Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1993

Vol. 435 No. 4

Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Minister for State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to update the Commissioners for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Act, 1931, and the Diplomatic and Consular Fees Act, 1939, by redefining diplomatic and consular officers entitled to administer them and to consolidate the two Acts. It is essentially a tidying up of legislation that has become outdated.

The 1931 Act enables specified diplomatic, consular and honorary consular officers serving outside the State to administer oaths, take affidavits and carry out notarial acts. It renders such services done abroad as effective as if done by or before any lawful authority within the State. The Act also empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make regulations by order in relation to the fees to be charged in respect of those services.

The 1939 Act supplements the 1931 Act. It empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make regulations fixing the fees to be charged for servcies other than those authorised by the earlier Act — for example, passport, visa and general consular fees. The 1939 Act applies to services rendered by the same categories of diplomatic, consular and honorary consular officers serving outside the State as are mentioned in the 1931 Act but it can also apply to any officer whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs may appoint specially for the purposes of the 1939 Act.

Amending legislation is required because the ranks of diplomatic and consular officers listed in these two Acts have become obsolete. Many of them, such as High Commissioner or First Secretary of Legation, no longer exist. More importantly, some officers who are expected to provide the services mentioned and to collect fees, such as Ambassadors, Third Secretaries and Honorary Consuls-General, are not specifically identified in either of these Acts.

The Bill therefore updates the lists of the ranks of diplomatic and consular officers entitled to administer the 1931 and 1939 Acts. The definitions and descriptions of diplomatic and consular officers contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 —"head of mission", "member of the diplomatic staff", "career consular officer" and "honorary consular officer"— are used. Those two Conventions have the force of law in Ireland through the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act, 1967.

On the advice of the Parliamentary Draftsman, the Bill also consolidates the 1931 and 1939 Acts so that the services provided and the fees charged by diplomatic and consular officers can now be covered by just one Act. This is essentially a tidying up of outdated legislation bringing us into line with the fact that many of the titles such as High Commissioner, and First Secretary of Legation no longer exist.

Mrs. Owen

We do not oppose this tidying up Bill. It is good to see antiquated legislation being dealt with. It is time many other antiquated Acts were looked at. Many of the citizenship Acts, which come under the ambit of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Justice, need to be tidied up.

I welcome this Bill. The titles in the 1931 and 1939 Acts read like something out of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. Like the words out of one of the songs, they refer to the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary.

Mr. M. McDowell

No reference should be made to Deputy Higgins.

Mrs. Owen

No. We have the Councillor of Legation and a First Secretary of the Office of the High Commissioner. I was recently at a showing of "The Mikado" where they had the First Secretary of the Office of the Lord High Executioner. I just wonder that such a person is not on this list along with the Honorary Consul and an Honorary Vice Consul. I gather that these terms are no longer used.

I welcome the fact that our ambassadors have been given this extra power. This Bill also gives us an opportunity to raise a couple of other issues with regard to our diplomatic and consular officers. Over the years a number of Ministers for Foreign Affairs have expressed the desire for our embassies abroad to become more "hands on" in selling Ireland, with a move away from the honorary positions which ambassadors have held over the years. By and large, it is a very diplomatic task — representatives go around the various receptions on national days and discuss foreign policy with their counterparts. Having regard to our lack of resources in providing services throughout the world, it is important that our ambassadors extend their role and seek contacts and business opportunities for Ireland and encourage foreigners to visit Ireland as tourists or become involved in business ventures. For that reason we need resources to expand the service. If we do not speculate we will not accumulate.

The diplomatic services do a very good job and could do more. I gather that the Department is considering opening three new missions in the new year — an embassy in South Africa, overseas development offices in Uganda and in Ethiopia which will be staffed by Foreign Affairs and other technical people. At the moment we have 34 foreign missions in Dublin and 40 Irish missions abroad. I know that development offices are not embassies in the real sense, but having dealt with a number of development offices in Zambia, Sudan and Lesotho I know they have to acquire the status of embassy in order to be able to communicate with other embassies and that they act as ambassadors for us in those countries. They are in the front line in assisting those countries and in seeking out opportunities for Ireland.

