Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Oct 1984

Vol. 105 No. 11

Report of the New Ireland Forum: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator McGuinness on 12 September 1984:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report of the New Ireland Forum.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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

"welcomes the Report of the New Ireland Forum and accompanying documents as forming an important contribution to any resolution of the political issues posed by the division of the island and as providing an authoritative basis on which the realities of the political, economic, social and security problems can be considered and resolved."

—(Senator Dooge).

Mr. Fallon

On the last occasion I had indicated what I thought was the historical situation which had created two sections of the community in Northern Ireland in a system that was based on sectarian loyalties. I had also indicated the lack of basic rights to the Nationalist community — discrimination in housing, electoral rights and jobs. I had moved on to make the point that the Forum had been established for consultation in a way which would bring about a lasting peace that could be achieved through the democratic system. As we all know, this Forum was open to all democratic parties who rejected violence. Regrettably, the Unionists saw fit not to take part in the Forum, but I do know from the reports and from people I spoke to who sat on that famous Forum, that they went out of their way to welcome and to meet people of the Unionist tradition. They went out of their way to understand their beliefs and traditions, and their oral and written submissions were particularly well scrutinised. I cannot help feeling, and the Minister would probably confirm, that the oral submissions on 19 January 1984 were of particular importance to the work of the Forum and were examined in great detail.

We waited and hoped for a good response from the British as a result of the recent House of Commons debate. That was an opportunity for Mrs. Thatcher and her Government to spell out what they might do. But, having closely followed that debate, nothing more than the usual, dull and monotonous recitation of clichés came from Mr. Prior on that occasion. In my opinion, he paid no justice to the issue or to the efforts, hopes and beliefs which went into the work of the Forum report. It seemed to me that the Tories on that occasion were far more interested in seeing how Mr. Prior performed on what was to be one of his last occasions before he retired to the back benches. Clearly, it was a very negative response and I could not help feeling that the Labour Party's performance on that occasion was very little better. Their spokesman on the North, Mr. Archer, dismissed the findings of the Forum by saying that his party were not interested in making political mileage from the outcome and deliberations on the New Ireland Forum report. This is the easy way out for the party which first gave the Unionists their guarantee. It goes without saying that neither party would in any way support the main recommendation of this report.

The failure of both parties to be positive simply means that security will continue to cost this country and Britain millions of pounds, that our jails will continue to be filled with subversives and that an air of general hopelessness will continue to affect both the North and the Republic. I would prefer not to use the words "Nero fiddling while Rome burns", but that is how I could describe the situation at the moment. Both the Labour Party and the British Government have not responded positively and because of the continuance of violence, more people will die in the North, in England and in Ireland. It is time for Mrs. Thatcher and her Government to take the Northern Ireland problem seriously. I had hoped that the opinion polls commissioned for the London Weekend Television Company would change her mind and the minds of her Government because those polls indicated that over 60 per cent of those interviewed believe that Dublin should have a say in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. If this poll had been taken four, five or six years ago, I do not think you would have 2 per cent or 3 per cent saying that. This increase in support must give encouragement to all those who are interested in solving this particular problem.

It would be a tragedy if the efforts of so many genuine and well meaning people, were wasted. I support the main recommendation of the report because I feel that a unitary State achieved by agreement between the Nationalists and the Unionists would allow full participating by all traditions in the government of this island. It would provide many advantages in the area of agriculture, tourism, commerce and trade. Like many people I waited for a reaction to last Friday's tragedy. I noted — and quite rightly — that swift condemnation came from the Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, from Mr. Haughey and other party leaders. Clearly, the whole democratic process was interfered with in the most abhorrent way. We must not condone what happened in Brighton, but, at the same time, we cannot act like the ostrich and bury our heads in the sand and pretend we do not understand why it happened.

It is obvious now that the bombing in Brighton will not alter the response to the New Ireland Forum. Last Monday on television Mrs. Thatcher virtually ruled out any new initiative by saying that moves must come from Northern Ireland and have the support of the majority. I found this to be a most distressing and disappointing statement. Mrs. Thatcher has always claimed that Northern Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom. If that is the case, surely she has a duty to rule Northern Ireland and to endeavour to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It is very obvious to me that if there is to be any new initiative it is not coming from this source. Obviously we must wait for a new Government and for a new Prime Minister. Certainly it is not coming from Mrs. Thatcher, which is most regrettable.

Mrs. Thatcher also made a point — which I think was unfair — that each and every person in Northern Ireland had equal rights because they live in a democracy and, whether Catholic or Protestant, they have one vote. In other words she said they were equal. Of course they have one vote but what about the discriminations I mentioned two weeks ago? What about the denial of basic human rights for so many of our people there? What about the terrible discrimination in the area of electoral rights, housing and jobs? I am not denying that all the people in the North have a vote, but they are clearly denied other very important basic human rights.

On Monday — the same day Mrs. Thatcher gave her television interview — Mr. Molyneaux, the Official Unionist Leader, clearly indicated how happy he was with the solution. He suggested that constitutional Nationalists — people like Deputy Garret FitzGerald, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Spring, Deputy Barry, Mr. John Hume, not forgetting the Senators from Northern Ireland — were all cast in the same mould, that they travelled along the same road as the Brighton bombers. I thought that a most irresponsible and outrageous statement from any leader. The pity of it is that Mrs. Thatcher says the initiative must come from within Northern Ireland. If she is waiting for Mr. Molyneaux to take the initiative, then the problems in Northern Ireland will never end.

