind of holy writ and also the dangers of looking back or trying to look back and being selective in what we find there and what we reproduce. We in this country should be particularly careful and conscious of the dangers of history since it is part of the tragedy of much of our recent history and also our less recent history that we have paid too much attention to the past and have been too selective.

At least one speaker on the opposite side of the House referred to the fact that there had been little or no mention of Pearse from this side and what I intend to do briefly is to try to rectify that omission and, with the permission of the House, to read a couple of quotations from the collected works of Pádraig Pearse. They are important quotations with which many of us may be familiar and in them there are the seeds of contemplation, things we should look at. There is also an illustration of the kind of danger we encounter when we pay too much attention not only to the past but to what has been said or written in the past.

It is one of these significant things about the way in which we look at Pádraig Pearse and his contribution to Irish history that we concentrate mainly on what he contributed as a soldier and as a politician. We do not always think of Pearse as a politician, but a politician he undoubtedly was. I, as a teacher, would take the view that Pearse was somebody of exceptional importance, certainly as a teacher, and I intend to quote a small part of his famous essay "The Murder Machine". If we had reached the stage that Pearse envisaged in his writings — and to a very large extent in his practice as a teacher — we would have much upon which to congratulate ourselves. He wrote as follows:

In our adoption of the standpoint here indicated there is involved a primary blunder as to the nature and functions of education. For education has not to do with the manufacture of things, but with fostering the growth of things. And the conditions we should strive to bring about in our education system are not the conditions favourable to the rapid and cheap manufacture of readymades, but the conditions favourable to the growth of living organisms — the liberty and the light and the gladness of a ploughed field under the spring sunshine.

Some may well feel that this is an idealistic view of education and that those of us who are familiar with the realities of the educational trenches know that education is not always quite like that. But there are many teachers, parents and children who regard education in that light and if more of us did so our country would be not only happier but also more fruitful.

I should also like to cite part of Pearse's essay entitled "The Coming Revolution". He wrote as follows:

I am glad, then, that the North has "begun". I am glad that the Orangemen have armed, for it is a goodly thing to see arms in Irish hands. I should like to see the A.O.H. armed. I should like to see the Transport Workers armed. I should like to see any and every body of Irish citizens armed. We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, the sight of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people; but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood. There are many things more horrible than bloodshed; and slavery is one of them.

Senator Murphy warned us against the danger of asking what so-and-so would have thought or would have said. There is a danger that we would ask what Pearse would have thought of the present time. What would Pearse think of an Ireland in which the black plastic bag has become a symbol of nationalism nailed to lamp posts but also a symbol of what goes into that nationalism, the bits and pieces of living organisms? I do not intend to speculate upon what Pádraig Pearse the teacher might have thought of that kind of civilisation. We know what he said about bloodshed. We know he said that bloodshed was a cleansing thing, something that would purify us as a nation, and we can understand that view to a certain degree. But what we have to do, a Chathaoirleach, is to try to look at our past, our very difficult and complex past, to try to understand the emotional basis of that past and to try to do so so far as it is possible with our heads, our minds, as well as our hearts.

There is a danger when we are looking at history of reading into that history a kind of pattern, a pattern that happens to suit our own particular outlook, a pattern that happens to suit whatever happens to be the axe that we are grinding at any moment, the pattern that suits the tactics or even the strategy of the particular moment. Generally speaking, we may look at patterns in history, historians may look at patterns in history, but for most of the time the majority of the people who were living at that time which we are looking at now were not interested in patterns. They were interested simply in the business of living.

I am under some trepidation that the Chair might at any moment intervene and possibly wonder what the relevance of what I am saying is. I would make two points there. First of all, though the Constitution is clearly a substantial part of what we are discussing in this debate, that Constitution is a reflection of the aspirations of our people, and I do not think that Members on the opposite side of the House would disagree with that point. It is a point that they have made on numerous occasions, that that Constitution is the reflection of the aspirations. What they fear is that, if we attack that Constitution, if we criticise that Constitution, if we demolish that Constitution, we are in some way denigrating, denying or demolishing the aspirations of our people as a whole. That Constitution, though it is, as has been said on this side of the House on many occasions, the product of a particular time, the product of particular circumstances, though it reflects those circumstances in certain ways which a historian or constitutional expert can point out with great ease, it was an attempt rather to interpret the culmination of a struggle by our people that goes back literally over hundreds of years. Though I take Senator Murphy's point about the danger of looking into history and seeing patterns, it is valid to suggest that there are certain patterns in our history and that those are patterns we must consider now if we are to give relevance and meaning to where the Constitution is and where it is to go.

I would identify in that struggle — I leave aside the fact that most of our people most of the time are not concerned with patterns; they are not concerned with theories, philosophies or anything like that; they are concerned with the day to day business of living — three trends, or three strands, in that struggle. Those strands sometimes merged, sometimes diverged, sometimes were not apparent and sometimes were only too apparent. One of those strands is the struggle for democracy, that is to say, the participation of our people in the running of their country, the running of this community, participation in trying to determine the destiny of the people, trying to determine what is going to happen next. The second strand is the struggle for social justice. Because ours is a country which until recent times was predominantly rural the most obvious aspects of that struggle was a struggle for the land, the struggle for some kind of rational and effective social and economic system on the land. Then, as our country became more urbanised, as it became more industrialised, that moved to a certain extent into the towns and cities.

The third strand is the struggle for cultural identity. We have all grown up in a society in which that has been a daily topic of conversation among many people in at least one language and sometimes two. But there has been a tendency to interpret that struggle for cultural identity as a fairly narrow question, "Tír gan teanga, tír gan anam". In other words, the language alone was the touchstone by which one decided whether somebody was Irish or not. It is more than just a question of language. It is a question of our distinctive way of life, those aspects of our behaviour, those aspects of the way we live which are distinctly ours, distinctly Irish, which belong to us and without which we are not ourselves.

