Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1993

Vol. 436 No. 7

Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages.

Mrs. Owen

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 23, after "1967" to insert ", and in accordance with Article 8c of the Treaty on European Union 1993".

We have resubmitted our three amendments which had been tabled on Committee Stage because the Minister said he would come back at Report Stage on all the issues we raised. The purpose of this amendment is to include in the first section of the Bill our responsibilities under Article 8c of the Treaty on European Union 1993. Article 8c of that Treaty states:

Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the member state of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any member state, on the same conditions as the nationals of that state. Before 31 December 1993, member states shall establish the necessary rules among themselves and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection.

I understand that on 28 October a Commission document which raised this particular article was issued. Part of Article 8c was implemented as far back as July 1993 whereby a letter issued to all the embassies of EU members in nonmember states instructing them to give certain help and assistance to members of other EU countries. The agreement now is that by 31 January 1994 the regulations must be agreed among the member states.

If the Minister does not accept this amendment I am afraid that regulations will be agreed by the member states before 1 January 1994 and that he will then have to bring in legislation to implement these regulations. The purpose of including our responsibilities under the Treaty in this Bill is that it allows the Minister to implement regulations afterwards. If the Minister has discussed this matter with his officials he will have found that it will not cause any great difficulty but it will ensure that the legislation we are now amending will not require further amendment in another two months. I am very interested to hear what examination the Minister has carried out since Committee Stage on this issue. This is the first diplomatic legislation I have handled since I came into this House. It would be a shame to lose this opportunity to fulfil our obligations. Perhaps the Minister can say what part Ireland is playing in these discussions for the preparation of the regulations to implement Article 8c.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It is important to dwell on the last point raised by my colleague, Deputy Owen. Because legislation emanating from the Department of Foreign Affairs is almost as rare as snow in the middle of summer the Minister will not have the opportunity to deal with the points we have raised in other legislation in the near future.

The substance of the amendment relates to the new situation arising from the Maastricht Treaty. It is important that we discharge our obligations under the Maastricht Treaty and this is the first opportunity we have had to include the provision in question in legislation; more importantly, that part of the Maastricht Treaty will probably be of greater benefit to Irish citizens than to the citizens of other member states such as the United Kingdom, Germany or France. The larger member states have diplomatic representation all over the world, indeed there is hardly a country where France or the UK do not have diplomatic representation whereas, because we have to cut our cloth according to our measure, the number of embassies we have is necessarily limited. Obviously it suits us to ensure that our citizens have an entitlement to go to the embassy of another state regardless of where they are in the world but I do not think we can tell our citizens that they can avail of that facility unless we ensure that in our small way we reciprocate. That is why we are pressing the Minister on this issue and I hope he will take the amendment on board in the spirit in which it is offered.

Mr. Hogan

It is not good enough that Ireland dines à la carte in choosing what it should implement of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union. If we are serious about implementing the spirit of the Maastricht Treaty, to which Ireland is a signatory, we should be seeking to do so at every possible opportunity as appropriate legislation arises. As my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, has pointed out, it is seldom that the Minister for Foreign Affairs gets an opportunity to enact legislation. Acceptance of this amendment gives Irish citizens an opportunity to be represented in third countries where we have no representation at present. That is certainly an important step forward, particularly for citizens in countries where Ireland has no diplomatic or consular representation. We are told there are financial reasons for not establishing embassies or consulates and we accept that we cannot be represented in all jurisdictions around the world. However, an opportunity exists whereby our citizens can have recourse to other embassies who will make representations on their behalf.

The Fine Gael amendment is merely to implement the Treaty on European Union in its entirety by giving the Minister a unique opportunity to enshrine in legislation the provisions of that Treaty, to which we were glad to be a signatory. I regret the Minister has brought forward further amendments at very short notice as this did not give us enough time to consider their implications. He, however, had sufficient notice of our amendment to ensure that Article 8 (c) of the Treaty of European Union is implemented as quickly as possible. There is no time like the present in order to ensure that Irish citizens abroad have recourse to consulates and embassies, even though it may not be Irish but a consulate or embassy of a member state.

