Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 258 - 04 February, 1972

Adjournment Motion: Northern Ireland Situation.

The Taoiseach: I move: That the Dáil do now adjourn.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Tunney has 15 minutes to conclude.

Mr. Tunney: Last night I endeavoured to show how erroneous and unreasonable it was for anyone to expect an Irishman to accept that his freedom or his destiny was to be found in the laws of any other country. That is fundamental to the problem which exists in our country today. I also tried to search for the reaction of the British people to a situation where the many people who planted England would have refused to be assimilated into the Irish way of life and would today be contending that, irrespective of the fact that they lived in England, they should be permitted to look for the rules of authority governing them in another country. Many people from this country were forced to reside in England. What would the English reaction be if Irish people living in England today were to insist that they should be ruled not from Westminster but from Dublin? I do not think it would be accepted by the English people and I would not expect them to accept it.

In talking on matters of this kind we are invariably told we should avoid emotion. Here we are dealing with a human problem. Human beings are emotional. Here we are dealing with the memory of Irish people trying to continue the struggle initiated by people who lived many centuries before [1066] us. You cannot treat emotional matters, matters of the spirit, in a cold, calculated way. This morning on Radio Éireann there was a report that Mr. Maudling had said that matters in the North of Ireland concerned England, that English law was in question; in short, he was trying to propound that Ireland was England. I am not saying that in the present situation in the North of Ireland the British must proceed to pull out immediately. There are certain considerations to be taken into account, but they should no longer attempt to continue the lie that any part of Ireland is England. The simple fact is that it is not and never will be.

There is always the danger that, having visited a graveyard, people will be emotional. People who would expect me not to express the thoughts which ran through my mind while I was in the graveyard in Derry would expect me to disregard what Padraig Pearse said at the grave of O'Donovan-Rossa or what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg. I cannot help being moved by such situations, and anyone who stood there and watched the coflins containing the remains of those young Irishmen whose only offence was to attempt to walk on Irish soil would find it difficult to contain himself. That was their only offence. Apparently I am expected now to answer the call from Mr. Heath—the first time he ever made an appeal to Ireland—and to be associated with the request that Irish people should not walk next Sunday. He is asking me, in short, to vindicate him and his Government in their action last Sunday. He is asking me to accept that the people who were shot last Sunday for walking were wrong and that the military men he sent in there to butcher these people were right.

I will not suggest that I am the man to tell the people who are organising this march what they should do. What I am saying is that I am refusing to accept from Mr. Heath that I, or any other Irishman, lay or cleric, should accept that fellow Irishmen have not the right to walk the length and breadth of Ireland. If the walk takes place, I hope advantage will not be taken of it by people who are not genuinely interested in the freedom of [1067] Ireland, people who will capitalise on and exploit any occasion either to advance their own position in power or to satisfy some vanity within themselves so that they can say: “We knew this would happen”, people who will avail of an occasion such as this, as they did in the past, as they did in 1916, to break a shop window to steal a pair of shoes or a suit of clothes. If elements such as these dare to distort the real reason why this parade is being held, I hope they will be dealt with very effectively by the properly motivated people who are organising the march.

I did not intend to say anything about the British Embassy. Nevertheless as Jim Tunney, the Irishman, I must say that I did not lose any sleep thinking about it. Having said that, I want to reprimand as strongly as possible people who would avail of that opportunity to discredit the name of Ireland. Weighing that episode in the balance as against what happened elsewhere, and weighing it against the only feeling that motivates me in politics, a feeling for human beings, I say that embassies and buildings can be restored but human beings cannot.

I want to try to put something of a positive nature to the House, something which was not mentioned in my hearing by any other speaker. While I would strongly criticise the situation that exists, I fully accept the position of Protestant, Dissenter and Presbyterian, and of every man and woman who lives on this Island. I am prepared to give them every consideration possible. I would be happier in conceding such consideration to them if initially they would agree with me that they are Irish.

On the matter of the financial assistance which is being given to what is called the minority group, last year I said at a function that, having regard to the material side of the situation and to the subsidies and moneys which are given to the Government who claim to be in authority in the North, if I were asking them to take out their authority and take out their military men, I would not at the same time ask them to leave their money. If I do not [1068] want their authority, if I do not want their soldiers, I do not want their shilling. Anybody else who does is welcome to it.

Let this be proof of the sincerity of our feelings. Here I see an opportunity for every person in Ireland to make a sacrifice. Instead of suggesting that only our soldiers should go up and be shot, or exhorting other people to go up and have themselves shot for the realisation of our ideal, if we want our ideal realised we should all be prepared to pay for it. Is it too much to suggest that that sacrifice should be financial. Vis-á-vis the sacrifices other people have made, if this were to contribute towards a solution we would be getting very good value.

It will be an indication of our sincerity to people in the North of all denominations and all persuasions if we can show them that we are prepared, as the Dublinman would say, to put our money and our sacrifices where our mouths are, and act in a truly Christian and truly republican fashion by denying ourselves something and not hoping to batten on it at the expense of other people.

Mr. Harte: This is a very sad morning in Leinster House. A few minutes ago I was on the telephone to Belfast speaking to a well-informed newspaper correspondent who told me that, in his judgment—and he is never very far wrong—the Unionist Party have united and the Catholics have opted out. In his words, the stage is set for civil war. This is a terrible thought because, in such a situation there is no opting out. When the chips are down we all take our sides. Two years ago I warned this Assembly that such a situation could develop if we allowed people to harden lines and to draw battle lines.

There are sections in our community on our side—and it is terrible to have to say “on our side” because it means that there is another side—who can forcibly draw up battle lines, people whose actions we reject totally but who can create a situation in which there will be reaction from the opposite side and counter-reaction from our side until such time as we are all [1069] drawn in, as happened in Derry last Sunday.

I know no Deputy wishes to use a situation to inflame an already bad situation. People will be activated by revenge by trying to inflame passions. I do not know what way you can argue against a situation in which a battalion of the British Army comes into the Bogside and brutally murders 13 innocent people. I say that in the full knowledge that I have never yet in any speech made in this House or outside it on this particular subject tried to come in combat with any other people who disagreed with my point of view. It is well known that Deputy Blaney and I come from the same constituency and it is well known that we disagree vitally on our approach to this problem, but I have never yet publicly accused him of doing something wrong or speaking out of place. I have done so privately. Deputy Blaney is entitled to his opinion. The only thing I say to him is that when he makes his opinion public he should defend it.

I am entitled to my opinion. When I make it public I also have to defend it. I want to say to Deputy Blaney and to other people who share the type of revenge he seeks that as Christian-minded people we either believe in the Ten Commandments or we do not. If we believe in the Ten Commandments we have to obey them. I am quite capable, if given the opportunity, of breaking the Fifth Commandment the same as many other people have done. This does not vindicate my action because it is still a breach of the Fifth Commandment. Therefore, we as Christians and less as politicians must look on the northern scene and see how we can help those people rather than seek revenge.

I know the fears of the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. I know what it is as an ordinary unknown individual to walk down Fountain Street in Derry and to see people looking over half-doors and behind windows wondering who the stranger is who is walking down their street. I know the fear of wondering who is looking over my shoulder while I walk down that street. I know I am [1070] quite safe and the people of Fountain Street know that I am quite safe but I fear that someone will stab me in the back or someone will shoot me. This same fear is in the minds of the Protestants in Northern Ireland who go into the Bogside or who go down the Falls Road in Belfast.

I am sorry to say while this terrible position exists in Northern Ireland there are some politicians this side of the Border, not alone Deputy Blaney, who make speeches and the only thing they ask themselves is how many votes they will get or how many votes they will lose by making such a speech. They are not all in the Fianna Fáil Party or the Labour Party. Unfortunately there are a few of them in the Fine Gael Party.

I might be a bit harsh in saying this but since September, 1969, I have made appeals to individuals, both colleagues and opponents, to refrain from being inflamed by what is happening, to refrain from saying anything publicly that would misguide young people. When the chips are down there are only two teams in the field and you cheer your own team. We heard Deputy Blaney yesterday talking about bringing the Army up to north of the Border. I had this appeal made to me in Derry on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday evenings and also at the funerals on Wednesday. I know these people and I know their fears. I know what they want and it is very hard to tell them that it is wrong to send the military up to defend them. It is very hard to explain to the people of Derry that if we send the Irish troops up there this is civil war. As Deputy Tom O'Higgins said yesterday, too many people want civil war, to fight it to the last drop of the other person's blood. I do not want my wife or any of my children killed in a civil war and I am quite sure they do not want me killed in a civil war.

This is what civil war means and none of us has done anything to stop it. I have come out publicly on two occasions in complete support of the Taoiseach when other members of his party had not the guts to do it. I asked for public support for him because he [1071] was the democratic leader elected and appointed to speak on behalf of the country. In fairness to the Taoiseach, while I subscribe to 95 per cent of his views he has failed me and has failed other people in not leading this country and in not conditioning public opinion. Perhaps if I was in the Taoiseach's place I would react in the same way or indeed I might be more miserable in my approach. Perhaps I would fail the Irish people more than he has done.

At the moment we are lacking in leadership, both north and south of the Border. We had a great display of Brian Faulkner this week being an excellent leader of the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. He aspires to be, as I see it, the Protestant Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, leader of the Unionist Party. After the atrocities in the city of Derry on Sunday any Christian, no matter what the side issues were, could have nothing but charity in his heart for the bereaved families. What did Brian Faulkner tell us? He said that any person who disobeyed the law must accept the consequences. How can he tolerate a situation where 13 people are butchered for walking the streets of their native city? There is argument about whether they broke the law or not but without going into that, if the procession was wrong, the laws of the land could have been applied.