Last June the President of the United States visited Ireland. In his address to the Dáil and Seanad one sentence caught my eye. He said:

Believe me, to hold the office I now hold is to understand, each waking moment of the day, the awesome responsibility of protecting peace and perserving human life.

I would say that Mrs. Thatcher has the same responsibility, but she is not responding. The British Government will be clearly failing in their duty if they do not respond positively to the findings of the New Ireland Forum Report. If they do, all our aspirations and hopes can be summed up briefly in the words we all dearly want for Northern Ireland, peace with justice.

Mr. Ferris

I will be brief because the Minister wants to contribute to the debate. While the Leader of the House and I welcomed the motion from the Independent group, we felt that the wording did not do justice to the full report of the New Ireland Forum and the accompanying documents which should also be read in conjunction with the report. I hope that people at home and abroad will take into consideration the implications for all of us in the documentation produced by the Forum and by those who took part in the Forum who went to such great detail to put in writing the cost factors involved — in monetary terms, the loss of 2,300 lives since 1969 and 24,000 people injured or maimed. These are costs people forget about quickly nowadays because with the continuing violence we have become almost punch-drunk and immune to the outrages that occur in the South, in the North and in Britain on numerous occasions.

A special tribute should be paid to all the constitutional politicians who took part in the Forum. It was a pity that the invitation to the Unionists was not taken up. I was pleased to see those who would be considered moderate Unionists, the Alliance Party and others, made submissions to the Forum. That was welcomed. In discussions in Belfast with the liberal Alliance group I was told of their continuing concern about the on-going violence in Northern Ireland. It seems to be a never-ending struggle for people in the North to survive or even to express their views. That is why I welcome the initiative of a small group of people in my own town, Tipperary, who initiated the festival of peace which gave a platform to people of varying views on not alone international peace, but on peace in our island. I was happy to afford the hospitality of my home to Mr. Oliver Napier who spoke at that forum. He left privileged and honoured to be allowed the facility to do so without fear of intimidation from the people in the South. The Protestant hierarchy in the Twenty-six Counties have a major responsibility to be more outspoken about the privileges, constitutional and otherwise, they have enjoyed for many years — ownership of land and property and religious freedom. If that was spoken of more often in other fora, the doubts of people in the North who have reservations about our attitude to other people's religious freedom, would be dispelled quickly. I noticed recently one member of the Protestant religious hierarchy had some reservations about the Forum report because he felt it was not self-critical enough.

I have read with interest the complete report and was satisfied that for the first time the people in the Twenty-six Counties particularly and our colleagues in the SDLP, have put in writing the problems as we see them and the mistakes we have made down through the years — and we have made mistakes. We are not as perfect as we would like to be. We have made overtures time and time again. We have amended our Constitution on a couple of occasions and have been prepared in the Forum report to make other major constitutional amendments if that was required. From contributions I have heard from the Unionist side in particular, I doubt that any further constitutional amendments would make any difference to their bigoted attitude.

Sunningdale, which was a major initiative with an inbuilt structure and which was acceptable to everybody was the first serious opportunity taken by any government to do something constructive about the situation in Northern Ireland. At election times different parties waved different coloured flags to try to make political capital out of the troubles in the North. That was a tragedy because any utterances of ours that are not made in a constructive way towards a settlement of the problem can only do damage. The British Labour Party who were in government at the time showed a lack of commitment to the sunningdale agreement and allowed illegal organisations and extreme paramilitary Protestant organisations to overthrow the power-sharing executive which we had worked so hard for. That too was a tragedy.

On a recent visit to North America I had the opportunity on various radio-programmes and other media to have discussions directly on the air with people about the troubles in Ireland, and particularly in Northern Ireland. There is a keen awareness among the American people, and the Irish-Americans in particular, that something needs to be done urgently to overcome the problems in the Six Counties. Unfortunately the people have been prepared, misguidedly so, to devote money to various factions in the belief that they were helping. I availed of every opportunity to condemn Noraid and the other organisations that purport on the surface to be doing good in this country when they are getting money from genuinely concerned people for the purpose of buying arms for the continuation of the destruction of human life. It did not take courage to say that because I am accustomed to saying that. The response on the air to my comments evoked a lot of interest, and I was impressed by the deep concern and commitment of genuine Americans and Irish-Americans in particular to the lack of response to the Forum.

There is a responsibility on the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, to respond to this report in a way that can be seen as an indication of her concern. She expressed concern after the Brighton bombing. She publicly declared that it would not deter her from continuing to consider all the options open to her. I hope that whatever disagreement there was between the parties which took part in the Forum, whether there was a preferential option or only one option will be settled. All this ambiguity can only do damage to the excellent work done by members of the Forum. Everybody's first option is the unitary state but that is not the only option. If we consider it as the only option, there will be no settlement of the northern problem. We must move slowly but positively forward. Any lesser option than what is documented in the Forum report should be grasped. If there is only a slim hope of a movement forward, we should respond to it and I have no doubt the Minister for Foreign Affairs will respond to it. I want to compliment him on the courageous statements he made on this subject during his period in office. There is no ambiguity about where he stands on the question of violence and his ultimate aim for the reunification of the country. He is prepared to take any step forward to meet any initiative from the Unionists or the British Government.

