Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995

Vol. 448 No. 6

Cessation of State of Emergency: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann hereby resolves, pursuant to sub-section 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 Éireann and Seanad Éireann of 1st September, 1976, has ceased to exist.

I would like to put the motion in its historical context. This country has been under a state of emergency since 1939. The state of emergency was first initiated by the outbreak of the Second World War which became euphemistically known here as the "Emergency".

It is worth recalling, in this the 50th anniversary of the end of that war, a war which defeated the most appalling tyranny Europe has ever known, a total of 46 million people were killed in its six year duration. Six million Poles were killed under the Nazi occupation, half of whom were Polish Jews. Six million Jews altogether were killed, just because they were Jews. Many sacrifices were made to end this tyranny. Our nearest neighbour — Britain — lost more than a quarter of a million service men and women and an estimated 10,000 people from the island of Ireland made the ultimate sacrifice and were killed in action seeking to end that tyrannical regime.

This puts our remaining troubles and disagreements in context. It points to the need to build a single European economy with each part so inter-dependent on the other that war in Europe becomes impossible.

The more immediate cause of the continuation of the state of emergency from 1976 to date was violence associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland. In those troubles, over 3,000 people lost their lives. We owe an incalculable debt to all those who helped bring that violence to an end. Some have been publicly acknowledged. Others, by choice, remain anonymous. Yet others, who did not take part directly in the peace process, contributed by their silence, by their discretion or by their willingness to accept the good faith of people they would not normally have been inclined to trust.

That is what the peace process now requires from all sides: from Sinn Féil right across to the British Government, from Unionists as well as Nationalists — a willingness to trust those one would normally not have been inclined to trust.

The Government is asking both Houses of the Oireachtas, through this motion, to bring to an end the national emergency resolved by the Dáil and Seanad Éireann to have existed on 1 September, 1976. The declaration of a national emergency at that time, in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, was occasioned by the need to secure public safety, and to preserve the State against the background of the armed conflict then taking place in Northern Ireland. Events that summer, notably explosions at the Special Criminal Court, the murder of the British Ambassador Christopher Ewart-Biggs and Miss Judith Cooke, represented disturbing new developments which were seen by my predecessor, Liam Cosgrave, to present a direct challenge to the authority of the institutions of State and to their continued ability to discharge the functions entrusted to them under the Constitution.

The declaration of the national emergency on 1 September 1976 coincided with the ending by Dáil and Seanad Éireann of the national emergency which had been declared in 1939. The ending of the national emergency now, in 1995, is not without significance and, hopefully, opens a new phase in our history when threats to our security, from whatever source, are a thing of the past.

The motion before the House gives effect to the commitment contained in the Government Programme —A Government of Renewal— to expedite the lifting of the state of emergency with a view to consolidating the peace process. A decision to move such a motion was signalled by the former Government on 25 October last but had not been acted upon prior to the change of Government.

The Government believes it is right to bring this motion before the House at this time. It represents a further positive response to the new situation created by the complete cessation of all military operations by the Provisional IRA as and from 31 August 1994 and the decision of the combined loyalist military command on 13 October 1994 to universally cease all operational hostilities. Those developments represent a decisive change and a turning-point in the history of our island.

The ending of the national emergency will signal our confidence in the developing peace process and our continuing determination to harness its opportunities for a just and lasting peace. Moreover, declaring the end of that emergency will help underline the return to normality which the developments of recent times represent for so many people in both parts of the island.

The ending of the national emergency will have more than symbolic meaning. It will have legal consequences as well. 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 passing of this resolution by both Houses. 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. This is because that section had effect only as long as the Emergency Powers Act, 1976 was in force.

The powers conferred on the security forces of this State by those legislative provisions are, of their nature, exceptional in our — or in any — legal system. This 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 was preserved at that time: that power has now gone.

The motion has no direct implications for the continued operation of the Offences Against the State Acts, 19391985. That legislation is a separate matter and the issues which arise are quite distinct from those arising in connection with the ending of the national emergency. The Government nevertheless intends to review that legislation as well, in line with the commitment contained in its programme to review all legislation and court arrangements associated with the management of the conflict over the past 25 years.

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 a troubled and turbulent period in our history. We owe the men and women of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces a great debt for their steadfast and tireless efforts on behalf of all our people. We remember, at this time in particular, those members of the security forces who made the ultimate sacrifice and paid the ultimate sacrifice in defending the security of the State: Garda Dick Fallon, Inspector Samuel Donegan, Garda Michael Reynolds, Garda Michael Clerkin, Garda John Morley, Garda Henry Byrne, Garda James Quaid, Garda Patrick Reynolds, Sergeant Patrick McLoughlin, Garda Peter Garry Sheehan, Garda Francis Hand, Sergeant Patrick Morrissey, Chief Officer Brian Stack of the Prison Service and Private Kelly of the Defence Forces.

In asking both House of the Oireachtas, through this motion, to bring to an end the national emergency, the Government is guided by the desire to consolidate and advance the peace process. The ultimate requirement remains, of course, the achievement of an agreed political settlement that would secure the support and allegiance of both traditions on this island. To that end, the Irish and British Governments are determined to complete as soon as possible our negotiations on the Joint Framework Document, as a basis for the process of dialogue involving the two Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland. That document will be of immense importance in terms of all our efforts to realise the full potential of this new era of peace. I encourage all to be guided in the days ahead by the hopes of so many for a fair political settlement in an environment of lasting peace.

Mr. B. Ahern

I welcome this motion to bring an end to the state of national emergency, following through on the pledge given by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, and his Government last autumn after the IRA and Loyalist ceasefires. It represents a symbolic acceptance of and recognition by this House that the conflict is over. In that regard we accept the good faith of both the republican and loyalist paramilitaries.

Both Governments and political parties must embrace the new circumstances and the opportunities for peace. Reconciliation and mutual forgiveness is hard after all that has happened and both Governments and Parliaments must give a lead and set an example. Former enemies in other parts of the world have managed to work together productively and constructively; it is not too much to ask that they begin to try to do so in the North. If genuine engagement takes place then practical but important questions like arms and prisoners become subsidiary and can be resolved in an easier atmosphere. The conflict in Northern Ireland, in large part, occurred because one community was treated as second-class citizens.

We — and the Downing Street Joint Declaration — made it clear that if those engaged in or associated with campaigns of violence fully embraced the democratic way forward and abandoned violence, they would be able to participate fully in the democratic system on the same basis as other parties. This House and Members at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation have acted on that basis without distinguishing between loyalists and republicans.

I very much regret that not even a junior British Minister has yet been able to meet Sinn Féin, or the small loyalist parties for talks, that there are still lingering suggestions that Sinn Féin and the loyalists will not be able to participate fully in the talks on the framework document until various preconditions are satisfied. I have made it clear that, as far as my party is concerned, we consider that position to be totally unrealistic as far as either side is concerned and pointed out that, if persisted with, it will constitute a recipe for disaster. Political figures and leaders of opinion from across the water have put to me the amazing proposition: "Can you not persuade them even to give up ten bullets?" This proposition is definitely not serious and seems to indicate that what is wanted is a symbolic surrender, whereas the reality is that, in the long war, no side was victorious and everybody was the loser.

Of course, I welcome the continued search for and discovery of weapons by the Garda and Defence Forces whom I am sure would welcome whatever public assistance and co-opeation can be given them. The last Government made it very clear to all concerned, at the time of the declaration of the ceasefires, that such searches would continue. I congratulate them on their success today on the borders of Meath and Westmeath; there is no doubt that continued recovery of weapons will help to boost public confidence. If peace is to be consolidated we shall all have to be prepared to show trust and magnanimity, no side involved in resolving this problem — Governments or other political parties — is entitled to claim positions of moral superiority. By sins of commission and omission we all — not just the paramilitaries — share some responsibility for the intensity and length of the conflict. The British Government also has a duty to examine its conscience. What is now needed is political pragmatism. If negotiations are to have any chance of success they must be inclusive and should not create undue difficulties for other parties if initially organised on a bilateral basis.