It is very hard not to become emotional in this matter. The situation which exists in our island today is one we cannot tolerate. I have made predictions to politicians and I do not look with any great pride on the things I have predicted because I always hoped I would be wrong. The cruel thing is that I have been right. History has a habit of repeating itself and we are going through a phase in Irish history which many other Irishmen before us have gone through. I now predict that unless the British forces in the North or the British Government change their attitude they are driving the two communities in this island into total and absolute sectarian civil war. What appears at the moment to be a battle between the provisional IRA and the British Army is only a stage-setting [1072] for sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Let nobody say that this is an alarmist statement because I can see this situation developing stage by stage.

Two months ago I prepared a speech. I did not deliver the speech for some unexplained reason. It was an appeal to politicians south of the Border to stop making inflammatory speeches, to stop taking sides. It is far too easy to take sides and if you want to take sides then go into the North of Ireland and do the things there you are inciting other people to do. In that speech I said that what politicians south of the Border did not realise was that we were one short step away from total and absolute civil war, that as soon as the Protestant population came on the street and retaliated we were in total civil war. The British Army would then become irrelevant.

The British Army last Sunday in one hour of brutality in Derry succeeded in doing something that Ian Paisley failed to do in ten years of open bigotry. They succeeded in having the Catholic population opting completely out, and what is more, putting them on the offensive or defensive, depending on the way you look at it—that if they cannot get revenge, if they cannot get shooting at British soldiers, they will shoot at RUC men, they will shoot at RUC families. If they cannot get at the RUC or the British Army they will get at their property and if they cannot get at their property—this is the cruel thing but I might as well say it because it has happened before—if they cannot get at the British establishment in Northern Ireland or at something they believe to be the British establishment, there will be a warning of reprisals on British subjects in the Twenty-six Counties.

At that point we will be in civil war. What have we done about it? Deputy Blaney yesterday told a story of a young child in St. Mary's Church in the Creggan. I heard that child. I also saw the scene on Tuesday evening when three young brothers failed to carry their youngest brother to the altar. I heard the story from the mother of young Gilmore who gave [1073] her 50p for her birthday and who 15 minutes later was shot dead in front of her eyes. I heard the story of the boy who saw his pal shot dead like a rat, who had tried to get away from the soldiers, who escaped two bullets but who was killed by the third. I heard the story, and we have seen the photographs in the newspapers, of a father carrying his youngest child to the grave. We have heard of the UDR man being shot in his sittingroom in front of his family.

Is this the type of Ireland Deputy Blaney wants? This is the type of Ireland anybody who seeks revenge wants. Has any of us had the experience of carrying his child to the grave, of carrying his kid brother up the chapel aisle? Have any of our mothers suffered the anguish of seeing their sons shot dead in the streets? Do we want these things? If we do not, what are we doing about them? I do not address these remarks to Deputy Blaney alone or to others who support his point of view. I address them also to Brian Faulkner and to his bigots in the North of Ireland who refuse to budge an inch.

In a telephone conversation I had from Derry with the Leader of the Fine Gael Party on Sunday evening I made an urgent appeal to him which he accepted. I know the same appeal has been made to the Taoiseach. It is that he should get the Leaders of the Opposition to go to London without an invitation and tell Mr. Heath that they had gone across to tell him something. Unless we get off these kid gloves of diplomatic niceties and realise that we are gambling with the lives of innocent Irishmen in the North of Ireland, unless we approach it in a firm way, in a fair way but a frank way, more people will lose their lives.

I am disappointed that the Taoiseach thought diplomatic niceties were necessary. When you are putting out a fire you do not give a damn whether the water is dirty or clean and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to put out a fire and the Protestant people in the North should realise this. That is what the efforts amount to of the people who have been seeking reconciliation, who have been seeking common [1074] ground, who have been trying to build an island in mid-stream, who have been trying for open dialogue with the Protestant people in the North, who have been saying: “We appreciate you do not want to join us at this time but we aspire in the long term to a united Ireland. We want to build an Ireland that is for Protestants and Catholics, Nationalists and Unionists. It is our job to make conditions acceptable to Unionists and to Catholics North and South of the Border. This is our island, Catholic and Protestant, not just Catholic and not just Republican, not just Protestant and not just Unionist, but Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Republican. We want to make it an island fit to live in and not a place to be killed in.” If the people in the North do not realise that the efforts which we are trying to make are not being reciprocated by the Unionist leaders of Northern Ireland, that the policy of not an inch will have to go, if they do not realise it is in their interest to get rid of people like Brian Faulkner—I do not wish to be unchristian to that man but I want to be frank and honest and fair with him— there are people in our society who will get rid of him for them.

Another terrible thought is that there are politicians in the North of Ireland who believe they have a God-given right to reserve part of this island for themselves. Some of them believe that that part of Ireland is Unionist and only Unionist. There are others who believe they have reason to fear a united Ireland. Deputy Blaney yesterday and on other occasions said that the Unionists in the North have nothing to fear in a united Republic of Ireland. I know this. The Labour Party and Fianna Fáil know it, most people south of the Border know it, but does anybody realise for a second that the type of speech which Deputy Blaney made yesterday, contrasted with the way he projected himself on the BBC programme—

Mr. Desmond: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harte: Does Deputy Blaney think that the Protestant people in Belfast who do not see the situation as we see it will be encouraged into a [1075] united Ireland by such speeches? When the Unionist people in the North looked at the `7 Days” programme from RTE on the evening before Deputy Blaney appeared on the BBC “Panorama” programme they heard him being asked by Ted Nealon how he would help and he said he would provide every equipment necessary. When he was asked what he meant he said: “I mean exactly what I said”. To me that only means total support, guns, ammunition and bombs. If anyone thinks it is patriotic to give an Irishman a gun with which to shoot another Irishman he is sadly mistaken. To me that is not patriotism. If the Taoiseach called the natives of this island to arms to defend the island against an invader I would consider it an honour to lay my life down in defence of my native land, as would other people. That is not a boast on my own behalf alone. But I cannot see how Irishmen can collect millions on foreign soil and buy guns from Communist people to come back to this island to shoot fellow countrymen.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harte: It does not make sense and there is no point in saying that it is a solution. I do not know how a Catholic can only shoot a Protestant and I do not know how a Protestant can only shoot a Catholic, and what is the difference? We have had statements by different politicians. We have had calls for a phased withdrawal of British military, for withdrawal of financial support. What do we mean by “phased withdrawal of British forces from Northern Ireland” and “withdrawal of financial support”? Does anybody suggest for a second that I am against getting the British military out of the North of Ireland or does anybody think that I think that there is a Deputy in this House who does not want to see the British military out of Northern Ireland? I want to see them out as fast as may be but when we talk about phased withdrawal it sounds nice to the person reading the paper in Cork, Kerry, Tipperary or indeed in Dublin. It sounds good politics to the person who [1076] is listening to it on television. But can anybody answer this question? If Ted Heath agreed to the withdrawal of British forces and, let us say, that happened three months ago and there was a backlash from Protestants when you had 2,000 military there, what do you do? Do you continue to take them out or do you bring them back in or do you stop for a period?

The phased withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland means absolutely nothing until such time as we can get the Catholics and Protestants, the Nationalists and the Unionists, to live together, until we find a political solution. That does not mean that I am in favour of the British troops being there. I am neither in favour nor against phased withdrawal because it is just nonsense to be talking about it. What I am in favour of is a political solution. There is no going back to pre-1969 Stormont. The Catholic population have opted out and until there is a political solution found there will be trouble and we are going to find reasons for criticising the British Army and the British Government are going to find reasons for keeping them there and Brian Faulkner is going to make his Unionist speeches and politicians on this side of the Border are going to continue making their Republican speeches and we are going to be attending more funerals.

When I said on Tuesday evening in Derry that it was too easy to take sides I was asked: “Are you not now taking sides when you are in Derry?” I had to admit that I suppose I was. I do not have to declare what side I am on. A Republican IRA man came into my office one morning this week and reminded me that he was proud to be an IRA man and a Republican, as much as to say that I despised him for it. I told him that I was more proud to be an Irishman. And this is the type of Ireland that I want. It is much too easy to put a ticket on a person. We either believe in the Ten Commandments or we do not. If we do not then let us face up and let us get back to primitive living. If we believe in them you cannot make the shooting of two RUC officers a killing [1077] and the shooting of 13 innocent people murder. In my judgement they are both murder.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harte: The answer is not the the bullet and the bomb. We cannot win with the bullet and the bomb. God knows when I looked at the British Army on Sunday evening in Derry and people asking for guns to defend themselves I had to admit it silently to myself without saying it publicly, but now I feel I am compelled to do so. The British Army if they got rough would not alone annihilate the citizens of Derry but they could take on the Irish Army with their hands tied behind their backs. We have not got it in our power to combat them with the bullet and the gun and, even if we had, we would be gambling with civil war.

