Lifting of State of Emergency: Motion.

Mr. Manning

I move:

That Seanad Éireann hereby resolves, pursuant to subsection 3º of section 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution, that the national emergency created by the armed conflict referred to in the Resolutions, pursuant to the said Article, of Dáil and Seanad Éireann of the 1st September, 1976, has ceased to exist.

In moving the motion I welcome the Taoiseach on his first visit to the Seanad as Taoiseach. I hope he will have many such visits and I know that he shares the concern of all Members of this House that the Seanad be made as relevant to the needs of a Parliament of the new century as is possible.

An Cathaoirleach

The Leader of the House stole my thunder, but I wish to again welcome the Taoiseach to the House on his first visit as Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

It is more than seven years since I spoke in this House and I am happy that the opportunity arises for me to propose something which I have no doubt has support across both this House and the other House and which stems in no small way from the work of my predecessor. The fact that we are in a position to propose the lifting of the state of emergency is in major respect due to work done by my predecessor, Deputy Reynolds, and others to bring about the ceasefire by both the Provisional IRA and the Loyalist organisations. It is important that I should start my speech by paying tribute to the work of others in this regard.

I assure the House that it is my intention to work on what has already been achieved. I see this process as being essentially a two stage process and the two stages are quite felicitously identified in the title of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. There are two elements here — peace and reconciliation. The first stage, peace, is an absence of violence. Reconciliation, however, is what is necessary if we are to make sure that the peace is permanent and not just a truce.

The reconciliation that we are talking about here is a reconciliation between the two traditions which exist on this island, unionism and nationalism. It is important for us who come from the Nationalist tradition to understand what unionism is. Unionism is a sense of being British. People who are Unionists feel that they are British. They are not some form of aberrant Irish people who have a slightly different and antique interest in certain ceremonies such as Orange parades and such like and who just need a little bit of jollying along and polite talk for them to fully realise that they are not British after all but are in fact slightly misled people who belong to the same one true understanding of Irish nationhood which we have.

They have a very different sense of their nationhood. They feel a genuine sense of being British and until we come to understand what they are and how they see themselves there will not be a full and true reconciliation. Equally, of course, they have got to come to understand the sense of loyalty, the sense of Irish loyalty that is felt by their neighbours and friends on the Falls Road, in Newtownards, in Lisburn, in Portadown and in all the towns which they tend to see as their own but which they share with people who have a very different loyalty to theirs.

Both sides have to fully understand the loyalty of the other. It is not sufficient for Unionists to say that everything would be fine if only the Nationalists would fully and completely accept being part of the UK, in a spiritual sense as well as a legal sense. That is not possible, because for that to happen the Nationalists in question would have to deny, in a sense, their Irish nationalism.

However, if that is an unreasonable request of them to make of Nationalists, it is equally unreasonable for us to demand of Unionists that they in some way, depart from their sense of being British. The task we must set ourselves in building from the stage of peace towards that of reconciliation is one of coming to understand the other point of view more fully than we have done in the past.

That is the context in which I attend the Seanad today to ask it to agree to this motion, which has already been debated and agreed in the Dáil, in order to bring an end to the national emergency resolved by both Houses of the Oireachtas on 1 September 1976.

An end to the national emergency at this point in time is not just significant in terms of its legal effects. It has very great political and symbolic significance also. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should recall the events which have brought us to this moment in history.

Effectively, this country has been under a state of emergency since 1939. The emergency declared at that time, in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, was in response to the outbreak of World War II. It remained in place until 1 September 1976 when both Houses of the Oireachtas passed resolutions bringing it to an end.

A new emergency was resolved to exist at that time arising out of the armed conflict then taking place in Northern Ireland and against the background of a number of violent incidents in this State in the summer of that year, 1976. The horrific murder of the then British ambassador, Mr. Christopher Ewart-Biggs, and of Miss Judith Cooke, and the detonation of explosions at the Special Criminal Court, represented disturbing new elements which presented a direct challenge to the authority of the institutions of the State and their continued ability to discharge the functions entrusted to them under the Constitution.

In the face of that challenge the Government of the day was compelled to act to secure the public safety and preserve the vital interests of the State. The ending of the national emergency is therefore a matter of great significance. I have great hope that it will serve as a marker in the chapter of our history, recording the lifting of a threat and the beginning of new era of peace for the people of this island.

The importance which the Government places in the development of the peace process is evident in the programme. A Government of Renewal. In that programme the Government has made the consolidation of the process towards peace and reconciliation on this island its primary task. To that end the Government has committed itself to a number of important legislative measures, of which the lifting of the national emergency is the first. Other measures directed to that objective will include the introduction of legislation to give effect to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the review of all legislation and court arrangements associated with the management of the conflict in Northern Ireland in the past 25 years.

The motion before the House gives effect to the first of those commitments. A decision to move such a motion was signalled by the former Government on 25 October 1994, but had not been acted upon prior to the change of Government. The ending of the national emergency will help to signal our confidence in the developing peace process and our continuing determination to harness the opportunities for a just and lasting peace which have emerged in recent times. Declaring the end to that emergency will, moreover, help underline the return to normality which the developments of recent times represent and the new hope and opportunities that they mean.

The ending of the national emergency will have more than symbolic meaning, however. It will have legal consequences also. The Emergency Powers Act, 1976. enacted immediately following the declaration of the national emergency in 1976, will, in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of that Act, automatically expire on the passage of this resolution by this House today. Moreover. section 15 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976. which empowers members of the Defence Forces to arrest and search in certain defined circumstances when acting in aid of the civil power, will also cease to have effect. That is because that section has effect only as long as the Emergency Powers Act, 1976, is in force.

The powers conferred on the security forces of this State by those legislative provisions are, of their nature, exceptional in our or, indeed, any legal system. That is evident from the fact that the extended period of detention for up to seven days allowed by the Emergency Powers Act was allowed to lapse in 1977, although the possibility of bringing it back into force was preserved. It is right, therefore, that they should go now.

Ending the national emergency and the consequent expiry of the Emergency Powers Act, 1976, will equally represent an early response to the comments made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Ireland's report under Article 40 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee recommended, among other things, that the State "critically examine the need for the existing state of emergency". We have done so and acted upon it.

The ending of the national emergency is, as I have already indicated, the first in a number of legislative steps which the Government proposes to take to consolidate the peace process. The Government will also be acting quickly on the commitment in its programme to introduce legislation to permit the country to ratify the Convention of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

While the ending of the national emergency has no direct implications for the continued operation of the Offences against the State Acts, 1939-85, the Government, nevertheless, intends to review that legislation as well, in accordance with the commitment contained in its programme to review all legislation and court arrangements associated with the management of the conflict in the last 25 years.

The economic and social consequences which a lasting peace presents to the people of this island should not be underestimated. The effects of the cessation of violence are already evident in terms of increased cross-Border traffic and trade. The reopening of Border roads is also having significant effects in terms of the reintegration of Border communities which have been physically divided for a long number of years, especially since the commencement of violence. The social and economic benefits of an increased level of cross-Border commercial activity and economic co-operation are incalculable.

Consolidating the peace process will also create significant new opportunities for using those Garda resources which have until now had to be committed to security related duties arising from the situation in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that Members of the House will have many suggestions on where these gardaí might be deployed; I might have a few suggestions of my own. Peace holds out the opportunity to use a proportion of those resources to address other pressing needs in our community such as the fight against drugs and organised crime. Changes in that regard are already under way. I am optimistic that a worthwhile redeployment of resources will become increasingly possible as peace is consolidated.

I want — as I am sure all Members of the House will want — to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the security forces of the State for their dedication and professionalism in safeguarding our security during what has been a troubled and difficult period in our history. When I spoke in the other House I mentioned by name each of the members of the Garda Síochána, Army and prison services who lost their lives in the last 25 years. I will not do so again but it is appropriate that this House should remember the supreme sacrifice which these people have made over that prolonged period. We hope that a similar roll of honour will not have to be recorded at the end of the next 25 years. We remember at this time, in particular, those members who made the ultimate sacrifice.

The IRA and Loyalist ceasefires marked a turning point of enormous significance. Each new day of peace increases the prospects that violence will never again be used in pursuit of political aims. The lifting of the national emergency is an expression of the Government's confidence in this new era and signifies in a very concrete way our determination to advance the peace process. It also symbolises the readiness across the political spectrum here to respond in an imaginative way to this new era.