When the Constitution was drafted in 1937 Europe was in the shadow of war; Ireland, as a young, emerging nation, had no means of foreseeing the extent of the calamity which was to befall the world. One decision which had to be taken in 1937 was the extent to which the Constitution would permit rights to be frozen or suspended in times of armed conflict, rebellion or emergency. Article 28 of the Constitution sought to achieve that delicate balance between the needs of the State and the rights of individual citizens. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see that the correct balance was struck. The need for any State to have in place constitutional and legislative mechanisms to protect itself and its democratic institutions from attack is not now in dispute but the need to introduce those measures, and the manner in which they are operated at any given time, is always a matter of judgment.

On two occasions in our history it has been necessary for this House to assemble to consider whether the circumstances of the time warranted the agreement and announcement of a declaration that a national emergency existed. As, inevitably, declarations of such nature are made in times of great pressure and concern, it is appropriate that they be reviewed calmly in times of greater tranquility. The first occasion on which this House was asked to declare a national emergency was on 2 September 1939; the previous day Germany had invaded Poland and the following day Britain and France entered the war. The entire continent of Europe and the greater world were on the threshold of a war of unparalleled magnitude. The House declared a national emergency and immediately thereafter the Emergency Powers Act, 1939 was passed. This was followed over the subsequent six years by a further eight Emergency Powers Acts. The principal Act lapsed in 1946 and thereafter no legislation was in place on foot of the declaration of emergency although it continued in force until it was rescinded in 1976. The state of emergency and the need for emergency legislation was undoubtedly real. Ireland, as a young nation, survived the war intact.

The second occasion this House was asked to declare a national emergency was in late August 1976. On that occasion the perceived threat to the State was internal rather than external. A certain member of the national Government had predicted an imminent and armed assault on the institutions of this State to be followed by a bloody and sectarian war. Events, such as the murder of the British Ambassador and the explosion at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin, fuelled those fears. The House declared a national emergency and the Emergency Powers Act, 1976 was passed. That Act provided for up to seven days detention following arrest for an offence scheduled under the Act. It was strongly opposed at the time as an excessive infringement of civil liberties. It remained in force for one year and was allowed to lapse in 1977 by the incoming Fianna Fáil Government. Since then no legislation has been in force on foot of this most recent declaration of emergency.

The abiding feature of both emergencies has been their duration. It is appropriate to ask on an occasion such as this whether there ought to be some mechanism which would automatically bring a state of emergency to an end unless this House intervened to continue it. There is much merit in the recommendation in the report of the committee of the Constitution published in 1967 that Article 28.3.3º be amended so that resolutions declaring an emergency shall have effect for three years only unless renewed by further resolutions in the Dáil and Seanad and provisions such as that would avoid the continue existence of a state of emergency long after legislation introduced on foot of the declaration had lapsed. Perhaps this could be considered by the Taoiseach's proposed constitutional committee to which he referred during Question Time last week.

In the interests of closing a painful chapter in our history this is a time when there is a need for an expression of regret for wrongs committed. In this connection there is one further matter which should, as a requirement of honour and decency, be addressed by the Taoiseach in the course of this debate. In 1976, when the declaration of emergency was announced, he was an office holder in the Administration. That Administration introduced the Emergency Powers Bill, 1976 which, having passed the Dáil and Seanad, was sent to the President for his signature. The late President Ó Dalaigh exercised the power given him under Article 26 of the Constitution and referred the Bill to the Supreme Court. This prompted a serving Fine Gael Government Minister at the time to make a shameful and unprecedented attack on the President. He was not required to resign. It is deplorable that the then Fine Gael-Labour Coalition took no step to defend the Office of the President which is foremost among the institutions of the State. A constitutional crisis was allowed develop and one of our most distinguished Presidents was forced to resign to protect the independence and dignity of the Office of President. Before this chapter in our history is closed with the formal ending of the state of emergency declared in 1976 the Taoiseach, who was an office holder in that former Administration, should express his regret at the manner in which the late President Ó Dalaigh was forced to resign, and pay posthumous tribute to his contribution to the dignity and the independence of the Office of President and the way he responded to the crisis.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have serious reservations about raising the matter of the Presidency and drawing the Office of the President into controversy in this House. The convention has been and should remain that that is not done. Going into this type of past history is something the Chair must deprecate.

Mr. B. Ahern

We are trying to close a chapter of history and this matter has not been dealt with in this House. We are talking about what happened in 1976 and it would be a failure on the part of any Member to forget what happened here at that time. I invite the Taoiseach to place those matters clearly and unequivocally on the record of the House and I welcome this motion.

Miss Harney

I, too, welcome this motion. It is bizarre and incredible that for 55 of the 57 years since this State came into existence under the 1937 Constitution we have been in a state of emergency. It is regrettable that a state of emergency in breach of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, was allowed continue without much debate. There has been much criticism here over the years about the prevention of terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom, but at least that legislation originally had to be debated annually before it could be renewed. For the Oireachtas not to have the power to hold a debate, at least on an annual basis, before such an emergency can be renewed is incredible. In the current review of the Constitution planned by the Government I hope there will be a limited life on any future state of emergency. That was one of the recommendations made by the Progressive Democrats when they published a new draft Constitution in 1986.

Over the years there has been a good deal of criticism of that state of emergency and many have questioned whether it was appropriate. The late Eamon de Valera in 1947, the late Seán Lemass in 1960 and 1964, Jack Lynch in 1969 and 1971 and the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, defended the need for this state of emergency. I am delighted we can now pass this motion with the support of all sides of the House. That is significant.

However, while it is understandable that the first state of emergency was announced during the Second World War, it is ludicrous that it remained until 1976 and was only rescinded to provide for a new and different emergency due to the murder of the British Ambassador and his assistant and because explosives were used to release prisoners from the Special Criminal Court. The only legislation passed under the present emergency was the Emergency Powers Act, 1976 which lapsed after one year when the 1977 Fianna Fáil Government allowed it to do so. As the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Leader said, that provided for the detention of suspects for seven days and led to a good deal of litigation with allegations and suspicions about a heavy gang and so on.

There are a number of matters we must realise today. The passing of this motion does not in any way affect the Offences Against the State Act. Although it is referred to as emergency legislation it is part of the permanent legislation of this State and, unfortunately, it is still vitally necessary. The Offences Against the State Act is the legislative base for the establishment of the Special Criminal Court. It is not just political subversion to which this State has been subjected in recent times. Crimes, such as, the recent Brinks-Allied robbery, the serious crime of shooting a journalist and trading in illegal drugs are all indications of the necessity for a Special Criminal Court because, unfortunately, ordinary courts are not capable of dealing with criminals who believe in intimidating witnesses, murdering competitors, shooting journalists and the mutilation of others in order to prevent a prosecution and subsequently a conviction. I urge the Government to consider Part V of the Offences Against the State Act regarding membership of that court. We need to fulfill our commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislation provides that army officers or lawyers can serve in that court but that is not appropriate as that court should only be manned by judges. We need to amend Part V of the Offences Against the State Act to change that.

Today it is also appropriate to consider the victims of crime. Much emphasis is placed on the preservation of the civil liberties of citizens suspected of having committed serious crime. The Minister for Justice recently drew public attention to the fact that Ministers for Justice are always called on to introduce draconian legislation after a crisis but when they do it is often rejected and opposed in many quarters. Today we should remember the thousands of victims of crime in our society, North and South. The day has long passed for the need to introduce a proper system for compensating victims for the awful pain and suffering they endure. In this State victims of crime are merely awarded out-of-pocket expenses and must wait up to five years to receive them. The Criminal Injuries Tribunal compensation fund should be placed on a statutory basis and we must amend its provisions to allow for the allocation of compensation to those who endure pain and suffering at the hands of hardened criminals in our society.

Many may believe that the passing of this resolution will send out the wrong signal and that in some way the State is lowering its guard against paramilitaries. If paramilitaries return to violence or if there is any threat of violence, I believe the Members of this House will not be slow to introduce the necessary legislation and will use the full powers which a democratic State is entitled to use to protect itself against subversion.