We have three strands, three themes. The historians may pour a certain amount of scorn on this. I do not think the politicians will do so. Three strands — the struggle for democracy, the struggle for social justice, the struggle for cultural identity. The next part is going to shock some people in this House. These three strands, this struggle that was going on, took place against the background of what was basically a Christian philosophy, and by and large, at any time, even up to the present time, the majority of our people give at least lip service, at least nominal allegiance, to the notion that what they do, socially, politically and otherwise, reflects a basically Christian philosophy. Push it a little bit further and try to define exactly what they mean by this and one runs into certain difficulties. But for the moment I would like to suggest that what this means is that as a people we would give acceptance to certain affirmations about human dignity, certain affirmations about the human dignity springing basically from the theology of Christianity, which is based upon the idea that each individual human being is sacred and that the rights of each human being are sacred.

What this debate is about is asking ourselves, as people who have been involved in the public life of this country, as citizens, as individuals, parents, teachers, children, have we achieved the Ireland that our ancestors were struggling for? When we look back at what those people were fighting for — and by fighting I do not mean necessarily fighting with arms or bloodshed but struggling for — can we say in our hearts that we have achieved that Ireland in its totality?

Senator Hillery said that we have nothing to be ashamed of, and we certainly have a great deal of which to be proud. I am not going to deal with that now but if requested I am prepared to deal with it at some length. When we emerged from colonialism, when we emerged from the colonial state — and some will say that we have not fully emerged from it yet — we managed to retain some system of democracy. We managed to go through two Constitutions and to order our affairs in a constitutional fashion according to the rule of law. Of the countries which have emerged from colonialism during this century, there are very few that can say that. There are many other things we have achieved, but what we are trying to do here is to look at the things we have not done, where we have failed to a certain extent. Have we really created an Ireland in which all our citizens share equally? Is it really a socially just society? Is it truly a democratic society? Senator Ryan spoke eloquently about the men of no property in connection with Tone or with some other people. There are men and women of no property now.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair would remind the speaker that there are three Senator Ryans.

Mr. O'Connell

Senator Eoin Ryan was talking of the men of no property and how important they were to the national struggle. I wonder exactly how important the men of no property would be to some of us today — and I am not necessarily going to say just members of Fianna Fáil — if those men of no property, women of no property and children of no property were to stand up and demand their rights.

Naturally enough this debate has turned a great deal upon the situation in the North and the consequences and implications for the rest of the country. But when we look at the record, what concrete achievement did any Southern Government provide for the Northern minority? What did we actually do for them to make their situation better? What did we actually do apart from words — and words are very cheap — to take away the frustration under which they live? I can remember my father going up to the North when he was involved in a social organisation and coming back and telling me that the leaders of the community there were very worried about their young people. That was in the fifties. They were worried about how much longer could they hold them down in the system that existed there, in the discrimination that existed there. What have we done to remove from the Northern majority the fear of violent death and the fear that their way of life would be removed? What have we really done? There was one effort that I know of and that was the Sunningdale Agreement. It had its inadequacies but it was something in which a Southern Government and a Southern Opposition participated to a large extent. It was an attempt to do something for the people of the North. That is the only concrete achievement I can remember.

What have we done for the quarter of our population — statiticians vary as to whether it is 20 or 25 per cent and probably the people themselves are not too concerned about statistics — who live below the minimal acceptable standard of living? What have we done for them?

Have we preserved all that is good in our history? Have we preserved a culture which truly reflects our Irishness? If we were this evening to go into 20 or 30 Irish homes, what would be there that would be distinctively Irish? Have we included all our citizens in the running of the country? Have we treated them in such a way that they at least have the illusion they are in control of their own destinies?

Have we done all in our power to cherish the principle of human dignity? A number of Senators have referred to this problem. They have referred to the unemployed and to various deprived minorities. They must have their place in this debate. This debate is not just a question of a few dry words in a constitution. It is a question of what kind of life our people have and what kind of life we provide for them.

I am a gradualist in politics and I believe that the best form of political change is achieved by evolution and by gradual change. But one of these days we are going to have to look very seriously at ourselves, very seriously at what we say, very seriously at what we practise, and we are going to have to ask ourselves if the predominant public values which govern our decisions, which govern our policies, which decide the priorities where money is going to be spent, which decide the priorities of what we do in our society, really are compatible with the Christian message. Is it, for example, a fact that the Christian message says that we should exploit our neighbours for financial gain? I know when I say that that I am using language which has little meaning for many of the people who are listening to this and many of the people who might, if they get a chance sometime, read it because these are cliché words and we no longer look at them to see what the meaning is. Is it the Christian message that we act in such a way in society that we try to derive from society the maximum benefit for ourselves alone?

I speak as somebody who was elected on the Labour Panel, somebody who has been a trade unionist all his working life and is proud of it and who worked in the movement in order to make sure his professional association affiliated with Congress. Have the unions always behaved in a way which shows that they cherish other people as well as themselves? Is the dog eat dog behaviour which we have in our common life really reflective of the Christian message?

It is also something of a cliché to say that young people look to older people and that they draw a distinction between what older people preach and what they practise. We will have to ask ourselves to what extent is this true, to what extent do we realise it is true? In this context I would like to refer to something which Senator Fallon said. There is nothing personal in what I am going to say now — I want to make that very clear — but I think it is an illustration of how sometimes we say and do things and do not realise in fact what we are saying or doing. He was speaking about Senator McGuinness' speech and he congratulated her upon the fact that she said that she was a Protestant and was proud of it. He then went on to say that he congratulated her because he was a Catholic and native Irish. This reminds me vividly of an occasion in this city not so very far away from here when there was supposedly an ecumenical meeting organised by the Catholic Church. It was in the Round Room in the Mansion House. When the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin arrived he had to look around for a chair in the body of the hall. I am absolutely sure there was no malice intended there. It merely reflected the fact that nobody had thought about it. I suggest to Senator Fallon that in his mind, with the best will in the world, he was saying Protestant on the one hand and Catholic and native Irish on the other. Until we can get beyond that kind of thing it is almost useless to talk about the unity of this island.

