Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Apr 2013

Vol. 799 No. 1

Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy Finian McGrath

I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is important that we pay tribute to and commend the silent majority who have defended this State since its foundation and the many who have served abroad with the United Nations. Some have paid the ultimate price with their lives, so it is important to remember them and their loyal service to this State in the debate today. We should never forget that, as I know from my own direct experience with family members and friends who have served and who are still serving in the Defence Forces. This is a controversial Bill for some people because it opens a can of worms. We must also take on board the views of those who did not desert and served their State in a time of great crisis and a world war.

There is nothing glorious about war, there is nothing glorious about death and destruction, there is nothing glorious about the slaughter of innocent civilians and there is nothing glorious about political leaders who send 18 year-olds to war and to an early grave. History has proved me right. That is at the heart of this debate and we should never run away from that harsh reality about war and conflict, whether it be the First World War, the Second World War or the recent events we saw even yesterday, when there was a slaughter of the innocents on the streets of Boston. There are some in this State who want to glorify fighting and dying for the British Army, as if it was part of the healing process under the Good Friday Agreement. It is very popular in establishment circles, and if we question anything the British Army did in the past, we are labelled as "anti-Brit". For me, this is a ploy to avoid real debate on defence and military matters.

There is also a rump in this Dáil and State who cannot wait to get their backsides into NATO under the disguise of better relations and apple pie. This must also be debated. I have a major problem with this, whether it relates to desertion or events in the North, Iraq or Afghanistan. I question all armies and states with imperial pasts and I question all governments that mislead or try to hide the facts about acts of violence. I mentioned the slaughter of an eight year old child on the streets of Boston yesterday and I want to pass on my condolences and my support to the people of Boston and the US. It is also important to remember that ten days ago, ten innocent children were slaughtered in Afghanistan and there was no huge reaction in the West. I make that point because it is important that we remember all victims in all situations. Killing innocent civilians is never acceptable in any conflict.

We should consider the way the investigation in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings was treated by the British Government. A parliamentary report found very strong evidence the security forces of a neighbouring friendly nation were involved in terrorist bombings and mass murders within this jurisdiction and the Government and authorities of this friendly nation refused to cooperate with a parliamentary investigation by the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence, Equality and Women's Rights, of which I was a member. Where is the national shock, official outrage and Government anger? Our Administration should be reacting. Where was the recall of the Irish ambassador for urgent consultations, or the calling in of the British ambassador to hear the Government's outrage? Instead there are measured expressions of concern and routine media coverage of a story that in other jurisdictions and circumstances would be taken as justification for the immediate severing of diplomatic relations. Imagine the French Government had learned members of the German security forces had organised and carried out bombings and mass murders in France, and that the German authorities had given an indifferent shrug when asked to explain the allegations. Imagine if the Canadian Parliament had uncovered evidence the CIA had bombed Canadian cities and murdered Canadian citizens. Either would provoke an international crisis but in Ireland the reaction of both media and Government is muted to say the least.

I raise this because I have recently spoken to members of Justice for the Forgotten who were victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and they constantly ask me to raise the issue, which I will continue to do.

It is important that we take an objective view of history and the situation in Ireland at the time. Are we forgetting the mood in Ireland between 1939 and 1945, and the very real possibility of civil war breaking out had the Government thrown Ireland's lot in with the Allies? Making a similar point, although criticising the concept of an amnesty or pardon, Tommy Graham editor of History Ireland, wrote any such pardon would be based on the assumption, implicit or explicit, that Ireland's neutrality was somehow immoral or isolationist. He argues the historical context of neutrality must be remembered. The moral authority of the League of Nations, of which Ireland was a member, and any hope of collective security, was undermined by the United States not joining in, and by Britain and France for sacrificing Abyssinia and Czechoslovakia in 1938. From Munich 1938, he argues, it was every state for itself and, in that context, Ireland's policy of neutrality was no more and no less moral than any other state.

To take no action against deserters would have undermined the morale of all those who had remained the Defence Forces throughout the war. It would have set a dangerous precedent about the future consequences of desertion and would have undermined Ireland's claim to have been neutral during the war.

If we look at the history of pardons, they have been issued by other Governments for soldiers who were convicted of desertion. Section 359 of the British Armed Forces Act 2006 issued a mass pardon on behalf of the British Parliament to 306 soldiers of the British Empire who were executed for certain offences during the First World War. This followed successful lobbying by the Shot at Dawn campaign, which argued the case for the 306 soldiers executed by their own British and Commonwealth Military Command for desertion during the First World War. The Shot at Dawn campaign argued the soldiers were blameless because they were suffering severe psychological trauma, not cowardice. That rendered them physically unable to cope with the shocking scenes they had witnessed. Some opposed the pardon, arguing it is impossible to condemn the events of a century ago from a modern perspective, and that whatever the rights and wrongs, a pardon was inappropriate.

At its peak, during the Second World War, the Irish Defence Forces had 42,000 serving personnel. Over the course of the war, it is estimated more than 7,000 members of the Defence Forces deserted, many to join Allied forces. Of these, some 2,500 personnel returned to their units or were apprehended and tried by military tribunal. The remaining personnel, around 5,000, were the subject of dismissal under the Emergency Powers (No. 362) Order 1945 and the Defence Forces Act 1946.