I visited Northern Ireland yesterday and used the opportunity to speak in particular to representatives of the Unionist community. I have occasion every Friday at the forum to meet representatives of the Nationalist community. I agree with the Taoiseach's remarks that this is a time of great hope, but it is also a time of great uncertainty. The Taoiseach spoke about the need for trust, but a message that came through loud and clear to me yesterday is that the Unionist community do not really trust anybody. They are frightened and I cannot over-emphasise the fear in which they are living. It is, therefore, essential that the two Governments publish the framework document as soon as possible. I have no doubt that document will be fair and balanced and will reassure both communities. We must not lessen our resolve to bring to a conclusion the current talks between both Governments because comprehensive political talks between all representatives in Northern Ireland must commence. We cannot return to the position that prevailed in the past. Northern Ireland must be transformed into a real political society to which Nationalists and Unionists can give their allegiance. It must be a place in which there is parity of esteem and for which a bill of rights should be enshrined in a Constitution which would give permanence to whatever is agreed.

The fears of Unionists, in particular, run very deep. That is one message I recall from yesterday's visit to Northern Ireland. I met not only politicians, academics and business people but community leaders whose message was very clear, namely, that they want the politicians to get on with it. They want arrangements in place so that we can work together on this island.

There must be a North-South dimension to developments between the two Governments and the publication of the framework document. Irish Nationalism must be fully represented because Northern Ireland is as Irish as it is British and although Nationalists have great hope and expectation and Unionists live in fear and trepidation, on balance, if we give it time and if people are calm and reasonable, we can find the framework to allow us work together on this island. It will require give and take and, particularly, it will require people on this side of the Border to be generous in their attitude to the necessary changes. In the Downing Street Declaration the Taoiseach committed himself to examining aspects of Irish life that may cause offence to many people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, that may cause offence to many on this part of the island also. Under the provisions of the Downing Street Declaration, has an examination in that regard been carried out in the Taoiseach's Department? I have not heard of such an examination being carried out. The people in Northern Ireland want us to be generous, it is not always a question of looking for change in some other quarter.

Deputy Ahern mentioned the referral to the courts in 1976 of the emergency powers Bill to test its constitutionality and the events that flowed from that. While I read some of the debate in the House at that time, one would not need to read it to recall the panic that prevailed at the time. This is an appropriate time to recall the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the families left without brothers, sisters or fathers as a result. A great source of grievance to those families is the fact that nobody was charged or tried in connection with those bombrings, an appropriate inquiry was not carried out. Despite the peace process those families still insist — and rightly so — that the Governments should not forget their plight. They want to see justice done and the Irish Government, in particular, taking on board their case. They were real victims in the Republic of the awful paramilitary activities we had to endure for the past 25 years.

It is incredible that a State as young as this has been in a state of emergency for 55 of its 57 years existence. Some may find that surprising and other live under the illusion that the rescinding of this legislation will send a signal to certain quarters that they engaged in respectable political behaviour and that we have all changed our minds. There was no justification for killing members of the security forces, murdering children or robbing banks 25, 15 or five years ago just as there is no justification for it now. Those committed to the development of the peace process and to politics have a black and white choice. They must either go down the democratic political route and live by democratic political principles or choose the path of violence. We can never condone a symbiotic relationship between violence and politics and that it is somehow respectable to have a choice between the two.

Punishment beatings and the awful beating in the Ardoyne area last weekend are not compatible with peace or democratic political principles. I am pleased the Taoiseach raised the matter with Sinn Féin representatives; representatives of other organisations should also be spoken to in this regard. Those with influence have a duty to use it to ensure that such beatings, which in many ways are more serious, painful and draconian than a bullet through the head, are stopped. The awful atrocity at the weekend, about which I heard a great deal yesterday on my visit to Northern Ireland, cannot be condoned by anybody wishing to participate in the democratic process.

We live in a time when many ordinary people are frightened for the security of the State and wonder why a small number of people in our society whose names, apparently, are known to the Garda Síochána, are not capable of being tried and convicted under our criminal justice system and any society in which that is the case does not have appropriate powers vested in the Garda Síochána. While considering the passing of this resolution today it is also a time to examine more comprehensively our present laws to ensure that they equip us with the necessary ammunition to operate a fair criminal justice system. It is a perversion of justice that for so long a tiny few have been able to make vast amounts of money because crime pays. It is even more serious if they were able to avail of the amnesty. Such crimes involved armed robbery, illegal drug trading and parliamentary racketeering.

Whatever its nature it is not acceptable in any civilised democratic society that people who are engaged in those crimes, whose names apparently are known cannot be tried because of the inadequacy of our laws.

The absolute right to silence in our legislation needs to be limited. To ensure that human rights and civil liberties are protected the pilot project in Tallaght where Garda questioning is videod should be extended. If the right to silence is to be limited, it should be limited bearing in mind the need to protect the civil liberties of every citizen, even those suspected of serious crimes. The Garda Síochána need additional resources, not necessarily financial. We need an anti-racketeering unit. The Government has committed itself to the establishment of a corporate fraud office. Its powers need to be extended to ensure that the Garda have the resources to investigate how certain people accumulated their wealth. It is not acceptable to have to wait for a conviction in the criminal court before the assets of certain criminals can be seized.

In welcoming this motion I hope the unique opportunity exists on this island to create, once and for all, a political society to which everyone can give their allegiance and particularly in Northern Ireland where Unionists and Nationalists can work side by side for the first time and where Northern Ireland is no longer a Unionist State for a Unionist people. Both Governments have given that assurance in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and in the Downing Street Declaration and every party in this House is committed to the principle of there being no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland unless a majority of the people there wish that to happen. That should be some reassurance to the majority community in Northern Ireland. In addition, any package agreed will be put to the people in a referendum. That is the greatest assurance of all. Surely nobody should be afraid of allowing their own people a say in how they are governed and what kind of political structures are put in place to order society for the remainder of the decade and into the next millennium.

We have a duty to be careful with the words and language we use. We must not talk about the peace process as if it were some kind of fragile process and as if there is some justification no, matter what happens between the Governments, for a return to violence. No matter what is contained in the framework document there is no justification for a return to violence from the paramilitaries from either side. All of us must make that perfectly clear. I worry when I hear constitutional politicians talk about the fragile nature of the process as if there is some justification, if the document is not right, for a return to violence.

The question of the release of prisoners is a sensitive and delicate issue. As I said earlier those who were involved in murder, armed robbery and crimes of that kind are not political prisoners. There was no justification for the awful crime in which they engaged. We need to be sensitive to the way this issue is handled. In particular we need to be sensitive to the needs and concerns of the thousands of families on this island who have been the victims of those criminals. The Government must move extremely carefully and both Governments must act together. Sometimes the wrong message in the way something is presented can be sent to the ordinary citizen and, perhaps, to the victims of those prisoners.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

As a member of the Government of Renewal and as Leader of Democratic Left I am pleased to support this motion to lift the state of emergency which has effectively continued in operation since 1939. The impact will be largely symbolic but it is nonetheless, important for that. Few people probably realise that they have been living under a state of emergency for 55 years and they will not suddenly find that their rights and liberties have been enhanced once this motion has been passed by both House of the Oireachtas as required under Article 28.3.3º of the Constitution. The passing of these motions will represent a vote of confidence in the Northern peace process and in the strength of our democratic structures and institutions.

Nobody will dispute the right of a state to take exceptional powers to protect its democratic institutions in time of war or violent turmoil, but such exceptional measures should never be allowed to become the norm in a democratic society. I do not believe that those who drafted the Constitution ever believed that the powers of Article 28.33º would have been allowed to continue in operation for 55 years, or that those Members of the Oireachtas who voted in September 1939 and again in September 1976 to invoke the state of emergency ever believed that it would have taken the Dáil and Seanad until February 1995 to get around to declaring that the national emergency had ended.

It was not unreasonable that the Dáil should have declared a national emergency in September 1939 given the outbreak of the Second World War, and again, given the level of violence and particularly the assassination of the British Ambassador in 1976, there was a case for the State taking special measures, but there was never any case for allowing a declaration of a national emergency to have continued without interruption for 55 years. While there have been violent passages in our history and while the past 25 years have seen particular acts of savagery, there have been long periods when the conditions envisaged by Article 28.3.3º, i.e. a national emergency occasioned by war, armed conflict or armed rebellion affecting the vital interests of the State clearly did not apply. It reflects no credit on the Members of successive Dála that action to regularise the situation was not taken earlier.