All of us involved in public life — I would certainly say it of myself as a teacher and somebody involved in public life — do not expect a brave new world to be built in a matter of hours. One does not expect everybody to behave perfectly within seconds, minutes, days, years or decades. It takes time but one must make some allowance for human imperfection. Are there things we have not done? Are there things we must do?

Prophets of doom enjoy a certain amount of publicity and, generally speaking, prophets of doom are more honoured because their predictions do not come true than because of what actually happens. We must ask ourselves if our society is not in crisis at this moment, if there is not a great deal of questioning going on, a great deal of fear, a great deal of alienation. Alienation means a state in which people feel strangers in their own land and in relation to what is going on around them.

We know that there is a very serious drug problem in this city and this is probably true of other cities too. There has been an immense amount of publicity over the last two to three years in relation to the way in which many young people have been attracted by unusual minority sects and that sort of thing. Does this not reflect the fact that these people are turning away from what we have to offer them, what our forefathers had to offer them or what they think we are offering them?

The problems we face in this island are problems common to the entire island. They are not just exclusively Southern problems or Northern problems; they are problems which affect all of us who live on this island. Consequently, when we are considering the kind of things we have been talking about here, we must place them in the context of this island as a whole. One of these days some of the people in the North who say that the South has nothing to do with them will have to confront the fact that there will be no final solution or no serious interim solution to the problems of this island until the people of this island get together and find some means of producing a solution.

I have said on other occasions that the real political divide in this country is not on party lines. It is a very important political divide but the real political divide in this country is between those who accept the status quo, those like Senator Hillery who say that we have nothing to be ashamed of, those who say there is nothing to change, those who say all is rosy in this particular garden on the one hand and those who challenge the status quo, those who say that everything is not right and if we are to be faithful to our forefathers we must change and we must move forward.

I find the Fianna Fáil amendment saddening. I believe some of the statements that have been made outside this House since the Taoiseach gave this interview which is the subject of this debate represent a refusal to question and look objectively at anything that is in our society, a total acceptance and not even the dimmest awareness that there is anything that we have to change. This is saddening. Personally, I have many friends who are strong Fianna Fáil supporters. I have a great deal of admiration for many of the genuine achievements of Fianna Fáil Governments. At the cost of frightening and shocking some members of my own party I am even prepared to say here and allow it to go on the record that I consider that Eamon de Valera was a very great man. I would not agree with everything he did. I would also say, and I am prepared to say it on another occasion if necessary, that there was a time in his career when his failure to be a leader had the direst and the most tragic consequences for this country. But he was still a very great man, and a man who at least tried to contribute to this country. I believe that, in refusing to look at any kind of change, in refusing to look at our society as it is now, Fianna Fáil are not doing a service to the memory of that man among whose gifts was a certain amount of flexibility. Some people sometimes felt he was a bit too flexible.

I have suggested that we must be careful when we are looking at the past, that we must not give too great an importance to the past. Then, in what some may feel was an apparent contradiction, I turned to the past and said there was a certain direction in which our society seemed to be travelling into the past. It is not really a contradiction because what I was suggesting was that we must not go to extremes. We must not accept everything that was done in the past, or, alternatively, turn our backs totally on the past. We must look at the past in an intelligent, objective and effective forward-looking fashion.

I believe the people of this island took a certain number of wrong turnings. I can see Senator Murphy rising in his seat at such unhistorical phraseology. What I mean is this: for example, there was a time not so long ago when the people of this island had a common forum. It may not have been a forum that was exclusively Irish, it may have been a forum that was always weighted against Ireland, but at least it was a forum on which the people of the North and South could sit down together and talk about the problem of this island. That forum no longer exists. It died between 1912 and 1922.

I believe the Civil War was a wrong turning. At that time at least a substantial section of our people were united in a massive surge of patriotism — patriotism not in a narrow or divisive sense but patriotism in which they were prepared to work together for the good of our people and our country — but that was destroyed and in its place came dissolution. It has been one of my ambitions in politics that the day would eventually come when we would turn our backs on the Civil War, forget about it and get on with the problems which really matter — the problems of our people.

I also believe that in the 1960s, though there were very substantial achievements in the economic and social fields, as a people we turned towards the values of consumerism, and materialism which were basically foreign to our people, not only foreign to our people but also in conflict with the basic Christian philosophy to which we give nominal lip service.

There can be no turning back of the clock. What is done is done to a large extent. If this House rises to the occasion and if we as politicians, as custodians of the Constitution, as the heirs of the democratic political tradition of this country, can rise to this occasion and pick up the strands of our struggle, the struggle of our people in the past, we can find again the means of unleashing the potential of the people of this island.

There has been talk of divisiveness. There has been talk of partitionism. There has been talk of party politics. What I think the Taoiseach has tried to do — and what he is doing with the ordinary people of this country — is to give us an opportunity to try to break out of the narrow confines of the Twenty-Six counties state towards a new all-Ireland which is bigger than that or the statelet in the North. It is our responsibility before history and the people of this country, and particularly the young people, to respond to that call.

Mr. D. Kiely

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you on your election and to congratulate Senator Dolan on his election as Leas-Chathaoirleach. In my maiden speech I should like to take this opportunity of contributing to this important debate which raises the most serious issues for the country. I find it extraordinary that this House has been asked in the first half of the Government motion "to approve the views expressed by the Taoiseach in the course of an RTE radio interview on 27 September 1981." I use the word "extraordinary" deliberately because, as far as I have been able to establish on my third day in this House, this move by the Government is unprecedented. It is the first time the House has been asked to approve first, the terms of a radio interview and, secondly, to approve the full text of the interview without the text being incorporated in the Government's motion. This is a departure and I feel everyone here this evening who has respect for the traditions of this House should rightly condemn it. In fact, I feel so strongly about it I urge that this malpractice and abuse be examined by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I also feel that the dignity of this House, and indeed of the Dáil itself, has been affronted by the fact that the Taoiseach made his remarks in the course of a radio interview and not before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which would have been more proper and statesmanlike.