The Emergency Powers (No. 362) Order 1945 provided for automatic dismissal from the Defence Forces of certain deserters and absentees without leave. The order also provided for the forfeiture of pay and allowances and a condition that every person to whom the order applied should be disqualified for seven years from holding any office or employment remunerated from the Central Fund.

The effect of the order was to impose significant hardship on many individuals and families and remove from them the right to be tried for the offences of which they stood accuse and to provide a defence against the alleged crime.

In June 2012, following detailed consideration the Government concluded that the sacrifice and contribution of those who deserted the defence forces to fight on the Allied side in the Second World War should be recognised. I do not take any high moral ground on this issue; I merely take an objective view. In this context, the Government committed to issue an apology for the manner in which those members of the Defence Forces who left to join the Allied side during the period 1939 to 1945 were treated after the war by the State and to seek provide a legal mechanism that would provide an amnesty to those who absented themselves from the Defence Forces for that reason. That is the kernel of the debate in 2012 and we are now in 2013. I emphasise the importance here of ensuring, in looking at this legislation and the apology issue, and also in trying to treat persons in a fair and reasonable manner, that we think of those who did not go in that direction as well.

The Government's commitment to apologise for the manner in which these members of the Defence Forces who left to join the Allied side between 1939 and 1945 were treated after the war by the State was made through a statement by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, to Dáil Éireann on 12 June 2012. The Bill seeks to fulfil the second element of the Government's commitment. On the main provisions in the Bill, section 2 provides for an amnesty for members of the Defence Forces who deserted or were absent without leave during the course of the Second World War and who subsequently served with forces fighting on the Allied side in that war, and who were dismissed from the Defence Forces by the Emergency Powers Order 1945, were convicted of desertion or being absent without leave, or were or are liable to be prosecuted for desertion or being absent without leave. Section 3 provides an immunity from prosecution for members of the Defence Forces who deserted or were absent without leave during the course of the Second World War and who subsequently served with forces fighting on the Allied side in that war. Finally, section 4 provides that no right, liability or any cause of action shall arise resulting from the enactment. Section 4 also provides that the amnesty being provided in section 2 will not have the effect of a pardon under Article 13.6 of the Constitution. These are the details in the legislation and the controversial issues we are discussing today.

I have major concerns about the Bill, but also about the future of and morale in the Defence Forces which are important in this debate. I hope the debate on this Bill is a lesson to all of us that we should work hard to end wars and stop the big powers and big bullies from starting them in the first place. We do not have a great track record on this issue and we all need to be vigilant in this regard. We all should empower the United Nations as the only international body to police the world. That is my clear position. Some countries spend their time constantly undermining the United Nations and this is not helpful. I believe strongly that all Deputies in this House have a duty to work for justice, equality and peace.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

I call Deputy O'Donovan, who, I believe, is sharing time with Deputies Seán Kenny and Harris in the proportions ten minutes to himself and five to each of his fellow Deputies.

Deputy Patrick O'Donovan

I thank the Acting Chairman.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. It may not be legislation that would have captured the public's imagination to the extent that it should. As somebody who has looked at this from the time that he was at school, I have often stated previously that the history curriculum in this country, whether at primary or second level, runs along the lines of the Stone Age, the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, a big jump into the 19th century and another big jump to Easter Sunday 1916, with everything in the middle cut out. Yet, one of the lessons we must learn as a mature democracy is that we must be able to talk about our history in a mature and open way, but also recognising when matters went wrong and when we did wrong as a society. In the recent past, this Government has faced up to a few serious ghosts that have been lurking around this country post independence. The manner in which, for instance, the new Government has taken on the issue of the protection of children is one matter, but I think especially of the relationship between Ireland and Britain, and some of our actions as a sovereign Government, and the manner in which we have tried to redress that now as a more mature, informed and educated society. These are good developments.

I applaud the Minister for Defence on the Bill. Some would ask does it really matter. It matters in a number of contexts. In the first context, we are about to embark on the decade of commemoration, 1912 to 1922, to be looked at over the 11-year period, 2012 to 2022, involving the birth of the Irish nation, the birth of the struggle of Ulster Protestantism, etc. It is important in that context, particularly when Queen Elizabeth II visited Ireland in the recent past, that we can have now a more mature debate on both Anglo-Irish relations and, more importantly, how we dealt post independence with a number of issues of which this is one.

I pay tribute to the Defence Forces, particularly those involved in United Nations work. I understand the Minister for Defence visited my neck of the woods in Limerick recently reviewing troops about to go on another important United Nations peace-keeping role. Ireland has a strong and proud history in that regard.

One of the questions we need to ask ourselves is, while nobody would condone desertion, and I certainly would not condone desertion in any way, especially from the Defence Forces, whether it was proportionate what was done to the 5,000 or so who were absent without leave or who joined the Allied forces. To my mind, it was not. If what the then Government did was not proportionate, there is redress due and part of that redress is the apology while another part is the legislation that is before the House today. One must bear in mind that what was done was not necessarily merely against the individuals who were a party to it; it was against their families. In some instances, it forced them almost out of their communities because when they returned to Ireland they were blackened, not only by the Government and the Oireachtas but by society which, for some reason, bought into that kind of vindictive nature that typified that Government during the Emergency, 1939 to 1945.