When it comes to guarding against the potential abuse of human rights or civil liberties by the State we can never be too vigilant or careful. As I said, it is not unreasonable that a state should have the right to take exceptional powers to deal with particular threats, but these powers have to be kept under constant review. Constitutional powers that were appropriate for a democracy born out of violent conflict and still in its infancy in the 1930s may not necessarily be appropriate for a modern democracy, playing a full role in the European Union as we approach the end of the 20th Century.

The powers contained in Article 28.3.3º are exceptional and I believe they should be looked at in the context of the review of the Constitution promised in the programme, A Government of Renewal. A group of experts is to be established to prepare a report on all aspects of the Constitution and when they have completed their work an all party committee of the Oireachtas will be established to review that work.

It is hard to envisage the conditions referred to in Article 28.3.3º are likely to occur again, but they may well do. Do we need powers as sweeping as those provided by that Article? Is it appropriate that such powers, including the rendering of legislation immune from constitutional challenge, can be invoked by a simple majority in the Dáil and Seanad? Is there a case for introducing some sort of weighted majority requiring, say, the support of 60 per cent or 66 per cent of the Members of the Dáil and Seanad before a national emergency can be declared? If the conditions envisaged by Article 28 genuinely applied then it would be difficult to see any opposition failing to go along with the exceptional measures required, but as long as a simple majority only is required you cannot rule out a Government of the future invoking a state of national emergency when the conditions necessary to justify one do not exist. Should a declaration of emergency not lapse at the end of a specific period of time, as recommended by the 1967 committee on the Constitution, unless it is renewed by the Dáil and Seanad, rather than the present situation where it is allowed to continue indefinitely unless the Oireachtas passes motions ending it? Given our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and other international charters, there is a case for providing in our own legislation that any such declaration of a national emergency or exceptional powers introduced under any such emergency should be subject to international monitoring.

There is a need for these issues to be discussed and addressed and I look forward to the group of experts and the Oireachtas committee considering such matters as part of their remit and reporting back at the earliest possible date.

As I noted earlier, the most recent declaration of a state of national emergency was taken in the context of a particularly violent passage in our recent history. The year 1976 saw not just the murder of the British Ambassador, Christopher Ewart-Biggs, and a civil servant, Judith Cook, but also the Kingsmill massacre in which ten Protestants were murdered in Armagh, the trial of those charged with the kidnapping of Dr. Herrema, the murder of a young Garda in County Laois, firebombs in Dublin and a man killed by a car bomb in Castleblayney. If 1976 represented one of the darkest periods of the past 25 years, when the only reaction most people had was despair, the ceasefires of the Nationalist and loyalist paramilitaries and the six month period almost free of violence really has provided a new dawn and allowed people, especially those in Northern Ireland, to hope again.

There is clearly a lot of work to be done yet to ensure that the unique opportunity to ensure lasting peace and political stability is not lost. The whole process is now at a particularly delicate phase and there is an obligation on everyone who cares about the people of this island to consider honestly and openly what new structures and arrangements are necessary to guarantee peace and to free the people of this island permanently from the terror of politically motivated violence.

I would appeal in particular to members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland to suspend judgment on the proposed Joint Framework Document until it is available in its entirely. It would be a mistake for anyone to rush to judgment on the basis of selected extracts from work in progress which appeared in the London Times last week and which were clearly designed to cause alarm among Unionists. The reaction of the Irish and British Governments to these leaks shows that London and Dublin share a common resolve not to be deflected from the work in hand and to ensure that negotiations are completed at the earliest possible date.

It cannot be stated too often that the current talks on the Joint Framework Document are not intended to devise a solution to be imposed by the two Governments. The document is designed to facilitate inter-party talks and both Governments have made it clear that any final proposals will have to go before the people in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in referendums. A lasting solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will require a willingness on all sides to compromise, to give as well as to take. I am confident that when the Joint Framework Document is completed it will be clearly seen to reflect this principle. The benefits of the current process cannot be underestimated. The people of Northern Ireland have nothing to fear from the process and much to gain.

In this debate, the focus of attention has naturally been on the relationship between the State and the citizen and on the anxiety to ensure that the rights of citizens are not abused by the State, but we should never forget that those who have been guilty of the greatest human rights abuses, those who have inflicted unspeakable violence on the people, have been the paramilitary organisations. While most of the violence in Northern Ireland has stopped, paramilitaries are still engaged in acts of brutality against members of the community in Northern Ireland.

Over the past few weeks there has been a worrying resurgence in the level of so-called punishment attacks, with a number of particularly barbaric incidents reported over the weekend. In one case in Ardoyne, a 19 year-old was left with one of his legs jammed between the steel stanchions of a security fence. He was taken to hospital with two broken legs and other injuries. Both loyalist and Nationalist paramilitaries have continued to engage in this brutality. It cannot be said too often that regardless of the level of petty crime and regardless of the problems of confidence in the police in certain areas of Northern Ireland, no organisation has the right to act as judge, jury and executioner in such cases and no organisation or individual has the right to inflict such violence on other citizens. It is not simply good enough for the leaders of political parties associated with the paramilitaries to wash their hands of such activities. These people have the political and moral authority to ensure that the activities of these punishment gangs cease, and they should use it.

In bringing this motion before the House, the Government is fulfilling the first part of a three-part commitment given in the Programme of Renewal. The other two parts involve legislation on the Convention of the Transfer of Prisoners and a review of all legislation and court arrangements associated with the management of the conflict in the last 25 years.

As with the lifting of the state of emergency I believe that a review along the lines envisaged is long overdue. The Offences Against the State Act was originally introduced in 1939 against the background of the outbreak of the Second World War, at a time when the memories of the civil war were still fresh, at the end of a decade when political violence based on civil war differences had continued intermittently, and when the State faced the threat not just of external invasion but internal turmoil.

By any standards, it is draconian legislation, with a range of powers rarely found in a democratic society. Perhaps the most exceptional power is that which allows for the introduction of internment without trial. It should be noted that the power to intern can be introduced by a simple decision of the Government and does not even require the sanction of the Oireachtas. The Act also allows for the banning of a wide range of organisations. Contrary to the public perception this power is not restricted to paramilitary groups, but allows, for instance, for the banning of any organisation which "promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the central fund or any other public fund or the non-payment of taxes." This puts virtually every residents' and tenants' association in the country at risk. Over the years, the powers of the Act have been used against organisations as diverse as farmers groups and the trade union movement.

Many of the sections of the Act have fallen into disuse and it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which they will be used again. The section which makes it an offence not to account for his or her movements — once widely used against republicans including myself — is now very rarely invoked. Under the terms of the Act, every newspaper in the State has been a regular offender in the course of the past 25 years by carrying, sometimes on a daily basis, statements from an illegal organisation, the IRA, contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the Act. I am sure nobody is seriously advocating that the newspapers should be prosecuted but in that case what is the purpose in allowing this and other sections which are no longer in use to remain on the Statute Book?

The Act also allows for the establishment of special military courts to try civilian offenders. We have not had special military courts since the early 1960s, but we have had the non-jury Special Criminal Court since 1972. I do not believe that it was ever envisaged that the Special Criminal Court would become a permanent part of our judicial system and I think there is a very strong case to be made for reviewing the operation of the court. Certainly circumstances have changed very dramatically since 1972.

I know that there is a body of opinion which suggests that measures like the Offences Against the State Act and institutions like the Special Criminal Court should be used to combat the growing problem of organised crime. I would urge caution in this regard. As a general rule I believe that special legislation or measures introduced to combat paramilitary activities should be used solely for that purpose. If the civil law and the civil court are inadequate to deal with the problem of organised crime, we should see what measures can be taken to strengthen the power or improve their procedures. It is, I accept, a complex area and one which I hope will be fully examined in the course of the Government's promised review of the legislation and court arrangements associated with the activities of paramilitary organisations of the past 25 years.

I wish to share my remaining time with Deputy Eric Byrne.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.

Mr. E. Byrne

I support the motion before the House. The decision of the Government to end the 56-year state of emergency, welcome as it is, is one step along a road on which many steps must be taken to bring this nation into conformity with internationally accepted human rights practices. In 1993 a UN report roundly condemned Ireland for a number of practices including the absence of refugee legislation, censorship legislation and the continuance of the state of emergency. The Government in its programme is committed to ensuring that the people of this State enjoy the rights taken for granted by most other democratic jurisdictions, rights which range from freedom of access to information and comprehensive free legal aid. The rights of the individual citizen must be weighed against the rights of society as a whole.

