Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this speech in context