I would now like to turn to some of the reported remarks by the Taoiseach. I propose to deal with only some of the issues he has raised. The Taoiseach is reported to have said, and I will quote only a few of his remarks:

This part of the country has slipped into a partitionist attitude. We have created here something which the Northern Protestant finds unacceptable. I believe it is my job to try and lead our people and understand how it is that we have divided this island.

I wonder who he meant there.

I want to lead a Republican crusade. Fianna Fáil do not believe in the principles of Tone and Davis. Fianna Fáil know nothing about Northern Ireland. If I were a Northern Protestant today ...

Let us examine some of these remarks, which as far as I am concerned represent nothing more than neurotic and unfounded outbursts which insult our people and countless past generations of Irish people. Where is the basis for these unfounded allegations made by the Taoiseach which have been rejected by all our people, and I mean all our people, because I include people within the Taoiseach's own party, as representing a most serious and unforgivable contribution, never made before by any Taoiseach in the history of the State, representing national self-debasement?

Where is the evidence for the Taoiseach's claim that we in the South suffer from a partitionist attitude? Is the Taoiseach totally unfamiliar with the long and sad history of our country? Might I remind the Taoiseach that Partition was created not by us in the South but by a selected, privileged and a wealthy clique in the North with the full connivance and support of successive British Governments right up to the present day?

The Taoiseach's remarks will not contribute one iota to the long-cherished goal of national unity. They will only put this back. We know from the reaction to the Taoiseach's remarks by prominent Northern Unionist politicians that the Taoiseach's remarks have provided ammunition for the Unionists' claim that we in the South are a sectarian State.

May I remind the Taoiseach, who boasts about his understanding of the Northern Unionist mentality, that he completely misunderstands it? Does he understand the Southern Republic? He desecrated the names of Tone, Davis and Emmet. Does he not know that, no matter what changes he proposes to make in our most cherished beliefs and traditions, he will not change Unionist intransigence as long as the British guarantee remains?

The former Taoiseach, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, has always maintained there will be no move forward towards reconciliation and national unity while that guarantee remains. This is why in Government Fianna Fáil, under the leadership of Deputy Charles Haughey, succeeded in getting agreement with the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, that the solution lies between the Dublin and London Governments, and to treat the matter as an international problem. I sincerely hope that the agreement reached between Deputy Haughey and Mrs. Thatcher at the Anglo-Irish summit talks last year will not be undermined or damaged in any way by irresponsible or immature actions by the present Government.

I must say that what I have seen and heard from the present Taoiseach give us in the Fianna Fáil organisation and Fianna Fáil Party very little ground for optimism. Of course, what the Taoiseach has succeeded in doing in all of this is not only to support the Unionist claims but at the same time to ask us to throw away all our fundamental beliefs and traditions which we have had down through the years.

What does the Taoiseach mean by "sectarian"? I ask him to provide us with any documentary proof of where our laws are sectarian. Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution represent our long-cherished goal of national unity as propounded by Tone and Davis. Does the Taoiseach now want to delete these two Articles from our Constitution? Would Tone and Davis, if they were alive today, agree with this?

Might I remind the Taoiseach that the 1967 All-Party Committee only proposed alternative wording of Articles 2 and 3 for reasons to do with the Continental Shelf? This was fully supported at the time by the Fine Gael Party. I ask the Taoiseach if the Fine Gael Party have changed their minds and, if so, why was it not put to the electorate during the last general election? Was this not a massive deception of the Irish people? It will never be forgiven. The reality, I suspect, is that the Taoiseach's remarks are purely personal ones which have not the full support of his own party.

We learned from the Taoiseach in his radio interview that he now wishes to lead a crusade. His choice of words was unfortunate. He obviously does now know history, but might I remind him that the history of crusades in the Middle Ages was a sad one for the leaders and does not stand up well by modern day criteria. The Taoiseach said that the history is so selective and biased as to be absurd.

Other speakers here this evening and tomorrow will put the record straight regarding Éamon de Valera, Fianna Fáil Governments and the 1937 Constitutional ban on divorce. It must be evident from what I have said that the Taoiseach's remarks represent a digression from the real issues facing the country today, the Government's disastrous policies to resolve the economic problems facing the country. As every day passes we can see the clear division separating the Fine Gael and Labour Parties in their approach to economic policies. It must be unique not only in the European Economic Community but in the entire western world that we have a Government which attempt to combine the conservative and monetarist policies of Fine Gael and those of the Labour Party who, in its thirst for power, were prepared to reject and forget everything which they had claimed to represent.

It is quite impossible for this House to accept this motion proposed by Senators Hussey and Ferris. I fully support the amendment to the motion tabled by Senator Eoin Ryan and Senator William Ryan.

Mr. Howard

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this evening, and let me say at the beginning that I regard the issue we are discussing as perhaps the most important issue we will debate in this Chamber for some time. We are dealing with a national question.

It should be said at this stage, having listened to the debate for almost three days, that we have had some excellent contributions. We have had contributions from Senators who recognised the importance of the issue. There has been a willingness on the part of many of them to face this motion and what it entails objectively, fairly and honestly, and to give it the treatment and the open-minded approach that a matter of its importance deserves. For that reason the debate has been worthwhile.

I regret that I cannot extend that classification to the contributions of all Senators. I regret that from the Opposition side of the House a consistent attempt has been made to reduce the debate, to bring down its content and purpose to the realm of narrow party politics. There has been a refusal to face this issue for what it is. I regret that many on the Opposition side could not find the generosity of either heart or mind to debate this motion on its merits and to give to it the attention that its seriousness deserves. I regret equally that a consistent attempt has been made by a number of Opposition speakers to deflect the attention of the House from the central theme of this motion and to introduce side issues to divert discussion. These side issues ranged from arterial drainage in County Monaghan to an unjustified and unwarranted attack on the name and memory of Wolfe Tone. In his time Tone had to contend with enemies who misrepresented his purpose, who attacked his cause and who destroyed him in the end. It is regrettable and sad that the sentiments of those people should be echoed in this Chamber today.