The introduction of the emergency powers in 1939 was designed to protect society during a time of upheaval and insecurity— most other European countries had similar legislation during World War II. After the conclusion of the war Ireland maintained the state of emergency, even during a period of stability and peace that lasted for more than 20 years, from 1945 until the start of the conflict in Northern Ireland. The emergency powers were then renewed in 1976 after the assassination of the British Ambassador to Ireland, Christopher Ewart-Biggs, and they have remained in place ever since.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

What battalion was the Deputy in?

Mr. E. Byrne

Most people do not know what it is to live without a state of emergency. We have also become used to other institutions generally associated, albeit mistakenly, with the state of emergency, for example, the Special Criminal Court and the various powers contained in the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939-85.

A state of emergency has been the norm for 56 years and its lifting heralds both opportunities and dangers. It gives us the opportunity to construct a truly civilian security service, a construction in which the powers of the Garda and Army are entirely seperate and in which the Garda are seen as the prime guarantors of internal security and freedoms. However, there is also a danger of complacency. The threats which give birth to the emergency legislation— the external threat posed by World War II and the internal threat posed by the paramilitaries — have been removed, but they have been replaced by new threats. It could be argued that organised crime poses as great a threat to civil society as the paramilitaries. Let us be clear about it, guns have not been removed from our society. The new guns demand new responses which concentrate on prevention, detection and punishment and which do not dilute the civil liberties of the individual.

In this context, there needs to be a thorough review of the Offences Against the State Act to ensure that provisions which are only rarely used and which represent a gross infringement of the civil liberties are not reinstated on the Statue Book in case something happens in the future. In particular, I urge the Minister to consider the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. Article 38.5 of the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury, except in circumstances defined by Article 38.3.1º which states:

Special courts may be established by law for the trial of offences in cases where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order.

I would argue that these stipulations have held through in only a minority of the cases referred to the Special Criminal Court in the recent past. I am particularly worried that the courts set up under Article 38.3 of the Constitution, for example, the Special Criminal Court, are exempt from the provisions of Articles 34 and 35 which guarantee the right to trial in public and the independence of the Judiciary. There can be no justification for suspending these constitutional provisions — society and times have changed and we have peace — or for the suspending the right to trial by jury, a fundamental civil right. The inalienable right to be tried by 12 of one's peers in open court is the hallmark of a civilised society and by suspending that right our judicial system has become something less than civilised.

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, for example, drug trafficking, warlords and organised crime. The Government's decision to lift the state of emergency, together with the full implementation of the measures contained in the programme. A Government of Renewal, will go a long way to meeting those challenges. I urge the Minister to take that extra step and openly review the Offences Against the State Acts and copperfasten the rights of all citizens to trial by jury. Now that the threat of violence has been lifted consideration should be given to removing the security windows and screens which only serve to isolate the public from this Chamber.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

They were put up 20 years ago to keep out the Deputy's party.

Mr. E. Byrne

This would be a statement by politicians that we are accountable and acceptable and welcome the presence of citizens at our proceedings.

Mr. R. Burke

I wish to share my time with Deputy McDaid.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. R. Burke

I support the motion for the cessation of the state of emergency which has existed in its present from since 1976. When in Government Fianna Fáil indicated that it would seek to abolish the state of emergency at the appropriate time, and I welcome the Taoiseach's decision to take this commitment on board. As my party leader, Deputy Ahern, said Fianna Fáil will support this motion.

Today's action by Dáil Éireann sends a clear message to the British Government that it too must give the most serious consideration to the removal of similar legislation in Britain. One should not underestimate the practical and symbolic significance of the removal of the state of emergency, which has been in existence in its present form for 18 years. This is a testimony to how the conflict on this island has shaped our legislation and behaviour as a State which otherwise would not have been the case.

The presence of the state of emergency was a reminder of ongoing violence and terror and its removal represents a consolidation of the peace process, a necessary note of confidence in our shared work for peace. If the scrapping of the state of emergency represents another step forward in the peace process then it contrasts starkly with last week's malicious leak of elements of the framework document to The Times newspaper in London. This leak was deliberately intended to foster distrust and suspicion and was clearly designed to damage the fragile peace process. I said then that dark forces were at work and I believe they still are. This is all the more reason to forge ahead with the peace process. The removal of the state of emergency has the opposite intention to last week's leak; it will strengthen th peace process, not weaken it.

Ultimately, the peace process is about forging trust, dismantling the barriers which have built up between communities and working to build a more hopeful future. Forging this new climate requires action and compromise on all sides. The state of emergency is one such barrier and, like section 31 of the Broadcasting Act, which I renewed as Minister for Communications, the time has come for its removal.

The state of emergency has its genesis in Article 28.3.3º of the Constitution which allows the Oireachtas to invoke law for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion. According to the Constitution, a time of war includes a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which the Houses of the Oireachtas believe the vital interests of the State are at stake.

The first state of emergency came about after the outbreak of World War II in 1939. In September of that year the Emergency Powers Act was enacted, giving the Government control over supplies, transport and military matters. The emergency was a clear affirmation of Ireland's neutrality but it was also, as in the words of Seán Ó Faolain, our practical claim to independence. Times have changed and momentous events have taken place since then but once again neutrality is moving to centre stage as an issue of political and public concern in the run up to the 1996 intergovernmental conference and beyond. That is a debate for another day, and one in which Fianna Fáil will take a lead role.

The 1939 emergency remained in force until 1976 and was only lifted by a resolution which simultaneously declared a fresh emergency arising out of the armed conflict in Northern Ireland.

It is worthwhile remembering the context in which the latter state of emergency was introduced, in 1976 there was a spate of violence that many feared would engulf the whole of Ireland. There were bomb explosions in hotels in Dublin, Killarney, Limerick and Rosslare responsibility for which was claimed by the UFF and in July of that year there were bomb explosions in the Special Criminal Court; there was the terrible murder of the British Ambassador to Ireland, Mr. Christopher Ewart Biggs, and of Judith Cook of the Northern Ireland Office, by a landmine. In September of that year the Dáil and Seanad declared a national state of emergency and towards the end of that month President Ui Dalaigh referred the Emergency Powers Act to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

As the Taoiseach will recall, there then followed one of the more shameful events in Fine Gael's history when the then Minister for Defence, Paddy Donegan, referred to the President as a "thundering disgrace". President Ó Dalaigh subsequently resigned, to, in his own words, "protect the dignity of the office". I echo the words of my party leader, Deputy Ahern, that the Taoiseach and the Government should take this opportunity to apologise to the family of the late President and set the record straight in relation to his magnificent presidency.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court declared the Emergency Powers Act not to be repugnant to the Constitution with one significant caveat to which I will return later. It is right to set down an important principle regarding emergency legislation. Legislation of this nature has to maintain a fine balance between the aim of securing public safety as set out in Article 28 of the Constitution and ensuring that the legislation does not inadvertently foster a climate in which violence might prosper. If this balance is not maintained then the law becomes counterproductive.

At the time of the introduction of the Emergency Powers Act by the then Fine Gael led Government Fianna Fáil expressed grave reservations about aspects of it. Public disquiet about this special legislation contributed significantly to the Fine Gael Party's defeat in the 1977 general election. Much unease centred on section 2 of the legislation which empowered the Garda to arrest without warrant and hold in custody for up to seven days persons suspected of offences under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. Section 2 remained in force for one year from the date of enactment, 16 October 1976. Fianna Fáil returned to power in July 1977 and in October of that year section 2 was allowed to lapse.

In many ways the Emergency Powers Act is the legislative sibling of the section 31 ban introduced by the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Conor Cruise O'Brien, who now acts as the Irish Independent's answer to Nostradamus on Northern Ireland matters. When section 31 was abolished by the previous Fianna Fáil led Government there was no small amount of criticism, not least from the Taoiseach's own party. This criticism was wide of the mark. Like this motion to abolish the state of emergency, the decision to scrap section 31 was a legitimate step in the development of the peace process — it was an act of faith in the process. Fianna Fáil views this motion in the same light and supports the removal of the state of emergency. I had my own reservations about the removal of section 31.