Last week I had the opportunity on behalf of my party to have a wide-ranging discussion with some colleagues from the British Labour Party. They left us in no doubt about their responsibility as a major political force in Britain. Even in Opposition they felt they had a responsibility to communicate to the Conservative Government our views about the response we require from Mrs. Thatcher. I am asking her to respond positively. I am not putting a time factor on it. Those who call for a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland call for it in a partial way; they want to put a time on it. In this kind of situation time is not important. It is the commitment to do it that is important. I would like to see a British withdrawal at some stage, but I would only like to see it if all the paramilitaries on both sides—the Provisional IRA, the UVF and all the organisations who carry arms—were disarmed on the same day and if there was a political structure and a political settlement that would stop people destroying life for no reason — although they will give a religious reason in the North. I realise they have their loyalty to the Crown, and nobody wants to take that from them, but in the meantime there is no reason why we as democratically elected constitutional politicians could not have aspirations — whether Protestant, Unionist or reunification aspirations—to live, survive and work together with our colleagues in the North and in Britain.

I want to commend the previous Leader of Fianna Fáil, Mr. Lynch. In his speech last Sunday in Tipperary he addressed himself to the Forum report. He laid a responsibility on all of us not to be ambiguous about the Forum and not to close our eyes to the options available. That takes courage, particularly in the presence of Mr. Adams to whom the media seemed to give a priority in the coverage of the event and otherwise and almost disregarded Mr. Lynch's contribution. It is amazing that we in the Twenty-six Counties tolerate somebody who advocates violence, who comes here accompanied by a colour party in the presence of many innocent, gullible young people who feel that this person had some charisma, when all he wants is to break down the institutions in the North, the South and in Britain. I, as a democratically elected politician, as a socialist and a pacifist, will not tolerate that kind of attitude from anybody, even if he is elected as an MP. I respect his position as an MP but I would respectfully suggest that he should not have the right to advocate violence or to condone the violence that took place while he was speaking to an assembled group of people in Tipperary to commemorate a patriot who gave his life for a different cause when this island was occupied by the British forces and over-run by the Black and Tans. That was a totally different time, and Mr. Lynch's statement has clarified the difference between the two fights that are going on. At least those who fought at that time had the will and had the people of Ireland behind them. These people have set themselves up with no mandate and with no support from the vast majority of the people of this State and indeed from the people of the entire island of Ireland over which we have claimed jurisdiction in Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution.

We have to recognise the fact that in the twenties there was a settlement. People agreed or disagreed with that settlement and that is the de facto situation. There has been a political vacuum in the North of Ireland since 1969 when people had to fight for the right of one man, one vote. If the British Government had conceded that when it was demanded perhaps there would never have been a revolution. The civil rights movement had all our support because we all believed in what they were doing. It threw up some of the best politicians in this era and many of them, thankfully, are still with us. In the meantime their fight for freedom has been taken over by paramilitaries. There still exists in the North discrimination regarding jobs and ambiguity about security risks for people because they are either Catholic or Protestant and there is no redress by way of appeal or otherwise. There are still elements in the laws of the North which make it very difficult for those of us who cannot tolerate that kind of ambiguity when it comes to giving freedom of choice to people to work, to have a house, to have religious freedom or to have no belief in religion whatsoever.

We have a major responsibility. The Taoiseach will be meeting with the British Prime Minister soon. I hope that they will find common ground to move forward at any pace so long as it is a move forward. The situation cannot be allowed to stagnate as it is, because if it does and if the British Prime Minister does not respond this island will be taken over by men of violence because there will be an element of frustration on all sides. We must play our part in ensuring that there will be a response from the British Government, and there is a major responsibility on them to respond to us.

Mr. E. Ryan

It is impossible to talk about the report without referring to the events in Brighton last week. So many outrageous murders and acts of savage violence have taken place that we have become almost immune to them, but that is something we must never do, because the last act of violence, or any act of violence no matter when it occurs, is just as reprehensible as the first one in this long line of violence. When we attempt to deplore these events we find that language has begun to fail us. The words we used to condemn them seem to have lost their edge. The bombing in Brighton, however, which was designed to kill so many innocent people, must rank as a new low in depravity and must be condemned without reservation.

Those who condemn violence must have been somewhat disappointed to hear from Mrs. Thatcher in her statement a few days later that there could be no sudden initiatives. We could hardly talk about sudden initiatives at this stage of the events in Northern Ireland. There has been plenty of time for initiatives and plenty of time to think about them, and anything that is put forward at the present time could hardly be described as sudden. Indeed, the report has put forward very, very constructive initiatives which are in no sense sudden and are certainly worthy of consideration.

If initiatives are not put forward, then the future for Northern Ireland is very bleak. The United Kingdom must realise that the position will not remain the same, that they cannot just sit back and say that violence has been more or less contained and they are going to do nothing. The position will not remain at the stage it is at at the present time. It will either get better if there are initiatives or worse if there are not. In the absence of initiatives the position will almost certainly deteriorate very seriously over the next year or two.

As usual in the United Kingdom, the first reaction from many people to last week's events was to call for more security and further co-operation from the Republic. One despairs of this kind of instant reaction. One wonders whether certain people in the United Kingdom will ever learn the lesson that security is not the answer. It has been the stock reaction in the United Kingdom not merely for the past ten or 15 years, not merely for the past 50 or 100 years, but looking back over the centuries their reaction to trouble in Ireland was always to send over another army. Their answer throughout the centuries was always security. It must be realised if the root of the problem is not tackled then security measures are useless.