Peace has transformed the climate for political dialogue towards an agreed settlement. The Irish and British Governments have been working closely together for some time now to assist in the process of building a better future on this island. We want each tradition to feel a real sense of security and belonging. We know from past experience that the achievement of this requires accommodation instead of isolation, agreement instead of imposition, consent instead of coercion and parity of treatment instead of domination. These realties have guided all our work in the joint framework document negotiations.

I wish to again record my appreciation of the detailed and painstaking work which has been done on the framework document, particularly by the Tánaiste, who has been working on this matter over his entire term of office as Minister for Foreign Affairs with his officials. He has brought this document to a very advanced stage and each time a meeting takes place between him and his counterpart, Sir Patrick Mayhew, or between his officials and the British officials, further progress towards the conclusion of this document is made. I also wish to pay tribute to the officials on the other side who have helped us so much in this process.

However, we should not overstate what this document is. This document is not a blueprint to be imposed on anybody. It is simply a statement of the understanding about the position between the two Governments, creating a foundation or framework within which the people of Northern Ireland, through their own political representatives with the support and understanding of the two Governments and the two communities south of the Border and in Britain, can build their own future. It is a matter for each community to have confidence in its own political representatives that they will be able to build on the framework document. If they have reservations about the document, let them talk about those to the Governments and to their partners in dialogue across the community in Northern Ireland. Let them not withdraw from discussion because it is very important that we learn the lesson of 25 years of violence, which is that it is through dialogue that problems are solved.

It is also important for us on this side of the Border to recognise that 25 years of violence leaves a scar. If it took the IRA, the Provisional Sinn Féin movement, approximately eight years — from the publication of the book A Path to Freedom in 1986 to last year when they eventually gave up violence — to adjust their thinking to understand that violence was not the way to advance their views, we should not expect other communities to respond in eight days or eight months. This process of recognising that the threat is over and that a new process of reconciliation is needed will take time. The Government and I do not expect that the day after the framework document is published everybody will embrace its provisions and say that everything in it is fine and to agree new arrangements based on it. I do not expect anything of the kind.

I know that a painful and difficult process of reassessment is required in both communities. I would be disappointed, in some senses, if people did not find something in the document to complain about because that would be a sign that the document was not challenging them. As the Tánaiste has said elsewhere, it is important that this document should be seen to challenge both communities to revise their thinking. However, they will revise their thinking — and, perhaps, help to revise the thinking of the Governments if that is what is needed — through dialogue; they will not do so by absenting themselves from dialogue. I ask all those who have views about this matter to have confidence in themselves, the validity of their views and the quality of their political representatives and to encourage those political representatives to engage in the dialogue which will advance their views within the context of a peaceful settlement for which the framework is just a framework.

The violence of the past 25 years has brought into clearer focus the fundamental need to achieve a political balance across many issues. It will comprehensively reflect that need and thereby greatly assist a new political beginning. The document should be viewed as a facilitator of dialogue and not as a political settlement in itself. The final outcome of such dialogue will be put to referendum and the principles of political agreement and popular consent will apply.

This is a very important point. Each tradition has the ultimate right to say "No" because both parts of Ireland must vote on the settlement which emanates from the framework document. If the Unionist parties are ultimately unhappy with what is agreed or what is on offer, they can say "No" in the referendum. Equally, if the Nationalist community is unhappy, it knows that the people of this State will say "No" in their referendum and the matter will not proceed. There is no reason for either community to be tardy in entering into dialogue because ultimately they know that the people will have the final say. They cannot, therefore, be in any sense isolated in making compromises because there is the reference back to the people at the end of the process. This should give the politicians concerned more confidence to compromise because they will not have the last word.

The work of the two Governments on the framework document is almost complete at this stage. I urge all to exercise patience and restraint until its publication. This, in my view, is a reasonable request when set against the background of violence over 25 years. The final document will contain a complex of balances to reflect the sensitivity of the many issues involved. It will reassure and challenge the two main traditions on this island. Reassurances will be given in respect of identity and convictions. At the same time the document will challenge both traditions to rise above the constraints of the past and forge a new political destiny for all on this island and between this island and its neighbour. In essence, it will offer real hope for a durable political settlement, yet demand realism and generosity on all sides. When the document is published, it will, I believe, become clear that it is manifestly fair to both the Nationalist and Unionist traditions on this island. In the meantime, I ask all concerned to withhold judgment.

Mr. O'Kennedy

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I welcome and support the motion. I assure the Leader of the House and the Taoiseach of our total endorsement of it. I also welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has dignified the Seanad by coming to the House to introduce the motion. It is consistent with his attitude to parliamentary democracy, which I have been privileged to recognise over many years. It is most significant that the Taoiseach of the day chose to come to the Seanad and use the occasion to make a significant statement regarding the prelude to the framework document, which will be published soon. On behalf of my party, I welcome him and his recognition of the role of the Seanad by making such important and sensitive comments at this crucial time.

I also welcome the Taoiseach's generous acknowledgement of the role played by the former Taoiseach. This type of not just bi-partisanship but quad-partisanship will be essential if we are to move forward in a sense of common purpose and unity towards the reconciliation we want to achieve after peace has been established. This is not to say that there will not be differences regarding nuances and pace, but, in terms of the common purpose we are all trying to achieve at this time to secure peace through reconciliation, the House greatly appreciates the Taoiseach's presence this morning. We assure him of our support and also of our critical analysis from time to time because it is a reality that the Taoiseach, as leader of the Government, has the main responsibility at all times in all these areas. I greatly welcome his recognition of the Seanad's role.

I was a member of the constitutional committee in 1966 which was set up by the late Sén Lemass — the man I admired most in Irish political life and who was a man of peace and reconciliation through pragmatic co-operation. This committee proposed that the declaration of emergency should be reviewed at least every three years. We saw then that the need for emergency powers was not consistent with the functioning of normal democracy. It is important to recognise that the emergency which existed in times of war, armed conflict or armed rebellion, as it was called under the Constitution, terminated after the end of the war. Great sacrifices were made by all our people and there was a great sense of common purpose and cohesion on the part of those who were thrilled and privileged to serve in what was called the Emergency. We should not forget those people, rather recognise the great national fervour and dedication which was a feature of that period. However, emergency powers belong only to emergency periods. I am very happy that the declaration of the emergency is being terminated.

I am also happy, as the Taoiseach indicated, that it is the Government's intention to review the Offences Against the State legislation, which will not die with the ending of the declaration of emergency. We must recognise that the powers under this legislation are not characteristic with the normal exercise of democracy. It is not appropriate for me to go into all the details now of where this is the case, given the time available to me. However, as was pointed out in the Lower House, it was never intended that Offences Against the State legislation could be used against vocational organisations, such as the Irish Farmers' Association, which happened in its time, and many others.

The only emergency Ireland has experienced in recent times was the events last night. It had nothing to do with the events we are discussing here. It is important to recognise that some of the comments made this morning about the Garda Síochána are totally inappropriate. I completely reject those comments, particularly in view of the fact that they comport themselves so well. Should we be responsible for the fact that there are elements in society elsewhere who are mindless and violent? Should our police be blamed for that? This would serve no purpose in the common understanding we want to reach with the British people and Government. It is significant that the British media did not attempt to blame us or our police but some of our people want to use this occasion to blame the Garda, who will police the State when there is not an emergency, for events for which they have no responsibility whatsoever. The events occurred at a sporting fixture and involved people who were hellbent on trouble. It is a distortion of reality to state that it involved only 40 or 50 people. This does nothing to encourage the relationship between us.

Now that Ireland is getting rid of emergency legislation, I suggest that we nudge our partners, the British Government, to get rid of some of its emergency measures — for example, the powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I must be unique in parliamentary representation as the only one who was detained under that legislation. I was detained——

Mr. O'Toole

Why did they let the Senator go?

Mr. O'Kennedy

——because I indicated honestly on the form I signed that I was to address the British Irish Federation's annual meeting, held outside Birmingham. I also stated that I was to have political discussions in Westminster, although I did not say with whom. It happened to be with David Owen and David Steel and I was detained for that. If we want to encourage harmonious and proper relationships we are now free to ask the British Government to look at its emergency powers which should not be a feature of the relationship that should exist between two mature friendly states.