People may argue on what type of united Ireland we want. We can point to acts of discrimination, to acts of gerrymandering, we can say with plenty of evidence that there has been 50 years of bigoted misrule in the North of Ireland, not because the Unionist Party were pro-Protestant or anti-Catholic or pro-British, though these things appear to be the case, but because the Unionist politicians wanted power and for no other reason——

Mr. P. Belton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harte: ——and because they could successfully play the sectarian card and shout: “We are the only party that can maintain Partition” and all the Protestants voted for them. What had we here? We had politicians shouting: “We are the only party that can end Partition.” To me, the ending of Partition is a very simple act. In my judgement Partition is not the problem and never was the problem, although it appeared to be and is a very emotional thing. In the setting up of the Six County state Partition seemed to be the issue, but in this Assembly during the discussions on the Treaty Partition was mentioned by only two Deputies. The issue involved was whether we should swear allegiance to the British king or not. In my humble judgment the trouble was not Partition; it was the [1078] setting up of Stormont. If at that time the British Government had said: “The Twenty-six Counties can have independence, the other Six will be controlled directly from Westminster like Scotland and Wales” there would not have been 50 years of misrule in Northern Ireland.

A Cheann Comhairle, I am coming towards the end of my time. There are other things I appeal to you to allow me to say. The situation in the North demands absolute political initiative. The initiative is first of all with Ted Heath to realise that this is our island and that we must make conditions available for Catholic and Protestant to live in it. It then rests with Brian Faulkner to agree that in the long term a united Ireland is inevitable and that his function now is to negotiate with the Southern Irish the conditions best suited to the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. And the initiative rests with us here to ensure that whatever action we take will be based on Christian charity. We can justly point out that there have been injustices in Northern Ireland and we can put these forward as arguments for the ending of Partition. We can argue that there are certain steps we can take. But the reason why the Northern Ireland state did not function was not because the Catholics were not getting the jobs or the houses, it was not because the Unionist Party was in power, but because the Catholic population never gave their consent to be governed by Stormont.

An Ceann Comhairle: I must now call the next speaker.

Mr. Harte: If the Catholic population continue to refuse to give their consent that State will never work again. To the people who believe that we can unite this country without the consent of the Unionists I say the same thing will happen and for the same reason a united Ireland will not work.

An Ceann Comhairle: I must now call the next speaker, Deputy.

Mr. Harte: I have just two things to say.

[1079] An Ceann Comhairle: The House has agreed on half hour speeches and we cannot extend it for any Deputy. The Deputy is now taking up the time of other Deputies who wish to speak. I am very sorry, Deputy.

Mr. Harte: But the last occasion you allowed Deputy Blaney ten minutes extra and all I want is three seconds.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien: That was Deputy Blaney.

An Ceann Comhairle: If that is the case——

Mr. Harte: That is the case I am making.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does Deputy Cluskey wish to say something?

Mr. Cluskey: No. I want to speak next.

Mr. Harte: I should like to make this a public statement. There is a young man called William Whoriskey of Philip Street Derry who has not been seen since Sunday morning's march. There is some mystery as to his whereabouts. There is also a boy called Doherty from Strabane. I would appeal to the Taoiseach to get in contact with London and direct the Northern authorities to make known publicly where these two individuals are.

Mr. Foley: This debate took place because of the persistence of Deputy Neil Blaney and others on these benches in having the whole matter of the Six Counties discussed. Were it not for their persistence possibly we would now be discussing the Estimate for Fisheries. Were it not for the fact that Deputy Blaney spoke early on in this debate, those who are loud in their criticism of him would be left with nothing to say. I want to say quite openly that Deputy FitzGerald condemned, word for word, what Deputy Blaney had said but Deputy FitzGerald contributed nothing to the debate as far as the Northern Ireland situation is concerned. Deputy FitzGerald's contribution was similar to speeches we have heard from his predecessors, from a type of individual who would promote British propaganda and British Imperialism [1080] in this country. This is what we are against. This is the type of attitude that we are trying to eradicate.

Deputy Blaney in his speech indicated to the ordinary citizens of the country that whatever disrepute this House has been brought into in the past or within the last few days by speeches of people like Deputy FitzGerald, there is at least one living soul who has the interest of the people of Northern Ireland at heart, and that is Deputy Blaney.

I stand by Deputy Neil Blaney because, at least, he is a man. He came out and said what needed to be said. He expressed the opinions of the people who demonstrated in Merrion Square. Thank Heavens there are such opinions still held by the Irish nation. On Monday last these people, in their demonstration, displayed exactly how the Irish nation feels with regard to the treachery and the murders by the British soldiers in Derry last Sunday.

The action of these British soldiers has actually been excused here by some of the Fine Gael Deputies who suggested that they cannot be blamed, that they are taking orders from superiors, from people who are ruthless, from people in whose estimation the only good Irishman is a dead Irishman. The British soldiers are to be excused for shooting people at point-blank range, for taking an individual off the street, putting him in an armoured car, moving him up an alley way, shooting him and then alleging that he was shot in crossfire. It is a miracle that there were not 100 persons killed in Derry last Sunday by the British soldiers. Had events come about in the way they had prescribed, more Irish people would have died and the greater would have been the joy of the MPs of the Unionist Party, who had nothing to say but that their British boys displayed splendid accuracy and good marksmanship in picking-off the IRA, whom they alleged they had shot. We went to the funeral in Derry. It was not a military funeral of the type that we have seen at IRA funerals. Those who died included men who left families behind them and young men who left mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. The interments took place in the ordinary manner. [1081] The sympathy of the nation and of the world was expressed.

That sympathy has been washed away here in the last few days. At first, every one of us felt a considerable amount of anger and emotion against the British soldiers. As I said on that day, in three days time the deaths in Derry will have been forgotten and we will be still standing idly by, without taking positive action to protect the minority in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Blaney advocated that the people in Northern Ireland should be protected. He said that the first-line reserves should be brought up, that the FCA should be mobilised and put on the Border. Deputy Blaney did not advocate something that he has not said before. I want to remind Deputy FitzGerald that having regard to the fact that Deputy Blaney said these things before, he had every right to come into this House and say: “We told you so”. No one has been more persistent than he in his attitude and no one has warned the people on this side of the Border more than Deputy Neil Blaney has with regard to future happenings in the North. What happened on Sunday last in Derry will happen again if we do not take some positive action against the British soldiers and against the imperialism which has been imposed upon us by the British Government.

It has been quite obvious that the negotiations with Britain have been fruitless and worthless. We have got nowhere with them. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the laughing hyena, Heath, is prepared to treat the people of Ireland as gillies, to treat them as the British have treated them for the last 800 years. The people in this part of Ireland should be prepared to stand up and say that we have no faith in negotiating with Mr. Heath. He gave us “the bum's rush” last Sunday night. The Leaders of the Opposition parties and the Taoiseach should get together and go over to Heath and demand that he do something about British terrorists in the North.

It has been suggested here also that the real terrorists in Northern Ireland [1082] are the IRA. That can be contradicted. The real terrorists in Northern Ireland are the British soldiers, and nobody else. The British soldiers have got themselves this name, not through the courtesy with which they came into the country, not through British justice in which everyone of us believed and staked his life on. The Taoiseach said that we could trust the British. I have no trust in them. The people of this country have no trust in them. The majority of Deputies here have no trust in the British soldiers. No treaty entered into with Britain with regard to the future of this country was ever kept. They have always found it convenient to break every agreement entered into with them. That has been the system operated by Britain with regard to Ireland. The same system will be carried on if we are not prepared to stand up and say that British soldiers will have to leave Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland will have to sit down with the Taoiseach and with other Members of this Parliament to negotiate a settlement that will bring about the unity of the country. Negotiations cannot take place as long as British murderers are still enforcing their rule on the people of Northern Ireland, against their wishes.

With regard to the Fine Gael position and the secret thoughts they have, it would be much better if these thoughts had been brought out in the open before this debate and if the people could know exactly what type of people exist within that party.

The Taoiseach has said that there is complete unity among all parties with regard to Northern Ireland. He said this, I am sure, on the basis that he hoped he would get unity with regard to the situation, which is a very critical situation. I cannot see, having listened to the speeches here from the Fine Gael Party, in particular, how in Heaven's name any member of our Fianna Fáil Party could say that he agrees with the type of persistent pro-British propaganda perpetrated here by the Fine Gael Party. I cannot believe any Fianna Fáil Deputy subscribes to that propaganda. I will not believe it. I believe there are men of character still over there who do not agree with [1083] the pro-British propaganda enunciated here.

The people in the North deserve our protection and we have failed them. If we want to admit we have failed them, we can do that and be forgiven; but this Parliament has allowed itself to fall into disrepute because we have failed miserably to protect the minority group in the North, a group which has been under severe strain from both the British and the Stormont regimes. These people now have reason to say that this is the last opportunity we will have to redeem ourselves, the last opportunity this Parliament will have to redeem itself by demonstrating to the people up there that they have somewhere to which they can look for protection. This Parliament is now given the last opportunity to do that and, for Heaven's sake, let us not neglect them on this occasion as we have on so many occasions in the past.

Criticism has been voiced about the burning of the British Embassy. I do not have to say—and I hope it is well known—that I cry no salt tears for the British Embassy. I think it was a good job, a damn good job, that it was there to be burned because if, had it not been there, Heaven knows where these people would have turned in their frustration. They might have been just as relevant remembering performances here in the past. The protest was made in good faith. The people who burned the Embassy were protesting in good faith. They wanted to proclaim to the world their opinion and their allegiance. Who can blame them? We are all Irishmen. There was no differentiation between Protestant and Catholic when they were burning the British Embassy. War has been declared on us by Mr. Maudling and the British soldiers and they are the people we are fighting. There is no such thing as Catholic fighting Protestant, as has been argued here. The Irish problem could be solved and would be solved if Britain got out of the North. They have a golden opportunity now to redeem themselves. Let them get out and let us solve our own problems and, Heaven knows, there are enough statesmen around to set the right pattern.