When I was preparing for this debate and listening to the Minister's opening remarks in June last, I often asked myself whether, for instance, had that 5,000 of whom we speak participated by and large in the United States army, would we have taken the same measures in Ireland at the time, and, of course, the answer is that we would not. There was a vindictive nature in this country, post independence and up to relatively recently, driven by a narrow and introverted mindset that refused to acknowledge a number of matters. On one of the significant wrongs done during that period of time, a person who works in this House wrote a good book about the then leader of the Opposition, the late Minister James Dillon, and the debates that took place in this Chamber during the run-up to, and in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of, the Second World War and Ireland's position on neutrality and such matters. It gives an interesting insight into the reasons we did what we did and to those against whom it was done. The context needs to be looked at as to whether it was fair and proportionate. It was not.

Now that we are looking to a new era between Britain and Ireland in terms of our relationships, this is coming at a good time because it can form part of the run-up the decade of commemoration which focuses primarily on the First World War, the results of which, no doubt, caused the second one.

While Opposition Members do not want to say they do not support the Bill they are giving a few digs here and there about their own perception of history. They would want to be very careful because history does not necessarily need rose-tinted glasses. Some of them in the first day of the debate and again today have taken a very lop-sided view of what they perceive to be the history associated with the decision-making process that resulted in these people being victimised in the way they were. I urge caution in that regard because some of these people and their families are still alive.

As I said at the outset the fundamental question is whether the actions of the Government led by Éamon de Valera in introducing the Emergency Powers Order 1945 were proportionate. I believe they were not. It has taken us far too long to reach the stage where we are today. What these people did was not right - desertion is not right. However, given what happened in the Second World War, including the Holocaust and other atrocities in the period between 1939 and 1945 in the name of countries that felt they were doing the right thing, the Irish response to that has taken far too long. On that basis the action of the Minister for Defence is correct.

The contribution of our Defence Forces cannot be underestimated. Some 5,000 people of an estimated 42,000 members at the time represent a large number particularly given the strength of the Defence Forces today. If we relate that 5,000 to the numbers we have today, it is a considerable number. However, we need to ask why they did it. These were young men, primarily, who believed this was the right thing to do. Owing to fascism, with attacks on democracy and small countries being kicked around continental Europe like footballs, they believed these people needed to be protected. Given what was happening on the Continent at the time that they felt they could not stand idly by and pretend they could do nothing. As with those who joined up during the First World War, some joined up out of economic necessity, a sense of adventure, loyalty to the crown, etc. They went out and many of them never came back.

We should consider whether the emergency powers introduced by the Emergency Powers Order 1945 were proportionate. Was it necessary to brand those people for the rest of their lives in some sort of a treasonous fashion? Was it proportionate that their families should have paid in the manner in which they had to pay? Was it proportionate that they were denied pensions and public service employment? They were almost denied their citizenship. Is it fair that they have had to wait so long to get what they duly deserve? I firmly believe that these people did the right thing for a number of reasons. While I do not condone desertion, at the end of the day they were faced with a very difficult decision over whether they should sit there and pretend nothing was going on or whether they should try to do their best. I believe their contribution to the State and the State's record in the Second World War needs to be remembered and honoured. I believe this is the way to do so. I thank and applaud the Minister for what he is doing, which restores those people's dignity not only on their behalf but on behalf of their families, their communities and the State. On that basis I support the Bill.

Deputy Seán Kenny

I welcome the Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill. Last June the Minister for Defence apologised to Dáil Éireann on behalf of the Government for the manner in which those members of the Defence Forces, who left to fight on the Allied side during the Second World War, were treated after the war by the State. As part of the announcement the Government committed to introduce legislation to grant an amnesty to those who absented themselves from the Defence Forces without leave or permission to fight on the Allied side. The Bill provides for the granting of an amnesty and an apology to those members of the Defence Forces who served with forces fighting on the Allied side during the Second World War and who were subsequently found guilty by a military tribunal or were dismissed from the Defence Forces. It also provides for immunity from prosecution to those who were, or who still are, liable to be prosecuted for desertion or being absent without leave.

The Second World War gave rise to circumstances that were grave and exceptional even though in Ireland the period was referred to euphemistically as the Emergency. Members of the Defence Forces left their posts at the time to fight on the Allied side against fascism and played an essential role in defending freedom and democracy in Europe. Those who fought on the Allied side also contributed indirectly to protecting the State's sovereignty, independence and democratic values. We should be proud of these compatriots who took great risk and made great sacrifices in what was an horrifically brutal conflict, beyond anything subsequent generations have had to endure.

Constituents of mine have contacted me looking for closure in their last years or looking for closure for family members who have since passed on. I hope the Bill will put to rest the concerns of those individuals still alive who served with the Allied forces in the fight against fascism and I hope it lifts a veil for the families of those who have since died.