As far as co-operation from the Republic is concerned, it should be realised that this is only forthcoming on the basis that political initiatives are on the way. Security co-operation from us is, in a sense, a holding operation. We are prepared to co-operate provided there is going to be some political initiative. If it becomes clear in the next year or two that there are going to be no initiatives in the United Kingdom, then the whole question of security and co-operation in that field will have to be seriously re-examined. In such circumstances we would, of course, have our own problems and we would have to apply ourselves to these problems of security but there would no longer be any justification for shouldering part of the United Kingdom's problem as well as our own.

The Forum report is an excellent document, and I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating everybody who was concerned in drawing it up and who took part in the discussions which took place beforehand. Certainly there was an extraordinary amount of hard work and dedication put into the preliminary discussions, the production of various reports and the production of the final report. The report identifies the convictions, fears and aspirations of both the Nationalists and the Unionists. It gives the economic background, the consequences of Partition to date and the projections into the future if there was a United Ireland. It is the first time this has been done in a thorough way. It is an excellent document and one which should and must be very seriously considered by the United Kingdom. There must be some response to it.

The parties who took part in the production of the report set out three possible solutions but agreed that the unitary state was the one they would particularly wish to see. Since the publication of the report Fianna Fáil have adopted the unitary state as the only solution, as Hamlet said, "A consummation devoutly to be wished". It is a consummation devoutly to be wished, but whether we can achieve a unitary state, or achieve it in the immediate future, is something which is very doubtful.

Unfortunately the response of most Unionists has been extremely negative. Not only do they not want to have a unitary State or a united Ireland or any new arrangement, they do not wish to even discuss it. But there have been signs — a few cases — of some impact by the report. Both of the Protestant parties, the DUP and the OUP, have issued documents which, although not very helpful in their content, nevertheless are an acknowledgment that we are possibly in a time of change and a time for re-stating party positions. Although there is not much change in the outlook there is some small change, which is something to be thankful for. The gap is still extremely wide. Our problem in this country is not to solve the position immediately but to find a way to begin to bridge the gap between the Unionists and ourselves. We must find a way of inducing the Unionists even to discuss the problems and the possibilities and attractions of a new Ireland.

It must be accepted in the first place that most Unionists see very little attraction in a united Ireland. They see their loyalties, their cultural background, elsewhere. At the moment they see no economic advantage in joining with us. They believe that their welfare and their identity would be threatened in a united Ireland. These are the problems we have in inducing them to talk to us about the idea of a new Ireland.

In the absence of initiatives from the British and the Irish Governments I think it is unlikely that we would ever make any progress in this respect. In Chapter 5.8 of the Forum report it is recognised that it is the role of the two Governments to take this initiative and ensure that some discussions take place. If initiatives are taken and if some kind of convention or meeting takes place, it would be basically a convention between the two sovereign Governments but the Unionists would have to be fully represented to enable them to put forward their points of view. If and when that time comes there will be some very serious consequences and proposals will be put forward which will be received with some shock by many people in this country.

It must be evident that if a convention takes place and if Unionists are present they will want to introduce very far-reaching changes in a new Ireland, changes of course — from their point of view — which will be very serious, but also if we are to have them in a new Ireland there will have to be very serious changes from our point of view. There will have to be far-reaching sacrifices for the people in this part of the country in regard to new political, social and economic structures. I wonder if people in the South realise, particularly those who ask rather glibly for a united Ireland and will settle for nothing else, the sacrifices that would have to be made? I wonder if they realise them, whether they are willing to make these sacrifices?

Politically, the Unionists in a new Ireland would not only have full representation in the Dáil and in the Seanad but they would probably have extra representation. They would possibly have more than they were entitled to so as to ensure that their point of view was fully considered and that they were not steamrolled or overcome by this part of the country. There would possibly be some kind of powers of veto to deal with that sort of situation.

In any event the Unionists in a new situation here would be a major power in the Oireachtas. They would have a voting strength of 20 per cent or more, which would have a decisive effect on legislation affecting all of us and affecting all aspects of our way of life. Some people consider, possibly rather superficially, that the Unionists would only be concerned with Northern Ireland and so on. Of course they would have a vote, they would have a say in everything affecting all aspects of our way of life. Economically, the cost of a united Ireland — which would mean that to a greater or lesser extent we would be taking over the United Kingdom subsidy — would be extremely onerous. It is doubtful, in present economic circumstances, whether it would be possible at all.

Socially, we would have to accept legislation in connection with such matters as divorce, contraception, family law and so on, which has not been accepted by us up to now. We would have to accept this on the basis that even though we do not agree with some of these things it is essential to accommodate and incorporate the Unionists and their points of view in a new Ireland. We would have to accept that and accept things many people would find hard to accept. We would have to strive for a consensus, which means accommodating ourselves to the views of all the people in a new Ireland.

In this regard there has been a call from people for what is known as separation of church and State. In a newspaper today a Protestant bishop has said that the people in the North of Ireland would never accept a united Ireland because they would fear the dominance of the Catholic Church. Of course there is no formal link in the Constitution between church and State. It is somewhat ironic that usually the call for having no link between church and State comes from people with a British background. They seem to ignore the fact that although we have no formal link between church and State, in the UK the Head of State is a Protestant pledged to defend the Protestant ascendancy, that they have bishops sitting in the House of Lords with a vote in all legislation, and that most of the clergymen of the Church of England are appointed by the Government. The people who call on us not to have links between church and State have it themselves, but that is one of these inconsistencies which we get used to hearing from people on the other side of the Irish Sea. However, I think that is beside the point.