[1084] The protest by the people last Sunday was an expression of opinion. I appeal to them, when the time comes again in Newry next Sunday, to express their opinions in a dignified way, a way that will command respect. When the SDLP and the Civil Rights Association march again in Newry next Sunday it will be yet another protest against British tyranny. The people are not prepared to accept Deputy FitzGerald's pro-British attitude. These protests are laudable and those who protest should be protected. I hope that the Taoiseach's appeal is listened to. If it is not, then we shall have another “Derry” next Sunday. If we have another “Derry”, and another 13 are killed up there, maybe we will then appreciate fully the situation in the North where the people have been literally under siege for the last two and a half years. Deputy Blaney and others have been telling us what would happen. He is there living close to this puppet State. He and others know what is going on. They know the tyranny the people in the Bogside and Creggan are suffering. If they cannot voice their opinions freely, then we are not living in the same democracy that we think we are. No one knows the position better than Neil Blaney. No one could have a better insight into the type of tyranny carried on by British soldiers than Neil Blaney.

Long Kesh and Magilligan have been mentioned. We have not yet properly awakened here to the situation. Deputy Lenihan, Minister for Transport and Power, an ex-colleague of mine, said that as far as he was concerned the facts had been laid before the House for the first time ever. In other words, the fact that Magilligan had been opened is ignored. We ignore the fact that 27 of these unfortunate men in Long Kesh will never make love to their wives again because of torture by British soldiers. These are the circumstances in which we appeal to the British Government, once again on our bended knees, to have consideration for us. We cannot take up arms against the British. We cannot stop them inflicting their laws on the people in the North. Fine Gael says we should turn the other cheek. If we turn another [1085] check we will have to stand on our heads to find one. This situation should never have arisen. We should never have allowed ourselves to react to British pressure. We should show the people in the North that we are interested in them, that we consider them to be part of this island, that the Protestants and Catholics there have nothing whatever to fear in our democracy.

The Government have in the past clearly displayed the democracy in which we live. We have given the Protestants an equal, if not a better share of the national cake. I hope we will continue to do that. If this is the type of thing which could and should encourage the Protestants in the North to realise that we down here are interested in their coming into a Thirty-Two County Republic, then I say to the Government they are doing a good job. Keep up the good work because there is no doubt we will win through, but only by getting Heath and Faulkner out and the Unionism they have tried to hold on to in Northern Ireland which results in the Catholic minority there being downtrodden. It is the rule of the iron hand. We must impress on the British Government that there is a place for the Six Counties here, that there are people there who would prefer to be in a Thirty-Two County Republic. They have voiced that opinion by demonstrating. They will do it again next Sunday. Will more people have to die before the Unionist Government realise the reign of terror they have wrought on the people of the Six Counties for the last 50 years will have to cease?

Mr. Heath is a Tory to his fingertips. His is a type which does not command respect in this part of our country. His is the type with which all through our history we have been confronted. His is the type who thinks of the Irish as gillies, people who deserve no democratic rights, people who must do whatever the stronger power says we should do.

We have appealed to Britain in numerous speeches saying that we are a weak nation but if we display to Britain and the world that we are a [1086] weak nation, what is the sense in sending the Minister for Foreign Affairs abroad to appeal to the United Nations for support in whatever way possible? We are prepared to accept support from wherever it comes and it is a good thing that the Minister should have gone abroad but let us not adopt a mealy-mouthed attitude. We should say that we are what we are and that the feelings expressed by the burning of the British Embassy are the true feelings of the Irish people. We feel we are as strong as any other nation when it comes to a question of independence and unity. If we want to show that, then we should go abroad and tell the people of the European Community that the Irish people will not this time be ground under British jackboots and cowed by the attitude of the Tories and the Heaths. In this final hour, the Irish in the South must decide to stand by the people in the North.

Deputy Blaney has been criticised in the same way as he was criticised in 1968, 1969 and 1970, because he predicts what will happen. His predictions last year came true and he was criticised for them not only in this House but in the Press and by the public at large. Now, they begin to realise that he was the only one speaking the truth, the only one with the courage of his convictions to stand up and say what he knew would happen and which did happen. He does not want any laurels or any credit for it: none of us do, but we are very sorry that what we said in the past has come true and sorry that this had to be to awaken the Irish nation to the realities of 13 deaths in Derry.

We have heard of people being shot but there are many things going on that the British Government are keeping hidden. There were more than 13 people shot last Sunday. People were taken away and shot and are now in the Foyle; no one knows where they will re-appear. People were taken away who have not turned up. Deputy Harte knows that because he knows individuals who were taken away by the British soldiers last Sunday and inquiries are still being made as to their whereabouts. They have not been interned; [1087] they were taken away in armoured cars but they have not been taken for questioning by the British in regard to their actions; they have not been found at home. Heaven knows where they are, but everybody can make the assumption that they got the same treatment as the 13 we honoured in Derry. This is the sort of thing of which the British public must be made aware.

I appeal to every Irishman in Britain and I say to him: “You are earning your living there because that suits Britain and it suits Britain to keep you there. You can claim a large responsibility for building up the economy of Britain because the Irish people worked harder than anybody else to build the British economy. Now is your golden opportunity to protest against the treatment by the forces which you assisted the British to finance. That money and those forces are now being used to shoot your fellow Irishmen. Now is the opportunity for Irishmen abroad to show that they object strenuously to what the British have been doing in Ireland and in Derry in particular in the last few days.”

In America we got the treatment we expected when we sought support. Yesterday we were shown what the bluff and the blow of the Americans about their love for Ireland amount to, in no uncertain manner. We saw it also in regard to the airlines and on every occasion when Ireland has sought support. I do not regard that attitude as representative of the American attitude but it is the kind of attitude everyone here expects from people who are well-off themselves. The people in the Six Counties are anything but well-off and if we in the Twenty-six Counties are only interested in protecting our society here we should tell the people in the North that we are not interested in them.

I support the call of the Taoiseach for the withdrawal of British troops and I support the call for the mobilisation of the FCA and the first line reserves. Everybody should be in a state of readiness in regard to the protection of the minority in the North. [1088] I suggested before that our forces should be withdrawn from Cyprus. Men of our Army have been killed in the Congo and in Cyprus and we were ever ready to honour them in Glasnevin. I have applauded the tribute paid to them because I think every soldier who dies in the service of his country deserves tribute but I regret that some of our soldiers have still been left in Cyprus while we need them here. We know there are soldiers on duty here who have been getting no leave and who have been working around the clock because so many men are abroad. Whatever number are abroad should be recalled immediately.

The views expressed by some of my ex-colleagues in the Fianna Fáil benches were expressed by us on many occasions and because we expressed these very same views we are on these benches today and the people who are voicing those views now can freely do so. All I can say is, thank Heaven the sacrifice we had to make to allow those people to express these opinions has been proved worthwhile. They should keep up the good work because I now realise our views have had some effect. We have heard it expressed here again and again—it cannot be said too often —by Deputy Tunney, Deputy Moore and Deputy Dowling that the British must get out——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy's time is now up.

Mr. Foley: If they can now express those views our sacrifice has not been in vain. We must seek a peaceful solution but first let us think of the people in the North who need help, the people who are being tortured by the forces of British tyranny and imperialism and let us not forget them in their hour of need.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Tánaiste.

Mr. Cluskey: Surely there should be rotation of speakers?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy will appreciate that the previous two speakers were not from the Government side. The balance of [1089] speakers so far has been six on the Government side and 14 others. Deputy Cluskey will be called next.

Mr. Cluskey: I do not fully accept that Deputy Foley is not from the Government side. He happens to be a member of the Government party. We had Deputy Tunney, Deputy Harte and Deputy Foley and even were I to accept that Deputy Foley was not a member of the Government party— which I do not—I would still be entitled to speak next.

Mr. Desmond: Deputy Cluskey offered at the same time as Deputy Foley.

Mr. Cluskey: We have had an official Fianna Fáil speaker in Deputy Tunney.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: An Tánaiste.

Mr. Cluskey: I consider it most regrettable that you have made this decision.

Tánaiste and Minister for Health (Mr. Childers): The appalling events which took place in Derry, the murder of 13 Derrymen, induces violent feelings of protest but at this juncture it would be as well if I did not repeat what has been said before on this subject but rather that I dealt with some of the more fundamental issues at this very grave hour. First, I am sure I will have agreement from everybody in the House when I say that the Civil Rights movement in the North is something that should be considered by us all.

Mr. L'Estrange: Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers: The fact that it was possible for the Nationalists to mount a massive protest against discrimination and against the deprivation of 50 years, that it was possible for them to highlight the abuses of power on the part of the Northern Government, that it was possible to resuscitate the Nationalist movement in 1967 and that it was possible for the Civil Rights movement to do this without any intent [1090] to physical violence and without espousing the cause of those who sought gun violence was remarkable. For four years the Civil Rights movement—I refer in this to the majority of the Civil Rights people now known as the SDLP—have been awakening the hearts and the minds of the nationalists in the North and they have succeeded in bringing to the attention of the world the situation under which the minority live in the Six Counties. They have put into confusion the Unionist Party in the North in the sense that at last that party began to divide into various groups and there was the awakening of a number of Unionists, perhaps, very small in numbers and in influence, who began to realise that something had to be done about the situation.

