Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Sep 2005

Vol. 606 No. 2

Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ba mhaith liom an Ceann Comhairle agus na Teachtaí uilig a fháiltiú ar ais go dtí an téarma nua Dála. Is onóir mhór dom an seans seo a bheith agam an Bille simplí seo a chur faoi bhráid na Dála.

This Bill will amend a previous Act of the Oireachtas, which has been amended once before, and is of a technical nature. I will first provide the House with a brief description of the current law on international immunities. I will then explain the reason which gives rise to this Bill and set out its provisions.

In 1967, Ireland ratified the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. These two international treaties were adopted to codify what is perhaps one of the oldest and most accepted fields of international law, namely, the formal relations between states and their official representatives. As is stated in the preamble to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognised the status of diplomatic agents.

The two Vienna conventions recognise the functional necessity of diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities for the peaceful and efficient conduct of international relations. Effect was given to Ireland's obligations under these conventions by the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967. This Act gives effect in Irish law to the two Vienna conventions. The Act also confers certain privileges and immunities on the United Nations and specialised agencies of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the Customs Co-Operation Council.

Part VIII of the 1967 Act permits the Government, by order, to designate an international organisation or body of which the State or Government is or intends to become a member to be an organisation to which Part VIII shall apply. Under section 40 of the Act the Government may, by order, confer on such a designated body and its officials inviolability and exemptions, facilities and immunities, privileges and rights.

In addition to section 40, section 43 of the 1967 Act permits a Government order to confer immunities and privileges on international judicial bodies or semi-judicial bodies established under an agreement to which the State or Government is or intends to become a party.

The Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Act 1976 expanded Part VIII of the 1967 Act by the insertion of section 42A. This section allows immunities and privileges to be conferred on international organisations and bodies in accordance with international agreements to which the State or Government is or intends to become a party. In other words, it is not necessary that the State or Government is itself a member of the international organisation or body. It suffices that the State or Government is or intends to become a party to the international agreement which confers immunities on the organisation or body.

As was common drafting practice at the time, Part VIII permits the Government to confer, by order, privileges and immunities in broad terms. The power to confer privileges and immunities is not expressly stated to be limited to matters such as those covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. However, subsequent jurisprudence on separation of powers and consequent changes in drafting practice indicate that the discretion of the Government should be formally limited so as to limit its power to make such orders to the types of privileges and immunity conferred in the 1961 Vienna Convention. The privileges and immunities conferred by orders made under Part VIII are so limited.

This Bill will only amend Part VIII of the 1967 Act, as amended in 1976, and is solely concerned with the absence of any express limitation on the nature of immunities and privileges a Government order may confer on international bodies and organisations. This Bill will in no way alter the substance of Ireland's commitments to our obligations regarding international privileges and immunities. It will simply insert into the 1967 Act a clear statement of principles and policies which will serve as a limitation on the exercise of delegated legislative power by the Government.

The Bill will limit the delegated legislative power, conferred by Part VIII of the 1967 Act, by providing that the Government may, by order, only confer those inviolabilities, exemptions, facilities, immunities, privileges and rights which are conferred upon or afforded in regard to sending states or missions under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The types of immunities and privileges afforded by the Vienna Convention are as follows: the inviolability of the premises of an embassy of a foreign country or an international organisation; the freedom of the premises in question from taxation; the inviolability of archives and official documents; the inviolability of the person of the diplomatic or official officers of the foreign state or international organisation; freedom of communication; immunity from social security provisions; immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction, subject to certain exemptions; and immunity from customs duties.

Section 3 of this Bill will insert this limitation into section 40 of the 1967 Act. Section 4 of this Bill will insert this limitation into section 42A and section 5 of this Bill will insert this limitation into section 43. Section 6 of this Bill will provide that every Government order, made under Part VIII of the 1967 Act and enforced immediately before the passing of this Bill, shall have the same statutory effect as if it were an Act of the Oireachtas. To date 45 orders have been made under Part VIII regarding 37 different international organisations or bodies. Some 29 of these orders confer privileges and immunities while 16 merely designated a body or organisation under Part VIII.

Some 25 of the orders relate to international agreements to which the State or Government is or intends to become a party, as provided for in section 42(a). A figure of 19 orders relate to an international organisation or body to which the State or Government is or intends to become a party, as provided for by section 40. One order relates to an international judicial body as provided for by section 43. The privileges and immunities conferred by these orders are of the nature of immunities and privileges afforded regarding the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as I have just outlined.

This Bill will do no more than insert into the 1967 Act a constitutionally required limitation on a legislative power that has been delegated to the Government. Diplomatic immunities are essential to the effective conduct of international relations and to the work of a wide range of international bodies. It is very important that the granting of immunities to such bodies, often in pursuance of Ireland's international obligations, be in accordance with best legislative practice. I commend this Bill to the House.

The Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Bill amends the 1967 and 1976 Acts regarding the granting of privileges and immunities in the State to diplomatic and consular missions. The document I received with the Bill states that the legal framework is for the granting of privileges and immunities to diplomatic and consular missions, international organisations and bodies and their personnel.