An effort should be made to evaluate and to put into perspective the influence of religion on affairs of State in Ireland. Until we try to put that into perspective it would be difficult to envisage the kind of society we would have in a new Ireland. It would be difficult to give the Unionists, the Protestants, an honest assessment of their likely position in a new Ireland. In my view the influence of the Catholic hierarchy in this country is vastly exaggerated. When discussing, for instance, the referendum last year it is nonsense to assert that people voted one way or the other merely because the bishops brandished a few croziers or because parish priests laid down the law in sermons. In my view the influence of the clergy in present-day political affairs is minimal. When they attempt to influence these matters it is very often counterproductive.

The fact of the matter is that people decide on these matters not because of any present-day influence but because of the atmosphere in which they were reared, because of their education, because of their beliefs and principles and outlook on life and not because of any attempted influence on them at the present time. Certainly the way they were reared, certainly if they were reared as Catholics, has an influence, but not attempts by the hierarchy to influence them at the present time. To put that in a kind of perspective, I think in the referendum last year if all the Catholic hierarchy had been exiled for six months before the actual referendum it would not have made any real difference in the way the people voted. They voted because of their own way of life, their outlook, their beliefs, and not because anybody attempted to tell them what to do.

What I am saying to our friends in the North of Ireland is that there is no need for Unionists to fear a church-State link or to fear influence from the hierarchy, but they would be correct in expecting that the religious background of the majority of people in the Twenty-six Counties would have a significant influence on the way in which that majority would like to see the State run. Hopefully, the influence would be modified in the new circumstances, hopefully, the majority would accept the need for consensus and that a new approach would be made in which a distinction was made between personal beliefs and laws passed for the benefit of all the people in a new Ireland.

Perhaps I have concentrated too much on the problems which would face us in a new Ireland, on the difficulties in such a situation, the difficulties of living together in peace and understanding but I do not think that we can begin to build a new Ireland until we understand and acknowledge the problems. I am optimistic not pessimistic. I believe that if these two sovereign Governments start the process of negotiation and discussion and if this is done in the absence of the veto which exists at the present time then progress will certainly be made. It will be a long time before we achieve the particular solution we would wish to see as set out in the Forum report. There will be much heart-searching and many sacrifices to be made if we want a new Ireland. If we want a new Ireland we must become, first of all, a more united people in the sense that we must try to understand one another more, we must try to make concessions to one another. If we can achieve that, then a new Ireland is possible and the sacrifices that will have to be made will be well worth while.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

That was a very interesting contribution from Senator Ryan. I listened very attentively to it, as I did to the equally worth-while contributions from Senators Ferris and Fallon.

I welcome the opportunity to make this contribution in response to the remarks of Senators in this debate, particularly today when the Seanad has so trenchantly condemned the outrageous bombing which took place in Brighton last weekend. I welcome the opportunity especially because it permits me to join with the Seanad in condemning categorically, and with all the force at my command, the appalling carnage and destruction which has been wreaked by the IRA at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton. I condemn this atrocity because of the loss of life, because of the terrible injuries suffered by members of the British Government and others staying at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, because of the sufferings of those bereaved and particularly because this assault was an assault at the head of democracy in Britain and at the heart of democracy throughout these islands.

The Taoiseach has expressed our solidarity with out neighbours. We, no less than the British Government, are determined that the IRA shall not succeed in its efforts to polarise Nationalist opinion in this country, to divide democratic Irish men and women from democratic Britons, and so to undermine and eventually destroy democratic political life in both our countries.

I think it needs to be emphasised that democratic political values are real values. They are at the source of the way we actually live, our control of our own affairs, our ability to contribute to and to influence decision-making in our society, and to lead our lives as we wish to lead them, not as the IRA would force us to lead them if ever they achieved power. The IRA want to terrorise us by slaughter and destruction to abandon our will to govern ourselves and to surrender our rights as free men and women to live in peace and prosperity and to practice all the rights which we have gained for ourselves since the establishment of the State: the right to elect our Governments democratically and the right to change them democratically, the right to peaceful assembly, the right of freedom of speech, the right of worship and religious tolerance and all the other rights which are central to the way we live our lives.

I have often spoken during the past months of another major commitment of the Government, and that is to end the intolerable situation of the minority in Northern Ireland, the only group left absolutely out in the cold by the arrangements made 60 years ago for the government of this island. This is, in fact, more than a commitment in my view, it is a moral obligation on us all. What every Nationalist in this State should realise, and what I believe the overwhelming majority of Nationalists in the North know from their experience and in their hearts, is that the objective of the IRA in trying to murder the British Cabinet was to make it impossible for this Government to deliver on this moral obligation. In other words, so fanatical are they in their determination to dominate our people that they are prepared to say to the minority in the North, to those very people whom they spuriously claim to defend: "You must languish in your misery to suit us; you must languish until we are ready to take power in Ireland". Should the people of this State ever accept such terms, we would betray not alone this great obligation but the very heritage of the nationalist tradition. We shall never do that. We shall never lose the will, and never surrender the right, to uphold these things. Let the IRA know of that determination and let them know that all democratic political parties will never permit them to succeed.