Although it comes under the ambit for the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will have a direct interest in our reluctance to honour applications for Irish passports from many people living in the US, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. In 1986 the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act was introduced. It contained a deadline of December 31 by which people had to apply for Irish citizenship and have it registered to entitle them to passports, thus enabling their children in turn to be entitled to Irish citizenship. At the time the Department did not anticipate the huge number of applications that would be received. Throughout the world the embassies and consular offices had to cope with queues, which lasted for two and three days, of people wishing to sign on for Irish citizenship. Applications were received by 31 December, but staffing was not adequate to register these applications. There are now thousands of people throughout the US, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand who have paid their fees and are eligible for Irish citizenship but have not got it. I have raised this issue year after year since 1986 and every Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Justice tells me that they are doing a trawl, a review of all citizenship Acts, in order to make this amendment.

In 1987 the Attorney General indicated that amending legislation was required to register the applications which had been received but not registered before 31 December 1986. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State present to take an active interest in this matter and, in conjunction with the Minister for Justice, to correct this anomaly. We have gone cap in hand to the United States authorities to beg them to extend citizenship rights to our citizens in the United States illegally. Yet, when we are called upon to return the favour we cannot do so and have failed to do so during the past six or seven years. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to take a personal interest in this matter and to press the Government to introduce the amending legislation because, if it does not, I will do so myself. All that is required is a one line Bill.

Our ambassadors are being hounded. On a recent visit to the United Nations in New York this issue was raised with me yet again by the Ambassador and some of his staff. They have been approached by people in Congress and individuals. Indeed, one such applicant came to see me in New York to put the case on his own behalf and on behalf of a number of others who want their citizenship confirmed. The dollars they paid have been held in our Embassy's bank accounts for the past seven years and have not been used.

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this issue in the debate on the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill. Although it is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice to introduce the amending legislation it is the Minister of State's officials who are causing the delay. I would like him to make the necessary resources available to allow the applications to be processed.

Mr. M. McDowell

I support the Bill and can find nothing, in principle, wrong with it. Therefore, I do not intend to waste the time of the House by expanding on the subject. However, I have now been spurred on by Deputy Owen and wish, without being disorderly and irrelevant, to support the points she made about the Citizenship and Nationality Act. I know of people who were left in no man's land due to the failure of the Department to deal with the problem which it had created. It is wrong that a Department which was obliged to carry out this function, the registration of applicants for Irish citizenship, as a matter of law by a specific date should have failed to do so and in the process leaving people with no right of redress except to wait for the mills of legislation to grind slowly and finely through the small detail of citizenship and nationality legislation.

I anticipate from the discussions during the renegotiation of the Progressive Democrats-Fianna Fáil Programme for Government 1991 that citizenship and nationality legislation is on the way and that not only will it contain provisions to deal with the issue raised by Deputy Owen it will also — this is more worrying — deprive children born in Ireland of citizenship on the basis that their parents are illegal aliens. I warn the Government that that legislation will not go through without a strong debate. It would be a retrograde step if children born in Ireland were deprived of citizenship because their parents are aliens.

Mr. Deasy

I am glad to have an opportunity to make a contribution on this legislation. I hold strong views on the question of diplomatic representation, career diplomats or honorary consuls. I recall that when I was Minister for Agriculture I advocated that some people from the private sector should be appointed ambassadors and honorary consuls rather than confining the appointments to career diplomats. For my pains I was keel-hauled by the Taoiseach of the day. I deeply resented this.