In the 1950s I recall a family living near my home. They had an older brother who had left the Defence Forces to go and fight for the Allies in the Second World War. He lived in England after the war and whenever he came home for the holidays it was always kept very hush hush. He and his family were afraid he might still be arrested, as he was still technically an Irish Army deserter.

I pay tribute to the many thousands of other Irishmen who volunteered to join the Allies during the Second World War, including my uncle. He joined the RAF in 1942 to fight against fascism and I pay tribute to his memory today.

The Defence Forces must be able to maintain the high standards demanded of them and must have complete clarity with regard to the exercise of command and authority whether at home or abroad. This is critical for the maintenance and effectiveness of military units. The Defence Forces must retain the power to enforce discipline through their own code of discipline through the military justice system. This disciplinary code must be efficient and effective and above all else, it must be fair to the individual soldier. Desertion from the Irish Defence Forces, as with armed forces throughout the world, is regarded as a very serious offence and is at the heart of the system of military discipline. When an individual takes a solemn oath at the commencement of his or her enlistment he or she cannot leave without permission or decide not to be available for duty.

I do not condone desertion and fully recognise, value and respect the contribution of all those who stood by their posts with the Defence Forces during the Emergency and pledged their lives to defend the State's integrity and sovereignty. That said, most people now accept that the majority of those who left the Defence Forces during the Second World War and went on to fight against fascism, did so out a sense of idealism and with a commitment to protecting democracies from tyranny and totalitarianism. That is the reason for the Bill. These men did not desert and go home, but absented themselves in order to go into harm's way and fight fascism. We should be proud of them and we should remember them.

Deputy Simon Harris

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill, which addresses a unique set of circumstances in Irish history. I agree with Deputy O'Donovan that the State has been slow to apologise in the past and admit it got things wrong. The Government has embarked on a course of trying to right historical wrongs. The Bill represents another step in another area in trying to right the wrongs of the past and give recognition that the State makes mistakes and when the State makes mistakes it apologises.

Ireland remained neutral during the Second World War and yet a sizeable number of our trained soldiers took it upon themselves to fight against some of the greatest threats the world had seen. Irish citizens entering the Second World War on the Allied side knew the horrors they would face. They also knew the great personal risk they would take and yet they went bravely and courageously. The Bill address a terrible travesty inflicted on patriotic Irishmen who during the years of the Second World War, at terrible peril to themselves and their families, went to war. The choice to enter the British army, among others, to fight the terrible threat to the liberty of our new Republic posed by Nazi Germany and the other Axis powers was a courageous and selfless act, which received nothing but mistreatment. Those dismissed were disqualified for seven years from all public or Civil Service employment and from pension entitlements from the day they absconded, and were not entitled to unemployment assistance.

Clearly there needed to be a system of discipline and other speakers have alluded to this, but normal disciplinary procedures were not followed in what can only be seen as a degree of vindictiveness and nastiness inflicted by the State on these men. These actions placed an undeserved penalty on these soldiers and their families. It placed an extreme level of social and economic pressure and had the effect of socially isolating these families as well as impoverishing them. In putting these 6,000 to 7,000 men through military tribunals or dismissing them en masse with the Emergency Powers Order (No. 362) 1945, the sacrifice they made was ignored and never acknowledged by the State.

I commend the Minister for Defence on his apology on behalf of the State in June last year and for the Bill which recognises the special circumstances in which these events took place, the harshness of the treatment of those persons affected and provides them with immunity from trial for these acts. It is clearly important to uphold the chain of command and discipline in any army and we must also place on the record of the House our great satisfaction, tribute and gratitude to those who stayed and did not fight and remained in the Irish Army. The Bill recognises the degree to which there is a distinction from the normal circumstances for desertion and the circumstances around those who left the Irish Defence Forces to fight in the Second World War. I welcome the immunity from trial for these acts which the Bill brings, the exoneration of these men in respect of their desertion and dismissal, and the vindication of groups such as the Irish Soldiers Pardons Campaign who have sought the Bill for many years. The Bill will address the concerns of those men who remain alive and it will lift the veil on the families of those who have already died.

I wish to make several other observations. At the beginning of my contribution I mentioned the neutrality of the nation. There has been much media and political discourse in recent years about neutrality. At some point the State needs to have an honest and mature debate about neutrality and what exactly it means. In my view some of the threats facing the world today, quite similar in ways and different in others to the threats which faced the world during the world wars, are issues on which one cannot be neutral. Ireland's role in the European Union and the solidarity we show with other nations makes it an issue on which we need a mature, calm, thoughtful and reflective debate.