Mention of international organisations and bodies and their personnel aroused my curiosity. I sought information on these organisations and bodies when I tabled a question to the Minister on the number of people, and organisations to which these people are attached, that have diplomatic immunity. I expected more detailed information. The reply stated that: "All diplomatic agents of embassies in Ireland, including their spouses and families, are granted diplomatic immunity in accordance with the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967." The reply also stated:

Currently there are 54 resident diplomatic missions in Ireland, with approximately 880 diplomatic agents, including their spouses and families. The total number of diplomatic personnel fluctuates regularly due to the staff rotations of other states. There are 59 embassies accredited to Ireland but resident abroad, mainly in the United Kingdom. The diplomatic agents of such embassies are afforded diplomatic immunity when in Ireland.

The reply did not contain information concerning international organisations and bodies and their personnel as mentioned in the advice document that accompanies this legislation. Do bodies and organisations other than embassies enjoy diplomatic immunity at present? If so, who are they and how many are there?

One of the major guiding documents for the granting of privileges of modern diplomatic life is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, signed in Vienna in 1963. This convention notes that consular relations have been established between people since ancient times and, more importantly, that such contacts and arrangements contribute to the development of friendly relations between nations. Consular and diplomatic ties between countries are extremely important and should not be dealt with casually or lightly. Ireland has seen a considerable expansion of countries opening diplomatic representation on our soil in recent years. The expansion of the EU and our development as a more dominant world player in trade and economic activity is largely responsible for that. We have developed a network of missions overseas and we now have 300 members of the Civil Service, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, working on missions overseas.

I have concerns about the immunities that have been extended to individuals, groups or organisations under the 1967 and 1976 Acts. The Bill now being discussed seeks to ensure retrospectively that all orders issued under existing legislation to extend these privileges will have statutory effect from the passing of this amendment Bill. It appears that all orders passed under existing legislation are open to challenge at the present time. If this is the case, how long has this matter remained without remedy? How long has the Minister known that the orders may have been open to challenge? How many orders have been passed under the legislation since it came to the attention of the Government that all such orders did not have the full and necessary cover of the legislation?

This is not a matter in which there should be any legal uncertainty and this situation could have left current diplomatic immunities open to challenge and potentially open to mass withdrawal. This could have had embarrassing consequences for the State. These diplomatic arrangements are part of our consular services and are extended to those working in Ireland on behalf of governments or other organisations in the same way they are extended to our people working abroad. It is important that this be dealt with in an unambiguous manner. The legal basis upon which these immunities and diplomatic privileges are extended must be absolutely clear.

The legislation before the House is of great importance and, in line with our obligations under the Vienna Convention, Ireland must ensure that where diplomatic immunities are extended to persons within the State, it must be done on the basis of the law. If the potential for legal challenge has been known for some time and, as I believe, there has been a delay in bringing forward the necessary legislation, it displays very questionable judgment on the Government's part.

If there was legal uncertainty in this matter why was amending legislation not brought to the House sooner? This legislation has been promised by the Government for a number of years. We questioned the Taoiseach on this matter in 2003 and legislation was promised for 2004. In line with overruns on other aspects of the work of this Government we must wait until autumn 2005 for the presentation of this amending legislation.

This is not the first occasion matters of diplomacy have been treated casually by this Government. In the run-up to the local and European elections in 2004 the Taoiseach used the service of what is known as the diplomatic bag to write to our overseas missions and urge diplomats to vote for Fianna Fáil. This was an old-style stroke, utilising this method of communication with overseas embassies in an overtly party political way. No other parties, not even the partners in Government, were informed by Fianna Fáil of the intention to use this facility in such a manner.

In line with the need to ensure that all matters in respect of diplomatic immunities and privileges are in order, we must also be sure that Ireland does not extend diplomatic relations to countries prematurely. In this regard I refer to the case of Burma. This is a country where one third of children are chronically malnourished or physically stunted. The military junta in Burma is largely responsible for an escalating humanitarian crisis, according to the head of the UN food agency. It is a country where the pro-democracy leader has been held under house arrest for many years and has survived physical abuse, deprivation of food and two assassination attempts.

Despite this, the Government extended full diplomatic relations to Burma in 2004, to the dismay of democrats in many countries, including Ireland. Ireland's decision to extend diplomatic relations with Burma caused major surprise. The announcement was made on 13 February 2004 when it was announced that Ireland would open diplomatic relations on a non-resident basis with Burma and that our ambassador in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, would now also be accredited to Rangoon. Burma Action Ireland described the action as a diplomatic coup for the military regime that would bring much valued status to an illegitimate government. A former special adviser to the Taoiseach wrote an article in The Irish Times at the time calling for Ireland and the European Union to stand against what he termed a very nasty regime.

Given the appalling level of human rights abuses in Burma and the lack of respect by the military regime for any sort of democracy, extending diplomatic relations at the time was highly questionable. It was stated that moves to extend these ties with Burma have been put on hold. I would like to know if this is still the case. Will the Minister of State say clearly in the House that Ireland has withdrawn entirely from the position adopted in 2004 in regard to this anti-democratic regime?

Prior to the summer recess, the situation in Ethiopia was debated in this House. At the time, up to 36 people had lost their lives in violence which was linked to public disquiet regarding the manner in which the elections were held. The government of that country had also charged four newspaper editors for slurring what was termed the good name of the security forces after they criticised the police for shooting these people. The opposition parties had attempted to broker an agreement with the government parties, through the medium of a power-sharing arrangement hammered out by the head of the EU delegation to Ethiopia, whom I met prior to the summer recess. This man, Dr. Berhanu Nega, has since been elected mayor of Addis Ababa.