The Civil Rights movement have resisted sectarian action. Continually, they have condemned the bombing of Unionist premises in the same way as they have condemned the acts of the British Army in their overkill attitude and in their brutality. During the past year and a half they have resisted what must have been a tremendous temptation to advocate violence. They have warned the people both of the Six Counties and of the Twenty-six Counties of the possible dangers of civil war. When we speak of the situation today in the North, we must commend all those there who have taken this responsible action. When one reads their speeches it is evident that if there is to be any settlement in the North, there must eventually be dialogue and communication between the Unionists and the Nationalists and that no matter what happens and no matter what settlement might be affected, be it on a long-term or on a short-term basis, nothing could be achieved unless the two communities ceased hating each other and began to understand each other and began to communicate with each other. I hope that these people and this group will retain their interest. Sometimes we have great moments of anxiety because the pressure on them, largely as a result of the tactics of the British Army and the British Government, have been very severe and nothing that we say in this House [1091] should do anything to diminish their ultimate responsibility and authority.

As usual, the British Government have been dilatory, too late, too unimaginative and have shown no initiative in dealing with the problem of the North. I refer to a brilliant statement made by the journalist and broadcaster, Keith Kyle who, writing in The Listener, said that the greatest enemy of British policy-making in Ireland at every single stage has been self-deception, that nothing that contributes now to self-deception about Ireland can conceivably be in the nationalist interest. The British Government have been indulging in self-deception in regard to the realities of the position in the North and now the dangerous brink of civil war has been reached. The British Government failed to take account of section 3 of the 1920 Act which presaged unity at a later date. They have never taken advantage of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 in which the British parliament continue to have absolute responsibility for all the affairs in the Northern Ireland administration. Their first and most colossal blunder was in relation to the events of 1968 and 1969 and the attacks on the civil rights movement and on the people of the Bogside.

There was a declaration of civil rights and the British Government failed to have the imagination to see that it was not sufficient for the Unionist Government simply to give an intent to carry out the civil rights declaration, that there had to be a complete change of mind and heart towards the minority, that these civil rights declarations had not only to be implemented absolutely—they have not been implemented yet—but that they had to be implemented in a way that would mean the ending of the complete domination of one group in the community by the local majority in the community in Northern Ireland. They failed to realise that it was not sufficient to state the form of civil rights but that what had to be done was to see that the form of administration in the North would be the same as it is in Lancashire or Yorkshire.

[1092] Then, in 1970 and 1971 the IRA began to enter the scene. They were never approved by the Civil Rights movement. They were never approved by us in the Dáil. They were subject to disapproval and rejection by more than 80 per cent of the whole of the Irish people. Again, the result of the IRA was extreme pressure by the Stormont administration for overkill and over-reaction by the British troops and for a further delay in the implementation of the Civil Rights and of an examination of the whole position. The British Government seemed impervious to all the influences that were brought to bear on them. They seemed to be impervious to the concept that massive attacks on the nationalist areas would give, inevitably, a political mandate to the IRA which they had not secured up to that time and that it would result inevitably in extreme pressure on all those in the North who were seeking a peaceful solution.

In 1971 there came what was an inevitable extension of the Civil Rights demand, namely, that there should be a two-stage operation in achieving reunification. The first stage was to be a complete change in the administration of the North with executive responsibility to be shared by the majority and the minority, the end of Unionist domination. It was the opinion of everybody that if Unionist domination ended and there was this form of new administration, the result would be that the Unionists would at least begin to look coherently and objectively at their situation in the course of the next 20 years and would begin to realise that, perhaps, after all they would enjoy a better life and that they would enjoy a fuller society, if they considered reunification as being the ultimate solution to the problem.

If one reads the speeches and statements made by the Taoiseach during that time it will be seen that he cannot be faulted in regard to anything he said and the whole of the diplomatic action taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the publicity effort conducted in Great Britain and in other countries, indicate that the Taoiseach at no time failed to realise what was the immediate impact of events and what had to be said immediately in [1093] any given situation. I would say that the Taoiseach's speeches made on July 11th, 1970, and on July 11th, 1971, will stand out in history as speeches which not only received the assent of virtually all the Members of this House but were also truly statesmanlike.

The result has been that, in spite of the woeful events in Derry, there has been some progress in making public opinion abroad aware of the position in the North. We have had for the first time the declarations by two Prime Ministers of Great Britain that they would agree to reunification under terms which they have stated. We have had even Mr. Maudling, with his total lack of imagination and understanding, saying that the British people would welcome reunification. We have had a great number of changes in opinion in responsible media in Great Britain.

Therefore, the work of the civil rights movement, the speeches made in this House by members of all parties and the speeches of the Taoiseach, have at least brought about a change in the climate of public opinion in Great Britain and in other countries. I suppose the best example of that would be a statement made this year in a paper which one could hardly conceive printing it, the Financial Times, which said that the British Government's responsibility to all the people of Northern Ireland would best be met if a new political agreement were reached which, in the British view, provided the most reasonable possible safeguards, there is no such thing as a cast-iron constitutional safeguard, for the Protestant people of the North under an all-Ireland Government.

I suppose the most important statement made by the Taoiseach was an exhortation made to Mr. Heath to exhort the Unionists to consider coherently and objectively the possibilities of reunification, to consider that whatever happens in the North, the Unionists will never regain their former domineering position. If there is a settlement and if the British are wise and accept the Taoiseach's terms, then they have lost their dominating position. If chaos continues, they have equally lost their dominating position.

[1094] We recognise that reunification cannot be immediate, but the Unionists should look at the alternatives. If we offer the proper constitutional safeguards they would have about 35 out of 200 seats in an all-Ireland Parliament and unless the political parties change their identity—and political parties are notoriously conservative in maintaining their identity—those 35 members from the North would hold the balance of power, and it is inconceivable that any Act of this Oireachtas would either bring about any disability, civil or otherwise, among the Unionists or that the power of any Government here could be exercised in such a way that it could be said that discrimination was levelled against the Unionists. Indeed, the Unionists in this Parliament would have an influence far exceeding their numbers and they would have this influence until they chose deliberately to take the step, which we would hope they would do, of integrating themselves with the political parties representing the Twenty-six Counties.

This is the long-term message to the Unionists. Everyone knows that is what would happen—if only they would accept the fact that they are never going to maintain their previous position of domination—that, once they got into this House, the least they would do is to see that their rights were protected and that nothing would be done by the Ministers here in charge of economics, industrial or foreign affairs, that could possibly be of a disadvantage to the million Unionists in the North. That is a fact and the Taoiseach and other Members of the House have stated that over and over again.

We must make it clear that we cannot expect the Unionists to consider these changes in an atmosphere of terror and, as Deputy Harte said, there has been appalling terror in the Nationalist areas and also among Unionists in the North, and we have to take account of those facts. If only the British would decide courageously to end internmemnt and to try those whom they believe to have been in breach of the law, and if only they would, as an experiment, withdraw their troops from the minority areas, the position [1095] would then be that the Unionists and the Nationalists would have to respect each other's position.

The British cannot destroy the infernal influence of the IRA. They can only, at this stage, remove the grounds for support of the IRA in the Nationalist areas. The British Government cannot succeed by over-kill and over-reaction. They can only accept the statements made by the civil rights movement that, if they will end internment, with all its obvious risks to them, remove the troops from the Catholic areas, and then enter into negotiations with the representatives of the minority in the North with a view to this two-stage operation, first, a change in the local administration and then at least being willing to discuss the possibilities for reunification, the justification for violence by the IRA will cease in the minds of the people who have so sorely suffered from the brutality of British troops, from their method of search, from their over-kill action. That is what the civil rights movement have asked the British to do.

One or two of the general officers commanding the British troops have stated openly that there can be no military solution without a political solution. It is rather unusual to permit officers commanding armies to make quasi-political statements, and it is a remarkable fact that General Tuzo, in spite of his being a professional army man, felt compelled to make this political statement which is in full justification of what those in the civil rights movement have said in regard to their capacity to lead the whole of their people in entirely political action for, first, a short-term settlement followed by discussions on the longer-term settlement of reunification. Indeed, one can say that the IRA and the British Army at this moment seem to be leagued together in widening the gulf between the Unionists and the Nationalists in the North and postponing the inevitability of a settlement. It is appalling to think that two different military movements seem almost to be conspiring together in a devilish fashion to bring about a possible civil war in this country.

[1096] As I have said, there has been much publicity abroad, and I want to make this statement to the House from my own personal experience. It just so happens that I have been delegated by the Taoiseach on a great many occasions, and other Deputies have joined me sometimes and on most of the occasions I have spoken by myself, to appear on television and radio in most countries of Europe and in America. I have also been interviewed by innumerable journalists.

I want to make it clear to everyone that since World War Two, a spirit has grown up among the peoples of Northern Europe, and among all responsible lovers of liberty, that they cannot justify the use of military violence to secure any political aim whatever. The actions of the IRA have been a source of embarrassment and difficulty for me in presenting the case for Northern reunification and the case for a change in the Administration in the North. It has been a source of embarrassment to me at all times.

They may condemn internment, and many of them have condemned internment. They may condemn the over-kill attitude of the British Army but they could not, any of them, justify the intervention of the IRA when the intervention of the IRA began. Every conversation with every responsible journalist begins and ends on this note: “We do not believe in the use of the gun to settle political conflicts within the bounds of civilised democracies in Europe.” That has been the attitude I have had to face right through the whole of the innumerable interviews I have had with journalists.

Dr. FitzGerald: I can endorse that from my own experience.

Mr. Childers: This is one of the things which reduces the value of all the propaganda we want to see emerging from this House, of all the speeches made by the Taoiseach, of all the speeches made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of all diplomatic intervention by our ambassadors abroad.