The Taoiseach has rightly addressed the Unionists' sensitivities which have been expressed pretty freely these days. I recognise the Unionist people as a legitimate element of our country who have made a major contribution. My frustration over many years has been that the contribution they can make in confidence, as distinct from a caged position, has never been released. I hope we are on the way to doing that, but the risk is that they will be out flanked by peace, as has been said. Surely an opportunity which will come with the publication of the framework document cannot be rejected by people who would claim to represent the interests of a community where we can work together in harmony and common purpose for economic development, cultural understanding and vigorous pride.

I agree entirely with the Taoiseach in relation to a recognition of the British identity of the Unionist people. It is their instinct. They must equally recognise our instinct. We cannot have, and both Governments have said this, the kind of domination by one tradition over another which was, unfortunately, a feature of Northern Ireland for so long. There is a belated recognition now that each has the dignity of their own inheritance; each has a level of intelligence and intellectual capacity which was not always recognised, and that is a sad reflection of the events over 50 years up there. In common purpose we can achieve so much.

We will be dealing with constitutional positions when we see the framework document. I have always found it unacceptable that there was an impression in the constitutional position as it is under Bunreacht na hÉireann that this was a claim by us on them. Anybody who represents the existing Articles 2 and 3 as a claim by the South on the North is making a total distortion. We have no right to make such a claim; we have no wish to make such a claim. Those who framed the Constitution were not making such a claim. It was a statement of territorial integrity, pending the reunification of which the laws were to be confined to the 26 county jurisdiction. I do not see that as a claim by one on the other.

If the discussions are to elaborate that point and bring it out in a reassuring way, I will greatly welcome it. I have been involved for one reason or another in the course of my parliamentary career and I am happy to be spokesperson on this area. Over many years, as spokesman or Minister dealing with relations with Britain and Northern Ireland, I could never allow that impression of the relationship even under the constitutional framework that exists at present.

The existing framework is under the Downing Street Declaration. I am privileged to be a member of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. It has done considerable work; contact in itself brings about understanding and common purpose. Is it not sad that the Unionist representatives in Westminster, who want to have a role and a say, are deliberately absenting themselves, depriving themselves from the opportunity of making that contribution to the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body? I do not think that any Conservative MP can speak for them; I certainly do not claim that I can. I do not think that anyone at that body can speak for them; they should speak for themselves but they are depriving themselves.

I hope that when we have a framework in place in the conditions now brought about by the ending of the emergency here and, hopefully, consequent declarations elsewhere, they will play a full and vigorous part in the confident expectation that the response from all sides here will be reassuringly welcome and helpful. The divisions of the past have no right to cut across the promise of the future. I welcome the motion which helps us to move forward to a new common purpose and intention.

I am conscious that it is a sensitive period in British politics. It has been sensitive in British politics for many years in terms of the role which the Unionist representatives can play in the survival of the British Government. Twice in my own experience as Minister for Foreign Affairs I saw a Government in Britain — the latest of which was James Callaghan's Government with Roy Mason — when we were in negotiation with them look more to their own stability in government in the arrangements they made with the Unionist MPs which had nothing to do with the proper direction and purpose required at the time. The priority was survival. It happened previously under former Prime Minister Harold Wilson; so much for those who would suggest it is only a matter of concern under the Conservative Party.

I am glad to note in recent times — and I do not say this as being a signal from government to any Unionist representatives there that it will throw them aside — there seems to be on the part of the present British Government a determination to proceed in accordance with the understandings which emerged in the Downing Street Declaration and are now about to be incorporated in the framework document. If others choose to react to that in the way one would wish they did not, it is for them to reconsider their position. I say to the Unionists that the right of veto is never a guarantee of recognition, respect or achievement. I am happy to note that the current disposition of the present British Government is rather different from that which I experienced from time to time as Minister.

In that the motion gives us the opportunity of creating the background and foundation for the return to full, vigorous and normal politics and understanding between our two countries, Governments and, above all else, between the peoples on this island. I enthusiastically endorse it. I thank the Taoiseach for doing us the dignity to come here to give us the flavour of his views and sensitivities on this motion.

Mr. Manning

In his contribution the Taoiseach characteristically and generously paid tribute to his predecessor. Apart from being well merited, that tribute underlines an important point for all of us, that nobody owns the peace process. Nobody has a monopoly on the desire to help resolve the problems in Northern Ireland. There is a continuum and, whether past Governments and Leaders have been successful, it is important to say emphatically that all have sought to get to the position we are in today and all would seek if in that position to move the process on with the resolution which the present Government, Taoiseach and Tánaiste are showing in an attempt to make permanent what we have now experienced in a perhaps temporary capacity over the past months.

This is also an opportunity for me, as Leader of the House, to say that over the years the Seanad has produced many people who have played their part in trying to move the peace process on and to bridge the gaps of understanding and misunderstanding. I recall surgeon John Robb who, for many years using the platform of this House, sought to bring about practical, thoughtful and principled reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Séamus Mallon, who was a Member of this House in the early 1980s, is one of the great unsung heroes of Northern Irish politics; a man who has undergone tremendous privations and suffered greatly in his work for peace and reconciliation over the years. He is a man who has had the courage to change his views, to move along and to adapt, all in the interests of peace. We have had Professor John A. Murphy who was always prepared to push the frontiers forward in thinking about Northern Ireland, as is my own colleague Senator Ross, who was and is prepared to state views which were not always popular in this House and to speak out with an understanding of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland — people who needed a voice in this House to speak on their behalf. The present Chairman of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was a Member of this House who, in her time here, also said and did useful things on Northern Ireland.

There are two other people I would like to mention. Senator Wilson has shown by example the true meaning of reconciliation in Northern Ireland; he has inspired people and has been part of the ongoing peace process. Senator Haughey, who recently joined this House has, in a very quiet and practical way, sought both to benefit the economic underpinning of peace in Northern Ireland and to bring the two communities closer together. In its own way, this House has been trying to give its lead in helping to bring the two communities together in a constructive and principled way.

In his opening statement, the Taoiseach mentioned the circumstances which brought about the need for this legislation: the murder of the British Ambassador and one of his staff in 1976. All of us remember that day. It was one of those moments when we all remember hearing the news and the shock and incomprehension that this could happen. At a time when it is easy to get into anti-English or anti-British stereotypes given the events of last night, it is important to pay tribute to the long line of British ambassadors, all of whom have sought to serve their country and all of whom, since the death of Mr. Ewart-Biggs — his wife who devoted the rest of her life to the cause of peace and reconciliation on this island — have been people of peace who sought further understanding between our two countries. It is important to make these points today on what should be a historic and hopeful day.

We all know how long and how difficult the road may yet be but we are in a position nobody could have thought possible just one year ago. We are in the position where the democratic underpinning of whatever settlement is reached will be essential. The principles of consent and consultation which are built in should remove any sense of fear, any sense that we are trying to pull a fast one, any sense that we have imperial ambitions, any sense of anything other than our — when I say our I mean all parties in this House — total bona fides in seeking to resolve in a permanent way the problem that has been Northern Ireland.

The Taoiseach, very rightly, paid tribute to the security forces, and not just to those who paid the supreme sacrifice. Those of us who have lived all of our adult life through the Troubles will remember the shock and horror we all felt in the early days when a soldier or a policeman was killed in the execution of their duty, the shock we all felt when our late colleague Billy Fox was murdered back in the 1970s. The awful thing was that, as the Troubles progressed, the shock became less and less; it became a daily, routine act of horror. The names which were branded so vividly on our minds in the early days soon became just other names. Today we can, in some small way, pay tribute to the security forces, the Garda and the Army who, in a very unglamorous and difficult way over all those years, have carried out their duties so honourably in the national interest. That is something we must never forget.

The presence of this legislation and of the state of emergency raises fundamental questions, some of which were touched upon by Senator O'Kennedy. There is the question of balance in a democratic, plural society, how we can balance the need for civil liberties in the fullest possible way, ensure that police powers will never be used in an arbitrary fashion, ensure that rights will not be eroded bit by bit through the use of legislation which was never intended to be used in that particular way, and how all of that can be reconciled with the overriding principle of the safety of the people —salus populi— the first duty of any Government. This has faced every leader of this country over the years.