That country faces challenges. It has made significant progress in recent years, but the difficulty surrounding the elections of last May has shown how fragile this progress has been. I would like to know from the Minister of State what action is being taken by the Government to support the development of a more open and transparent democratic system in that unfortunate country. What reports has the Government received from our diplomatic and consular staff in the region?

The United Nations summit held earlier this month in New York was a major disappointment. I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in more detail the issue in a special debate on the United Nations summit. The non-proliferation treaty and the failure to reach agreement at the summit was a scandal and disgrace. It has created an unstable and dangerous situation, particularly in regard to countries attempting to develop nuclear weapons. It is almost inevitable that if the present situation continues, nuclear weapons will get into the wrong hands and unscrupulous people will hold to ransom, sooner rather than later, democratically elected governments. There is a grave responsibility on the so-called civilised nations of the world to come to an agreement on the treaty.

There is a serious example of double standards in the stance that is being taken on Iran. I would like to see much greater transparency in regard to Iranian development of nuclear power. I support fully the efforts being made by the three European countries in their discussions with that country. I resist totally any hypocritical attempts to impose double standards on that country whereby other countries can develop and expand their nuclear arsenal and develop nuclear power but Iran must abide by different standards. We should discuss this issue in more detail because it is a major problem.

Some of the attitudes and statements being made by people who should know better have driven the Iranian people to support and put into power more conservative or more extreme individuals. The election of the mayor of Tehran as President of that country is a direct result of attempts by people who should know better to back the country into a corner. The hypocrisy and double standards being used in respect of that country contrast seriously with the failure to reach agreement at the United Nations in regard to the non-proliferation treaty.

In June, I attended the meeting that dealt with the discussions on the treaty. It was scandalous that people could not even reach agreement on an agenda for the meeting. We know what has happened since in regard to Iran. I am not an apologist for that country and I believe that programme must be open and transparent. However, there are double standards but I will not delay the House by discussing the serious developments that happened in recent months. This problem is snowballing and could become quite serious unless there is real leadership on a global basis.

The other matter with which I would like to deal are our diplomatic moves in regard to Turkey. I understand that talks on the accession of Turkey will commence next week. In its most recent declaration, Turkey refused to recognise Cyprus as a legitimate state. Any talks that commence on the accession of Turkey will be built on sand unless there is some progress on the status of Cyrpus. It is unacceptable that any country should enter into negotiations without recognising a legitimate component of the European Union.

I visited Turkey late last year and I hope the accession talks can commence and be meaningful, because the hope of accession to the European Union is lifting the heavy hand of state domination on people in the Greek Orthodox Church, some of the Kurdish freedom movements and other people we met who suffered human rights abuses. The heavy hand of state oppression is being lightened because of the reforms that are taking place. However, the recognition of Cyprus should happen sooner rather than later. Talks that take place without dealing with that issue would be built on sand.

I have posed a number of questions to the Minister of State and I hope he will put his response on the record.

I share the views of the previous speaker regarding the urgency for a debate on a number of matters. These include the United Nations General Assembly meeting this month, in particular, the debate on United Nations reform in regard to the current feasibility and urgency of achieving the world millennium development goals and a number of other matters relating to Turkey's accession to the European Union. It is important that the political environment should allow that these issues could be discussed as soon as possible at the UN so that conclusions can be reached or, for example, in the case of the accession of Turkey to the EU, that a debate should take place in advance of a decision. I do not intend to digress on these issues, as we will have an opportunity on Question Time next week to pursue them in detail. I also hope we will have an opportunity to deal with substantive matters in debates over the next few weeks.

The Bill is interesting. I remarked earlier that it merited an explanatory memorandum because of its importance. I was grateful for the note forwarded to my party on 14 September by the legal division of the Department. An explanation is needed as to why there was such delay in introducing the legislation, although I understand its political context. The concept of immunity has changed since 1963 and 1967. An explanatory memorandum could usefully have put the powers and immunities conferred by the Vienna Convention in context and could have made the case for their extension.

The Bill has three functions — to name other organisations, extend immunities and introduce a retrospective legitimisation of orders that have been made. Immunities in the European Union vary and that is why the concept of immunity is interesting. For example, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe provides an immunity that is much wider than that extended to the membership of the European Parliament. This was exploited recently. The most distinguished exploiter of this anomaly was the Italian Prime Minister, Senor Berlusconi, whose instant accreditation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was a simple ruse to acquire an immunity wider than that provided by the European Parliament. This was raised at the credentials committee of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Issues have arisen during the long history of immunity. The preamble to the Vienna Convention correctly made reference to the ancient principle of respect for those involved in diplomatic action. The long history of immunity lodged in such a context is not simple. I accept the difficulties of providing a parliamentary response to the issue of sufficiency. An explanatory memorandum would also have been useful to address new circumstances that have emerged in recent years such as the International Criminal Court or the Rome court as it is known by its detractors. For example, the evolving jurisprudence might have examined conditionalities relating to compliance with international human rights standards and the prosecution of crimes against humanity and other crimes. I refer to the proposed UN international convention on the elimination of corruption, which lacks a few signatures to become a legal instrument. Next week we can discuss what action the Government is taking in this regard.