Deputy O'Donovan commented on the decade of commemoration which is about to begin. We need to have a debate and discussion on what Irishness means. It absolutely sickens me to see people, many of whom commanded private armies, try to wrap themselves around the flag of this country and declare themselves more Irish than the next. The men who fought with the British or other armies during the First World War or the Second World War were just as Irish as the next. They too made a sacrifice in what they viewed as the best interests of their family and country. No one political party or political ideology owns Irishness. It is very important when we embark on what will be an exciting decade of commemoration that we commemorate all of our history from all perspectives because this is what a true republic is about and what true republicans should be about. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am pleased to be able to speak on the Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill 2012. It is easy to be wise in hindsight and we all learn from the mistakes of the past. We also have a better understanding now of the terrible tough economic times for those from all walks of life. The Bill provides for the granting of an amnesty and immunity from prosecution where appropriate to members of the Irish Defence Forces who fought on the Allied side and were found guilty of desertion by military tribunal or dismissed en masse by the Emergency Powers Order (No. 362) 1945. The amnesty is an acknowledgement that the treatment received in consequence of desertion is now considered to have been unduly harsh and acceptance that the acts occurred during the special circumstances of the Second World War. It is an apology for the treatment and exoneration in respect of these acts. The Bill explicitly limits State liability and does not contain compensation. The amnesty does not constitute a presidential pardon under Article 13 of the Constitution. I have no problem with any of this and many of the people involved have no wish to receive compensation. As other speakers stated, they and their families wish to have the stigma removed.

I was brought up at a time and in a community which did not agree with their desertion or their fighting with the Allied forces, but time is a great healer. Now I agree we should consider pardoning them. We must put ourselves in the context of those awful times and the encouragement the men received from the late General O'Duffy and others to go and fight. We must also consider the sheer economic hardship they faced. It was easy for them to flee across the Border after leaving the Army, or deserting, whatever one wants to call it, and receive higher remuneration. If they wished to do so they had ease of access and did not have to get there by flying or by water. At the time, efforts, demands and appeals were being made to bring remuneration in the Irish Defence Forces in line with what was paid by the British armed forces to make it more desirable for people to stay rather than to go and fight, as it involved a huge risk.

During the First World War four very respected members of my community in Newcastle in south Tipperary lost their lives. I am glad a historical committee in the village has spent the past 12 months working on proper recognition of those who lost their lives during the First World War, which is only right and proper in the fullness of time. Last Sunday week the village celebrated the 90th anniversary of the late General Liam Lynch, chief of staff of the IRA, who lost his life in 1923 on the Knockmealdown mountains and I wish to thank uachtarán Fhianna Fáil, Deputy Micheál Martin, for attending. I do not know where the memorial for those who died during the First World War will be placed, but it would be only right and proper that both are located adjacent to each other so people can understand in peace time that they gave their lives for motives in which they believed. We commemorate Liam Lynch every year, but his 90th anniversary was special and it is good that the community is big, strong and able enough to recognise both traditions and the people who lost their lives. I look forward to participating in it and will give any support I can to the committee.

At the time there was a fear of major desertion so certain action had to be taken and any Army would have done so. We see it in the army of government here with the whip being cracked, and I have experience of this from the previous Government. One must keep people in line for cannon fodder or voting fodder. The troops must be marshalled whether in politics or the military. The historical background to the Bill is that desertion from the Irish Defence Forces during the Second World War amounted to between 6,000 and 7,000 men. The majority of these crossed the Border and joined the British Army or found a job working in the war industry, which was huge and included Harland and Wolff and others in the Six Counties. This was a relatively high desertion rate, as in 1940 the size of the Defence Forces was approximately 42,000.

The Irish intelligence service, G2, tried to discourage desertion from the Defence Forces with mixed results. In 1942 almost three quarters of deserters were apprehended, but only one third were apprehended during the first eight months of 1943. Approximately 5,000 of those deserting joined the British Army and fought against fascism. This figure should be seen in the context of an estimated 80,000 ordinary Irish citizens who volunteered to fight for Britain during the war. This is an important contextual figure and we cannot lose sight of it. The precise reasons so many individual soldiers chose to desert are not fully known. There is some evidence that economic necessity played a role. In 1941 the secretary of the Department of Defence urged the Cabinet to raise military pay to British levels to stem the tide of desertion.

One could certainly see that happening in those times of economic hardship so shortly after gaining our independence. While a modest increase was approved in 1941, pay levels and allocations still lagged behind those of the British Army. The Emergency Powers Act of 1939 to 1945 followed the approval of a position of neutrality in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, the Oireachtas passed a Bill to amend Article 28.3.3o of the Constitution. The article provided that during time of war or armed rebellion, the government, following a resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas, could assume emergency powers. The amendment widened the interpretation of a "time of war" to include a time when armed conflict is taking place that affects the vital interests of the State even if the State is not directly involved and even if, after the war or conflict has ceased, the Oireachtas resolves that the emergency created by the conflict still exists.

Put in context, that situation is quite easy to understand and accept. I know of people who could not come home on holidays and were not made to feel welcome because the stigma never left them. In the fullness of time, however, we can forgive and forget. We must do so. We should let those people enjoy life and have a certain degree of respect in the community. While it may have been seen differently then, they were different times with different regimes. Many of them were encouraged to go to war.

I support the Bill, unpalatable as it might be to some of my own supporters and those who like to honour the name of Liam Lynch. It is time to be broad minded and inclusive in accepting the reasons for, and the good faith of, what happened. Many such people lost their lives, as well. I will not lecture anyone on the issues of that time and neither will I accept any lectures from people who want to rewrite history and blame the government of the day. It had to protect its own army and it was not too long after gaining independence. In addition, we were a neutral country. We can have a debate on neutrality but it was needed in order to shore up our defences and stop a major desertion of soldiers at the time. In understanding and accepting the context of the time, it is important now to move on and pass this Bill.