This issue is far too wide and far too important to be made a narrow political issue. I want to ask the Opposition one simple question: how deep is their concern? What good can be achieved if, at the very beginning of this debate, they are prepared to set out deliberately to confuse it, to misrepresent the motion, and to misrepresent a genuine attempt to have a national debate on a highly important issue? In the course of his radio interview the Taoiseach is quoted as saying:

I want to lead a crusade, a Republican crusade, to make this a genuine Republic... I am passionately committed to a United Ireland, established on the principles of Tone and Davis and will try to lead our people towards that.

Do some people believe the right to lead a Republican crusade, or the right to be associated with the principles of Tone and Davis, is in some extraordinary way their special preserve? Is that belief a factor of the extraordinary reaction we are getting from some people on this question? Numerous invitations have been issued to debate side issues. It would be very easy to respond to many of the misrepresentations which have been made, but I do not propose to proceed further on those lines because, to do so, would be unworthy of the great issue we face in this motion.

I welcome the motion:

That represents a challenge to all our people to examine in sincerity and in depth what each of us is prepared to do to achieve a united Ireland. That is the thrust of the Taoiseach's speech and it is the purpose and the essence of this motion. It is simply a challenge to all of us both inside this House and outside it to examine what we are prepared to do. It poses the question: are we prepared objectively and fairly to examine our attitudes, our Constitution and our laws, if necessary, to discover if in some way they are a barrier to the eventual unity of this country. We all owe it to past generations to be willing to examine our Constitution, our laws and our attitudes to see whether in some way they prevent the realisation of a dream which has inspired the best in so many generations over the centuries.

It is 60 years since this State was founded and it is 44 years since the Constitution was adopted. New generations have come and gone. Conditions and attitudes may well have changed. In some ways we may have drifted from our neighbours in Northern Ireland. We may have allowed feelings or attitudes to develop which in some way put a distance between us. Is it not reasonable at this stage to say that, after that period, we are justified in asking for an examination of our attitudes and our laws, if necessary?

The motion is good. It is positive and it will compel many people who have avoided doing so up to now to examine where they stand in relation to Irish unity, to measure how deep is their commitment to it, and to ask themselves what changes they are prepared to make to achieve that unity. The vast majority of our people believe in Irish unity. The vast majority of our people would like to see the Border go. Very many would like to see the end of British association with and involvement in Northern Ireland but, subconsciously, many of them feel that that situation is so far away that they do not have to give it serious examination.

One area of agreement which has emerged from the discussions we have had during the three days devoted to this motion is that all parties accept the desirability of Irish unity. If we are to have a truly united Ireland — and to a very great degree this is acceptable — it must be based on consent and reconciliation. It must encompass two communities whose beliefs, traditions and practices are different from each other,. It must be the kind of Ireland to which both of these communities will feel free to give allegiance.

It must also be a united Ireland where the traditions, the beliefs and the practices of one community enjoy the respect of the other. There is no other way. This may require change and in this part of the island it may require a certain amount of give. Therefore the question this motion poses is: are we prepared to consider what changes we may have to make to bring nearer the achievement of a united Ireland?

I regret that a positive and worthwhile proposal has been opposed. I regret that the sincere and genuine thought behind it is being rejected by some people. I do not believe that the national interest is best being served by shutting the door on a proposal that suggests simply that we discuss and examine our situation, our attitudes in this part of the country in relation to an eventual united Ireland. I believe also that it is futile for people to say that they are committed to a united Ireland based on consent and reconciliation if in the same breath they declare that they are not prepared to even engage in a basic examination of ascertaining how reconciliation and consent can best be achieved. The motion is a worthwhile one. It is one that deserves support. Indeed it is one that is receiving the support of people right across the ancient divide.

We have been asked here to reject this motion. We are being asked to accept in its place a four-part amendment. That amendment, which I have read carefully is one that should not arise from an objective assessment of the motion. The first part of that amendment speaks about the dignity and freedom of the individual and the attainment of a true social order. It is implied somehow or other that the freedom and the dignity of the individual is in some way threatened by our motion. It suggests that the true social order, whatever that may be, is likely to be upset if this motion is to be accepted. I am at a loss to know what is meant by this. I am at a loss to understand the reasoning behind the amendment. I do not believe that the dignity and the freedom of the individual or true social order is being threatened by the motion or, indeed, by the speech of the Taoiseach. I know of no person in this country who is more committed to the preservation of the freedom and dignity of the individual than is the present Taoiseach.

The second part of the amendment deals with what it describes as:

...deplorable and unfounded allegations of sectarianism in our laws and in the administration of our affairs;

Apart from the fact that the terminology here is abusive and irrational I pose the question to the Opposition: is it not a fair proposition that we examine our laws, that we examine the administration of our affairs to make absolutely sure that there is nothing that could come near to being termed sectarian in our laws or even in the administration of our affairs. For that reason the suggestion is that we have a full examination of our laws and the administration of our affairs to ensure that there is no taint whatsoever of sectarianism within them. It is a reasonable suggestion and I contend that, if the people opposite are reasonable, they will accept it.

Mrs. Honan

They are.

Mr. Howard

The third part of the amendment says:

...condemns the Taoiseach's divisive statements which have damaged the cause of a united Ireland based on reconciliation and a respect for the many different traditions in this island;

Of course it does no such thing. None of the Taoiseach's statements on this issue has been divisive. I regard them as being sincere, courageous, open and fair. They have invoked a positive response right across the ancient divide on this island. Therefore, I say to the Opposition: if that is your assessment of his statement you-stand alone except for the extreme fringes of orange and green, and if you want their company you can have it.

The final part of the amendment says:

...re-affirms its conviction that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution express the unalterable aspiration of the great majority of the Irish people to the unity of Ireland.