However, the legislation raises an interesting principle, as it refers to the extension of privileges to agencies and their representatives with whom the Government intends to have a relationship. This is welcome because it contradicts an old chestnut, which lies at the base of much foreign policy, that even though morally and publicly there may be immense support for the ratification and implementation of an international instrument, the Government takes the view that it is only when domestic legislation is in place that we can accept the discipline of such an instrument. This legislation is an interesting contradiction in this regard, which is welcome, as it goes in an entirely different direction. The question of intention is correct. The suggestion that a country signs up to international responsibility following the passage of domestic legislation is an assumption of bad faith among fellow members of an international organisation such as the UN. I would welcome a move away from that.

The issue of reciprocity may be teased out in another way when it arises in regard to international adjustments such as this. A wide range of immunities and privileges are conferred by different countries under the Vienna Convention, which merit consideration. I am not a constitutional lawyer but I question the broad conferral of legitimacy on orders made in the past. Under the principle of retrospection, if an issue has been raised about the constitutionality of the breadth of powers the Government has given itself and, having put a limitation into legislation in 2005, can it automatically confer a legitimate status on all the previous orders? I question the constitutionality of such an approach.

The legislation will facilitate the conferring of immunities and privileges on those concerned with investigation, mediation and the establishment of fact under a number of international instruments. For example, if the International Criminal Court sought to investigate cases involving people seeking residence in Ireland and they are covered by a UN instrument or under the devolved powers of the ICC, they would qualify, which is welcome. I could nominate a few places of potential investigation. However, I would not go down the road of limitation with other agencies. The legislation is providing that instead of providing an open power, it confers a limitation on the Government but I would have welcomed the placing of the principles of the Vienna statute in a modern setting.

I agree with Deputy Allen's comments. It is a contradiction with which we must live. Many places which fall short of the test of democracy seek to confer protections and immunities on their representatives although they do not accord rights to their own citizens. The history of diplomacy is such that these are often the people whom one wishes to confront within a discourse here. If one is to protect the possibilities of discourse one must consider modernising the law.

I would like to see all these issues spelt out in greater detail, particularly the comparative work undertaken in regard to other countries' abuse of immunity. Some of the most powerful countries significantly abuse immunity, using it as a cover for espionage, spying and even assassination. It is a topic worthy of a more extensive discussion. This long-promised Bill is welcome and makes a necessary adjustment but I hope it is the beginning of a wider debate.

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Finian McGrath. Like other speakers and particularly Deputy Michael Higgins, I am concerned about the absence of an explanatory memorandum to this Bill. While it is a small Bill with a technical aim we should have received an explanatory memorandum. Its omission is bad practice and should not be repeated in other Bills, particularly coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs which issues so few Bills. I believe this is the first Bill from that Department in the 29th Dáil. If there is to be a second Bill I hope this practice is not repeated.

The Bill is short and seeks to bring Irish law into line with international conventions, particularly the Vienna Convention, which on the surface is something that, as a democratic nation, we should seek to do. We would like our diplomatic representatives to be treated as we treat the representatives of other countries here.

Other speakers have mentioned qualifications to that principle. Our diplomatic service is not directly comparable to that in other countries whether or not they are democracies. Often the officers found in embassies with titles such as "political attaché" or "military attaché" are there to further the interests of their countries rather than engage in diplomatic relations. That is where the quality of such legislation falls down. How can this small country defend itself against that type of abuse? Conversely, how do we protect our diplomatic staff who represent us in less than ideal circumstances in other countries?

This Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss a view probably shared by everyone in the House, namely, the pride we should feel in the quality of our diplomatic representation around the world, at embassy and consular level. Those who have made visits on behalf of this House to other jurisdictions know of the professionalism, talent and commitment of people who work in Irish offices around the world with few resources.

I would have welcomed a wider debate on how we might level the playing field between how we are represented overseas and how we receive representatives of other countries. Ireland is under-represented. It is represented in fewer than half of the countries in the world. It has fewer ambassadors than there are here from other countries. For example, in the next two months Cuba will send an ambassador here yet there is no process or attempt to advance a process that would place an Irish ambassador there.

Our ambassador in Mexico seems to cover the entire Central American region, the northern half of South America as well as the Caribbean area. While this is a small country our representatives should not have to cover half the globe. It is unfortunate that we have not had a more wide-ranging debate to address those issues which are linked to diplomatic representation and immunity for our representatives.

A White Paper on foreign relations and diplomatic representation would have been a good use of Government time. We have received White Papers from the Department of Foreign Affairs on the European question. The US State Department issues annual documents stating its judgment of the countries with which it has diplomatic relations. That approach may be too judgmental.

An annual report of Ireland's relations with various countries would be a good use of the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It would inform us when we come to tabling legislation which increasingly has an international dimension. I would welcome more imagination and initiative on the part of the Government and the Department.

I am concerned about the collective foreign policy and diplomatic representation that seems to occur at an EU level. Some of this makes sense. We can share the facilities of other countries in places where we do not have direct representation but when it becomes a homogenised approach we risk losing the capital we have gained recently as a small neutral country, however one defines that neutrality in the future. We risk becoming an appendage of a European whole that will make compromises on how it presents itself to the wider world.