In the 1920s, the Government of W.T. Cosgrave had to take harsh, terrible decisions. It did so because it believed that the safety of the people and the survival of the State were at issue. In the 1930s and 1940s. Mr. de Valera was faced with equally difficult decisions. He believed, in his best judgment and on the best advice available to him, that the safety of the policy of neutrality, which had the overwhelming support of the majority of the people, was at risk and he took the appropriate action. Likewise in the 1950s Taoisigh John A. Costello and Éamon de Valera were faced with similar situations as were Taoisigh right up to our own time, during the 20 plus years while this legislation has been in effect.

When we look back on the 70 years of independent statehood, we see that on balance, this State had been judicious, careful and prudent in the way it has used these powers. There have been abuses; there have been excesses. It would be wrong to say that there have not. On balance, any reasonable historian looking at these years in a dispassionate and fair-minded way will say that the abuses and the excesses have been few and that Governments, once aware of them, have sought to redress them, maybe not as quickly as they should have. It is not always easy to redress a situation like that. We can say that there has been an attempt to ensure that a proper sense of balance was kept.

It is important to make this point because we have seen in the last 50 or 60 years that a democracy that cannot defend itself is hardly worth the name of being a democracy. We saw it most vividly in the history of Weimar Germany where the new democratic institutions proved themselves totally incapable of withstanding the excesses of right and of left; how quickly the democratic freedoms withered away; how quickly totalitarianism took root. That was largely because in the German state of the 1920s and 1930s the democratic institutions were not capable of defending themselves. When we look to the modern German constitution, we can see a very deliberate attempt to learn from the mistakes of the past, to ensure that civil liberties, civil rights and democratic rights are respected, but also to ensure that the state is strong enough to fight against and withstand the attacks of those who would use democracy to subvert democracy. We must never forget that. We must never forget that this is the balance which every government must be in a position to judge and to recommend appropriately.

In conclusion, this is a happy day. It is a hopeful day, it is the beginning on the road, hopefully, to a solution that will find agreement in spite of all the difficulties. We should recognise the needs and the rights of a state to defend its own institutions. I believe that, on balance, the judgment will be that the extreme powers given to successive Irish Governments have, for the most part, been used in a democratic way within the law and have not been abused.

Mr. O'Toole

With the permission of the House, I would like to share my last four minutes with Senator Norris.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Toole

I am happy to contribute to this debate. The first issue which has always confused me about this declaration of an emergency in the legislation is that there is a type of internal conflict in the Constitution which gives the authority and responsibility for declaration of war to the Dáil, but requires the Seanad to participate in the declaration of an emergency which would arise from that. I often wondered about that and I would like to hear the Taoiseach's views as to whether that area of the Constitution needs to be tidied up.

I am pleased with the view expressed by the Taoiseach on the security forces. Over the past 25 years we have all been aware of the situation developing where people lost their lives. I knew two of those people, one was a sergeant in the Taoiseach's constituency and the other was Dick Fallon, who was shot on the quays here in Dublin and whose widow died suddenly six months ago. The people I knew, the gardaí in particular, were decent, hardworking, committed, everyday heroes who protected the public. It is appropriate that the Taoiseach used today's speech to reemphasise their role because their families need to know they are not forgotten and that their contribution was important.

I am also pleased the Taoiseach spoke about Northern Ireland. The words he used were well chosen and crucially important. Without being patronising, I hope those words will be reiterated by Government Ministers and politicians over the next two weeks before the publication of the framework document. The most worrying aspect of it is that there is a belief, especially in the North, that the solution to our problems lies in that document. The first reaction to it will be axiomatically negative. A friend of mine from Belfast, on whose wisdom I put great store, has a great saying when discussing the North and arguing for and against issues. He says, as is our way in the North, that arguments against tend to hold sway on the day. We must be careful in that regard.

I would have welcomed a discussion before the publication of the framework document, although I am aware of the arguments against it. By asking people now what they expect, want and hope for in the framework document, they are put in a frame of mind which by its nature must be constructive. They are starting off from a blank sheet and must give their views, outline their expectations and argue from that point. When people pick up the printed document next month their first reaction will be negative and I am concerned about that. We must put something in place before that.

The Taoiseach spoke about reassurance and a challenge. Over the past six months I have tried to encourage movement in a quiet way in the educational area North and South, but it is impossible. In yesterday's The Irish Times the headline “Fouled by the INTO” appeared in the Tuarascáil column. I will explain what the foul was. When trying to look at a new Ireland in our contribution to the Forum and what we would do with the Irish language, while taking on board that Mr. Paisley from Ballymena might be less than enthusiastic if his children were forced to learn the Irish language, we put together a proposal about how schools would deal with the language. There would be all Irish schools, schools where Irish would be a compulsory subject and other schools where it would be optional. Attention has now focused on me. I read the word “foul” in the Irish language newspaper on Sunday and again in yesterday's The Irish Times, that that proposal is an unacceptable sell out of the Irish language and will undermine our culture. I will defend myself in the appropriate forum, but this is a classic example of how little people will move and it worries me.

More than most Members I have a lot of interaction with people both North and South because of the INTO's base in Belfast. Although this may seem patronising, people in the North, no matter what side of the spectrum they are on, have lost 25 years of social, intellectual and philosophical development. Whenever I say that to people in the North it leads to a row, although I do not mean it in a demeaning way. People in the North worried for their lives, their children and their safety and security; they have not been able to have polite discussions on social and other issues which we have had over the past 25 years. When the document is published in the next few weeks and if there appears to be a strong negative reaction from the North, I appeal that it should not be described as uncaring, Neanderthal, etc., because we are talking about one million people who have not had the opportunity to live ordinary, peaceful lives over the past 25 years.

I believe the most difficult part of the peace process — and this is critically important in regard to the forum — is that we must bring people through those 25 years. For example, I told this House about visiting the site of a school which became a crater one day later, or visiting the home of a teacher who had been shot in his classroom. When in Belfast last weekend somebody disagreed with a point I made and asked me, from a teacher's point of view, if I knew what it was like to be locked up in my staff room by paramilitaries while they taught children how to make bombs in the classroom. That is what these people have had to live with.

Tomorrow in Belfast I will attend a meeting of the ICTU executive council, the TUC executive council from England and Wales and the Northern Ireland Congress of Trade Unions to look at how we can move forward while ensuring that the British Government continue to invest the same level of resources in Northern Ireland now that there is peace. There is also a need for a complementary approach to laws North and South. Much was made of a recent article in The Irish Times about somebody driving through the North who committed a minor traffic offence but who was held in a police station for hours because he was from the Republic. The House should know about three friends of mine travelling from Portadown to a conference six months ago who drove over the white line on the Dunleer by-pass. They were brought to the Garda station in Drogheda and were not allowed to leave until they each went out to get £50 from the local banklink machine. This incident shows that this is not happening only on one side of the Border. In fact, one of the more disadvantageous responses to the peace process is that those of us who drive in Northern Ireland are more likely to draw attention to ourselves more regularly. Last Saturday afternoon a member of the RUC explained to me that he could hold me overnight. I told him I was aware of that. There is a need for legislation to ensure that those involved in minor traffic offences, including speeding, North or South, should be allowed to continue their journey. I was glad that I shared my problem with a member of Government.

The Taoiseach

I think that is an ambition here.

Mr. O'Toole

It is something which we need to look at.

I thoroughly subscribe to the Taoiseach's views about the recognition of the tendencies towards unionism and nationalism. However, I have one criticism. I passionately ask the Taoiseach to ensure that members of his Government do not use the words "nationalism" and "republicanism" as synonyms for each other. They are two quite different concepts. Presenting republicanism as being nasty or unacceptable is giving ground to the paramilitaries. A pluralist society is, by its nature, republican. What we are referring to here is the negative side of hard core nationalism.

The issues of being Irish and British and Irish and Nationalist need to be discussed; words are important. That is why I would have liked to have a discussion before the publication of the framework document, which would have given an opportunity to people to put their views forward.

I congratulate the Taoiseach for his work to date in this area after taking over from his predecessor. I wish him every luck and hope that the process works properly. If we are to change this island it will happen in the sub-political structures, guided by political decisions, and we will have to look at those structures carefully. A discussion where people must put their views forward before they are allowed to react to matters could also be useful in this area.