I do not agree with the Minister on many matters but in this case I do. The Emergency Powers Act Order was pretty stiff at the time. In October 1945, the then Government used those powers to issue the Emergency Powers Order No. 362 of 1945 which was signed by the then Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera. It was designed to deal with returning soldiers who had deserted the Irish Defence Forces to serve with the British Army during the Second World War. The order provided that any member of the Irish Defence Forces who had deserted or absented themselves from the service without being granted official leave for 180 days or more during the Emergency period, which commenced on 3 September 1939, could be dismissed from the Defence Forces for desertion. The order explicitly stated that a member of the Defence Forces did not include an officer of the Defence Forces. Even in those days we can see that there was a large degree of "them and us" with one law for officers and another for lower ranks.

As a consequence of the order, just under 5,000 soldiers were dismissed en masse on their return to Ireland. I am sure that must have been very unpalatable and hard on their families. At the time, the issue was raw and sore, and feelings were running high. Under section 4 of the order there were further consequences for those dismissed. The section stipulated that those dismissed were disqualified for seven years from any public or civil service employment, including employment with local authorities or a position on any board or office established by statute, such as the ESB.

Although it was a fledgling organisation at the time, the ESB was doing a huge amount of work bringing electrification to rural Ireland. Such jobs were freely available so that was a punishment because such people could not get work to provide for their families. Furthermore, they would have no pension entitlements from the day they abandoned their Irish Army positions and no entitlement to receive unemployment assistance under the Unemployment Insurance Act 1945. That was stiff medicine but, as I said, those were different times. I will not condemn the former Members of this House who voted for those measures then. It happened in a different context and they were harsh times.

We have our own business to deal with now. I have said more than once that what is happening now with the economic ruin of our country - the economic rape and plunder of our country - is the third world war without any bullets being fired. It is being fought with the euro and I believe that we are showing the white flag to Germany again. I was on the government benches in the last Dáil and voted for the bank guarantee because we were told that we had to save the banks on that fatal - not fateful - night. We were told that do anything else would bring us over the abyss. I was certainly told that and I had to vote in that context. We have learned since, however, that the government was lied to through the teeth by the banks, bankers and speculators.

During Leaders' Questions today, I raised with the Taoiseach the fact that the bondholders were being spared everything. We now know the position from IMF sources, which I felt all along from the body language, because I have met with the troika four times. At the time, I stated that the IMF was more afraid of us than our European colleagues. I am straying.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

I am obliged to bring the Deputy back into the gravitational pull of the debate.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am coming back to the debate but it is all relative to the times we are in. Those soldiers who deserted were put into penury. Today, we have seen - and the Acting Chairman may try to stop me again - the Croke Park agreement being rejected. Why would it not be, however, because of the misery we are visiting on our people?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

The Deputy has a very refined conscience but he should stick to the debate.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Yes, I am trying to stick to the debate. As I said, I believe this is a German attack on our nation but this time with money. We had to save the banks to save the euro and I remember discussing it with the former Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan, at the time. To have come home that night and left the deal on the table, they would have been on the next plane here after us and we would have had a different outcome.

I must also refer to what is going on with the current Minister for Justice and Equality concerning what is being inflicted on members of An Garda Síochána and the lack of respect for gardaí. We have seen it with the Judiciary today also.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

Deputy.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

All politics is relative and it is very relevant at this time.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Ríordáin.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Gerald Nash

In the 1930s and 1940s Ireland was a country replete with contradictions. An achingly conservative and insular theocracy, it was a State in its infancy working to assert itself in the early years of independence. In the shadow of a former colonial ruler, there was an almost pervasive and deep-seated resentment of, and antipathy towards, Britain which was held by a substantial proportion of Irish men and women. This was perhaps understandable in the context of the time with bitter memories of the War of Independence and the Civil War fresh in the collective memory.

Controversially, we chose to stand outside the conflict during the Second World War. While our nascent State made that decision for us, there were tens of thousands who chose to take a different stand. My grandfather, the late George Kearns, was one such person. He joined the British Navy of his own volition and, like his father before him, he served in the British forces. This did not make him any less of an Irishman. It was an all too typical story of any working class family from Drogheda, Dundalk or any other major urban centre at that period in our recent history.

If these people - and they were mainly men - have been largely written out of the history of official Ireland, what of the 5,000 members of the Defence Forces who absented themselves from their posts between the outbreak of war and the end of hostilities in 1945? We are here today to eradicate a stain from Irish history and to write a wrong that we are now mature and confident enough to resolve.

There is no doubt that those who deserted or absented themselves without leave, committed a serious offence but they were denied the opportunity to account for their actions. It has been my central contention that this is a fundamental right afforded to all soldiers around the world.

The introduction of the Emergency Powers Order No. 362 in 1945 meant that many of those returning heroes were blackballed and treated as pariahs and traitors by a political and bureaucratic class who did not have the courage to stand up to the local parish priest, let alone to global fascism. Therein lies the paradox.

Today is an opportunity formally to say sorry in our national Parliament to those who were subjected to the harshness of what was known as the list. It is an opportunity to pay tribute to the sacrifices they and their comrades made, this great heroic generation whose numbers sadly are now greatly diminished.