We are unique and distinct and should use our representation to put across those qualities. If we succeed in that we will benefit not only in terms of our diplomatic stock but economically in terms of how we sell the country as one with which it is worth doing business and as a tourist destination. We should strive to have a standard of representation higher even than that of countries represented here. If we do that we will continue to punch above our weight as we have done with limited resources, few legations, embassies and consular offices around the world.

I hope that in passing this small Bill, irrelevant as it might be to the wider issues, the Department might produce wider policy positions on Ireland's plans for representation overseas.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille um Chaidreamh agus Díolúine Taidhleoireachta (Leasú) 2005. I mo thaithí le hambasáidí agus taidhleoiríÉireannacha agus iasachtacha thar na blianta, is dream iad atá díograiseach san obair atá ar bun acu. Bhí siad i gcónaí an-chuidiúil dom agus dóibh siúd a raibh mé ag cur a gcásanna trasna. Chuidigh siad go mór liom. Chomh maith leis sin, d'éirigh liom i gcónaí i dtaobh na gceisteanna a bhíá gcur agam freagra cuí a fháil uathu. Dá réir sin, measaim gur chóir dúinn i gcónaí déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil an caighdeán is fearr tacaíochta agus cosanta á thabhairt againn dár dtaidhleoirí agus dá réir do thaighleoirí de chuid tíortha eile atá ag obair sa tír seo. Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuil caighdeán idirnáisiúnta i gceist anseo, mar táimid ag lorg pé rud a chuir muidinne ina luí ar ár dtaidhleoirí agus an fhoireann inár n-ambasáidí thar lear. Tá na tíortha sin ag lorg na cosanta céanna sa tír seo.

Sa Bhille seo, measaim go bhfuil aitheantas ar an dainséar go raibh an iomarca cumhachtaí ag an Rialtas ó thaobh na gcinntí a bhíodh á thógaint aige maidir le pribhléid nó diolúine a thabhairt d'eagrais idirnáisiúnta. Chomh maith leis sin, tá an Bille ag iarraidh go mbeadh an Rialtas in ann amach anseo cur le líon na n-eagras agus grúpaí a bheadh clúdaithe ag na pribhléidí sin.

The Bill recognises the dangers of the Government having discretionary powers that are too wide. I believe that they are still too wide regarding the awarding of privileges and immunities to international organisations, communities and other bodies. It is welcome that the Bill limits the privileges and immunities for which the Government may make provision by order to those that may be conferred under the Vienna Convention. However, those privileges and immunities include the inviolability of organisations' premises, means of transport, communications, private baggage, persons in private residence, as well as immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the State and from being obliged to give evidence as a witness.

Given the potentially serious consequences of those privileges and immunities for the public good, I feel that allowing the Government to be the sole arbiter of whether to award those to additional organisations is ill-advised. It would be preferable if the designation of such organisations, because of the gravity of what we would be granting them, were not the sole responsibility of Government. The Houses of the Oireachtas should be afforded the opportunity to contest a Government order relating to the awarding of such immunities and privileges before a decision is made. That could be done through a debate, either of the full House or in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which could examine the merits of the organisation or person in question.

Some effective mechanism must be put in place whereby the entire House has the opportunity to discuss it rather than its being a Government or ministerial directive or order. Effective mechanisms to enable the scrutiny of Government orders by both Houses of the Oireachtas should be put in place to ensure that the organisation or person who has been granted it is still complying with its terms when the decision to grant it comes up for discussion once again.

It is not open-ended; one does not grant immunity for ever more to an organisation. I presume that there would be time limits so that it comes up for review. Those organisations have a duty to comply with the Vienna Convention, and we must ensure that before the granting of a renewal or even in the first instance, those organisations or persons comply with it. Article 55(1) reads as follows.

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

The final stipulation is a major duty regarding embassies around the world and what went on in previous decades and probably still goes on among the staff and officials of some embassies who enjoy such privileges and immunities.

In asking the Government to grant such privileges and immunities, there is an onus on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to demonstrate their necessity — reflected in the changes to this legislation that we have suggested — and the suitability of the organisation, including its practices, to enjoy them. The conferral of such privileges and immunities must be in the interest of and not compromise or undermine the public good. It is correct that we should examine and evaluate the use of diplomatic privileges and immunities to date. Has what we granted in the past been abused or worked well? Do we really need this legislation?

I asked the Minister yesterday how many certificates had been granted to people avoiding criminal prosecution because of their standing. In fairness, the answer was that no such certificate had been issued. That is a good sign. Embassies in Ireland and those who have such accreditation or privilege have not abused it. However, we must review the matter. It may be the case that embassies, when officials breach the law, quickly shift them out of the country. We have seen that in newspaper reports regarding other countries. The review should consider the activities of the British Embassy in particular in this State and the Government's ability to respond effectively to incidents within the constraints of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Acts 1967 and 1976.

Since we are dealing with foreign affairs and immunities, while I welcome this Bill, I hope that it does not proceed before another that seems to be stuck on Committee Stage, namely, that regarding the International Criminal Court, which is just as vital, if not more so. In a way, it is related to this Bill, which should not take precedence over it. I would welcome a discussion on Committee Stage.