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

We have had time to look at this amendment since we last met. I very much appreciate the points made by the three Deputies. However, I have to point out that we have to deal with the legislation from an Irish perspective. We do not need new legislation to be part of the EC consular co-operation. I will explain this further. We have the guidelines, to which Deputy Owen refers, for protection of EC nationals by EC missions in third countries and we are actively and centrally involved in the discussions on this matter.

In order to explain where we are coming from I will make a few points. The section, as it stands makes it clear that the terms, "career consular officer" and "honorary consular officer", have the meaning given to them in the Vienna Convention on consular relations. Section 2 of the Bill states that it applies to certain civil servants and other officers appointed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, all obviously officers and representatives of this State. What would it mean, if the amendment were accepted, that career consular officers and honorary consular officers were to be interpreted in accordance with Article 8 (c) of the Treaty on European Union? The point I am making is that it could be conceivably interpreted as meaning that consular officers of other states in the European Union could have powers under the Act equal to those of Irish officers. Whereas the intentions of the Members opposite are very honourable, the phraseology used in this amendment could be interpreted as meaning what I just stated. That is the intention of neither this Bill nor Article 8 (c) of the Treaty. It is not necessary for officers of other European Union states to have such powers in order to put Article 8 (c) into effect. Each state applies its own laws and regulations concerning diplomatic and consular protection to all citizens of the European Union to countries outside the union without distinction. Article 8 (c) is about equality of treatment of citizens of the European Union, to whom certain diplomatic and consular services are rendered.

This Bill is about Irish officials' entitlement to provide diplomatic and consular services and these two different issues should not be confused. The services, which are the subject of this Bill are available to people of all nationalities. The possible effect of amending section 1, as proposed, would be to restrict the application of the Act to citizens of the European Union only, and nobody wants that. That is a point I made when we last discussed this matter.

I very much appreciate that in proposing this amendment Deputy Owen was mainly concerned with acknowledging in the Bill the fact that European Union is now a reality with a diplomatic and consular dimension. Much though we sympathise with that, we have found no way — though I did say that we would look at this in detail — of putting in a reference to Article 8 (c) to the Treaty on European Unity which would not adversely affect the substance of what is essentially a simple Bill to tidy up outdated legislation from the thirties. Much as I appreciate what the Deputies are trying to do, it could adversely affect those outside the European Union. This Bill deals specifically with legislation from the thirties that needs to be updated. As I mentioned already the guidelines set the extent of the co-operation for the time being and there is no question of being up to date with our partners.

While I very much appreciate the Deputies' intentions, there is no need for legislation to be a party to the EC consular co-operation. That is an on-going process. I will take the Deputies' points on board but we simply cannot incorporate the intent of the amendment in the manner it is presented.

Mrs. Owen

I thank the Minister for his response. The debate has been very useful and I am glad that this amendment has come from Fine Gael. It highlights the responsibilities we will have under Article 8 (c) of the Treaty. However, I am prepared to accept in good faith the Minister's explanation that the amendment is not needed in this Bill. I hope for his sake that we will not be back in a couple of months having to put through legislation to implement these new regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 1 (a) in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and I am suggesting therefore that we discuss amendments Nos. 1 (a), 4 and 5 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. Owen

I am not surprised that the Minister of State cannot find the amendments. We only received them. It is not satisfactory to be handed amendments for the first time when we are sitting in the Chamber. Will the Minister explain what happened?

Mr. T. Kitt

I move amendment No. 1 (a):

In page 2, line 30, after "1967" to insert "and ‘mission' shall be construed accordingly".

I too am concerned when things are brought to my attention as I come into the Chamber, but it would be irresponsible of us not to table amendments if we spot something. This amendment covers a minor point which needs to be dealt with.