Mr. Norris

I express my gratitude to Senator O'Toole for providing me with this opportunity to contribute. I would very much like to welcome the Taoiseach to the House. I am sorry that it has been seven years since he has been here and I hope there will not be another seven year gap.

One of the things which struck me very clearly about the Taoiseach's initial contribution was the generous tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Deputy Reynolds. That is important because there must be a bipartisan approach. I think that this is a kind of rolling and developing situation in which Deputy Reynolds was an essential catalyst. However, I am glad that Deputy Bruton is now Taoiseach because he is adding something new that was perhaps not present in the Fianna Fáil approach, as I experienced in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation at Dublin Castle. The Taoiseach clearly demonstrated in his unscripted introduction the capacity to make the imaginative jump to understand what the Unionist position might be. That is something that I felt, generally speaking, was lacking in the forum. It is a great pleasure and relief to me to hear it enunciated so clearly from the Taoiseach.

I produced a paper analysing the Fianna Fáil submission at the forum; I am not going to go into it in detail, there would not be time. During the discussion I noticed that the then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, was asked about parity of esteem and to give examples. He gave four: the Border roads to be reopened, respect for the Irish language, the removal of the British Army from the GAA pitch at Crossmaglen and one other example which I cannot remember. The interesting point about those was that while they were all reasonable requests, every single one of them came from the Nationalist perspective. There was no suggestion, for example, having mentioned the GAA, that it might be encouraged officially, even if discreetly, to remove the ban on serving members of the RUC from playing GAA games. I very much doubt if there is an enormous queue of RUC people dying to play hurling. Perhaps there is, but I have my doubts. But it would have shown some degree of sensitivity if parity of esteem had not been totally one-sided and if there had been an attempt to understand what perhaps might make the Unionist people feel more comfortable with co-operation. It is perfectly clear that what we will get in the intermediate and medium term is co-operation and not a united Ireland. It is clear that even the Sinn Féin people have admitted that this is not an immediately realisable objective.

What the Taoiseach said this morning is interesting because those of us who heard Mr. Garland, a former Unionist councillor, speak at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation — the Independent grouping was ably represented on that day by my colleague, Senator Quinn — would have been struck by the remarkable difference between his contribution and all of the others. He spoke in a kind of nonconformist way. He was giving witness. To be honest, some of us who might be a little more hardened politically could have found it a bit tedious because it was so personal. At the same time it was interesting because it gave us an indication of the way the northern Unionist mind works.

We are, by and large, a tolerant society. We need to extend that tolerance and understanding to the North of Ireland, which is where we will be challenged. When we criticise the Unionists for their undoubted elements of misrule, one often forgets the fact that what one has down here is a very biddable, amenable and mealy mouthed Church of Ireland minority. I am part of it; I know exactly how mealy mouthed, biddable and humble they are. But they are also well heeled and influential, so it suits our authorities not to push them around too much. But if we were not 3 per cent of the southern Irish population, if the percentage ratio was 40/60 and those in the Church of Ireland were waving Union Jacks, saying that they did not recognise the courts and singing "God save the Queen", I wonder if we would be able to congratulate ourselves so fulsomely on our tolerance?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has gone well over his time.

Mr. Norris

Thank you for your tolerance, a Leas-Chathaoirleach.

Ms O'Sullivan

I very much welcome this motion. I would also like to join with the other Members who have welcomed the fact that the Taoiseach came to the House to present the Government's position. He stayed with us for most of the debate.

I particularly welcome the way in which the Taoiseach presented his comments; this has been referred to by other Senators. He presented the House with the balanced position we are currently in with regard to the framework document. As Senator Norris said, there is a need for us to make that leap of understanding of the Unionist community's position and the need, as the Taoiseach said, to give them time to absorb the position in which they now find themselves. Senator O'Toole referred to what I would describe as a habit of negativity in the Unionist community. They have seen themselves in the position of always having to defend their status quo. Therefore, they have not been able in some ways to look into the future in the way we have done. It will take time for them to accept the present position and to work out ways in which they want to move forward with their Nationalist neighbours.

It is important, as the Taoiseach said, that the framework document is seen as a basis for discussion. It is the basis for people to come to the table, talk to each other, put their position forward and argue it in a democratic framework. It is not in any sense a final document, but merely a document for discussion. I sincerely hope and add to the pleas of others that the unionist leaders would see this document in that light and for what it is. I would hope that they would not absent themselves from the discussion, show the leadership that is needed and bring their people to the table to take part in the discussions that will lead us to the future.

In many ways, as the Taoiseach has said, the removal of the state of emergency is symbolic of the ending of the 25 years of violence in Northern Ireland and of a new time when violence has ceased. People have seen that violence has not brought any prospect of reconciliation but in fact has obstructed the possibilities of reconciliation. That is in many ways why northern society, as Senator O'Toole described, has not had the opportunity to have the kind of normal dialogue and discussion that occurs in other democracies. They have had to live under the threat of violence in all of that time and have had to live in that unnatural society, which is exemplified in the emergency legislation that was brought into this country in 1976. It is important to allow people that kind of space and time to come to terms with the possibilities of peace and to take that leap of hope which was presented to the Northern communities in the cessation of violence last year, in the setting up of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and, more particularly, in the framework document, which we hope will be before us next week and on the table for discussion. In some ways we in the South must also accept the that we have not always understood the complexities of and have isolated ourselves from the realities of society in the North. As a member of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation one of the things I have learned in the past few months is the complexity of Northern society.

What is often described as the third strand are people who do not see themselves as being in the hard line of nationalism or unionism. There are many overlaps and many other ways of looking at society. There is no way that the hard lines of nationalism and unionism can achieve their aims because we cannot possibly have both a united Ireland and complete integration with Britain. We are looking for reconciliation between those extreme viewpoints and a way forward in which both communities can work together and in which we in the South and the people in Britain can play our parts. I hope we are looking to a pluralist society which will embrace different viewpoints and that the opportunity for building such a new society will be provided.

There is the ultimate democracy of a referendum at the end of this process, as the Taoiseach said. Nobody will be coerced into anything, it will be put to the people, North and South. There is also the principle of consent as the bedrock for all discussion. I hope the Unionist leaders will realise they are safeguarded by those principles and take the framework document in the spirit it is intended and come to the table.

In some ways I see the original emergency of 1939 through sepia coloured photographs of people coming together against an outside threat. It is much easier to deal with an outside threat than with something which is part of one's own community. This is the difference between the emergency of the Second World War and the one since 1976.

There are lessons to be learned from Europe, to which other Senators have referred. In Europe structures and institutions were put in place which ensured such conflict could never occur again. We must learn to put those kind of structures into place.

Senator Manning referred to other lessons, particularly allowing the State to defend itself without transgressing on civil liberties in an unreasonable way, allowing it to defend itself against internal threats and ensuring that those kind of fascist tendencies can never again gain sway. In dealing with legislation, the Constitution and the courts we must keep this balance.

Other Senators referred to the situation which existed at the time of the 1976 declaration of a state of emergency. There had been the murder of the British Ambassador, Christopher Ewart-Biggs and Judith Cooke, the Kingsmill massacres, the murder of a garda, the explosions in the Special Criminal Court and other acts of violence. There was an atmosphere of a real threat to public peace. The state of emergency was introduced in response to something which was very real. Over 3,000 people have lost their lives in those 25 years of violence. We are now in a very different situation.

The Taoiseach has indicated that this is only one of a number of measures which will be taken, including examining the Constitution and other legislation, such as the Offences Against the State Act, and the intention to introduce legislation so that we can ratify the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners. All these measures can and need to be taken as quickly as possible.

In the North many measures also need to be taken. Some have already been taken, such as the removal, to some extent, of troops from the streets. There is a need to take action on policing and this has occupied a great deal of the discussion in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. A bill of rights is another necessity which must be addressed.

Punishment beatings are, unfortunately, an aspect of violence which is still with us. It is intolerable that this so called method of justice should be used. The opportunity must be taken for all people who have embraced democracy and believe in the democratic process to condemn punishment beatings. Dragging a man's legs through railings and holding him down while his bones are being broken is no way to administer justice. There can be no double think on this. There has to be not just a very clear condemnation but a willingness to do whatever can be done to stamp out this process.