This question might be more appropriate for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. However, when I asked him, I did not receive an answer that made complete sense. Why should Ireland, as a neutral country, accord recognition to military attachés? There are military attachés in embassies in this State. I do not have a complete list, but I know that the British Embassy, for instance, has a military attaché. If my memory serves me right, so does the American Embassy. That begs the question what their role is. How many such attachés are there? Do all NATO countries have military attachés and what is their role? Is it similar to what we have seen in films and novels about the Cold War? Are these attachés the intelligence service operatives or contacts for their states? They must have a specific purpose. We do not purchase a significant amount of weaponry from other countries which might necessitate the presence of military attachés. Ireland is a neutral state and does not often engage in major military discussions with NATO countries. Deputy Boyle suggested a White Paper should be produced to deal with this entire area. Such a White Paper should deal with the issue of military attachés.

I welcome the thrust of this short Bill. However, it would be better for this House to concentrate on passing the legislation necessary to facilitate co-operation with the International Criminal Court given that it is four years since the passing of the associated referendum.

I am impressed by my colleague's knowledge of the whereabouts of all these military attachés. I could not even attempt to compete with that.

It is important to know one's enemy.

Will the Minister of State give some indication of the purpose of the Bill? There is no explanatory memorandum and I am uncertain of its function and context. In dealing with any legislation, it is important that Members should have some type of briefing as to its impact and the reasons for its introduction. Have there been abuses of the system whereby, for example, diplomatic immunity was retrospectively and improperly applied? I am conscious of the emphasis on security in today's society and speculate the legislation may have emerged in that context. However, I do not know for sure.

The Minister of State outlined the specific areas for which immunity is provided under Part VIII of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967. This legislation states that the Government may, by order, only confer those inviolabilities, exemptions, facilities, immunities, privileges and rights which are conferred upon or afforded in regard to sending states or missions under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Internationally, it is of critical importance that in all democracies — and all non-democracies, because that is the way diplomatic relations operate — the rights and privileges of diplomats are recognised and fully afforded. Situations have arisen where personnel who were not covered by diplomatic immunity had to have such privileges extended to them in order to ensure their safety and so on. We are increasingly likely to have some involvement in volatile situations on a worldwide basis because we have more embassies and diplomatic missions now than was the case heretofore. As our diplomatic reach expands, greater responsibilities will be thrust upon us. What will be the effect of the Bill in this context?

Members of the diplomatic service have particular privileges in regard to the transmission of documents, an activity in which they are usually engaged on a daily basis. Does this legislation impinge on the free transmission of documents?

The Minister of State referred to the types of immunities and privileges afforded by the Vienna Convention. I notice there is a typographical error in the document he circulated with reference to the inviolability of the premises of an embassy of a "foreign county". I hope the Minister of State does not refer to a neighbouring county.

I did not use the word "county". I corrected it when delivering my speech.

It was wise for the Minister of State to do so. The football and hurling seasons have come to a satisfactory conclusion from the point of view of all concerned. I am sure it was a Freudian slip.

The games have an international dimension.

The Vienna Convention also affords the premises of an embassy of a foreign country or international organisation freedom from taxation. I presume these and other inviolabilities outlined by the Minister of State, including the inviolability of archives and official documents and of the person of the diplomatic or official officers of the foreign state or international organisation in question, are not in any way impacted by this legislation. Deputies Michael D. Higgins and Allen and other speakers have already referred to this.

As we continue to expand our diplomatic boundaries to include new missions throughout the world, reciprocal arrangements will be put in place. In some cases, the level and degree of immunity which representatives of other states would expect, as dictated by conditions in their homeland, may not necessarily accord with what is suitable to afford them in this country or some of our neighbouring countries. I travelled on one occasion to a country which, for diplomatic reasons, I will not name. It was pointed out to me the existence of apartment blocks where an immigrant population was housed. Upon observing that this seemed to be poor treatment of the immigrants in question, I received a reply which I will not pain the Minister of State's ears by repeating.

In countries where democracy has not long or has never resided, there may be a different attitude to rights, freedoms and privileges to that which prevails here and in the United Kingdom and United States, for example. This will also affect our diplomats who are sent to those states and we must bear this in mind at all times. In respect of the diplomatic staff sent to Ireland from such states, it might be useful to acknowledge that their homeland may not necessarily be the hub of democracy. In this regard, situations may present themselves for the Department of Foreign Affairs in the event of activities which could be regarded as doubtful.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins rightly referred to some of the activities that went on in various embassies over the years. During the Cold War era it was suggested there were more wires in at least two of the embassies than would incinerate a joint of meat. Those who stayed on the premises were risking their health. That is how operations were conducted at the time. It was an abuse of the diplomatic system, albeit an established and accepted abuse. One moved in, installed eavesdropping equipment, wires, telephone jamming and tapping devices and other electronic gadgets to spy on one's hosts. It is likely this established practice still goes on and will continue. The problem is that as we expand our boundaries in terms of diplomatic missions, we must recognise we will encounter more of this type of situation than we did in the past. From time to time, we read of situations where for one reason or other a diplomat encounters difficulties but is covered by diplomatic immunity. Will this Bill affect such situations? Was a person previously covered by diplomatic immunity if, for example, he or she was involved in a row outside a nightclub and, if so, will that continue to be the case? I do not refer to the provoker of the attack but to a potential innocent bystander who may require cover. The Minister of State might clarify that issue.