Section 1 concerns the powers of an officer abroad to exercise his or her functions and the amendment to it is a minor technical one. Section 5 (2) as it stands indicates that when the person seals the document it would appear that the seal is the person's personal seal whereas officers do not have personal seals but have authority to use the official seal of the mission. The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to make it clear that the seal which will be used can be either a personal seal or an official seal. Because we are changing the personal seal to the official seal we must also adopt amendment No. 1 (a).

These amendments are being proposed to bring the legislation up to date. Official seals are used in missions abroad now although some personal seals may be still around. I appreciate that this matter came to our attention just before we entered the Chamber, but I ask for Deputies' co-operation as this amendment is only a minor technical one.

Mrs. Owen

We will accept these amendments although it is not satisfactory to produce them in this way. These are only tidying up amendments but they could be more serious. This is not the way to treat the Opposition.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We should not let the occasion pass without hammering home the point about the slipshod manner in which this amendment was tabled although we do not have any problem with the technical nature of it. This Bill was circulated on 20 October and we had a good Committee Stage debate on it in the Select Committee. The Minister of State should bring to the attention of his Minister that we expect better from him. I spent five years in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I do not recall one Bill in that time, so this is a rare bird. However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs should be able to handle the situation a little better. Members of the Opposition tabled amendments last week and when we started Report Stage the Government had not tabled any amendments. It is not good enough to circulate a badly typed, virtually illegible amendment informing us for the first time that amendments are being tabled by the Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should bear that in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Owen

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 4 to 6 and substitute the following:

"(c) Any officer of the Minister appointed by the Minister to whom sections 3 (other than subsection (2) thereof) and 4 but not sections 5 and 6 of this Act apply.".

We suggested this amendment on Committee Stage and the Minister said he would consider it carefully before Report Stage. This is a tidying up amendment essentially relating to section 2 which sets out specific persons under paragraphs (a) and (b), but for some reason although it describes another type of person it does not go on to (c). Our amendment would make the Bill more user-friendly. The Minister did not have time to consider the amendment at that time although he got advice that the meaning was the same.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This is purely a drafting amendment but the presentation of his subsection in the form now prescribed by my colleague is a little better. It is difficult enough for lay people to understand Bills, because of the jargon in them, but the presentation suggested here by Deputy Owen makes this clearer so I suggest that the Minister accept the amendment.

Mr. T. Kitt

I sympathise with the two Deputies.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister should accept the amendment.

Mr. T. Kitt

I agree with the Deputies' points perhaps because this is updating 1930s legislation, but since our last discussion I have been advised that even though the inclusion of the Deputy's amendment would give a neater appearance the meaning of the third part of the section would be rendered less clear than it is now. I am concerned about the legalities. If I accepted the amendment, it would need to be tidied up by the addition of the words "to be a person to whom sections 3 (other than subsection (2) thereof) and 4 but not sections 5 and 6 of this Act apply" after "Any officer of the Minister appointed by the Minister"

Mrs. Owen

He would still have to be a person. He would not be an animal.

Mr. T. Kitt

"To be a person to whom" would be grammatically correct.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

He would not be a vegetable or mineral.

Mr. T. Kitt

I have an open mind on this. It is not worth dividing the House on it. I understand the Deputies' point but I am advised that the amendment would make it less clear than it is now. In general terms I accept that legislation should be put together in a more user-friendly way but we are stuck with this in that it has come from the 1930s. I hope the Deputies will accept my explanation.

Mrs. Owen

The section states that this Act applies to the following persons, and then it sets out —"(a) a civil servant and (b) an honorary consular officer" and "and, other than sections 5 and 6, shall also apply to any officer". I cannot understand why the person drafting the section did not insert "(c) any officer of the Minister". I do not propose dividing the House on the matter, but will the Minister consider tabling a similar amendment in the Seanad?

Mr. T. Kitt

I will consider that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Owen

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, after line 45, to insert the following:

"(d) where fees have been collected for a particular service (including applications for registration in the Foreign Births Register in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or in the Foreign Births Entry Book kept in missions abroad), the restriction on the delivery of such service arising from statutory time limits shall not apply.".