As I have said, the British Army have been doing their best in the past [1097] year to build up the strength of the IRA. For that reason it is very urgently necessary that they should take the advice of the Taoiseach and this House in order to strengthen the support of those in the North who seek a peaceful political solution. I have heard the war-mongers speak in this House. I have no respect for them whatever.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers: All of them seem to talk in an atavistic way as though this were 1919, and as though there were any comparison between the use of military force under Government control in 1919 and the position now, when every word said by them could bring civil war nearer in the North.

Deputies: Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers: As one who suffered in the last civil war I am horrified to think that anyone in the circumstances of the North, which are totally different from what they were in the tragic events of 1922, would say anything in this House for political popularity purposes, or out of resentment, that would bring civil war one second nearer. All of the talk about giving guns to groups to defend themselves in the North is an incitement to civil war and nothing else. The idea that massing the whole of the Irish Army on the Border would not be an immediate incitement to civil war is wrong. Quite evidently the only result would be an incitement to civil war.

If any serious international incident were created, should these gentlemen have their way, we would lose all the sympathy we have built up in the world. We would not only be regarded as grossly politically irresponsible; the world would regard us as mad, and we have enough propaganda by our enemies about the mad Irish not to wish to have it justified by statements that could inevitably lead to civil war.

As we have said, the British must act as a catalyst in matters relating to the North. They must accept their responsibility for having produced Partition, for having initiated it. They must accept responsibility for having created a situation in which they are encouraging their own enemies. One [1098] only has to look at the number of those who died in the North in 1971 and the constant increase, the mounting increase, since to see how hopeless their military policy has been in so far as they wish to bring back the situation to where there would only be political agitation and massive political protests.

Naturally all of us feel explosive about the appalling situation in Derry but in the end there must be reconciliation. None of the plans, neither the reunification plan nor the first stage plan, will be possible unless Unionists and Catholics start a dialogue and communicate with each other. We can make speeches in this House and make protests, and cite the whole of the ghastly history of the North, but ultimately there must be communication or we will not succeed in our objectives.

Mr. Cluskey: We are having this debate because of the very tragic events in Derry last Sunday. I personally am convinced that the killing of the 13 people in Derry last Sunday was a deliberate and premeditated act by the British Army. I am forced to that conclusion by reading statements which were made by Stormont officials and the security forces in that area on Saturday. I am also convinced that the reason why Ian Paisley called off what he described as a prayer meeting in the Guildhall Square in Derry was that he was assured by the security forces of the Six Counties that, if he called off his demonstration, the British Army would deal with any civil rights demonstrations, and God knows they dealt with them.

There is a penalty under the law in the Six Counties for a breach of the ban on parades. At present it is not illegal in the Six Counties to hold a meeting. It is illegal to parade or march. Apparently the penalty that was prescribed overnight for a breach of the ban on parades was changed from six months. I think, in prison to death without trial. In fact, the 13 people who were shot were not parading at the time they were shot. Even under the law in the Six Counties at that moment they were attending a meeting.

I had occasion to visit Westminster on behalf of the Labour Party during [1099] the early part of this week. Quite frankly I came back from that visit very downhearted and very disappointed because, so far as I could judge after visiting the House of Commons and speaking to MPs, out of a total of I think 630 MPs, one would have to look very hard to find 25 or 30 MPs who really know or are really concerned about the situation that now exists in our island. I do not want in any way to take from the efforts and the concern of those people who are numbered in that 25 or 30. Some of them have been outstanding and very dedicated to the cause of peace and unity in this island. They deserve our full praise and appreciation for it. The impression I got was that as far as the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons were concerned, and particularly those on the Conservative Benches, they had been through others like this. They had Palestine, Cyprus, Aden and many others and now they have the Six Counties. It just fits into the category of one of those things. This is an unfortunate thing.

We heard during the course of this debate people saying: “I told you so.” I did not tell anyone so. I was a member of a deputation for my party who went to Westminster in August, 1969, with a view to having more troops brought into the Six Counties in order to save the minority from attack and possible annihilation by the majority or people who claim to represent the majority. I would not accept they truly represent the majority. The reason I was associated with this request was that Irishmen are Irishmen and I am not concerned about their religion or about their politics. I am only concerned that they should have the right to choose both their religion and their politics if they do not infringe on the rights of others.

During the conversation I had last Monday with the leader of the British Opposition I told him that after Sunday's events the British Army, in my opinion, were just as acceptable to the vast majority of Irish people, both North and South, as the B Specials were in 1969. The British Army as a peace-keeping force have lost whatever [1100] little credibility they had before last Sunday and no useful purpose can be served by maintaining British forces in the North.

That leaves us with the problem of one million Irish men and women who do not want to be coerced into a political union they do not agree with and who should not be coerced. I have been critical of the Taoiseach and the present Government on many aspects of their Northern policy but I want to state quite clearly that I subscribe fully to the basic fundamentals of that policy of not using force to achieve our political aims. The impression I got from the British people and some British MPs at the moment is the feeling that they would like to pull out, take their boys home. Make no mistake about it, despite last Sunday, and if there were 20 more Sundays like it, the British public and the British MPs will back their army no matter what atrocities that army may commit. That unfortunately is the situation we are faced with. You will still hear them speak of “our boys” and they will back what they describe as “our boys”.

That is the reality we must face. Although there is a growing feeling of “pull the British Army out now” and pressure will come very heavily to pull them out, we must ask ourselves where that leaves us. This House has to consider, if the British Army are now unacceptable and are pulled out, have we got a civil war? Have we got Irishmen shooting one another, burning each other's homes and burning each other's families in those homes? Is that the prospect that faces us? Is that the legacy Britain would leave us with, as she did in Palestine? She exploited Palestine for God knows how long and when it got too hot she just pulled out and left the two communities there at one another's throats. Is that what she intends to do with Ireland? I hope not.

We have been trying for some time now to find a solution and I do not doubt the sincerity of many Members of this House in trying to find a genuine solution. I think there is a responsibility on Britain to pull out the British troops. I hope if that happens that there is not a holocaust here between Protestants and Catholics due mainly, if not entirely, to the activities of the [1101] British Government over the years in this island.

I understand that even if Britain pulls out she will still be recognised by international bodies, such as the UN, as exercising jurisdiction over the Six Counties. I also understand that, if she pulled out and declared immediately before doing so that she no longer wished to exercise any control over any part of this island, then the Dublin Government would be recognised as the one which in international terms exercises jurisdiction. I do not think it is any secret that while the British Army are totally unacceptable to the minority in the Six Counties the Irish Army would be equally as unacceptable to the majority in the Six Counties. If a situation such as I have described were to arise we as the lawful Government recognised internationally as exercising legitimate control over all of this island could call in the United Nations to police the Six County area until such time as all Irishmen could arrive at some formula in which we could all live in comparative harmony with each other. I do not know whether this is possible but in the frantic search for some solution that will avoid bloodshed I put it forward.

Much has been said about Deputy Blaney's speech here yesterday. I must say I agree with most of what was said, but one aspect of it was not referred to. To me it was the most dangerous aspect of the whole debate. When he referred to people in the Twenty-six Counties with British connections, British titles, British decorations, and when he stated they should be sent back, to me that meant—I am quite sure it was the impression most Unionists got—that he was calling for a witch hunt of people with any British connections in the Twenty-six Counties. I am totally convinced that Deputy Blaney does not speak for the vast majority of the Irish people if, as I believe, that is what he meant.

Mr. Desmond: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey: There seems to me to be one fundamental difference between the opinions on how to solve Partition. The difference is on the definition of unity. Is it territorial unity? If that is [1102] all we want to achieve, possibly there is some merit in mobilising the Army, calling back our troops from Cyprus, calling up the FCA. The co-founder of the party to which I belong, James Connolly, said when speaking of Ireland that Ireland without its people meant nothing to him. I do not think Ireland without its people should mean anything to any of us and the people in Northern Ireland, the one million who follow the Protestant faith and who vote Unionist, are Irish, our people.

Mr. Bruton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey: Because they were reared in a different tradition does not make them less so. I was born into a Catholic home in this city and I have most of the prejudices of a Southern Catholic. They have most of the prejudices of Northern Protestants. These are the things we have to reconcile because that is the only worthwhile unity to achieve. All parties in this House have ruled out war or force of arms as a solution. I agree fully with that. But if we rule that out— we have, thank God—we must on the other front that we have opened go for total war. I am talking about the diplomatic front. On the instructions of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has gone to the UN, to the American Government and, I understand, to what have been described vaguely as friendly nations in Europe. I saw Deputy Hillery on television and I want to say frankly that I was not very impressed.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey: I was not impressed and the people whom he was supposed to be impressing, the diplomats of America and Europe, were far less impressed. Ranting and raving on television might be very good for home consumption but I seriously doubt its beneficial effects in international circles from the point of view of getting us understanding and sympathy in our present plight. I read in this morning's newspapers that the American Secretary of State said that as far as America is concerned they prefer to remain neutral in the Six County situation.

[1103] Why? They have their own Six Counties in Vietnam and the price of their silence, their neutrality, on our Six Counties is British silence on their atrocities in Vietnam.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien: And our silence, too.

Mr. Cluskey: When we get into international diplomacy we had better face the reality that we will get only what we pay for and that payment is usually in kind. All we are worth as far as America is concerned is an odd sentimental son, Paddy the Irishman. If we are serious about thinking along the lines of international pressure on the British Government to resolve the situation, let us act seriously. Let us go where we will get something, not because they love us but possibly because they can use us in exchange. That is what the whole thing is about. The Americans, in my opinion, have it in their minds so firmly that we are a friendly, harmless little island that they can afford to come out and tell us they will remain neutral on the Six County issue. It pays them to do it. Britain will remain silent on Vietnam; the Americans will remain quiet on the Six Counties. That is the way the game is played.