Freedom of communication, which is provided for in the previous Act, covers a multitude of circumstances, such as the right of an individual to communicate with his or her embassy, non-interference in the transmission of documents and the freedom for diplomatic staff to go about their work in the same manner as in their home country. The latter circumstance may have a different meaning for some of the newer democracies. We need to keep an eye on that matter.

I pay tribute to the diplomatic service, which does a tremendous job. The expansion of its boundaries has brought great benefit to this country. Embassies are trade as well as diplomatic missions and work on a 24-hour basis in important locations. From an economic as well as a prestige point of view, it is important that people are located in as many places as possible. Deputy Boyle remarked that the ambassador to Mexico covers a whole region in Latin America. We have a massive population in that area and are increasing trade with it. It is imperative that individual missions are located in each of those major countries. Latin America is going to experience significant economic expansion and has entered into agreements with North America which will have an impact on world trade. We need to have diplomatic missions which can act as the voice of Ireland in that region.

I remember a situation where I received significant publicity. While someone once said that all publicity is good publicity, I do not think that applied to the situation in question. I was in Australia as part of an august delegation.

Was Deputy Gregory there?

Absolutely. Everybody was there and Ireland was well represented. I was particularly impressed by the diplomatic——

How was the wine?

The wine was on a par with most. Deputy McGrath would recognise a good wine.

I ask Deputy Durkan to refer to the contents of the Bill.

It is merely the convivial nature of the conversation. I was most impressed by the degree to which members of the Irish Embassy and the trade mission were alert and worked from early morning until late at night. They were able to make presentations instantly, were professional in the way they did business and competed more effectively then many other delegations. People should write about these important issues rather than frivolous ones, although the latter is more entertaining. I will let my colleague into all the secrets concerning the quality of the wine at a suitable moment.

Do not be tempted.

I would be quite glad to accompany him there on a return visit.

I have a problem with junkets.

The Deputy will not have to worry about the wine in that case. My praise applies to all our embassy staff. I have seen their work first hand. The current situation is different to that of 30 years ago. They are much more professional, incisive and fearless in the way they go about their business. Credit should be given where it is due. Those who have provided these services over the years should take a bow.

As the European Union expands, the diplomatic service will probably take on a different role in terms of, for example, Turkey's accession. The effects of diplomacy will be vital. The Mexican stand-off between Turkey and Cyprus is unhelpful and has to be resolved. The issue of the recognition of Cyprus will come to the forefront shortly. Negotiations cannot progress and, notwithstanding the accession of Cyprus, the two sides will be stalled unless these issues can be satisfactorily resolved. It will be important that productive diplomatic steps are taken and nothing is allowed to impede progress. A simple matter can give rise to problems which should not exist. I hope the powers of the diplomatic service can be effectively applied to that area.

Reference has been made to Iran, Iraq and the role of diplomacy before the recent war. It is never too late to call in the diplomatic service. It can play a vital and effective role. The difference between the present and 1939 is that the diplomatic services were abused by Adolf Hitler in order to accommodate his future plans. He managed to create the suggestions in the minds of diplomats that he had been wronged and had no intention of doing harm; he was misunderstood and if people had enough cop-on they would have known he had a few things to do and basically he was a nice guy.

That is an example of where diplomatic services were abused. We are all too young to remember when a certain British Prime Minister returned home from a diplomatic mission in central Europe and said there would be no war in our time. They were famous words but they did not mean anything. He had been walked up the plank and locked into something he could not get out of and had been outwitted. We know what happened afterwards.

I do not wish to incur the ire of the Chair by overstepping my diplomatic immunity here. I hope the Bill is before the House for a particular purpose. I would like to have seen specific instances of where the Bill would be effective. In my old age, anytime I do not see something on those lines I get suspicious.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to address this legislation. It allows for a wide debate on the broader issue of diplomatic and international relations around the world. The Diplomatic Relations and Immunities (Amendment) Bill 2005 is important legislation that I will support. When one looks at the details of the Bill and reflects on diplomatic relations this debate is relevant to what has been going on in the world in recent months. I think particularly of crises in the Middle East, Iraq and other parts of the world which give us an opportunity to consider in which direction we are going and if Ireland, as an independent neutral country, can develop foreign policy and work closely with people who are interested in bringing peace and justice throughout the world while respecting the integrity of different countries and nationalities. In this debate it is important when speaking about diplomacy to keep in mind respect for other countries and their citizens. This is not what is happening compared to the 1950s when Ireland was highly regarded internationally on foreign policy matters. It is time to draw a line in the sand and make a decision on which direction we are going. While many Members wish to go in different directions it would be damaging for the integrity or our country.

As a small independent neutral country, Ireland has had a proud history. As a boy growing up I recall hearing of people such as Frank Aiken and their contribution to international relations. On a cross-party basis we should not be afraid to say people such as the late Seán MacBride also put us on the map. It is important that tradition is remembered in the House regardless of the political party or grouping to which one belongs because the issue of respect for countries, their diplomacy and international relations is bigger than any political party or groupings the House. Because of our history and experience other countries respect our integrity. When it comes to conflict resolution the Irish people and the Department of Foreign Affairs will always be heard whether it is in Europe, America, Latin America or the Middle East. That is important. I am aware from speaking directly with people from different nationalities there is always a soft spot, a special grá, for the Irish view on their problem. We should not under estimate that, despite the fact that many say Ireland is a small country and is not a loud voice in the world. Whether one is speaking with the Irish-American community, people in Latin America or in Europe there is that experience.