I have continued to advocate this in the House by way of parliamentary question and during debates on foreign affairs matters because it would be of immense value, from the point of view of job creation, if a significant number of successful people from the business sector and professional people were appointed ambassadors or honorary consuls. We should expand our diplomatic service as there is no better way of gaining access to Ministers, Prime Ministers, Presidents and the captains of industry than through the diplomatic service. Ambassadors and honorary consuls are invited to every kind of reception where political leaders and leaders in industry are present. They can make invaluable contacts.

I wish to make a comparison with the position in New Zealand which is similar to this country and largely dependent on agriculture. New Zealand appoints ambassadors and honorary consuls on the basis of a person's ability to lobby and influence Government Ministers and industrialists. In my capacity as Minister for Agriculture I was lobbied continuously by the New Zealand ambassador to Ireland who was also accredited to the United Kingdom. He knew agriculture inside out. Each time I went to mainland Europe I was sure to meet the New Zealand ambassador who wished to lobby me on the question of the entry of New Zealand agricultural products, including lamb, butter and milk products, to the European Community. I fail to see why we should allow ourselves to be restrained by a straitjacket which dates back to 1922 when the State was founded.

Our diplomatic service is the spitting image of the British diplomatic service but does not serve the same purpose. The British diplomatic service was designed to deal with an empire which covered almost half the world.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to intervene; the Chair has clearly allowed discretion in dealing with a limited Bill. We cannot range widely over foreign affairs on this measure and having allowed latitude to previous speakers — and to the Deputy in possession — I wish that Members would have strict regard to the measure before us.

Mr. Deasy

Confined as the Bill is, I think I am being relevant — the Clerk of the Dáil has not even blinked since I began. You yourself, a Cheann Comhairle, being a sport, appreciate that what I say makes sense.

An Ceann Comhairle

That may be so, Deputy, but the Chair has an obligation to try to get Members to have regard to the measure before the House.

Mrs. Owen

Keep mentioning the word "diplomatic".

Mr. Deasy

If I can get rid of the cobwebs that are literally choking Iveagh House and its incumbents I will do so. However, I do not wish to come into conflict with the Chair. I am asking the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and his deputy to show a bit of initiative. We have a process here by which we could substantially reduce the number of unemployed by gearing our diplomatic corps towards promoting Ireland abroad and lobbying the people I have spoken about, Heads of State and heads of industry. Surely that is not too much to ask. All it requires is a little bit of initiative.

I have yet to see a Minister for Foreign Affairs who has that initiative. I might as well be speaking to the wall today if past experience is to be repeated. As far as job creation and attracting industry and industrialists to this country is concerned, I would expect people in high places, people like the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to react; but there has been no reaction. I can do no more than make a plea for some initiative to be taken. Nobody in this House seems to care, but I do. Other countries — for example, the United States — bring in the captains of industry when it suits them and appoint them as ambassadors abroad. I am not saying we should eliminate career diplomats, but we should have a mix. Some career diplomats are very good, some are very bad and quite a few are mediocre. There is the good, the bad and the indifferent, and that is not good enough. We should have the best people from all strands working abroad on behalf of this country.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am speaking to this Bill from an unusual angle, not as a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, which would obviously give me an interest, but as the only notary public in this House. This Bill is timely. It is sensible that we should tidy up these old Acts. The huge lacunae existing in these old Acts confirm yet again the need for patient debate on Bills that come before this House. It sounds crazy to us that ambassadors and third secretaries were not specifically provided for in the old legislation of 1939, but if the Bill had been teased out properly at the time they would have been provided for. This confirms the need for full discussion on Bills, no matter how simple they appear.

The Minister tells us that this legislation is essentially to tidy up legislation that has become outdated, and from that point of view we support it. The position in regard to our ambassadors has been referred to. At this stage we have 40 Irish missions abroad. As a small island nation it is essential that we should be represented abroad and should not have an introverted, parochial outlook on the world. In so far as resources permit it is important that we have full representation throughout the world and that those who represent us abroad have full powers to do so.