But I wonder how Nixon and Heath would react in regard to NATO if we did a Mintoff act, if we brought a few Russian naval officers to Donegal, to our side of the Border, within sight of the Magilligan concentration camp, with the object of setting up a Russian naval base. Ireland might then start to become uppermost in the American minds and in the minds of NATO. Unfortunately, that is the way it is. If we are of no use to them they will give us nothing but if we are a threat to them, or if we appear as if we could be of advantage to somebody they do not like, then they will listen to us.

As I have said, if we have rejected force we must play the other card to the ultimate. That is the diplomatic front. I do not say that anyone will have a bleeding heart for poor little Catholic Ireland. They did not have it for Catholic Belgium in 1914. Our situation at the moment is that we are [1104] on the brink of being totally out of control. We have seen the reaction to the 13 dead, the 13 murdered, in Derry last Sunday. Can anyone without feelings of intense horror contemplate what the reaction next week will be if there is a repetition in Newry? The minority in the North have made it quite clear that until they get justice there will be Derrys and Newrys every weekend at other venues. There is a grave responsibility on this House and it is important for us to appreciate that the sense of urgency we feel in my opinion is not shared by the Westminster Government.

Mr. L'Estrange: I should like to begin by re-echoing the words of the last speaker. We meet here today at a most grave period in our history. It can be agreed by all that we are at a crossroads. Unless each and every one of us in this House is careful, because we have a grave responsibility, we may take the wrong road which can lead to chaos and disaster for our country, North and South, and for all our people, Catholic, Protestant and dissenter.

Last Sunday the British Army brutally murdered 13 innocent people in Derry. The question throughout the length and breadth of Ireland and throughout the whole world is why. Nobody seems to know. It was utterly inexcusable violence on defenceless people, members of the Civil Rights organisation who were marching in perhaps a technical breach of the law but people who have been downtrodden for so long and who were demanding their rights and justice for themselves and for their families. They had no guns. They were unarmed. I should like to put on the record of this House what an Italian journalist, Fulvio Grimaldi, stated. I quote from Hibernia of 4th February, 1972:

I have travelled in many countries. I have seen many civil wars and revolutions and wars. I have never seen such a cold-blooded murder, organised, disciplined murder, planned murder.

We wonder what was the reason for this. It is a sad day for Ireland, but we must be careful because the stage [1105] may be set here for civil war and those of us who are in this House should not try to inflame an already dangerous situation. We do not want to turn the other cheek but we must banish revenge from our hearts and work for a political solution which I believe men of goodwill, working together, can yet attain.

I sympathise with the relatives of those 13 people and also with the relatives of all who have lost their lives in the tragic events in the North during the past three years. More harm has been done to the Irish nation in the past three years than an invader would have dared to do. We are all, I suppose, prisoners of our past but why should we allow ourselves to continue to be ruled from the grave? Much of what has happened need never have happened. We should all resolve here and now that we will do our part to raise all our people from the depths into which we have been plunged by violence which is generating, almost uncontrollably, the emotions of distrust, hatred and fear.

Many people, especially the young, have been misled by IRA propaganda. I do not want to blame them for that because many politicians give the impression of standing idly by. I think it only right to say that the Civil Rights organisation did more in two years than the politicians and the gunmen did for the past 50 years because their cause is a just cause. We must not today be misled by false emotionalism, spurious, narrow or fanatical nationalism, such as we have heard from some of the speakers here today. To those young people who believe in the gun, who believe in violence, I would say that they should read and ponder on the words of Senator Mullins in the Seanad on Wednesday, 26th January, 1972, when he stated at column 296, Vol. 72, No. 4, of the Official Report:

It is no harm to recall that in 1921 the Republican Government took a decision that they would secure the reunification of Ireland by peaceful and by negotiated means. They thereby set their faces definitely and resolutely against the use of force to coerce any section of the people [1106] in the north-eastern counties into the Irish Republic.

The youth of today have the same ideas and ideals as the young people of 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 but they are misled and they should listen to people like Senator Tom Mullins who have seen both sides of it.

We should be careful because emotions may run riot in our country. From yesterday's papers and those of the day before we can see that we have a wave of petrol bombing, burnings and lootings in Dublin, Cork and other cities. We can perhaps understand the violent reactions to Derry's Bloody Sunday, the killing of those 13 civilians by the British Army. Perhaps the people are entitled to justifiable anger but not to revenge, not an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. We are entitled to ask what good this will do? There is a danger here and I do not want to use these words, because I have used them too often in the past and for two years the Taoiseach sneered and jeered back at me when I spoke about the drift to anarchy in this country. I did not notice it from him in the last four or five months. There is serious fear among people of a drift to anarchy today.

I was in Merrion Square the day the British Embassy was burned. It is a pity our gardaí were not being given the full protection of the State. Those in a responsible position should have known what would happen there. There were no barricades, barbed-wire entanglements or anything to keep back the people. The gardaí were defenceless. They did their best. I moved among the people and I would say that 70 to 75 per cent of those who were there were there as onlookers and there was only a small minority bent on destruction. They are the anarchists in our midst who are anxious to use any and every opportunity to harm their own country. Remember they are only doing harm. I stand for only one Garda force and one Army. They are there to protect property and to protect each and every one of us. They are our brothers and sisters. The time has come for the Taoiseach to go on television and on radio and to say, as he did in the case of the farmers at one time, that he is [1107] prepared to use the full might of this State to put down anarchists in our country. The time is now right. Tomorrow may be too late.

At this moment a grave responsibility rests on each and every one of us to mould public opinion and to channel the emotions of our people in the proper direction. The position, North and South, is serious. Old embers of suspicion, mistrust and hatred which were thought, at least in the South, to be dying and dead have been fanned to flames. Men's emotions and passions have been roused and now misunderstanding, malice, aggression, destruction, cruelty and death stalk the land. Almost 200 people have been killed in the last two years. Even here, friends are parting, tourists are avoiding our shores, children's minds are being poisoned, law and order are breaking down. Gunmen struck the streets of some of our towns with impunity. Very little action has been taken.

The time has come to call a halt to the madness, if it is not already too late. This will require the co-operation of all responsible people and a major creative reconciliation effort that will herald a message of peace for our country. Hatred must be replaced by love, bigotry by tolerance, prejudice by understanding and revenge by forgiveness, charity and good neighbourliness. We must remember when people are making the type of inflammatory speeches that were made here today that there are 1,300,000 Irish people living and earning their living in England. War-mongering speeches put those people in a very difficult and embarrassing position. Indeed, they are being lashed daily by the prejudice and the distortions of the popular British press which substitutes near-hysteria for rational comment. They are torn between heart and head, as all Irishmen are, by the horrors of violence and the justice of the minority cause, more intimately known to them than to their British fellow-workers and employers. There have been a few instances of antagonism shown to the Irish on buses and in pubs by ill-informed people who fail to read behind the headlines. Speeches such as [1108] were made here today will do further harm and we should be careful that they are not made throughout the country in the coming weeks.

As far as I am concerned, I abhor violence, whether that be the violence of Stormont of 50 years of mal-administration, of administrative violence by a party that denied the basic human civil rights of 40 per cent of the people. I abhor the violence of the RUC, a sectarian force for far too long and a force that turned the blind eye on the law-breaking activities of certain sections of the Orange Order. I abhor the violence of the B-Specials. I abhor the violence of the IRA, the violence of those who place bombs in ESB and other buildings, who shoot fellow-Irishmen, because, whether we disagree with them in religion or anything else, they are our brothers and sisters, these people in the North of Ireland. I abhor the violence of men who go out and shoot a busman for being prepared to do his duty. I abhor also the violence of the British Army and the brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners, and the violence of the British paratroopers who behave only as the Black and Tans behaved in Ireland in the past.

I abhor all violence and want to express my horror and revulsion for the acts of extreme violence and cruelty and inhumanity which have taken place in Northern Ireland in the past few years but I do think the time has come in this country to stand up and be counted. Moral courage is needed at the present time and it is the duty of all of us in public life at this late hour in the history of our State and it is the duty of parents, priests, teachers and all those who can help to mould public opinion, to speak out fearlessly and courageously against brutality and violence, no matter from what quarter they may come. People in high places in this country have been silent for too long, have not condemned violence and now we have it in our midst.

Those, unfortunately, in this country —indeed, a lead was given in this House today—who preach violence have now been gaining ground on both sides. Their gospel is being preached daily in our newspapers in sermons of blood. The euphemisms for war give [1109] their actions a veneer of respectability. Their convictions command the respect of their followers. The bravery of some of these has not been lost sight of. Some of them are brave young men but they are misguided. Our schools and teachers have a lot to answer for. In the past, hatred has been preached and has been engendered in children. Children have been taught to glorify those who stood for violence in the past and to vilify those who stood for a peaceful solution, for unity through peaceful means.

I do not like condemning papers. I hit out and say what I have to say. They also have a right to say what they please. But I do think the leading articles in The Irish Press are doing grave disservice to this country, especially to the youth of this country. You see Joe Cahill stated to be the greatest Irishman since Michael Collins. After Ballyshannon and the riots in Ballyshannon, responsible organs of opinion should be calling on the people of the country to obey our civic guards. When you see subversive elements put on the same standing as our civic guards, then it is time to question the motives of some of the leader writers in this particular organ.