Since I first started to campaign on this issue a number of years ago, I have received an extraordinary response from both home and abroad. Many stories and insights have been shared with me and I was privileged to hear and to witness them. I commend people such as Peter Mulvanny, for example, who continually raised awareness of this injustice, author and historian Robert Widders for his book, Spitting On A Soldier’s Grave, Irish journalists such as John Maher, who have helped to shine a light into the stories of families whose lives were deeply affected by the implementation of the aforementioned list, as well as John Waite of the BBC, who helped to bring this remarkable story of injustice to a wider British and global audience on a frequent basis. The Minister and the Government also should be proud of the generous and courageous decision taken, while at all times respecting and recognising that all Members of this House and all citizens of the State quite correctly and rightly give their allegiance at all times to the Defence Forces.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

First, I commend the Minister on bringing to the Houses of the Oireachtas the Defence Forces (Second World War Amnesty and Immunity) Bill. When thinking about this subject, it is important that everyone recognises that Ireland is a complex place. For many generations and decades after independence, one was told it was a kind of simple place in which everything was black and white or green, white and orange. Moreover, one was told our identity was quite narrow and to step outside that identity was a dangerous place to be. It has only been in recent years that many families in Ireland have looked back on their own family history and have realised things were not always so simple. As Deputy Nash already has mentioned and in the case of my own family, many people fought in the British forces while many in the same family, who were related to one another, also fought in revolutions here in Ireland.

The context of that time is not as simple as might have been suggested and if one is to be serious about the Republic in which we live, one should note a republic is not the absence of a monarchy. This is what we grew up thinking or believing in and perhaps that is what the struggle was for during the 1920s and earlier, that is, the sense the Republic was the absence of a monarchy. However, a republic is not simply the absence of a monarchy. A republic is a place where all people are equal. A republic is a place in which there is compassion, forgiveness and understanding, as well as respect for people's past, for their allegiances, for what they sought for their families and for what economic necessity sometimes forced them to do. In the main, this Bill pertains to working-class families and is about men who sought to do something they felt was right. I believe there now is a generosity within the Republic to look back at things that happened in the past and to have a different sense of them.

Later today, Members will discuss the issue of symphysiotomy and they recently discussed the position in respect of the Magdalen laundries. It was a kind of dark and repressive Ireland with a highly simplistic view of what was right and wrong and of what was Irish and what was not. Members of the generation to which Deputy Nash and I belong have a completely different view of what is a republic, of our value system and of what we wish to hand on to the next generation. It is not a closed view of Irishness or of nationality. It is not a black and white view of what the country believes in or stands for and is not a green, white and orange view of nationality because life just is not that simple. This move on the part of the Minister means a huge amount to many families. Unfortunately, it has come too late for some men, such as Con Murphy, a former RAF man, who died in Cork recently. However, for people such as my constituent, Peter Mulvanny, who has campaigned on this issue for many years, and those Deputy Nash already has recorded in the Official Report, it means so much that what they did can be legitimised to a degree and that this House and this Republic finally can come to terms with our complicated past. Were we to recognise the complexity of that past and realise things are not always that simple, perhaps we would have a chance to build an Ireland and a republic of which everyone can feel a part.

I again appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which is something on which one needs to reflect. In the past, nationality in Ireland has been a divisive subject. One was obliged to speak a certain way, look a certain way, dance in a certain way, play a certain game or speak a certain language to be considered to be Irish. We are more generous now and have a better sense of ourselves. We have much more self-confidence to be able to bring legislation such as this Bill to the House and to speak on it with generosity and understanding. I commend the Minister on his action. This means a huge amount for the families involved. They are excited and relieved and believe that finally, they can look back on their own family history and not in any way be obliged to apologise for what their family members or they themselves did. Far too often in the past, indirectly or directly, people were required to apologise for their family histories or to pretend that some family members did something they did not do. There are areas of my constituency in which people are proud of their British Army heritage and why should they not be? We so often pretended that Irish people did not fight in the First or Second World Wars. For so many years, we pretended, for example, that Irish women do not travel across the Irish Sea to gain access to facilities of the health system there that are not available here. We have colluded in a kind of collective silence that makes us believe that Ireland is a simple place. However, it is not; it is complicated. It has a complicated history and today, we finally have come to terms with part of that complicated history. I commend the Minister on so doing and appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill.

Minister for Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter)

I thank all Members who spoke. It is particularly remarkable that there is unanimity across the House that this legislation should be enacted. Some speakers, in the course of their contributions, laid different emphases on different issues and indeed, some strayed into a broad range of other areas that I do not seek to enter into this evening. The basic issue is recognising the reality that the individuals whose situation is addressed in this Bill, many of whom are now deceased, showed great courage in fighting on the Allied side in the Second World War. No one should doubt the reality that had Nazi Germany been successful in that war, Ireland's neutrality would have been a meaningless concept. There would have been nothing to protect this island from invasion. Many lives in the Defence Forces would have been lost in trying to defend the island but the likelihood that we-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Peter Mathews)

I ask those in the Gallery please to refrain from speaking.