I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage when there was a lively discussion on the reasoning behind this amendment, namely, that this country stands indicted because it has not yet given Irish passports to thousands of people who applied and are eligible for such passports under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986. Because of the requirement to make a small amendment to the legislation, which has been outstanding for seven years, those Irish citizens have still not been able to receive their passports. It is important to highlight also that consuls in America, South Africa and Australia are holding in their bank accounts moneys paid by thousands of people who applied for those passports. That has been the case for seven years and one assumes the Department is receiving interest on the money and probably availing of the use of it. The bottom line is that those who paid for the right to hold Irish passports have not received them and the next generation is being born to many of those involved. While in New York I met at least two people who fall into this category, one of whom has had a child since applying for the passport. That person wanted to know the status of the newborn child and whether he or she would be entitled to a passport. I would like the Minister to clarify that matter.

On Committee Stage the Minister took on board the points made and promised to take up the issue with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice. I subsequently tabled a question to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to copper-fasten the commitment given by the Minister on Committee Stage, but again the reply was that the matter was being pursued. I hope the Minister will tell us today that he has received a commitment from the Minister for Justice that the one or two line amendment to the legislation is being framed and will be submitted to Government for approval before we go begging to the US for visas for those who wish to attend the World Cup next year. I will have an opportunity tomorrow to meet the Under Secretary of State, Mary Ryan, who is here to discuss the availability of visas for Irish citizens going to the World Cup next year. We will make all sorts of cases for our citizens. People who normally would not be eligible for such visas will be begging, cajoling and charming the Americans into giving them visas while this diplomatic courtesy to thousands of Americans has not been fulfilled. I would remind the Minister that on 23 March 1993, in reply to a parliamentary question the Minister for Justice stated:

..., it is my view that the situation needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency bearing in mind the case cited by the Deputy and the many other similar cases which have remained unresolved for some years. It is my intention to submit proposals to the Government as soon as possible.

I do not know how the Government defines the term "as soon as possible". On Question Time today the Taoiseach attempted to define the term "in a few weeks" which we now know is approximately nine months. Does the term "as soon as possible" have the same meaning? We are aproaching the ninth month following that commitment by the Minister for Justice. I look forward to a reply from the Minister of State stating that this disgraceful position will no longer continue.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

In all my time in this House I have not seen such a disgraceful example of bureaucratic inertia. That, coupled with the lack of political will to resolve this problem, has disgraced us before the nations of the world. At times one tends to use hyperbole in describing certain situations, but in this case the extent to which we have disgraced ourselves cannot be exaggerated. A total of 4,000 people have had a moral claim against this country for almost eight years and we have ignored them.

Those people have also a legal claim against us and if they took that case they would succeed. Approximately 4,000 people lodged applications for Irish citizenship in good faith before the relevant closing date. That did not take place yesterday, last week, last month or, indeed, last year; it took place in 1986. They were given a deadline for lodging their applications, namely, midnight on 31 December 1986. They were assured that provided their applications were in order and submitted before the deadline, the requisite entry would be made on the Register of Foreign Births. What happened? The assurance given in good faith that their applications would be dealt with could not be adhered to because the Attorney General advised that 31 December 1986 was not only the closing date for receipt of applications but also the closing date for the completion of registration. That was a reasonable point made by a reasonable Attorney General, who drew attention to a matter which needed a minor legislative correction. The Government of the day — not the Fine Gael Government who stipulated the deadline of 31 December 1986 — gave a commitment that the problem would be resolved but that has not happened and those people have been left high and dry. It is a matter of honour that the matter should be put right at this stage. That is why we tabled this amendment and Members from all sides of the House pressed the Minister strongly on this issue on Committee Stage.