With regard to the peace dividend in terms of economic and social progress, a great deal of money has been committed from the United States and the EU and money is continually poured into Northern Ireland by British taxpayers. One of the concerns I have is to ensure that this dividend spreads to all sectors of the community and that the have nots are included in the equation. Sometimes the people who need economic and social assistance most do not have a very strong voice and are not always able to argue as coherently and as strongly as the better off sections of society. This issue must be addressed.

I welcome this debate, that our state of emergency can now be ended and that this is supported by all parties. The peace process is not the possession of any one party and it is seen as the duty of all of us to take part in any way we can. I am pleased this debate has taken place and that the Taoiseach came to the House to lead it. I hope it signals and is a symbol of a peaceful way forward for this country.

Mr. Haughey

I welcome and support this motion. Conflict has existed throughout our nation for hundreds of years. From the formation of this State politicians and well wishers have worked diligently and with enthusiasm to build a country worthy of international investment and to create an environment where such investment was secure. Our record of achievement is good in this respect. We are a young country.

Just one generation ago our politicians and civil servants were pioneers in developing incentives to encourage investment. While the conflict in Northern Ireland inflicted a heavy financial burden on our State due to the cost of increased security, thankfully it did not crucially tarnish the image of this part of the island as a good place to invest. We must acknowledge the good work of the IDA and other institutions throughout this time for the supreme effort they have made to support and sustain the image of this country as a credible location for producing a good return on investment.

I support the initiative of the last Fianna Fáil led Government when the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, pledged to end the state of national emergency. This was a proper response to the ceasefire declarations of the IRA and their Loyalist counterparts. It has to be said that any serious investor who has been examining a location to invest could not ignore the requirements for such measures to maintain democratic Government and the removal of the state of emergency is a positive signal that permanent peace is with us and that differences of opinion will henceforth be dealt with democratically within the State. No doubt the dilution or removal of the emergency provisions legislation in Northern Ireland will similarly have a substantial impact on the perception of Northern Ireland abroad, as well as helping to increase inward investment, job opportunities and political harmony in the North. As this legislation is reviewed annually, I hope that the circumstances will soon prevail when the British Government feels it is no longer necessary. Perhaps the time is right to take a new look at legislation and what it does to society.

In the past it has always been used as an instrument to regulate and was removed when such regulation was not required. Maybe here its removal could be used as an instrument to create harmony. The eyes of the world are upon us and opportunities await us. To avail of these opportunities courage is needed which entails some degree of compromise, sacrifice, trust and, most of all, a high degree of understanding.

History has not been kind to us. On two occasions past governments have found it necessary to declare a state of national emergency. The last occasion was to deal with internal threats rather than external ones. Because of its wide powers, emergency legislation is usually required only for short periods, and should only be in force when absolutely necessary. We cherish our Constitution and the freedoms it confers upon us. Although we are a young country our institutions have prevailed in all circumstances. Our thirst for freedom and justice is legendary. Surely no one could wish to retain, unaltered, constitutional provisions which would allow our general freedoms under the Constitution to be fettered indefinitely.

Far better that the Constitution be altered to provide that a declared state of emergency should lapse unless periodically reviewed, provided by resolution of the Dáil and this House. Apart from the internal benefits which such a constitutional change would bring, there are the benefits of an altered perception abroad. In foreign countries where a state of national emergency perpetually prevails, the situation is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a tool of oppression against the opposition and smacks of political instability.

A country as young as ours, with democratic institutions of the quality that we have, must overtly show its pride in these institutions to hold its place with the great free democracies of the world in order to attract inward investment and international trading in the face of fierce international competition.

The Irish are a proud people. We do not seek charity but offer good commercial deals to any investor who puts forward a good business plan. We offer him a stable democracy, an educated workforce, a work ethic and a place in Europe where our laws and institutions are at the very peak of righteousness. We are vigorous in our enactment of European directives and implement European standards with the same vigour. Our officials are held in the highest regard.

Now that we are in a mode of reconciliation we must make a greater effort to understand the work of our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland. We must enhance our mutual trade and work as one commercial unit. Four and a half million people constitute a better commercial unit than three million. We travel abroad and are known as Irishmen and women whether we are from the North or the South. We meet abroad and our political and religious differences become insignificant. It would be a great psychological boost if emergency legislation could be made redundant both North and South, apart from the tempering effect it would have on those who are subjected to it.

When the framework document is tabled I hope that all parties will sit down together to air their differences, and will endeavour to reach an accord in the interests of all the people of this island. If this cannot be obtained perhaps agreement could be reached in a commercial manner so that all our people will have an opportunity to earn a better standard of living and provide a good education for their children, with mutual respect for each other. That is of great importance.

Commerce spans religious and political divides while poverty creates dissention which in turn generates jealousy and distrust. It is in this environment that the need for a state of national emergency grew. I support the abolition of the state of emergency.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I congratulate Senator Haughey on his maiden speech.

Mr. Cosgrave

With your permission I propose sharing my time with Senators Sherlock and Wilson.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome my colleague, the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Barrett, to the House, and I thank the Taoiseach for being here for most of the debate. This motion is supported by everyone. I was glad to hear the previous speaker's positive response. Positive outcomes can result from a process which started some years ago and which has gathered momentum because of the recent ceasefires. Further progress is being made all the time and this motion is another step on the road towards bringing the lasting peace we all desire. We await the joint framework document and, while people may not agree with every aspect of it, hopefully everybody's point of view will be listened to.

Exceptional events took place in 1976 and exceptional powers were needed to deal with them. Without going back over the events of the past, it is important to place on the record our gratitude to the members of the Garda Síochána, the Army and particularly the families of those members who made the ultimate sacrifice.

With the lifting of the emergency and, consequently, the greater availability of Garda resources, we hope that other problems, such as organised crime and drugs, can be tackled more effectively.

With the progress that has been made, I look forward to further economic prosperity and investment growth, North and South. Let us all work together to bring about these improvements. I support the motion.

Mr. Sherlock

The Government's decision to end the 55 year old state of emergency is just one step of many needed to bring us into conformity with internationally accepted human rights practices. The Programme for Government commits this Government to ensuring that people in this State enjoy the rights taken for granted in most democratic jurisdictions. These rights range from freedom of information to comprehensive legal aid. It is therefore fitting that the Government should take the long awaited step of ending what must be the longest state of emergency in a democratic country. For 56 years, a state of emergency has been the norm and the time it should have been ended is long past. There is no cause for complacency. The threats which gave birth to emergency legislation, the external threat posed by World War II and the internal threat posed by paramilitaries, have been removed but they have been replaced by new threats.

Last night we saw the havoc which a small organised group of thugs could pose to civil society and their fellow football fans. Of course we have our own home grown thugs. It could be argued that organised crime poses a great threat to civil society as did paramilitaries. Let us be clear about it. Guns and violence have not been removed from Irish or European society. The new threats demand new responses which must concentrate on prevention, detection and punishment but do not of course dilute the civil liberties of the individual.

The lifting of the state of emergency heralds both opportunities and dangers. It gives us the opportunity to construct a truly civilian security service in which the powers of the Garda and the Army are entirely separate and the Garda are seen as the prime guarantors of internal security and freedoms. I was very interested to hear in the Taoiseach's speech:

Consolidating peace will also create significant new opportunities for using those Garda resources which have until now had to be committed to security related duties arising from the situation in the North of Ireland.

A thorough review of the Offences Against the State Act is required. I have held that view for a long time. I urge the Minister to consider reforming or indeed abolishing the Special Criminal Court.

The challenge facing us is to ensure that our administration of justice conforms to the minimum standards taken for granted in a democracy while still ensuring that the public is adequately protected against emerging threats. As everybody here knows in rural Ireland at this time people are living in fear because of the policy of closing rural Garda stations.

I read in a local paper last week about a man — I will not mention the case specifically — who went to town to do his business, drove home and awaiting him were thugs who murdered him in his own home that evening. It only got a small paragraph in the papers the next day and it is probably forgotten now. I am stating clearly and will continue to demand the redeployment of gardaí who are relieved from duties in the Border to man rural Garda stations.

It is vitally important to ensure that the public is adequately protected against emerging threats ranging from drug trafficking and organised crime to the football hooligans who turned Lansdowne Road into a battlefield last night.