I believe that the calm and resolute reaction of the British Prime Minister and the British Government to the Brighton outrage, and the calm and resolute reaction of the British people, already shows that this attempt by the IRA to divide still further our two peoples has failed. We know all too well that after past outrages the millions of people of Irish birth and Irish blood living in Britain have been harassed and abused, convicted by prejudice of association with the evildoers of the IRA. We know all to well that after past outrages the British media have blindly lashed out at our Government for imagined failures in security cooperation. On this occasion, and here I disagree with Senator Eoin Ryan, such reactions have been greatly diminished. One British Sunday newspaper quoted the entire editorial of one of our national newspapers with approval. Newspapers have urged the British and Irish Governments to tackle the problem of Northern Ireland together, with all the greater determination because of this atrocity.

I believe that this calm and understanding response owes a great deal to the efforts of successive Governments here to explain the facts to the British Government and people, to demonstrate the resources which every man, woman and child in Ireland has been obliged to contribute to the fight against the IRA which is more than three times the burden of their counterparts in Britain. I believe, in particular, that the efforts of the constitutional nationalist parties, North and South, in the proceedings of the Forum have caught the imagination of the British Government and people and helped to bring these two islands closer than they have been for a very long time.

The realities and the requirements of the situation contributed to the Forum by all strands of opinion in Ireland, debated in the Forum with great earnestness and debated throughout Ireland, in the British Parliament, in the British press, on British radio and television, and by the wider international public, notably in the European Parliament and in the United States, has led to a new order of analysis of the Northern Ireland problem, and a new order of determination to tackle the Northern Ireland conflict at its roots.

I know from this debate that these views are shared by the Seanad also. Here I wish to pay a special tribute to the Senators with personal experience of the Northern Ireland problem. I believe the debate in this House has shown the earnestness and sense of conviction, the unswerving determination and unsparing analysis which the Forum proceedings have also shown.

May I say that in this effort to solve the Northern Ireland problem, which is the desire of every Irish man and woman, we must show other values also. We must show the determination not only to succeed, but the patience to recognise that all our aims may not be accomplished overnight. We must not be deflected from our commitment by the ups and downs of everyday political life. In the Forum report we have called on the British Government and people to show determination, urgency and imagination. We, who in this moment of horror have called on the British to remain steady, must also be determined and able ourselves to show all of these qualities. We must, in other words, show ourselves worthy of the New Ireland to which we aspire.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from a leading article from the Financial Times earlier in the week which says:

The Irish question is a piece of unfinished business which should be placed at the top of the Government's agenda...Never were the circumstances more ripe for a concerted search for a settlement. The Irish Government is ready and able. The British Government has been warned of the perils of sticking to the status quo, and the bulk of opinion in both islands must now be behind them. Failure to act would be unforgiveable.

Let me add my plea to that leading article.

Mr. Deenihan

Like previous speakers I welcome the report of the New Ireland Forum. I would like to congratulate those politicians who earnestly devoted their time and energy to the formulation of this major report. The first thing to be said about the report of the New Ireland Forum is that it is rather generalised. This was inevitable, seeing that it tried to summarise a detailed examination of the major aspects of the present Northern problem — its economic, social, legal and political implications, not just as they stand today but as those problems and difficulties were allowed to develop and fester for the past 60 years.

The strength of the report is that for the first time the Nationalist people of the whole island have sat down together and examined the situation. The end product has been a concise yet balanced summary of Nationalist thinking on the need to settle the national question once and for all. The report does not seek to prescribe any single solution. Rather it leaves the door open for all the people concerned to come up with an agreeable solution, whether this be a single unitary State, a federation or a confederation.

Unfortunately the attitude of some people in Fianna Fáil has tended to undermine the consensus of the report by over-emphasising the Forum's stated preference for a unitary State encompassing the whole of the 32 counties. We would all like to see, as the report clearly states, a unitary State achieved by agreement and consent embracing the whole of Ireland. This does not mean that any of the other solutions outlined in the report would not be acceptable.

The report refers specifically to other models for unity such as the federation of Australia or the United States of America or the confederation of Switzerland. Unfortunately, whether wittingly or unwittingly, the Leader of Fianna Fáil has given the impression that solutions on such lines were not acceptable to the Fianna Fáil members of the Forum. This, of course, is ridiculous. Indeed this should be apparent from the space the report gave to suggesting federal and confederal systems as models for a final solution of the partition question. The door was clearly left open for a solution on unitary, federal and confederal lines. The Swiss model of confederation would undoubtedly differ considerably from the unitary State which Irish nationalists would prefer, but this does not mean it is not acceptable. In fact, the founder of Fianna Fáil, the late President Eamon de Valera, actually put forward the Swiss system as a model for Irish settlement in 1921. Eamon de Valera said in February 1921 as quoted in The Manchester Guardian:

There is plenty of room in Ireland for partition, real partition and plenty of it.

Later, as reported in The Gaelic American, he said:

The whole island could be parcelled up into administrative units associated in a confederation like Switzerland.

Continuing, Eamon de Valera said:

If Belfast, or for that matter, all Carsonia,——

as he called Northern Ireland

——were a Swiss canton like Berne, Geneva or Zurich it would have more control over its own affairs, economic, social and political, than it is given by the Westminster Partition Act. The real objection to that Act, prescinding from the question of its moral and political validity, is that it does not give Belfast and Ulster enough local liberty and power.

In an Irish Confederation we ought to get far more.