As Deputy Owen stated, money has been lodged in consular accounts around the world arising from those applications and is being held under false pretences. It is a disgrace that our name should be dragged into the mud in this fashion and that we have not made the minor legislative correction to resolve the matter. This has all the dimensions of a saga of bureaucratic inertia and, to some degree, a lack of political will. Other emergencies have arisen where legislation was drafted overnight and passed the following day. I am not saying that should have been done in this case, but surely seven or eight years is stretching the longest day to its uttermost.

We ventilated the problem in every way possible on Committee Stage and received support from our absent friends in the Progressive Democrats, Democratic Left and the Labour Party. I think the Minister of State supported us also. At the conclusion of Committee Stage there was virtual all party agreement on this issue. The Minister of State gave us a solemn assurance that he would take the matter up with the Minister for Justice. I indicated that what I wanted was action, not a letter. For this reason I ask that we delay Report Stage for a couple of weeks to allow action to be taken and a little more than an acknowledgement by the Minister for Justice.

I hope the Minister of State will show that he can flex his muscles and will announce now that either our amendment will be accepted or, alternatively, that the necessary Bill to resolve the problem will be circulated during this session. I rest my case.

Mr. T. Kitt

I have a favourable response: I honoured the promise that I made.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Well done.

Mr. T. Kitt

I repeat that the point at issue is the timing of the presentation of a Bill by the Minister for Justice to amend the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986. Such new legislation is necessary to enable the registration of the births abroad of about 4,000 people whose applications for citizenship could not be processed by the deadline of 31 December 1986 set in the 1986 Act. That is the point at issue.

I indicated on Committee Stage that it would be inappropriate to deal with this matter in the way suggested by the Deputies. Therefore the problem has to be addressed directly in another nationality and citizenship Bill. At the meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on 11 November I gave a promise that I would write to the Minister for Justice to express the concern of the committee and to say that I shared its concern at the negative implications for our reputation abroad of the fact that this problem remains unresolved after nearly seven years. The Minister has informed me that while she had hoped to address these issues in one comprehensive Bill, to avoid further delay she has instructed her officials to prepare a short Bill dealing solely with the applications for registration outstanding since 1986. It will be introduced as soon as possible.

I indicated at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that I was a strong supporter of the committee system and that I would make its views known to the Minister when I wrote to her. As Deputies may recall, the intention at that time was to deal with the issue in a comprehensive Bill but the position now is that a short Bill to deal with this specific issue will be introduced. The Minister has instructed her officials to prepare this Bill. I welcome this clear commitment from the Minister for Justice and in the circumstances I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mrs. Owen

We will withdraw the amendment because we welcome what the Minister of State has said on behalf of the Minister for Justice. I am glad we raised this issue and I hope it brings my efforts to an end. As far back as 1982 or 1983 I received publicity in the Irish Echo and letters from US Congressmen and other people. I will now be able to write back to them. This will also save me publishing our own Bill which I have prepared since Committee Stage to provide a stimulus for the Government. I am glad that the Minister of State, having listened to the debate on Committee Stage, has been able to convince the Minister for Justice that there is a need to make this change. I will be happy to welcome that amending Bill in the House so that we will have the pleasure of ensuring that all these people will become Irish citizens.

I thank the Minister of State for noting the points raised on Committee Stage. This is democracy in action. Who would have thought that minor legislation from the Department of Foreign Affairs would have given rise to such a healthy debate and a good result at the end of it? I welcome the Minister of State's announcement today.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

To conclude——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry. Deputy Owen who moved the amendment has concluded the debate.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Perhaps I am out of order but as we spend a lot of time criticising one another——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us not breach our procedures now.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

——I wish to compliment the Minister of State on taking action in this case. I look forward to its bringing to a conclusion a sad and sorry saga so far as Ireland is concerned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. Kitt

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, lines 10 and 11, to delete "the seal, and to have subscribed thereto the signature, of any person to whom this section applies" and substitute "the seal of any person or of a mission and to have subscribed thereto the signature of such person, being a person to whom this section applies."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Kitt

I move amendment No. 5.

In page 4, line 14, after "being the seal" to insert "of such person or mission".

Amendment agreed to.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.