The Supreme Court pronounced the Emergency Powers Act constitutional but with a significant caveat. In its judgement the court tempered the potential effect of Article 28 of the Constitution. While not disputing the right of the Oireachtas to enact any legislation it saw fit in order to preserve public safety and the State when an emergency had been declared, the court stated that: "It expressly reserves for future consideration the question of whether it had the right to consider whether the Oireachtas was justified in declaring a national emergency existed". No case has arisen subsequently to challenge the court's thinking but this statement does act as an effective counterbalance to the scope of Article 28 and should make any future Government think twice about introducing new emergency legislation.

Deputy Byrne commented on our courts system, in particular the Special Criminal Court. That court has served the country well and honourably and to suggest that it is less than civilised casts a terrible slur on the honourable members of the Judiciary who have served in it; members of the Garda, particularly those who were murdered during the state of emergency since 1976; prison officers and members of the Defence Forces — they deserve better.

Judicial considerations aside we must now close the book on emergency legislation. That era has passed and must not return. The task ahead lies in forging new structures and relationships to ensure that the conditions which spawned the state of emergency of 1976 will not recur.

Dr. McDaid

I, too, welcome this motion to bring to an end the state of national emergency. The date of 1 September is significant. It was on that date in 1976 that this emergency legislation was introduced while 1 September 1994 marked the first day of the current ceasefire which led to this discussion. The rich dividends that have flowed from the ceasefire are apparent throughout Ireland. The atmosphere in the North has been transformed. This is especially evident to those of us who are familiar with the area. Throngs of people are crossing the Border in both directions and in greater numbers than ever before. Above all, parents on all sides of the community have much less reason to worry themselves sick about the future well-being of their children. To a certain extent this also applies to those who live in the counties immediately south of the Border.

Only depraved people would seek to destroy the process which has brought this happy situation about. Whoever was responsible for leaking parts of the framework document undoubtedly belongs in this category. The malicious manner in which the story was edited was not designed to enhance the cause of peace. I have to ask The Times of London to explain precisely the motive behind the exercise. The Times has always been pleased to describe itself as a quality newspaper — this implies a degree of excellence, moral and otherwise, not usually claimed by the so-called popular press. On this occasion its oft acclaimed standards have, sadly, been lowered.

It is clear that the intention of the culprits who collaborated was to dangerously raise the hackles and fears of the ordinary Unionist population. The extracts so carefully highlighted were presented as if they were a principal part of a solemn treaty signed and sealed by the two Governments without any regard to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. The Times as well as every single politician knows full well that this is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous. It is not surprising that some of the more extreme Unionist politicians could scarcely conceal their glee; one wonders whether these particular individuals are so frightened at the prospect of dialogue that they would actually prefer the resumption of violence. The decent, long suffering people they claim to represent are entitled to hear something better than a constant repetition of the word “No” to every suggestion that might prevent communal conflict from breaking out again.

There was one encouraging outcome which must have deeply disappointed the perpetrators of The Times leak— the calm, reasoned and measured response of the political representatives of both sets of paramilitaries. This was in sharp contrast to the hysterical claims of “the document is now dead”. Regardless of the content of the completed document, we should all realise that it is merely an attempt by both Governments, after several months of consideration, to provide a sensible basis for discussion.

The preferred ultimate outcome will be an honourable compromise that will guarantee the birthright of all on this island. It is the people of Ireland, North and South, that matter, not the territory per se. Just as we acknowledge the right of Unionists to express their historical ties with Britain, so also must they be prepared to afford a similar right to hundreds of thousands of Northern Nationalists who fervently wish to articulate what binds them to the rest of Ireland.

At a time when so many countries in Europe are moving ever closer to harmony, surely it is possible to accommodate both traditions on our small island without threatening the rights of either. Perhaps we might eventually begin to take Christianity seriously since it is what all the main denominations in Ireland claim to practice. That would mean that we would regard charity as the greatest of all virtues and that consequently, neither of us would ever again wish to harm the other. We would certainly never again use the Christian religion as an excuse for the deadly bigotry that has bedevilled the political and social development of this island for so long.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I wish to share my time with Deputies Boylan and Upton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is agreed.

Mr. Taylor

For five decades, we have been all too familiar with the concept of the "state of emergency". What began as a legal response to the Second World War remained stubbornly in place, and in time acquired a new basis arising out of the tragic conflict on this island. After all of these years, instead of repeating history, we are finally beginning to let history go, and forge for ourselves a new political reality and a new future based on our commitment to peace and the rule of law.

As originally enacted by the people, the emergency powers clause of Article 28.3.3º referred only to measures taken in time of war or armed rebellion, these being understood as referable to events within the State. During the initial period when the Constitution was capable of amendment by the Oireachtas alone, this definition was extended twice; initially by the First Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1939, to cover cases where both Houses had resolved that a conflict in which the State is not a participant gave rise to a national emergency, and then by the Second Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1941, to cover the period following such resolutions until both Houses resolve that the national emergency has ceased to exist. It is this latter provision we are invoking in this House today.

Today's motion comes at a time of both optimism and challenge, arising out of the opportunities which exist for the consolidation of peace and the building of an agreed Ireland based on addressing the three sets of relationships, within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between Ireland and Britain. When I last spoke in this House on Northern Ireland, in the immediate aftermath of the IRA ceasefire, on 31 August 1994, I said that the emergency provisions which were a feature of legal systems both North and South would have to be examined further down the road. The next stage has now come, and it is a privilege for me to give my full support to the motion now before the House.

There will be further legal steps. The transfer of prisoners, and their release, has received and will continue to receive attention. In due course, other laws and arrangements will have to be reviewed. I do not predict the outcome of such reviews, other than to say that our objective is the full and vigorous flourishing of the democratic process in both parts of this island, a process based on the rule of law and on equality of respect and of treatment for every tradition here. I look forward very much to the steps yet to be taken towards this end.

Side by side with the process of building an agreement on how we share this island, the motion now before the House makes a very real statement about this State's commitment to the proper functioning of the legal process.

In July 1993 when the republican and loyalist ceasefires had yet to take place, the United Nations Human Rights Committee formally adopted its comments of Ireland's first report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Foremost among those comments was the statement that "[t]he Committee strongly recommends that the State party critically examine the need for the existing state of emergency".

The Human Rights Committee was neither the first nor the last body to express concern about this issue. Here in Ireland, the all-party committee on the Constitution, which reported in 1967, recommended change to Article 28.3.3º of the Constitution to impose a time limit on resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas under that provision. More recently, the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe has been examining states of emergency throughout the Continent, and has looked in particular at the need for legal protection in emergencies for certain irreducible, non-derogable human rights.

Resolutions under Article 28.3.3º have existed continuously since 2 September 1939. As the motion before the House reminds us, the 1939 resolutions were replaced by fresh resolutions on 1 September 1976. In other words, for 55 of the 57 years in which the Constitution has been in force, a state of emergency has existed. Anyone born after 1939 will not have known any form of legal situation other than the state of emergency. Commenting on the continuance of the emergency throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the late Deputy John Kelly once somewhat sceptically remarked that there were always reasons for keeping it in force. One might have been forgiven for thinking that the day would never come when the resolutions could and would be rescinded.

The cessation of the state of emergency, which the House is being asked to decide on tonight, has more than just a symbolic value. Our decision to lift the emergency resolutions says something very important about how we describe this State to ourselves and to the world. It amounts to a new level of maturity and self-confidence in our institutions, our legal and social system, and our hopes for the future. Above all, it is a tangible and significant staging-post in our quest for peace.

Tonight's motion is a tribute to the enormous effort which has been devoted to the building of that peace, both by this Government and the previous Government, and it marks both the recognition of what has been achieved already and the determination to consolidate those gains and underpin them through further political progress.

For the future, we look to the consolidation of the hard-won peace, to the building of real and lasting political progress, and in due course to further reforms aimed at normalising the legal system on these islands.

For now, with the passing of this motion, we can begin to emerge from under the shadow of violence and of emergency law which has dominated our politics for so long, and we can begin to breath the fresh and free air of a normal legal system, with all of the hopes and opportunities that involves, as well as the challenges it brings. Tonight I look forward to the future and not to the past; to our hopes rather than our history; to our dreams of what could be rather than the resigned acceptance of what is.