One must ask if the leader of Fianna Fáil and his party are now rejecting a solution on the lines of the Swiss Confederation that Eamon de Valera suggested as a model for an Irish settlement? Are they now saying that a unitary State is the only option open to the Unionists? If they are then we must recognise that they have scuttled the consensus of the Forum report which they signed. I believe we must consider every conceivable solution, as previous Senators have said, to this difficult problem, and must not get locked in the view that there is only one solution.

With its initial unanimity the Forum report was an instrument that could be used to enlist international support to compel Britain to rectify the blatantly unjust system imposed on the Irish people in 1921. For 60 years now Britain managed to dodge her responsibility while the Irish nationalist parties were preoccupied with their own squabbles over who loved this island most. Throughout the period nationalist people in Northern Ireland were compelled to live under a thoroughly unjust system.

Northern Unionists claim that nationalist Ireland should recognise their democratic right to choose their own form of Government yet they conveniently deny the same rights to the minority in their midst. For example, there is no democratic justification whatever for keeping large areas of Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, South Down, South Armagh or Derry City within Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, Britain closed her eyes to this injustice for over 60 years. Having favoured the Unionists for so long Britain should now make it clear that she is going to redress the balance if the Unionists do not sit down with us and make a determined effort to iron out our difficulties. This would only be justice. More importantly, it would wake up the Unionists to their own need to find a solution to this tragic problem.

Our Government must now enlist the help of international opinion to put pressure on Britain to face up to the Northern problem honestly for the first time. To do this the Government will need the united support of all democratic nationalists. On this side of the House, there is a determination that this tragic issue should not be exploited as some kind of political football. We can only hope that the honourable people in Fianna Fáil will demonstrate similar determination and not permit their leader to exploit the difficulties for his own personal ends. The situation is far too tragic for this. Britain must be made realise that she has a duty to bring pressure to bear on the recalcitrant majority in the Six Counties, to sit down and try honestly to find an honourable solution.

The Forum report provides a real basis for discussion. With the united support of the democratic nationalist opinion, the Forum report can be used to get Britain to face realities. If, however, any of the parties here are allowed to limit the opinions and insist on a specific solution, the basis for discussion will be undermined and the chance of securing a settlement again wrecked. Let us, therefore, support the Forum report in its entirety in an un-partisan spirit which is needed if we are to have any hope of bridging the wide gulf between Nationalists and Unionists on this island of ours.

Mr. Browne

In welcoming this Forum report, I should like to view things on the scene as I have experienced it. One of the sad things I find in school is to deal with the civil war. We can talk about many good things in our history. We can tell of the people who have died for this country in a very legitimate way, who showed great courage and great ingenuity against the odds, but when it comes to the civil war it is very difficult to teach it in a heroic way, because there is no way you can make it heroic. It is the one occasion when I feel like skipping the subject of history. You have only to think of the many good people who fought so gallantly to get our freedom and then took opposite sides because they did not agree. It would be very easy for us, know that we have 60 years experience behind us, to look back and to give a clinical assessment as to who was right and who was wrong.

It might be easy to attempt it at least but it is unfair to those who were there in those times. They reacted as they saw the situation, and if they had the advantage of 60 years' further information they probably would have a different line. We have to be kind to those who we may feel made the wrong judgment. We must be charitable, at least, on the basis that they did what was right. In dealing with those who have gone before us, I have for a long time felt, it is time that we let them say what they said while they were alive. Personally, when I am dead and gone, and of no great importance, I would hate to have people quoting me for what I would say if I happened to be present at the time. With regard to Padraig Pearse's view on the language or Wolfe Tone's idea of republicanhood they said what they wanted to say when they were alive. This has been said lately by a man much more important than I am. I share his views completely and have felt this way for a long time. We should speak for ourselves in the present day as the situation arises.

Over the years we have had slogans of "No surrender" and "Not an inch" and on our side now we have "Up the Republic". We have reached the stage now where we can see the reality of the situation as it is. There cannot be a monopoly by any side. The Forum report has gone out of its way to show that we are able to cater for the views of people who hold completely different views to us. If we have come up with options it means we are prepared to compromise. I cannot see any other way except compromise. We certainly cannot get exactly what we want; and I do not believe the Unionists can get exactly what they want either. I appeal at this stage for leniency towards those who have views that are different to ours. I also appeal for this acceptance of the other person's views and to accept a position that may not be exactly what everybody wants. I sincerely hope that the British Government will come in and make an offer that will get our people off the hook in what is a very difficult situation.

During the summer I visited Northern Ireland. I did not see either soldiers or policemen, except in a very limited way. This is not the picture in reality for those people who have been cut off by the agreements which were made 60 years ago: they are living in a different situation altogether. They have been under severe hardship and have suffered a lot of deprivations. It is easy for me to speak, as a tourist travelling through, looking at what is happening there and feeling that everything is fine. It is the people who are living in Northern Ireland who are aware of what is going on. I should like to compliment the SDLP people who have taken such a brave stand in the face of some terrible provocation in an effort to uphold democracy.

This Forum report has taken a lot of time. The people who took part in it, the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, the Minister for Energy and the SDLP, deserve a lot of credit for giving their time when maybe people could say that there were other more important things to discuss for example, the economy. The one cry that people have is to forget about the North. It is to their credit that they gave so much time to produce a report that gives hope and a certain sense of light at the end of the tunnel, depending, of course, on the response. We have put our side of the house in order. We have made a reasonable effort at showing that we are reasonable. I sincerely hope that there will be a response that will bring relief to those of our people in the North who very much want to be with us and that those who may at the moment not want to be with us, will not fear the suggestions that will be made and the solutions that will be offered. My wish is that we will achieve something as a result of the long deliberations that have gone on to produce this Forum report.