I stand for what the Civil Rights Association of John Hume, Gerry Fitt and the SDLP stand for in Northern Ireland—for political reform, for reconciliation and for reunification. We need to build bridges. Let it be remembered that we cannot shoot or bomb 1,000,000 Protestants into a united Ireland. We must break down the fears, the hatred and the prejudices which have genuinely existed and which, unfortunately, exist now more than at any time in the last 50 years. I blame the subversive elements in the North for that because the Civil Rights Association did more in two years than our politicians and our gunmen did in 50 years.

I am for peace, for justice. I do not want to see another civil war in this country. What happened on last Sunday in Derry will fade into insignificance in Northern Ireland or in the Republic if there is a civil war. I do not want to see civil war here. One civil war was enough. The hatred and the bitterness engendered then lasted [1110] for half a century. I do not want to see Irish boys and girls lying dead in the gutter here in this city or in any other town in Ireland. To those anarchists and those subversive elements who want to challenge or bring down the institutions of this State, I say it is better to build on the institutions that are already there. They may not be perfect. Politicians may, perhaps, have let the people down. But it is much better to build on what we have than to destroy all and to have all our people crawling in the gutter.

The institutions that we have today have been built up through the blood, the sweat and the tears of past generations. For this little country of ours it would be better for all if we had more people prepared to work for Ireland and fewer people talking about liberating the Six Counties from the luxury of their ill-gotten goods. We have far too many people who are prepared to lead from behind. We do know that statesmanship and leadership and political initiatives are needed at once from the British Government.

I agree with those who said that the paratroopers must be taken out of the Catholic areas in the North and a United Nations peacekeeping force brought in. The British Army must be taken out at once but I do not want to see that army taken out and a civil war ensuing. I want to have someone there from the United Nations to keep the peace because I believe it will be necessary to keep the peace between the people in the North who, unfortunately, as a result of the tragedies of the last two years have now become polarised in their different groups. All of us here must realise our responsibility. We must explore all peaceful avenues open to us. Let us forget revenge and remember the dangers of a civil war, remember what might happen to our people.

We should organise a news agency to bring the injustice of Partition before the world. It has never been brought home properly to the Protestants and Unionists of Northern Ireland that they will have nothing to fear in a united Ireland. Away back in 1921 there were fears and prejudices [1111] but the minority down here now admit that they have been fairly treated by successive Irish Governments. We should also appeal to the EEC countries to get Britain to put her house in order. There are small and friendly countries in Europe which would be prepared to help us in this direction. We must call on Britain to cease the lunatic policy of cratering roads. That only helps to get recruits for the IRA. Many people have called for an end to internment, have asked that those guilty of crimes should be brought to justice and the innocent, and there are many innocent, should be released.

Let us hit Britain in her pocket. We are her third best customer. Let us now start a “Buy Irish” campaign and show our solidarity. Let our workers stand together to maintain jobs for our own brothers and sisters. We have too many here who are not prepared to put their money where their mouths are. Indeed, I had an argument recently in Waterford with a millionaire who was talking about going up to the North to fight. I told him there were too many like him. I asked him why not go up with his ill-gotten gains. He was dressed in a £100 London-made mohair suit. These are the people who talk about Irish nationality. It would be much better if some of these would give a lead instead of just talking. I would appeal to all our people, in the words of the distinguished churchmen, to stop now before the country is plunged into disaster and to show restraint because the eyes of the world are on us.

Lastly, I would appeal to all engaged in violence in Northern Ireland—the British Government, the Stormont Government and the IRA—to call a truce and let talks start immediately today; tomorrow may be too late. Further holocausts must be avoided. Eventual unification is the only cure for our problems but some form of transitional government will be needed in the interim in the North. If Mr. Heath and others of goodwill sit around a table that could be agreed on immediately.

We are a small nation. I would not ask one to do what I am not prepared [1112] to do myself—that is, to take up arms against either the Northern Government or the British Government. We should not ask anyone to do that. We should not try to plunge our nation into civil war. Our cause is a just cause and we should and I believe we can get support for it. What can a small nation do? If the cause is just, I believe that even a small nation can do a “helluva” lot.

I would conclude by quoting from the late President Kennedy's speech here to the combined Houses of the Oireachtas:

It is that quality of the Irish, the remarkable combination of hope, confidence and imagination that is needed more than ever today. The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by sceptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were, and ask why not. It matters not how small a nation is that seeks world peace and freedom, for, to paraphrase a citizen of my country: “The humblest nation of all the world, when clad in the armour of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error.”

This little nation may be humble but, today, she is clad in the armour of a righteous cause, and, if our case is put properly before the world, we can, and will, succeed.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley): In the aftermath of the tragic events that took place in Derry last Sunday, the most striking development, so far as we are concerned, has been the tremendous unity of purpose displayed by all our people in giving expression to their sympathy for the victims of these events and their solidarity with the bereaved citizens of Derry. The Government have been greatly heartened by this manifestation of unity. It will, I believe, be a source of strength to all of us in our efforts to bring about a solution of the Northern problem based on justice and peace. I hope it will promote goodwill and be the basis of reconciliation for all our people, North and South.

As Minister for Justice, I want to [1113] avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the magnificent work of the Garda Síochána in the face of the great difficulties with which they had to contend in recent days. In particular, I have in mind those members of the force who had to contend with events at the British Embassy. The patience, restraint and discipline with which they discharged their very onerous duties have put the whole community in their debt and I know I am speaking for all our people when I offer them our sincere thanks for what they did. Regrettably, quite a large number of gardaí received injuries and some are still in hospital. I am, however, happy to say that none was really badly injured. To all of them I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I should like now to answer what I regard as a particularly vicious misrepresentation disseminated by some of the cross-channel news media, namely, that the gardaí on duty at the British Embassy stood by and allowed certain elements in the crowd to set fire to and destroy the Embassy. This is a travesty of the truth and a libel on the force. All Members of this House will, I am sure, join with me in protesting against this sordid and ill-founded allegation. The fact of the matter is that at the height of the troubles outside the Embassy there were at least 20,000 people assembled there. The control of a crowd of these proportions presented the gravest difficulty for the gardaí. Not alone had they to concern themselves with the protection of the Embassy but they also had to have regard to the safety of the people present, the overwhelming majority of whom were gathered to demonstrate peacefully against the events of last Sunday. The very size of the crowd made it impossible for the gardaí to deal effectively with the small element that engaged in criminal acts of arson and violence. In the particular circumstances the gardaí were virtually powerless to prevent the throwing of petrol bombs at the premises and the gaining of access to the premises by a number of people who proceeded to complete the work of destruction.

Again, when the fire brigade arrived on the scene to deal with the fire, the presence of so large a crowd hampered [1114] the gardaí to such an extent that they were unable to prevent some of those present from deliberately interfering with the fire brigade units in their attempts to get to grips with the fire. Those who engaged in this work brought discredit on themselves and on all of us. This building as well as being an embassy was an integral part of a beautiful square. It would be interesting to speculate on how many of these criminals and arsonists have on other occasions demonstrated about the destruction of Georgian buildings. They destroyed a fine building and they landed the taxpayer with a huge bill.

It has been alleged by a number of commentators that these events should have been anticipated and that fairly simple precautions, if they had been taken in time, could have prevented the destruction of the Embassy. Yesterday Deputy Ryan talked about the erection of barricades to keep the crowd back from the vicinity of the building and today Deputy L'Estrange spoke on the same lines, of the necessity for barbed wire barricades and similar obstructions between the gardaí and the people of Dublin. I should like to record, for the benefit of Deputies and others who have made these statements, that the Garda Síochána had considered all the problems that might arise and had carefully assessed what measures were necessary and what measures were desirable. The measures that were taken by them were the measures which, in their professional judgment, were demanded by the overall situation. One of the obvious factors they had to consider, as they have to consider in relation to any other building which might call for protection, is that they cannot and should not concentrate all their resources on that one building. To do so would be clearly to invite destruction elsewhere.

I can tell the House that one of the measures considered by the Garda Síochána was the erection of barricades of various types. They, the Garda Síochána, decided against it. Another measure which the Garda had to consider was the possibility of enlisting the assistance of the Army. Here, again, the Garda took the deliberate decision not to enlist this [1115] support as they believed that in the particular circumstances it could make little or no contribution but would, undoubtedly, exacerbate the kind of situation likely to arise, and while this judgment, this decision, was made entirely as a result of the professional judgment of the Garda Síochána, I may say as a layman that I fully subscribe to the decisions they took in this respect and in other respects regarding the protection of the building.

One of the absurdities one finds in all this criticism, or in these suggestions now made after the fact, is that when something happens which ought not to happen in an area in which the Garda Síochána are in some way involved, a number of people are quick to rush in to blame me and the Government for, as they put it, not anticipating events and not making proper plans or not taking what these critics regard as suitable preventive action. On other occasions mostly these very same critics and their friends keep on alleging in the Dáil and in newspaper publicity that I and my Department are interfering in the making of what are properly and solely matters for the professional judgment of the police. The fact is that neither I nor my Department interfere in the making of decisions of this kind. The decisions that had to be taken in relation to the protection of the British Embassy were matters for the professional judgment of the police and for them alone and it was they and they alone who made the decisions. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the decisions they took were reasonable in the light of all the facts and of all their responsibilities. Certainly, the British Embassy is gone, but it could have been saved only at great risk to innocent human life and this Government and their security forces have more respect for innocent human life than another Government in this part of the world.

Turning now to another aspect of the situation, I want to refer back to what the Taoiseach has said about the danger signals that have made their appearance in recent days. Indeed, not only the Taoiseach but the Leader of the main Opposition Party and other Opposition spokesmen have shown [1116] that they, too, recognise th