Mr. Boylan

I thank the Minister for sharing his time with me as I particularly wanted to contribute to this debate. I support the motion ending the national emergency and congratulate the Government on its courage in tabling it. The timing is right. Living in a Border constituency I have full knowledge of what the emergency meant. I listened with interest to Deputy McDaid, another of the Border Deputies. We have seen at first hand the real problems of the conflict in Northern Ireland. That this emergency was necessary when introduced in 1976 is not in doubt. It was brought in by a Government acting in the best interests of the people of this country, by a Taoiseach who will probably go down in history as one of the finest Taoisigh ever, former Deputy Liam Cosgrave. It was introduced at a time when armed men were running wild in the country and were seen in my constituency organising and fund-raising. People were torn between different sides in the conflict. On the one hand there was the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland and, on the other, the Unionists. Many were sucked into the conflict because terrible deeds were being committed and feelings ran high.

Thankfully that is in the past and I have no doubt that the peace will last. This motion is a further step in copperfastening the peace process. People will see that the Government is prepared to act if people are prepared to live within the democratic system. I have no doubt that the finding of a substantial cache of arms in Oldcastle, County Meath last night was not accidental and that people are realising that the way forward is through peace and the democratic process. The benefits since the cessation of violence in a short four or five months have been enormous. I too will be generous in congratulating everybody who was involved, those who were publicly involved and whose names have been associated with the process and the many people in the background who worked tirelessly and continue to do so but whose names never come to the public notice.

In the past five or six months I have seen the freedom of movement in the Border region, the freedom of people to move between North and South. I have spoken to people in Cavan town who, for 30 years, have not stood in Enniskillen because they were fearful that they might be in Northern Ireland at the wrong time. Similarly people from the North have not travelled via Ennis-killen, Lisnaskea to Cavan and Monaghan in 20 years. This movement of people must be welcomed because with it and the interaction of people will come a better understanding of the people North and South. The benefits can be tremendous and already there have been numerous inquiries from travel agencies in America about booking tourists into the Slieve Russell Hotel in Cavan.

There is tremendous interest by Irish Americans, and the Irish all over the world, in visiting and seeing what is happening in the new Ireland. Nobody should hinder that process and public statements should be carefully considered and calculated. If people are worried about the recent leaks in The Times I have no great difficulty with them. It is said these leaks were for a purpose. A head of steam has been let off and discussion has taken place. I would be more interested in the recent opinion poll conducted in the Irish Independent that showed the move among people in Northern Ireland towards recognising that things are changing and must change and that they must be part of it.

I am also aware, however, that there are in circulation in the Border region in Northern Ireland, pamphlets discouraging people from rushing madly into the peace process. I have read these pamphlets. Peace and the movement of people towards change will not happen overnight. There are elements in our country that believe we are not moving fast enough.

We should take things carefully and slowly. We have moved forward fast in the past five or six months at a pace that no one would have believed.

I welcome the decision we are taking as a courageous step by the Government. I have no doubt but that further benefits will result. I wholeheartedly support the motion.

Dr. Upton

At the outset I should like to thank Minister Taylor for allowing me this time. I too welcome the abolition of the state of emergency. It is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to advancing the peace process and developing lasting peace here. It symbolises the belief that the difficulties which we experienced over the past 25 years are now over. It is a statement of confidence by the Government in its capacity, along with the British Government and with both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, to make progress towards the development of new democratic institutions that will be accepted on all sides.

Over most of the recent past and, indeed, most of the period since 1939, the state of emergency was, to a large extent, a misnomer. Throughout my life this country was technically in a state of emergency. I cannot say that I felt a great sense of crisis or of impending doom or a sense that we were, in the words of a song, teetering on the eve of destruction. The state of emergency was technical and legal in nature.

It is well to remember that since 1939 the country has made enormous progress throughout that emergency. That would not have happened if we were bordering on the edge of crisis. The social cohesion which was needed for that process, the capacity of people here to develop ideas which underpinned the progress, could not have happened if we were in a state of emergency amounting to crisis. It is as well, too, to recall that it was a much different world when the state of emergency was declared in 1939. Europe was about to engage in a terrible war which wrought the most awful carnage throughout Europe in which many Irish people from both North and South became involved. The world has moved on and tremendous changes have taken place. The micro-chip had not been discovered then, nor had DNA. The telecommunications revolutions had not taken place. The information technology highway that we all talk about, even if we do not understand it, was not in existence. Europe has made tremendous progress.

This country must learn not just from the capacity of the Europeans to put their wars behind them but from their commitment to building peace and their capacity and ability to found institutions which are adequate to prevent war and develop and sustain peace. That is the great message of hope that has come from the history of Europe of the past 25 years. It is great that this country is a part of this European movement and finally on the brink of putting an end to all our difficulties.

I welcome the end of the state of emergency which was largely symbolic but nonetheless important because we are now declaring an end to it. That indicates clearly that we have the confidence to believe that we are into a period of lasting peace.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I join other Members in welcoming the ending of the national emergency which has existed since 1976. Regardless of whether one describes it as a misnomer it is, nonetheless, an historic and extremely important occasion. The 25 years of horrific violence on this island has now happily ended, I sincerely hope for good. In this context, the removal of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act was the first welcome step and the next step the House will ultimately have to consider will be the question of the continuation of the Special Criminal Court.

If one goes back in history one understands why it is embedded in the Irish spirit the desire that a person be tried by jury. Under British rule, summary trials, detention without trial, packed juries, corrupt judges and prosecutors were the order of the day and naturally with the coming of Irish independence and the birth of the new State, the feeling was that if an individual transgressed he should be at the mercy of his own countrymen to decide his guilt or innocence. By tradition, most people would naturally prefer the option to be tried by jury, nonetheless — and unfortunately — we have seen in recent times why the Garda authorities and the Government might wish to continue the Special Criminal Court for the time being. Because of the activities of organised gangs in society involved not only in major robberies but in drug trafficking, it is feared that the intimidation of juries could become a feature of our justice system and that the ordinary courts would not be adequate to secure the effective administration of justice. If that is the conclusion we come to we must be mindful of the parallel in the North.

The Diplock courts are undesirable and something we should like to see ended. If in the future we are to argue logically for the termination of the Diplock courts, our argument would be weakened by continuing with the Special Criminal Court in our jurisdiction.

I believe the time is fast approaching when we will have to introduce radical legislation to deal with organised crime. Last week I outlined some of the proposals which our party would like to see put in place in due course. In the final analysis I would seek to give the Garda the necessary armoury through additional resources and personnel and more effective legislation rather than see the Special Criminal Court continue as part of the judicial system in a democracy of a civilised society at peace with itself and with one another.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste has indicated that he wishes to give two and a half minutes of his time to Deputy O'Keeffe.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I thank the Tánaiste for giving me some of his time. This is an historic day and I congratulate all concerned in bringing it about. A few weeks ago, the Leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Bertie Ahern, could walk down the Falls Road and other areas of Belfast which had been antagonistic to Nationalists for many years. Last night was another historic occasion when Ken Maginnis appeared so relaxed on the television programme "Questions and Answers". Mr. Gerry Adams can walk in the streets of this country and of England and that is something new. We can be proud of this achievement because we are a relatively new nation founded on the ashes of a civil war. We have had stability in every area and our record as a new nation is good. Other nations founded in this century have experienced turbulent and difficult times and have had two or three civil wars.

We can be proud of our maturity in handling our affairs. We have made economic strides that have not been seen in other parts of the world. We have accumulated wealth because of our hard work and good Government and not because of our natural resources.

Emigration was one of our greatest difficulties and created an imbalance in the community. We have survived the many hundreds of thousands of people leaving our shores to find prosperity in another land. We have had other difficulties but we can be proud that we live in de Valera's island. He was a far seeing man and his Constitution enable us to achieve the success we enjoy.

Many people would say that the national emergency introduced in the 1930s was a draconian measure but there were many reasons for its introduction: among them a world war.

I would like to see a change in the Offences Against the State Act, another draconian measure. If we want to be a free people and identify with all the great national traditions we need to look seriously at this again. I think the climate is probably right for a review or relaxation of that Act. It is important also to consider the release of prisoners, not alone in this jurisdiction but in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Many people have been in jail for a long number of years and it is important to review the position.