Mr. Wilson

I thank Senator Cosgrave and Senator Sherlock for allowing me two minutes. I had not intended to speak this morning. I, foolishly as it turned out, thought the debate would be on the ending of the national emergency which I totally support. As the morning has progressed, having been started by the Taoiseach, we got into a general discussion about the framework document and the situation in Northern Ireland.

While I have nothing prepared and do not have the easy facility of speaking off the cuff, I believe I should say the following. I appeal most earnestly to the leaders of the Unionist community to sit down and talk. The cessation of violence continues and each day it lasts with no bombs or people killed has to be a good day for Ireland and particularly for Northern Ireland. I ask them not to reject it out of hand but to sit down and talk. The vibes I get from people in the grassroot Unionist Protestant community are that they want to talk and hope their leaders and politicians will talk. I simply want to say to the leaders of the political parties, and particularly the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland, to sit down and talk.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I welcome the Minister for Social Welfare on this his first visit to the House.

Mr. Dardis

With your permission, Sir, I would like to share my time with Senator Quinn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dardis

I join in the welcome to the Minister for Social Welfare. I thank the Taoiseach for his attendance this morning and for staying for an extended period. Everybody in the House would agree with the sentiments in his speech which were finely expressed. It is important that each party and group in the House be given the opportunity to endorse what the Taoiseach had to say.

May I say to Senator Wilson, without wishing to sound condescending, that frequently what he says off the cuff is far more eloquent than what the rest of us say in scripts? Perhaps he should be encouraged to speak off the cuff.

As the Leader of the Progressive Democrats said in the Dáil, it is incredible and bizarre that since the establishment of the 1937 Constitution, we have lived in a state of emergency. For much of that time we have not been under threat from either internal or external aggression or subversion. It is good that we now abolish this legislation.

Like Senator Wilson I assumed the debate would concentrate on the abolition of the legislation but it has strayed into other areas which I will mention briefly. My party welcomes the motion to rescind the emergency legislation of 1939. As a general principle, if we require powers of this nature in the future — and I hope we do not — I support what Senator Haughey said in his fine maiden speech, that such legislation should have a defined timescale and not be open ended.

It is open to the House to come back to the Houses to renew such legislation if necessary. The Houses of the Oireachtas should be given that opportunity because there is always a possibility that the freedom and rights which exist in a democracy such as ours can be infringed and maybe even abused by people who do not use such legislation prudently and fairly.

I realise that repealing the legislation does not affect the Offences Against the State Act or the Acts from 1939 to 1985. I would not go as far as Senator Sherlock and seek the abolition of the Special Criminal Court because in incidents such as the Brinks-Allied robbery, there is always a possibility that witnesses will be interfered with and the court may not be able to operate effectively. For that reason a court of this nature is necessary, however reluctantly one might agree with it. I was encouraged to hear the Taoiseach say that he would review the Offences Against the State Act. That is to be commended.

I agree that there is nothing to be feared from the framework document. It is almost certainly to be within the context of the Downing Street Declaration and there is nothing in the latter to which one could object. The Taoiseach did say that it should be viewed as a facilitator to dialogue and not as a political settlement in itself and I wholeheartedly agree. I do not think we are imposing anything on anybody but we have to accept that there must be full and absolute equality of rights for each of the communities in Northern Ireland.

Parity of esteem is something about which those of us who are fortunate enough to serve in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation have heard a great deal. However, much of the time what one person means by parity of esteem is not what somebody else means. We had a good example of that last week when Mr. Garland spoke to the forum. He was very courageous. It was good of him to come because unless that perspective is given to us at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, I cannot see how the forum can operate to its maximum effect. He sat there for an hour and a half and answered our questions patiently and well. What he or a Unionist might have meant by parity of esteem is not what a Nationalist might have meant by it, in that the Unionist tradition and perspective are institutionalised in the flag, in the seats in Westminister and in the apparatus of the state. The question which arose was how could one institutionalise the nationalists' right to their identity in that framework. I found it difficult to find that the question was answered satisfactorily, and that is not to criticise Mr. Garland. He was courageous to come and it is my fervent wish and hope that other parties, particularly the parties which have reacted sensibly and sanely over the past few months, such as the Progressive Unionist Party, will also find a vehicle by which they could be represented at the forum.

There is all the difference in the world in terms of parity of esteem between saying we are sorry for what has happened in the past and we will ensure that these complaints do not arise in the future and saying we will institutionalise your position in the State. That task applies equally in the Republic as in Great Britain. It comes back to confidence in the validity of diverse views, which the Taoiseach referred to. I support what Senator O'Sullivan said about the complexity of the issues involved. Perhaps the forum has helped us to understand that it is a complex issue and not one which we can regard as simple.

Last week we marked the 50th anniversary of Auschwitz and during the debate a statement was made that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That applies to this State. We must always be careful about how power is used and applied by the Executive. We have a debt to the custodians of freedom, the people who gave their lives over the period, and we must cherish and nurture that freedom. Throughout our discussions on how to arrive at a settlement on this island we must always remember the people who died in Shankill, Loughinisland, Greysteel and Enniskillen. It is that memory which must drive us to ensure that nothing like that happens again.

Mr. Quinn

I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I thank Senator Dardis for sharing his time with me. I welcome the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, to the House today.

It is a proud day to be here and I am stunned by the fact — many citizens do not realise this — that for 55 out of 57 years we have lived in a state of emergency. It is a weight off our nation's shoulders to remove the state of emergency. Senator Dardis referred to Auschwitz and he mentioned that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must ensure that we do not abuse the opportunities we now have in our democracy. When we talk about parity of esteem — the words used by Senator Wilson when he urged Unionists in the North to talk — we must ensure we all talk; but, even more so, we must all listen. I was in South Africa on I September when the ceasefire was announced and great interest was shown in peace for Northern Ireland. There was also great enthusiasm for the future of South Africa, four months after a solution had been found to its problems. There is optimism for the future if we listen more than we have done in the past.

I was impressed by the Taoiseach's words today. I also listened to Senator Sherlock, who talked, as the Taoiseach did, about considering the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. We must ensure that when we remove the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, as I hope we will, there is a substitute for the protection of citizens. We have not yet reached the level of democracy where we recognise that all the threats against our State do not necessarily come from outside or from traditional subversives. Senator Dardis referred to some of those threats, which we experienced last night and a few weeks ago in the Brinks-Allied robbery and which we experience regularly on our streets. I am not sure that we as a democracy are aware of how to handle these threats. It would be great to remove the Special Criminal Courts, but only when we have found a substitution.

We must ensure that when we remove the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, particularly section 30, we have found a substitution in order to maintain our democracy against those threats which come from inside our State. I am particularly concerned about interference with witnesses. This has always been a threat and we must ensure that we protect ourselves against it in future. We have a democracy to be proud of and which we want to maintain, therefore we must not fear making a substitution which will help to maintain that democracy. It is the job of the Minister for Justice and of the present Government to maintain internal peace. I fear a peace which is instituted under a state of emergency or under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, which is regarded as undemocratic on occasions; but I also fear removing it without a substitution. We should be vigilant and we should protect our democracy with pride.

Mr. Roche

Like other speakers, I welcome the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, to the House and I look forward to clashing with him on other occasions, although I do not think it will happen today.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

I am sure we will in the future.

Mr. Roche

I am sure we will, and we will enjoy it as we have done in the past.

Mr. Dardis

Senator Roche clashes with everyone.

Mr. Roche

Not quite everyone. We enacted a fine Constitution in 1937 and it has become fashionable, almost politically correct, to question it now. The Constitution was a treaty, like all other constitutions, by the people for themselves. It not only outlined the rights of the individual, but it did so in a specific way. It provided for a balance between the people and the State and it provided that the people were the sovereign authority in the State.

It is extraordinary that only two years later, after enacting what was at that time a progressive and forward looking Constitution, we declared an emergency which placed a limit on the personal rights enunciated in the Constitution. We declared an emergency which permitted, and has since permitted, actions by the institutions of the State which would otherwise have been questionable from a constitutional standpoint. In our case the Constitution makes the people the sole sovereign authority. The Oireachtas makes the laws, the Executive implements them and the Judiciary adjudicates. The emergency powers upset that fine balance in theory and in fact. I fully accept that the circumstances which existed in 1939 were such that there was a real feeling of an external threat against the nation and of an emergency.