We can look at representation abroad in a purely diplomatic sense or in a broader sense. I much prefer to look at it in the broader sense. No matter where one travels throughout the world one finds Irish people. For a variety of historical reasons we as a people have had a great tradition of seeking out the furthest corners of the globe. One finds Irish people everywhere, not just in the UK and the US. I recall going on a mission to Lesotho and coming across three people not just from Ireland but from my own constituency in south-west Cork. If one keeps digging one will always find a few gold nuggets.

Mrs. Owen

Were they still on the register at home?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I suppose their families were appreciative of the contact made with them. It just illustrates the point that a small country of only 1.5 million people was represented in a place like that, not just by Irish people but by people from my own area.

We should encourage the development of our diplomatic service, but we must do it for a purpose. We must bear in mind that our representatives are put there by their political masters for a specific purpose. The onus is then on the Government of the day to clearly define the functions and duties of our representatives abroad. It is in that context that there should be some re-evaluation of the present situation. Of course our representatives are there as diplomats, to look after our own people and to do what is provided for in this Bill in the context of consular activites, administering oaths, taking affidavits and carrying out notarial acts. However, there must be a much broader definition of their function today. They must be in a position to clearly enunicate the efforts of our Government in relation to Northern Ireland and dispel the myths that exist about the problems on our island. I regard that as a particular function of our representation abroad.

The question of trade was touched on by my colleague, Deputy Deasy. In this area our diplomats have sometimes not been given proper credit for what they are trying to do. There has not been a sufficient level of decision making by Government on how the diplomatic service can be incorporated more into our trade operations. I know there is an involvement, particularly in the old Communist bloc countries, where everything was done on a state to state level. However, we must go further. I have always favoured the idea of a "one stop shop" abroad, an Ireland House concept in other countries, where the ambassador would have a role. It is a total waste of money to have semi-State bodies with different offices in capitals throughout the world. This is particularly applicable in the United States and to a degree in countries in Europe. The right approach is to aim towards having an Ireland House in each of these centres, with our ambassadors fronting activities and helping to open the door from the point of view of inward investment and dealing with trade aspects.

Another area worth mentioning in the context of this Bill is the consular service. I am not sure how many honorary consuls we have abroad. Perhaps the Minister could tell me.

Mr. T. Kitt

There are 56 at the moment.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

My understanding is that the position is an honorary one and holders of it receive a few hundred pounds a year to cover postal charges. They also get a CD plate.

It is time to review our consular service system. I would favour extending it if we can get people to represent us in out of the way places for such nominal sums. During the years in emergencies, such as sudden deaths or accidents abroad, invariably the officials in Iveagh House and the honorary consul in the foreign destination co-operated fully and went out of their way to help. They are not appreciated and I would like to record that we very much appreciate their help in such emergencies. The Government might consider reviewing our consular postings. Suggestions have been made that some holders of consular posts might not be the most suitable representatives. I am not sure if there is any question of terminating such appointments. The Government should give more recognition to honorary consuls who are doing an excellent job on behalf of the country for very little reward and examine the possibility of extending the list of consuls to provide a wider network of representation throughout the world at very little cost.

There is a latent resource of talent in the Department of Foreign Affairs and it behoves us to use such talent to the best advantage. All the officials are not whizz kids but from my experience they try their best and many are very capable. In a country with 300,000 unemployed and which depends largely on foreign trade, it behoves the Government to ensure that this resource of talent is used to the best advantage. I do not believe that is happening at present and I urge the Minister to consider how we might best use that resource.

Donning a notarial hat, I am pleased that henceforth ambassadors will be able to perform the function I perform as a notary public, administer oaths and witness affidavits abroad. It is a small additional function but it should not take in any way from their main function and perhaps additional functions in the future.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. T. Kitt)

I will outline the five functions of a diplomatic mission. It represents an ascending State and the receiving State. In the receiving State it protects the interests of the ascending State and its nationals within the limits permitted by international law. It negotiates with the Government of the receiving State. It ascertains by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State and reports thereon to the Government of the ascending State. It promotes friendly relations between the ascending State and the receiving State and develops their economic, cultural and scientific relations. This has been a useful debate. Primarily, this Bill is tidying up legislation from the 1930s.