There have been great changes in the past 18 months and an historic breakthrough has taken the gun off the streets. There is a great difference between the criminal and the person with a nationalist belief. I think we need to look again at the right to silence in the criminal code and we need to introduce legislation in that area.

I thank the Tánaiste sincerely for giving me time to contribute to the debate on this historic day.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I am grateful to Members for their contributions to this evening's debate. The proposal to bring to an end the national emergency resolved by the Dáil to exist on 1 September 1976 is a matter of considerable national importance. The careful and serious contributions by Deputies to this debate indicate that the significance of this step is well understood.

The Government programme—A Government of Renewal—makes clear that the Government's primary task over the next three years will be to consolidate progress towards peace and reconciliation on this island. It is in that context that the Government indicated its intention to expedite the lifting of the state of national emergency.

As the Taoiseach indicated in his contribution the declaration of a national emergency was made in very particular circumstances at a time when the institutions of the State were under direct challenge. The horrific murder of the British Ambassador, Sir Christopher Ewart Biggs, and of Ms Judith Cooke and other violent incidents at that time created widespread alarm to which the Government of the day felt obliged to respond. While the previous state of emergency had remained unrevoked for many years, it was nevertheless always understood that a procedure of this type, by its very nature, should be temporary and should be lifted as soon as circumstances would permit. Indeed the decision after one year not to renew the main operative section of the Emergency Powers Act, 1976 ensured that, in practical terms, the consequences of the state of emergency were of very limited duration.

It is perhaps a measure of the distorting effect of the campaigns of violence that while they continued there was a general reluctance to move to end the state of emergency, lest such a move be misinterpreted as signalling a weakening of our opposition to violence.

As Deputies have recognised, the situation has changed dramatically since the announcement by the Provisional IRA on 31 August 1994 of the complete cessation of military activities and the decision by the combined loyalist military command on 13 October 1994 to cease all operational activities. The former has been in force now for over five months. Both ceasefires have been fully supported by the relevant organisations and have been effective in practice. The state of armed conflict which has prevailed in Northern Ireland for over a quarter of a century and from which this jurisdiction has not been immune has been brought to a close. The Government believes that with the ending of the threat posed by the campaigns of violence, it is appropriate that the national emergency should be terminated.

We commend this step to the House both in recognition of these greatly changed circumstances and as testament of our commitment to maintain the highest levels of legal protection. It is for this reason the Government programme indicated that the Government intends to review all legislation and court arrangements associated with the management of the conflict in the last 25 years, which was referred to by a number of Deputies. This will be a broad and comprehensive review and will include consideration of a number of issues raised by Deputies in the course of the debate. It will ensure that there is careful consideration of the various changes made since the present troubles began and of their relevance in the greatly changed circumstances of the present.

The decision to revoke the state of emergency also represents a substantive response to the comment of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations following its consideration of the report submitted by Ireland by virtue of it being a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is consistent with the importance Ireland attaches to the work of UN human rights monitoring mechanisms. Other issues raised by the committee to which Deputies referred will be considered in the context of the review to which I have referred.

The step we are taking today is important in the strengthening of the peace process. The Government, from the same perspective, has responded to the ending of violence and the consequent lifting of the threat to the community, by addresing the situation in prisons. A number of prisoners have been released earlier than might otherwise be the case. The Government has also made clear its intention to introduce, as a matter of priority, legislation which will permit the ratification of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners.

It is, of course, important that the British Government too should respond quickly and positively to the new situation created by the ceasefires. We hope they will consider whether they need, in the circumstances which now prevail, to maintain on the Statute Book legislation which has proved controversial but which was defended on the basis of the exigencies of the situation. The Government believe that to repeal or at least to limit substantially many of these provisions would be helpful in strengthening support for the administration of justice and would also make considerable contribution to creating a climate conducive to agreement and political progress.

We have also asked the British Government to consider other steps which would be helpful in maintaining and strenghtening support for the peace process, particularly in those areas where the security presence has been especially intrusive. The British authorities have made some adjustments in the months since the ceasefire. Daytime patrolling by the British Army has been ended in the greater Belfast area, and in Derry, Newry and other centres the military presence is much reduced. I look forward to further early moves by the British authorities to reduce the profile of the security forces and to scale back the level of deployment in line with the situation now prevailing. I have been keeping and will continue to keep this matter under close review and look forward to discussing progress in this area with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, at our next meeting.

It is hardly necessary to point out that peace means much more than the absence of conflict. Now that the campaigns of violence have ended we must redouble our efforts to secure a lasting accommodation between all the traditions in Ireland, leading ultimately towards an agreed basis for living and working on this island.

The process of political dialogue on this island must now be an urgent priority for all. An accommodation, if it is to last, must be inclusive. No significant grouping can be left outside the process or excluded from its results. To secure an inclusive result we must have an inclusive process to search for it. No political party that has the welfare of its people at heart is entitled to stand aloof from the commitment to comprehensive political dialogue. No-one is entitled to say the necessary effort to find a solution must come only from others and not from themselves. Equally, I believe no political party should be excluded from the process of dialogue. The search for a solution is a common goal and touches every significant group in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, on this island. Once a democratic mandate and a commitment to exclusively democratic procedures is established all other differences are for negotiation at the table. There is too much at stake to squabble about special admission tickets at the door or to use entry to dialogue as a tactical bargaining chip, one way or another.

In the search for dialogue, the two Governments have responsibility to give the lead. That is very different from imposing a solution. It means rather supplying some creative thinking about avenues which the parties might profitably explore. It means promoting the conditions which will enable the parties not just to come to the table, which they should do of their own accord, but to negotiate fruitfully once they are there. This is what the framework document is intended to achieve. If that document is to serve any purpose, it must challenge all sides because a solution will be found only through significant movement on all sides.

Both Governments wish to see the framework document concluded at the earliest possible moment and we are working actively towards that end. While the discussions on the document are confidential, it is fair to say that considerable progress has been made. There are, of course, a number of outstanding issues requiring further attention and consideration and I look forward to discussing these with the Secretary of State when we meet shortly. As previously indicated, if sufficient progress can be achieved I would envisage an early summit meeting between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister which would agree and publish the document.

In view of the entirely distorted nature of some of the published comments on this matter in recent days, it may be useful to emphasise that the framework document will represent the common understanding of the two Governments on the key issues which must be addressed in future talks. As indicated previously, these include a balanced constitutional accommodation as well as new North-South structures and new East-West arrangements. It will be a framework for discussion. It will not be a blueprint to be imposed. The proposals which the two Governments make in the framework document will be put to the parties for discussion. They will have ample opportunity to give a full and considered reaction and to defend their positions in negotiations. Agreement and consent are the key concepts. If the lines envisaged in the joint framework document create difficulties, which they may well do on all sides, that is a matter to be sorted out in negotiations which will follow.

I want to see a framework document which is fair and balanced towards both traditions and which invites each to recognise the needs of the other and to advance towards them. That is the kind of document which the Taoiseach and I wish to see and it is the only one to which we will agree.

We have witnessed a remarkable chain of events over the past few months one which for the first time in a generation offers real hope that an entirely new chapter of our history is opening for all on this island. With the ending of the paramilitary campaigns there is now a unique opportunity to achieve progress towards an agreed settlement. It is important that all concerned respond with imagination and goodwill to ensure that this opportunity to is exploited to the full. There is, of course, a particular responsibility on the two Governments in this respect. There is also a wider responsibility on political parties and others in the public arena to play their part in building confidence and trust so that, while reflecting genuine differences, communities can be encouraged to find a way of healing past divisions and of living and working together in the future.

In recommending to the House that it approve the motion to end the state of national emergency, the Government is acting in pursuance of its commitment to promote and advance the peace process. In taking this step, it has had regard to the total transformation consequent on the cessation of the paramilitary campaigns of violence not only in this jurisdiction but throughout the island. It is entirely appropriate that a measure introduced in particular circumstances of difficulty and danger and which was always regarded as temporary in character should now cease to have effect.

We now have an opportunity to realise the goal of lasting peace to which all of us on this island have long aspired. The Government is determined to play its full part in that process. We look forward to early completion of the framework document. We look forward thereafter to comprehensive political negotiations getting under way as quickly as possible so that ultimately a lasting political settlement, based on agreement and consent, can be made a reality for all.

Question put and agreed to.