Deputy Alan Shatter

However, the likelihood that this State would have had its neutrality respected by a victorious Germany is minimal. I will refer to one of the classic confirmations of this point. Anyone who has had the opportunity to visit the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, will discover a map in the memorial that details the numbers of Jewish communities across Europe designated for elimination. There is a reference to the exact number of the members of the Irish Jewish community, who were designated by Nazi Germany for elimination.

In the context of this Bill, I constantly made a point during the Seanad debate, which was repeated by my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Kehoe, who took Second Stage in this House.

We should not in any circumstances devalue the contribution made by members of the Defence Forces who served this State loyally, remained members of the Defence Forces during the Second World War, which we termed The Emergency, and who performed a very important public duty. However, in acknowledging the service they gave, it is right that we acknowledge the service given by the members of the Defence Forces who left this island without permission and joined the Allied forces, with the vast majority joining the British forces, and who contributed to the victory against intolerance, totalitarianism and fascism.

I welcome the support expressed by Members of the House for this measure. I hope its enactment will be seen by the families of many of those who conducted themselves thus and fought, as a recognition of the contribution they made to protect decency and democracy and as an apology from the State for the manner in which those brave men - our Defence Forces were men only in those days - were treated. They fought against those who would have brought tyranny not just to the United Kingdom but possibly to this island and this republic.

There were some interesting contributions to the debate, although I do not wish to engage in a lengthy discussion of some of the issues. Deputy Finian McGrath made an interesting contribution, which replicated contributions he has made at the justice and defence committee when dealing with defence issues. We are all opposed to war. War is not a good thing. People dying and being wounded is not a good thing. Unfortunately, however, there are bad people in the world and occasionally states must defend themselves. There are bad people who will kill people, and that is the reason we need armies that are properly equipped. I noticed with interest the Deputy's comment that we must empower the UN to stop wars. Is he suggesting that the United Nations should develop its own army of tens of thousands of people and where should they be located? The UN can pass motions and urge that war to stop. It is sometimes powerless to achieve anything.

Consider the tragedy being played out in Syria at present. Over 70,000 people have lost their lives and we do not know how many hundreds of thousands have been wounded or seriously wounded. There are approximately 1.2 million refugees from Syria. The UN is powerless to do anything about it. I could refer to a number of other conflict zones around the world about which there have been UN motions and in which there are UN troops trying to preserve the peace. Without the presence of those armed UN troops the peace would not be preserved. There are also parts of the world where in the past UN troops have had to be withdrawn when conflicts have arisen because they did not have the capability or capacity to end the conflict. Yes, we are all against war, but we must be realistic and ensure this country's Defence Forces are fully and properly equipped to do what they can to contribute to UN peace missions. However, merely wishing wars and bad people away does not work, unfortunately.

Deputy Simon Harris made an interesting contribution about the threats that confront us today. I do not wish to turn this into a debate on neutrality as that is a discussion for another day. People have different views on the importance of neutrality and what it means. However, Deputy Harris is right on one matter. There are some issues in the world today in respect of which neutrality is irrelevant, regardless of how much one talks about it. No Member of this House, for example, is neutral about what we believe to be the terrorist atrocity perpetrated in Boston yesterday. Nobody is neutral about international terrorism. No Member of this House believes that suicide bombers are to be encouraged. We all disagree with that. Dealing with international terrorism is something on which states must co-operate and concepts of neutrality become meaningless in the current world.

Consider the area of cyber security. A massive cyber attack can undermine essential utilities in a state and access government departments. If a state does not have adequate defences, it could effectively paralyse services and create substantial disruption for civilians. Is anybody neutral about cyber security? Of course they are not. We live in a far more complex world today than the world of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. It is good to discuss these issues without coming to them with any prior assumptions about them. However, that is a discussion for another day.

I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. There were very interesting contributions. I was particularly fascinated Deputy Ó Cuív's contribution in which he referred to some of the people from this State who fought in the Second World War, their circumstances and where they came from. Although I was unable to be here for the start of Second Stage, I read the transcript of the debate.

It is good that we can unite behind this Bill. The Bill is important to a substantial number of families in the State, and it was correct of some Deputies to acknowledge that. It is also a small additional brick in the wall of reconciliation between the island of Ireland and the island of Britain, as well as being a small brick in the wall of reconciliation between the North and the South. In the Seanad I referred, as did my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, at the start of this debate, to the fact that many thousands of Irish men who fought on the Allied side in the Second World War - not just those who may have deserted our Defence Forces but the many thousands of others who simply decided to join up - were effectively airbrushed out of our history for far too long. As we went through school none of us would have known the fact that approximately 60,000 people from what was then the Free State, later the Republic of Ireland, joined the British armed forces and fought. I discovered during my visit to Australia that a significant number of Irish people who had emigrated to Australia in the years prior to the Second World War fought with the Australian army, navy and air force and some fought with the New Zealand forces as well. A considerable section of the history of many families in this country has been airbrushed out of the history we were taught in schools and the history that I suspect is still taught in schools. In addition to providing for the apology and amnesty, this Bill is bringing those who fought out of the shadows and into a visible part of the history of this State and the history of many families.

I look forward to bringing the Bill through Committee and Report Stages and to its early enactment.

Question put and agreed to.