I appreciate the Chair has allowed the Deputies who contributed to widen the debate and they raised some important points. Deputies O'Keeffe, Deasy and Owen referred to the role of our ambassadors and our diplomatic service. My experience would not be as long as some Members. I will respond to Deputy Deasy's remarks about the involvement of the private sector in the diplomatic and consular service. I have been impressed by the activities of our diplomatic service. Our diplomats are well trained in a wide range of areas and their work requires them to address many difficult economic issues. They are involved in promoting trade and investment. From my experience of dealing with officials in the European Community, there is no doubt that our ambassadors have a central role to play in working closely with Ministers and Ministers in the receiving States. They must be up to date with the Maastricht Treaty legislation and current economic and monetary policies. Having met some of our ambassadors, and had briefings from them, especially in the European Community, I know they are fulfilling a very useful role and acting in a pro-active way.

Last Thursday I represented the Tánaiste at a meeting in Germany because a confidence vote was tabled in the House. In Frankfurt I met some industrialists who plan to invest here. Two meetings were held at which officials of the IDA and our ambassador were present. That example highlights how one of our ambassadors is pro-actively involved working as part of a team with the IDA. The ambassador is well known to local Ministers, industrialists and works well with the people in Germany who plan to invest here. As a result of that visit approximately 300 jobs will be created shortly. Last Thursday I addressed a luncheon organised by the Germany-Irish Business Association with the help of our ambassador. We should applaud the work undertaken by our ambassadors. There are many more examples of the work of our ambassadors in promoting Ireland abroad.

Recently I visited Japan. Deputies present will be aware of the importance of that country in our approach to investment and economic expansion. Our ambassador to Japan who has a difficult mission, is closely involved with the business community and is aware of where the opportunities lie. He is well known to Ministers and civil servants in Japan. Our ambassadors abroad are well trained and are familiar with what is happening in the countries where they are resident. I appreciate that we must monitor their work. I assure the House that the Tánaiste and I are conscious of the points raised and I thank the Deputies for their remarks.

The size of our diplomatic service is under constant review and its expansion is subject to available resources. For example, we recently expanded our diplomatic service to Helsinki and in the near future will expand to Pretoria.

I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe's suggestion that we need to monitor closely the activities of our consular missions. We have 56 honorary consuls and they were mainly chosen because they are effective business people and have good contacts in the private sector. They are key people in the business world and promote our policy of economic expansion. Our honorary consul in Nairobi had a central role to play in our dealings with the problems in Somalia and Sudan, both of which countries I visited. Other Ministers when visiting these countries, particularly Somalia were very impressed with the work of our honorary consul in Nairobi who, in many cases, works throughout the night to receive Ministers visiting those countries.

Citizen legislation was mentioned. As Deputies are aware, this is a matter for the Minister for Justice. We are well aware of the problems mentioned by Deputy Owen and the necessary amending legislation will be brought forward by the Minister for Justice as soon as possible. I understand and share the concerns of Deputies and I will convey them to the Minister. The legislation is well overdue and it is unacceptable that people be left in limbo for so long.

This has been a useful debate in that Deputies have made constructive comments about our diplomatic services. This is essentially a tidying up Bill. It removes anachronisms but does not change the law relating to the provision of consular services, an important and basic function of every foreign Minister. I thank Deputies for their constructive approach and their detailed comments. The changes that needed to be made to the 1931 and 1939 Acts were relatively minor and such matters tend to be overtaken by more urgent issues. Finally, I propose that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 94 (1), Paragraph 4 of that committee's terms of reference.

Question put and agreed to.