I shall deal with the amendment as worded. I do not believe it is a good thing that this discussion has become involved so closely with Articles 2 and 3. Nonetheless that has been the case. I believe that, having become so closely involved with these two Articles, the main point and thrust of the motion and what the Taoiseach set out to achieve are being missed. In all sincerity I want to ask the people who want to hold on to Articles 2 and 3 at all costs, because they say it expresses the aspirations of the great majority of the people, are they seriously suggesting that there is no other channel or no other method by which the majority of the people could express their aspiration for a united Ireland? Obviously, the late Seán Lemass did not think so. He established a commission to review the Constitution in 1967. There are other methods, probably even more effective methods, by which the aspiration of the majority of the Irish people for national unity can be expressed other than through this Constitution, which not alone recognises Partition but confirm it by preventing — in Article 3 — the Oireachtas from enacting legislation that would apply in a Thirty-two County Ireland situation.

The amendment is unreal, is unnecessary and is based on misconceptions and inaccuracies. It refers to non-existent fears. Furthermore, its phraseology, its tone and the allegations it makes are really damaging in the cause of Irish unity. The amendment was proposed by Senator Eoin Ryan. I accept Senator Eoin Ryan's speech as reasonable in terms of legitimate political debate. But there are one or two points on which I want to take issue with him. He suggested — and I think I am quoting him correctly — that the acceptance of the motion would convey to the Nationalist people of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry that they were being abandoned. I fail to see that point because the Nationalist people, be they in Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry, south Armagh, south Down, west Belfast or many other parts of the North, for the past 60 years have been in somewhat of a limbo situation. They are part of a State which they largely reject. As far as their position and their situation is concerned, for the past 44 years the 1937 Constitution has failed to improve their lot one iota. It has failed to advance or bring nearer the aspirations of the majority of the people by one single hour. The Nationalist people of Northern Ireland will welcome everything that is proposed in this motion because it represents a real and fresh approach to bring the realisation of their aspiration nearer. Most important of all, it offers a genuine alternative to the methods and the policies of violence.

As I said earlier, while there may be differences, and I regret them, there is nonetheless a general consensus in this debate on the desirability of a united Ireland. I am repeating myself on this but I want to emphasise that the only kind of a united Ireland that can survive and prosper is one that is achieved through peace and consent, one that would embrace both communities, would respect the beliefs and traditions of both communities and one to which both communities could freely give their allegiance.

I am almost back to a point I mentioned earlier and that is back to Tone. That was his Ireland: an Ireland that embraced Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. It has just occurred to me, especially so because of press reports in recent weeks, that Bodenstown is a hallowed spot among many others. Year in and year out groups and individuals go there on organised pilgrimage. The people who go there — at least this is how it should be — go not alone to show their admiration for his courage, patriotism and sacrifice but implied in that visit is an expression of loyalty and fidelity to the views and philosophy of Tone. Let no one doubt, no matter how well they may attempt to camouflage it, that to reject this motion is to reject the principles and views of Tone. His concept of a common nationhood embracing all communities, which inspired so many generations in the past, can be achieved in the not too distant future provided enough people feel committed to it and are prepared to work unselfishly for it.

The Taoiseach in his radio interview and in his speech here last week pointed to certain dangers. In the past 60 years we have lived and developed in our own way and there is the danger that we may have drifted away from our neighbours in Northern Ireland. It is important that recent generations who have grown up in the last 60 years or so should question seriously the measure of their commitment to a united Ireland. They should question what is entailed in it and ask themselves honestly are they prepared to accept what the achievement of a united Ireland today may involve.

We have reached the point of soul searching. For that the Taoiseach's move has been well worthwhile. We have reached the point of decision making. For many people the luxury of avoiding this issue and at the same time paying lip service to a 32-county Ireland has passed. In the months ahead many people will be engaged in an examination of where they stand in relation to these issues in which they would not be involved if it were not for the Taoiseach's initiative and the motion that is before the House. If the response of enough people, particularly in this part of our island is generous enough, if we have the conviction and capacity to show other people that we are prepared to share with them the freedoms that we cherish ourselves, then we may have brought nearer the day of eventual unity.

Senator Dooge in the course of his speech last week made one very telling statement. He said that every generation had its own historic task. I add to that this: patriotism in every age and in every generation has been marked by those who would respond and those who would not. History has made its cold distinction. Senator Dooge concluded by saying that our generation may have the last great task of achieving Irish reconciliation. I hope that such will be the case and that we have the capacity, conviction and commitment to respond to what is required. I fully support the motion.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

Is mór an onóir domsa, Ball de Sheanad Éireann, seasamh ós bhur gcomhair agus an saoirse agam labhairt libh go fíreannach oscailte — an saoirse sin nach raibh ag ár sinsear romhainn. Is mór an pribhléid í freisin páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireacht saor daonlathach ar athbhreithniú ar an mBunreacht. Céard dó atá an buíochas nó an pribhléid seo ag dul? Ní dócha gur domsa ná díbhse an buíochas, ach don dream a chuaigh romhainn a d'oibirigh agus, fiú, a fuair bás chun go mbéadh an daonlathas agus an saoirse seo ar fáil inniu.

I should like to say how honoured I feel to be able to address the Seanad today as one of its Members and to experience the great freedom of being able to express my views openly and freely in a manner denied to so many thousands of Irish men and women in the past. It is indeed a great privilege to participate in an open and free democratic Assembly, made possible as it has been by those same thousands who worked and died that it might be present in their lifetime. Having said this, I should to like to contribute to the debate by laying before the House ideas and concerns which are present in the hearts and minds of Irish men and women today. I know that many people are deeply concerned about the Taoiseach's views on the Constitution. My duty is to express those deeply felt concerns in this Assembly.