Mr. Ross

I share the very sincere feelings of many people in this House about the motivation for setting up the Forum report. I believe there is absolutely no room for doubt that those who went into this assembly, those who sat around the Forum table, were genuine in wanting to find a way forward for the Irish problem. I believe that sincerity was absolutely genuine. That does not necessarily mean that the Forum report was an unqualified success. I do not think, to be fair to them, that they were looking for some results or for quick answers to the solution. We have to decide, when we analyse what came out of the Forum report, if it was a good start in tackling this very complicated problem or has it turned out to be a lost opportunity.

I do not believe that the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs just now was a very encouraging response to the first debate which the Oireachtas has had on the Forum. It was — and I take no pleasure in saying this — full of a certain amount of platitudes. It said virtually nothing. At the beginning it goes through the fairly well worn procedure of condemning the IRA and later it goes on to talk about the rights of the minority in Northern Ireland. It is not until we come half way through his speech that the Forum gets a mention.

I do not think that that is a worthy response to this Debate which has been going on here for several weeks.

The Minister said:

I believe, in particular, that the efforts of the constitutional nationalist parties, North and South, in the proceedings of the Forum have caught the imagination of the British Government and people and helped to bring these two islands closer than they have been for a very long time.

I do not know what he means by that, and I think it is very short on specifics. I am sorry — maybe there are other reasons — that we have had no indication from the Government in this debate where the Forum is leading us. This says absolutely nothing. He goes on to say:

The realities and the requirements of the situation contributed to the Forum by all strands of opinion in Ireland, debated in the Forum with great earnestness and debated throughout Ireland, ...

That means nothing at all. The Minister goes on in the ritual way to praise the contributions of the Members of this House. This House deserves a better response from the Government than that if we are to take the Forum seriously, as we are told to do.

We deserve something better than these four sheets of paper which gives us no indication of where the Forum has gone in the last four or five months. The truth may be — it may be an unpalatable truth — that Mrs. Thatcher's response to the tragedy at Brighton was to scoff at the Forum. That may be the truth and that may be difficult for us to face. Mrs. Thatcher said quite blatantly on Monday or Tuesday that there would be no immediate initiatives in Northern Ireland. That may not be what we like to hear. That may be why the Minister for Foreign Affairs has to produce what is merely a holding operation at this time. It may be that the Forum will meet a very deaf response. If that is true let us face up to it and let us go somewhere else.

It was a pity to hear from Senator Deenihan a division in the ranks when he attacked certain members of Fianna Fáil and their attitude to the Forum, because if the Forum report is to be genuine it has to be unanimous. It is not helpful for anybody who is a member of the Forum to attack the attitudes of other members of the Forum. The Forum is meant to be unanimous. If the cracks are appearing publicly then how are the British Government going to take the Forum seriously? If Senator Deenihan, the Tánaiste and Deputy Haughey are going to argue in public about what the Forum report said how is anybody to whom the Forum report is presented going to know whose Forum report it is?

There is a problem that we will have maybe the Leader of one Government representing the policies of an Opposition in which he does not believe but if that is true and he finds it impossible to do then he should reject it as a bogus report. Having said that, I still believe that there is a sincere motivation behind what happened. I still believe some good could come out of the Forum report and that it may not be necessarily a totally wasted exercise. What must be faced about the Forum report is that it was a pan-nationalist group of people, all with a fairly similar, if not identical, outlook on what was the answer to the nationalist question.

It must be faced that there was very little questioning of the underlying beliefs of these people, that there were no Unionists at this table, despite the fact that they were invited, and that there was no question of the final solution which was some form of a united Ireland. If the Forum report is to be useful at all it should have questioned this very fundamental assumption which lay behind its whole purpose, that they should have first said: Do we want a united Ireland at all? You can see from the conclusions of the Forum report that that was never questioned and that the conclusions it came out with were three different sorts of a united Ireland.

The questions they asked themselves were which sort of united Ireland they wanted. I do not understand why they did not, if the other solutions which are offered to us are so impossible to take — why they did not, as Senator Deenihan said, look at the possibilities, for instance, of another solution not necessarily a solution but an alternative, he said. Why should south Armagh, Fermanagh, Tyrone and other various parts of Northern Ireland not be part of the Republic of Ireland? Why should the Border not be redrawn? Why did the Forum not look at the possibility of repartition? I am not in any way advocating repartition but I think if the Forum report was to look at the alternatives it should have looked at repartition and said repartition is a bad idea for the following reasons.

Why did the Forum report not look at the possibility of total integration of Northern Ireland with Great Britain? That may be politically impossible for a politician here to advocate, but it should be practically possible for any politician here to take up the problem of total integration of Northern Ireland and Great Britain and say why it will not work. That was not looked at. Why did the Forum report not look at the possibility of direct rule? Why did the Forum report not look at the possibility of the total independence of Northern Ireland?

All of these things have been put forward as possible solutions in a different context before. Those who sat around that Forum table ignored the possibilities completely. Those who sat around that Forum table worked on the one assumption, that the ultimate and only solution was some sort of territorial unity of this island.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 8 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 October 1984.