asked the Minister for Justice if he is in a position to introduce legislation to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 1965 and when the Bill proposing to incorporate the statutes of that convention will be initiated.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Racial Discrimination Legislation.
8.
A preliminary question arises as to whether in fact legislation is needed to give effect to the convention and, in so far as the convention covers matters coming within my areas of responsibility, I am not convinced that legislation is necessary.
If legislation is unnecessary, I think it would be undesirable to introduce it purely for the sake of meeting some possible argument that it was in fact necessary, because any legislation in this field would not only be extremely complex but would be liable to give rise to difficult problems of interpretation and administration. Without going into detailed legal argument, which I think would be both inappropriate and unhelpful, I would like to make it clear that it is not a situation where one can simply adopt the phraseology of the convention and leave it at that. The legislation, if legislation were necessary, could cause problems and raise issues far removed from anything that could reasonably have been in the minds of the farmers of the convention.
The matter has been under review in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office but the complexity of the matter is such that, should it ultimately be decided that legislation is necessary, I could not, as a matter of priorities, hold out any realistic prospect of legislation in the near future.
Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, indicated to me last week by way of reply to a question that legislation is necessary?
I am very much aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs are of the opinion that the convention cannot be ratified without there being legislation but I am letting the Deputy know of the difficulty which exists. The Department of Justice advise me that legislation is not necessary in this case. This impasse has existed for a number of years. I understand that efforts were made to untangle this knot in 1973 and again as recently as 13 February 1979, but there is a difference of opinion between the two Departments on the matter.
Is the Minister aware that the view of the Department of Foreign Affairs has been consistently that this matter requires legislation and that the position is simply that the Department of Justice are dragging their feet on it and have been doing so for a long number of years to the detriment of this country internationally? Has the time not come for a Government decision one way or another?
This matter has been on our table for a long number of years, including the four-and-a-half years during which the Deputy was Minister for Foreign Affairs.
To be frank about it, I failed to get a budget out of the Department of Justice during that time.
Deputy FitzGerald is correct in saying that the Department of Foreign Affairs have been consistent in their view with regard to the necessity for legislation but the Department of Justice are consistent also in their view that legislation is not necessary. From recent discussions and negotiations that we had with the Attorney-General's office, I believe that the Attorney-General is of the opinion also that the right is on the side of the Department of Justice. I can tell both Deputies that I, too, should be happy if this matter could be dealt with speedily and finalised.
Deputy Kelly was rightly complimentary yesterday regarding the Minister's approach to this problem, but let that approach not get in the way of reality.
Has the Deputy a question?
Would the Minister not agree that because of an internal professional dispute among civil servants who are not accountable to the public, this country stands unique among a minority of countries in the UN as not having ratified the convention in question? Either the Government are running the country or they are not running it.
If the Deputy dismisses the interpretation of legal argument merely as disagreement between civil servants, he is being unfair not only to himself but to the civil servants. There appears to be two views in this instance. One view is that legislation is necessary and the other is that legislation is not necessary. Unfortunately, this situation has dragged on for a long time. However, as I have said, if legislation is necessary I would not regard it as a priority because of there being so many other things to do. But because the matter in question has dragged on for so long we should all be happy that it would be resolved. It is not a question merely of civil servants not agreeing. It is a question of legal interpretation.
Can the Minister say when the Department of Justice notified the Department of Foreign Affairs that in the view of the Department of Justice legislation was not necessary as distinct from their unwillingness to proceed with the job of introducing the legislation?
The convention was drawn up in 1966. It was signed on behalf of this country in 1968 and the question of ratification was examined in 1973. At that time the Department of Foreign Affairs were informed by the Department of Justice that in their view the convention, subject if necessary to consulting the Attorney-General, could be ratified without legislation. This view has been repeated several times since.
We must finalise this question.
Is it not time that the Government took a decision on a matter — a matter ignored initially for five years under a Fianna Fáil Government — which was raised by us in office but not brought to fruition and which has dragged on again for the three years that this Government have been in power? After these 12 years should the matter not be settled so that we might ratify the convention and get ourselves out of the uncomfortable and invidious position in which we find ourselves internationally in regard to this convention?
I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the matter is finalised but I do not get any pleasure out of the prolonging of the situation.
We do not get any pleasure either from the spectacle of a Minister being unable to move because of a reluctance on the part of civil servants.
Has the Deputy a question?
In support of what Deputy FitzGerald has said, would the Minister not consider that, in view of the probability of Ireland becoming a member of the Security Council of the UN within the next six months, a sense of urgency should be introduced by him to the relevant section of the Department to have this matter resolved so that we might take our place among the other nations and say that the convention has been ratified by us?
The Deputy's question is based on the assumption that the Department of Justice are holding up the matter, but I am assured that that is not the case. However, should I be proved wrong in that regard I shall do whatever is necessary to have the matter resolved.
The Government must take a decision on this matter one way or another.
Let us be straight about this. Deputy FitzGerald should not wear his ex-Foreign Affairs hat here and assume that the Department of Justice are at fault.
I am not making any assumption. This is a matter on which the Government should reach a decision. Surely that is what Governments are for.
I cannot allow any further supplementaries on this question. There are many more questions to be dealt with.