I am not representing any elite group or academic view on this matter. The academics can well speak for themselves and can confuse the minds and the hearts of Irish people with their newfangled ways of looking at things. For several years as a public representative I have been conscious of a dangerous practice in Irish life and particularly in Irish political life. I refer to people, politicians and others, who have blatantly tried to undermine the confidence of the ordinary Irish person and the totality of his own background — the combination of institutions and ideologies that have made the majority of Irish people what they are. I refer especially to repeated attacks by some academics and by some members of the last and present Coalition Governments on institutions such as the Catholic Church, the Gaelic Athletic Association and in general on institutions or organisations that try in a genuine way to further things traditionally Gaelic. It goes without saying that these institutions are subject to human fault but there is a feeling put forward that one can find the roots of many of the ills of Irish society in the operations of these institutions.

It is easy to find instances and isolated examples of institutions going wrong. That has been done in this assembly. Indeed, it was initiated by the Taoiseach in his radio interview during which he pointed to one or two isolated matters to prove his entire thesis. Wolfe Tone has been quoted frequently by the Taoiseach. It is my sincere opinion that the Taoiseach has started us once again down the path of self-guilt, a feeling of inadequacy in what we have achieved and cherished always, a sense of inferiority so engendered in the Irish people through oppression. Perhaps the Taoiseach's cherished background may not have given him an understanding of the inferiority or oppression I speak of but the Irish people have known it. Tone once said that we had been reduced to the lowest state of human degradation, that we had almost ceased to respect ourselves, that we doubted whether the opinion of our oppressors was not just and whether we were not in fact framed for the submission to which we had been bent. Yet we are being told now by the Taoiseach and by those in this assembly who support these charges that we are sectarian, we are wrong, we have been wrong and that we must change our basic aspirations as a people in order to accommodate, in order to placate as it were. I reject and resent the insinuations that we are a sectarian State.

The Taoiseach refers to the ethos of the religion of our majority as being excessively enshrined in our institutions or exemplified in Acts of Irish Governments over the years. I would confidently hold the view that the majority of ordinary Irish people would consider that non-Catholics have had a greater share of good things in life than themselves. I believe most Irish Catholics would consider, although not with justification, that their Southern neighbours are being in some ways privileged. There is no need to go into the special position of our non-Catholic Irish neighbours in the Northern part of this island. It is not too long since we agreed to change the special position given to the Catholic Church in our Constitution. This has made no difference to the attitude of Unionist opinion in Northern Ireland towards the South. There is inherent danger in watering down the aspirations of our people as enshrined in our Constitution. In my view this debate can only help to undermine the people's confidence in the Constitution, not to mind any change or deletion.

The Taoiseach has called on all of us to join him in a new crusade of real republicanism. There is inherent in his words a criticism of any kind of republicanism, which existed before his enunciation. His words suggest that he is enunciating a new kind of republicanism which was never heard of before and which he in his messianic role is going to teach the Irish people. Even the very word ‘crusade' smacks of the truly Christian knight who will correct and conquer the heretical beliefs of former republicans.

May I suggest respectfully to the Taoiseach that there are many people who would prefer him to direct his attentions to the socially and economically deprived areas of this State, towards human beings whom I talk genuinely about as suffering from another form of sectarianism which has little to do with creed or political beliefs? May I also suggest to the Taoiseach, lest he forget, that there are strong traditions here in the Republic which cannot be laid aside to placate the Unionist view? I cannot say "Unionist tradition" because I cannot help thinking that it is a mere allegiance rather than a tradition. The Gaelic tradition of Ireland called for revitalisation. It is a tradition that finds adherence both North and South, among Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Let the Taoiseach's efforts be directed towards areas like the Irish language and the total culture of Ireland, because it is in this area that we find unity of purpose and people. When we come to a greater sense of trust and togetherness, where there can be proper union with give and take on both sides, then we can sit down and talk constitutionally about a new Ireland, a united Ireland, the only Ireland that Tone and Davis wrote of — a free and Gaelic Ireland embracing all of the people of this island. Anything else is artificial and doomed to failure.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I have heard every speaker in this debate so far and I have been struck by a number of different points. The first was that, apart from the contribution of Senator Eoin Ryan, the Fianna Fáil Members of this House have unfortunately been adopting an unyielding and narrow-minded attitude. They are totally set — in public anyway — against any idea of constitutional change. I hope to show my friends in Fianna Fáil that this is a foolish and a wrong approach. Not only is it foolish and wrong and inconsistent with the tradition of that party but it is inconsistent with even the current policy of that party as enunciated as lately as the recent general election.

The second thing that strikes me is that among those of us, and I include myself, who accept that there is a need for a review and perhaps a change in some sections of the Constitution arising out of that review, each and every person seems to have his or her own interpretation as to what that review should be. Other speakers on all sides of the House have detected but not identified this trend. The academics approach it from an academic viewpoint and they put forward lessons that history teaches. I know very little history and I am not going to quote history in my contribution to this debate. The lawyers in the House seize upon it as an opportunity to reform the legal situation. The socialists in the House seize this opportunity as an occasion to question the primacy of private property. The agnostics, whom I will not identify, see it as an opportunity of identifying and rooting out all references to the Church of Rome. The zealous Romans, whom also I will not identify, see it as an opportunity to stitch into the Constitution the dogma of their Church.

I was delighted to hear the excellent contribution last week of Senator Murphy. I was amused by his expression which he quoted from a fellow academic of his own: "Níl aon Wolfe Tone mar do Wolfe Tone féin." I am beginning to believe that there is no review of the Constitution like your own review of it, to translate loosely. Therefore, I propose to approach this debate in that spirit. It is in that spirit that we can contribute to the debate and not by taking what the Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, has said as being gospel. My tradition in political life — going back as it does, I say with some pride, to the Irish Parliamentary Party — is not that we accept automatically what our leaders say. The Seanad is the ideal place to express our views and in that review of our Constitution distilling from it what the people of this country really require.