I have never been happy with the view that a similar emergency existed from 1979 onwards. I agree with Senator Sherlock's analysis of that situation. Notwithstanding the revulsion that was felt throughout this State at the murder of the British Ambassador and at the militant reaction to the deepening crisis in the six north-eastern counties, I could not feel comfortable with the concept that for the past 15 years we were living through an emergency which could not have been handled through existing laws. I accept that the circumstances of the past 15 years were such that they placed pressure on existing laws, but the Oireachtas should have resolved that through normal legislation rather than emergency legislation. Other European states faced the same type of violence, although perhaps, not on the same scale, as we did during that period and their reaction was more measured and less hysterical. For these reasons I was pleased when the Government made clear last October that the state of emergency would be ended.

Another reason I am pleased to support this measure is that, as the Taoiseach said this morning, it sends an important message about the peace process. It is vital that the Governments here and in Westminster are seen to be courageous in their response to the peace initiatives. I agree with the Taoiseach that this measure signals our confidence in the deepening peace process and helps to progress it. This point was also made by the Taoiseach's predecessor last October.

I hope our example in this matter will be watched closely and followed by the British authorities. Their Emergency Powers Act is a source of dissension and has rightly been seen as a source of the gravest injustice against people of Irish extraction in Britain. In more recent times civil libertarians in Britain have also seen that legislation as the basis of an attack on the liberties of Afro-Caribbeans and Asians. In addition to striking a blow for civil liberties the British authorities could provide a powerful support for the peace process if they took measures such as the Government and Oireachtas are taking now.

I listened with great interest to all the contributions made this morning. They were diverse and covered the issue from an interesting variety of viewpoints. The Taoiseach's contribution was well thought through and an interesting expression of where the Government and all parties in this State stand at this time.

I was particularly struck by the contribution of Senator Haughey, who brought a novel perspective to the issue. We often pose the rhetorical question as to how others see us. Debates on so-called "liberal" issues are liberally laced with queries about how the world sees us on a given issue. I doubt if the citizens of France, Germany, the US, Russia, Hong Kong or Timbuktu spend a great deal of time considering where we stand on any issue; but I agree with Senator Haughey's suggestion that imposing a state of emergency, which supersedes certain liberties we have given to ourselves, makes a conscious statement about our capacity to handle our affairs. He was right to say the action of lifting the state of emergency sends not only an interesting message about the peace process but a more general message about our capacity to conduct our business. Senator Haughey's pragmatic appraisal of the impact of this measure in his maiden speech was most interesting.

The Taoiseach made clear this is one further incremental step on the road to normality. With this hurdle behind us, one hopes we will cross the many other obstacles we face and do so in a more rapid measure. We are taking steps which will cause change. As Senator Quinn has said, it is an important day in the life of the nation. We are witnessing a transition from abnormality to what we hope will be the norm for the Irish people in the years ahead — peace without special measures. In the not too distant future I hope, as Senator Sherlock does, we will be looking at other measures which were always regarded as emergency provisions but which undermine civil liberties in the State.

An Cathaoirleach

Before calling the Minister to conclude the debate, I welcome him to the House on his first official visit. I am sorry I was not here when he arrived. I ask him to have a word with his party colleague in this House who breaks my heart every sitting day of the week — I jest, of course.

Minister for Social Welfare (Prionsias De Rossa)

I am sure Senator Sherlock does not need advice from me on how to break hearts.

An Cathaoirleach

Or from anyone else.

Prionsias De Rossa

No, indeed. I am pleased at this my first opportunity to speak in the Seanad as a Minister. I am especially pleased to be speaking on this issue. As Members of democratic institutions we must be vigilant of the rights of the citizen. It can be easy for the institutions of the State to take a blase approach to rights and freedoms because we think we personally pose no risk to rights. However, we cannot guarantee who may come to power at a given time and must ensure the laws are such that they can be challenged by and protect the citizen and that as far as possible our Constitution is not breached and is adequate to protect citizens in the modern age.

I spoke in the Dáil on this issue, raising a number of questions about the Offences Against the State Act and the Special Criminal Court. There is a need to look at the manner in which an emergency is declared and, once declared, the manner in which it remains in place until it is suspended by the Legislature. We should examine ways of ensuring an emergency will cease to be effective after a period of years if it has not already been set aside.

I also discussed the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. It was put in place just before the Second World War. This legislation can be used by the Garda with or without a declaration of emergency. People can be charged with not accounting for their movements — an offence of which I fell foul when I was a young man. The power to intern can be given by the Government; it does not have to come before the Dáil or Seanad and there is no obligation to bring it before the Houses for review once the decision is made. Again it is a matter for the Government to decide when it is introduced and removed.

Given the way citizens' consciousness of their rights has evolved since our Constitution and the Offences Against the State Act were put in place, there is a need to review the powers held by both the Government and the Legislature. I am pleased the Programme for Government has a commitment to review the Constitution and the laws used in the course of the conflict during the last 25 years.

This obviously will include a review of the Special Criminal Court. It has been argued that that court's remit should be extended to deal with organised crime. I am of the view we should be reluctant to extend the use of an existing institution, put in place to deal with political crime, to organised crime. If it is felt by citizens and the Dáil and Seanad that our civil laws are inadequate to deal with organised crimes, we should see how those laws can be improved to protect citizens going about their lawful business. We should resist the temptation to transfer organised crime into courts which were not established or intended to deal with such matters. I recognise that there is public demand for us to deal effectively with organised crime. We should look at that issue now before the situation reaches the point where it will be impossible to deal with it.

States in Europe and elsewhere failed in the past to deal with the emergence of organised crime and they are paying the price. I do not intend to offer any examples but we are all aware of situations in Europe where organised crime has reached into governments themselves. It is necessary and opportune for our society to look at the issue of organised crime, how we can deal with it effectively and how we can prevent it becoming institutionalised.

The cessation of the state of emergency is important in the context of the peace process. We are all conscious of the period of freedom we have enjoyed from daily reports of people being murdered by bomb and bullet, and we are conscious of the importance of seeking to maintain that peace and making it permanent. In that context I appeal to all politicians, North and South, to exercise a degree of responsibility — which we might not be inclined to exercise in the normal cut and thrust of political life — in relation to the work under way on the framework document. Peace is too precious to be squandered in pursuit of some short term gain.

It is particularly incumbent on politicians in Northern Ireland to be conscious of the fact that neither the British Government nor the Irish Government, in putting this framework document together, has any intention of enforcing a solution that is not wanted on the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their persuasion. The document is intended to be an agenda for discussion to ensure that at some point — we hope in the near future — decisions can be made by the people of Northern Ireland about the government of Northern Ireland and about the relationship they wish to have with the Republic of Ireland and with Britain.

The framework document is not a solution; it is not intended to be a solution; it is not intended to be an enforced agenda. We are seeking to create a situation where people with different loyalties in Northern Ireland can co-exist in peace without feeling themselves, their loyalties or their identities to be in any way threatened. Obviously, that will require compromise. No solution — when it is achieved eventually — will deliver 100 per cent of my aspirations or the aspirations of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Labour Party or the Ulster Unionist Party or the Provisionals. There will be criticisms from all sides of either the agenda in the framework document or whatever solution is eventually achieved. However, the bottom line for all of us — and I am addressing politicians in Northern Ireland in particular — is that the solution will be democratic, will be accountable to the people and there will be no question of coercion. The bottom line is democracy and consent.

I mentioned the Offences Against the State Act earlier. There is a number of anomalies in that legislation. There is a provision in the Act, for example, which prohibits newspapers — presumably that now includes radio and television — from referring to the names of illegal organisations. Obviously, for the last 25 years our newspapers, radios and televisions have been referring to the Provisional IRA, the Official IRA, the UVF, the UDA and so forth. It is clearly ridiculous to have such a restriction in our law and to expect newspapers not to use those terms. There is a need to look at the Offences Against the State Act. There are also provisions in that Act for military courts. I understand that if somebody is brought before a military court — and that decision need not be agreed by either House — and is found guilty the only sentence that can be imposed is execution. It is clearly a law that requires radical overhaul particularly as this State is not in favour of capital punishment in any but the most exceptional circumstances.

I thank Senators for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue. I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Senators for their warm welcome. I hope this is the first of many opportunities for me to speak in the Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 16 Feb 1995