On the second point, it is inherent in the nature of the decision to make the Bill a general one, capable of application to other instances, that the Bill cannot refer to the Lomé Convention. Either it seeks to limit itself to the particular task to hand or it is to be drafted in a general way, as we have drafted it, in case similar issues arise and to avoid the need to come to the House again in those circumstances. If one chooses to do the latter, as we have chosen to do, and cautiously because of the possibilities of the future then the Bill is necessarily general in character and there is no way in which one can bring the Lomé Convention into it without making it specific and thereby undermining the purpose of making it general.
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in terms there and one has to do one thing or the other. The Deputy may well argue that we should stick to the Lomé Convention at this stage and let other things take their course. He could argue that there is no imminent probability of a similar relationship with other states and that we should wait to see if that will happen, but I think it is better to provide for it in this way. Once we decide to provide for it in that way we can not work the Lomé Convention into the Bill as such.
Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question as to whether the ACP states are an organisation. I am in doubt about this. It is possible that they are not but it is a legal point and one which would be interesting to debate but it might have to be decided in The Hague or somewhere like that. I am not sure what would determine what is an international organisation. There are many loose comings together of countries and this is particularly true amongst the developing countries who come together on an ad hoc basis. They may have a secretariat but are they an organisation? I know one such grouping of countries in the developing world in respect of which it was not possible for us to discover who held the presidency of it, what were the rules for the presidency or how long the presidency lasted. The countries concerned, including a country which was reputed to hold the presidency, were not in a position to indicate to us what the position was.
In the kind of international organisations which the Deputy listed as being in the original Bill there is great precision and legal detail and things being tied down tightly so that we know where we are but there are organisations, loose associations of countries, which are more vague and it would be hard to say what constitutes an organisation in that respect. In the case of the ACP states they came together ad
hoc for this negotiation. At the time they came together great doubts were expressed as to whether they could come together and stick together. Some of us urged them to do so and they did with remarkable success despite the great divergence of individual interests. The fact they did stick together was what made this regulation worth while and to ensure it was a success. They stuck together as an ad hoc group for this purpose. I am not sure, therefore, whether ACP is an organisation and I am not sure how one could legally determine whether it is an organisation or not.
Whether it is or not is irrelevant in the sense that section 40 of the Act under which one can designate international organisation, community or body for the purpose of giving these immunities, applies only to bodies of which we are a member. Even if the ACP States were to be defined as an organisation it still would not come under section 40 because we do not belong to it and are unlikely to. We have heard of another nearby country thinking of joining a foreign organisation some distance away but whatever about that happening it is unlikely that we would join the ACP States. The need for legislation arises because of a defect in the 1967 Act. When I say defect I do not say it by way of criticism of those who introduced it. When I debated it in the Seanad it never struck me, and I can understand why it did not strike the Government, that the case we are now facing would arise. It is a lacuna in the Act for reasons that are understandable but it is one that has to be filled somehow by legislation. That cannot be done by order because we are not a member of ACP, even if ACP is an organisation. The legislation is necessary and this form of legislation, although on the face of it it does not tell people why it was necessary when introduced, gives us the possibility of dealing with similar cases in the future with all due safeguards for the Dáil which will have to approve the agreement in question and will have the opportunity of annulling any order made under this Bill.