Nobody has yet attempted to define what our Constitution is. Our Constitution is very much more than the mutilated document within the grey or light green covered book which each of us was presented with on election to this House, mutilated for the reason referred to by Senator Robinson, that the changes have not been properly incorporated in the original text. That is only the Constitution of Ireland. There is more than the Constitution of Ireland. Countries which have no constitutions produce great constitutional lawyers. Books are written on the constitutions of those countries because the constitution of a country is not just that book to which I refer; it is a whole range of legislation and authority which exist side by side not in contradiction of that constitution but as an addition to it.

The first element of our Constitution and the primary and most important source of our Constitution in the future could well be EEC law and the Treaty of Rome. I propose to deal further on with that and the problems that that is going to give us. We have, of course, the written Constitution, the document to which most of the Senators have referred during the course of this debate. Even within that Constitution there are myriad rights, not enumerated under the Constitution that were never in the minds of the people who framed the Constitution but which under the various Articles of the Constitution have been interpreted by the courts as being the rights of the human individual. Particularly, we have the rights which arise under Article 40.3 of this Constitution, the personal rights, and I propose to deal with that at some length also.

Another important part of our Constitution is the whole area of common law. That area of common law which is not inconsistent with this document is accepted by the courts of this land and people are punished and rewarded as a result of this common law. Therefore, when we talk about a constitutional review we are not merely talking about this document: we are talking about a consideration of the document and how it fits into the pattern of the various other constitutional instruments which are alive and making a contribution in this State today.

Here we come to one of the major problems in dealing with people from the North of Ireland. People from the North of Ireland do not understand what our Constitution is about. The Nationalist people of the North of Ireland do not understand what our Constitution is about. They have never been subjected to the disciplines which a written constitution brings. That is one of our failures. We fail to appreciate that Northern politicians of all persuasions do not understand what written constitutions are and the effect which they can have on the ability of a sovereign government to act. The constitutional law which they have been brought up on is a constitutional law based on the primacy of the parliament of the country to which they owe their allegience. In talking about the North, Northern politicians and Northern people we must understand that for the most part they would not know what we are talking about when we speak about Bunreacht na hÉireann.

At the top of our Constitution there is the Treaty of Rome and various other treaties which together make up the European Communities. I propose to deal with merely the Treaty which sets up the European Economic Community and in particular the laws enacted under that Treaty, how they were interpreted and how they will be interpreted in the future by the European Court. We have, of course, control in an indirect way on formal amendments of the Treaty of Rome. But we do not have control of the way in which the existing Treaty is now and will in the future be interpreted by the European Court and how this could gradually extend the areas of the supremacy of the European institutions over our domestic institutions. I would like to quote a number of Articles from the Treaty of Rome. I presume it is a document that this House is aware of and, therefore, I do not have to give any further source for it. Article 145 deals with the Council of Ministers and it says:

To ensure that the objectives set out in this Treaty are attained, the Council shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty:

— ensure coordination of the general economic policies of the Member States; have power to take decisions....

It does not say what kind of decisions, just power to take decisions.

Article 169 deals with the Commission and the Commission's power and authority over the affairs of the European Economic Community. It says:

If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

The Commission is the watchdog of the way in which we conform to our duties under the obligations of the Treaty. Article 145 is drawn in such a way that there are no precise limits laid down as to the limit of the power which is available to the Council, being a meeting of democratically elected representatives but not in itself being democratically elected.

Article 173 says:

The Court of Justice shall review the legality of acts of the Council and the Commission other than recommendations or opinions. It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule or law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

I shall deal later with how our own Constitution has developed and the way in which personal rights which were never enumerated by this House and never enacted by the people, have, quite correctly, taken precedence over the written words of the Constitution. You can see the interpretation which the European Court could put on the various Articles and our duties under those Articles. In view of the amendment enacted at the time of our accession to the European Community, it is right that we should at this time consider whether that amendment to the Constitution was the correct one. If it was not the correct amendment to the Constitution, then obviously men of goodwill representing all the political parties must sit down and examine what would meet the requirements, what would protect the interests of this country, should the European Community want to extend — it shows no sign of it at present — but if in the future it should want to extend its jurisdiction over the area which it was originally envisaged it should operate.

Professor Murphy

If we are still in it.

Mr. S. O'Leary

That is another constitutional question which we might consider. I am in favour of being in it but everything is——

Mr. E. Ryan

On a point of order, What Senator O'Leary is discussing now is certainly a very interesting line of country and one which perhaps we should discuss at some time, but it does not seem to arise out of the views expressed by the Taoiseach and which we have been discussing in the House for the last few days. Undoubtedly what Senator O'Leary is talking about is very interesting but it seems to be departing a little bit from the motion.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair would just like to point out very gently that the motion refers to legislative and constitutional reviews or reforms, but I would also like to remind the House of an old tradition that Members making maiden speeches are not interrupted. I hope this will continue. Senator O'Leary to continue.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I consider Senator Ryan's intervention helpful and it is in that spirit that I——

Mr. E. Ryan

I did not want to be critical.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I appreciate that, but I will do what no other Member has done so far: at the end of my speech I will pose a series of questions which an all-party committee could examine. This will be one of the questions which the all-party committee on the Constitution, which I would like to see established, could examine. The amount by which we are willing to divest ourselves of the authority to make laws is a legitimate area of constitutional review and I do not interpret the motion as it is before the House as limiting me in any way to those items which were specifically mentioned by the Taoiseach at the time of his radio interview. The amendment which we enacted included the following statement, and the first part of it is technical:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State.

That is an area of proper legitimate constitutional review in the near future in this country.

I would like to move on to the next area which I consider to be an area of legitimate constitutional review. Before doing so I would like, for the benefit of the Members, to quote from Deputy Kelly's book, The Irish Constitution. I am glad to quote from it today when he is not here rather than tomorrow. It is written under his professional name Professor J. M. Kelly. In it he deals with the point I have made about the personal rights which arise under article 40(3º) of the Constitution.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 16 October 1981.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 15 Oct 1981

Constitutional and Legislative Review: Motion (Resumed).

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Oct 1981