When debating this legislation on diplomatic relations it is important to reflect on the importance of foreign policy and how it is carried out by the State. The Vienna Convention recognises that peoples of all nations from ancient times have had to recognise the status of diplomatic agents. I strongly support that concept because there is always need for such respect.

The Bill confers certain privileges and immunities on the United Nations and specialised agencies of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Customs Co-operation Council. The key groups are the United Nations and specialised agencies. I have great respect for the United Nations and would encourage people not to lose that respect. I accept there are problems and that the Government is part of the reform agenda in the United Nations. I have respect for those who go to the UN and put its weaknesses on the table and who are not afraid to do so. At times many of us consider that mistakes have been made internationally by the United Nations but the vast majority of us feel strongly about fixing them and bringing us back on to the international stage. I say that also in respect of those who are directly involved in the Council of Europe. It is important that the independent voice of Ireland is heard.

The question of diplomatic relations triggers the broader debate on human rights. This is an area where Ireland could have a role in dealing with questions of human rights. We have a strong record on this issue and we should be proud of our tradition. Also we should be proactive and not afraid to stand up to the larger powers if we are of the opinion there are abuses of human rights in different countries. That may not be popular and one may be under pressure but one should take the right course.

Given that I have mentioned diplomatic and international relations I think particularly of Christy McGrath, the Irish jockey, who is in jail in London. I thank all Members who have supported that campaign. This is another miscarriage of justice. I understand more than 70 TDs and Senators have signed a petition in the name of Christy McGrath, who is no relation. I met his family a few months ago and gave a commitment that I would raise the case no matter where I go. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to keep an eye on this case and to be more proactive. I confirm that any time I have been away, and it has not been often——

I was wondering if the Deputy would enlighten the House.

——the experience has been positive and the back-up staff have been courteous. Recently we were in London dealing with crime issues and anti-social behaviour and the way in which we were looked after by the staff at the Irish Embassy and by foreign affairs personnel was commendable. I appreciate that.

In 2002 I went as an international observer to Bogotá in Colombia for the trial of the Colombia Three. The Department of Foreign Affairs, the embassy staff based in Mexico, and the staff in Bogotá in Colombia strongly supported me and the families of the three men. People such as Sheila McGuire went out of their way to respect the integrity of the host countries. Unlike Jeffrey Donaldson when I was in that country I met the Government, military people, ministers, prisoners and human rights people. I had a broader view and I listened to all groups on this issue. People should realise there are major concerns about human rights issues and it is proper that we raise them.

The International Red Cross has been supportive in such situations by providing a great service and thus saving many lives. From my experience, having visited the Red Cross offices in Bogotá, I found that many of the organisation's members were at risk as they operated in delicate situations. However, they remained there permanently to support citizens locally in an impartial and independent manner. I have nothing but the highest respect for those Red Cross officials.

We should pay tribute to the men and women of the Irish Army who have served overseas on UN missions. I think in particular of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in laying down their lives in such situations. They did not do so for a particular cause but in the interests of peace and international relations. All Members of the House should recognise the valuable role the UN has played in this respect. Irish soldiers have served in the Middle East, for example, where local people have had a positive experience of those foreign missions given the impartiality and professional integrity displayed by our peacekeepers.

Irish emigrants to America have played a proud role in the history of that country. In recent times also we have seen the influence of people such as Mr. Niall O'Dowd and Senator Peter King who put their necks on the block for the peace process. They deserve our thanks and support because they helped to nurture and develop the peace process. When some Members of this House became wobbly and weak-kneed, those people stuck with the issue leading to the conclusion of a historic agreement on IRA weaponry in recent days. I welcome the statement by General John de Chastelain on disarmament and the peace process generally. I commend the two clergymen who were directly involved in acting as witnesses to the decommissioning process. They have done their bit for peace and harmony both here and internationally.

We should also pay tribute to those who had the courage to put their money where their mouths are by investing in this country. They have played a positive role in developments here.

In addition to praising the valuable work of Irish Americans, we should not be afraid to criticise when necessary. Good friends and relations can be openly critical of each other on particular issues, so if I disagree with President George W. Bush on his Iraqi policy, it does not mean I disagree with the vast majority of the American people, including Irish Americans. It is important to understand this distinction: one can disagree with governments but one can still work closely with individuals.

I wish to highlight the plight of illegal Irish immigrants in America and I urge the US authorities to deal with this unacceptable situation. Such immigrants want to make a contribution to that country, yet they are constantly under pressure because of their status as illegals. That unresolved issue is relevant to the legislation before the House.

With thousands of people coming to Ireland from other lands, we must recall our own history in order to support and understand such immigrants here. I am concerned that due to divisions in certain parts of the country over asylum seekers and refugees, such people are not being fully integrated into our society. We must be more inclusive but, while I accept we have a leadership role, it is not just up to politicians. It is up to members of residents' and community groups as well as trade unions to roll up their sleeves and ensure that immigrants can become part of an inclusive country that respects diversity.

Racism must be dealt with head on and cannot be tolerated in any circumstances. As regards our own peace process, the same goes for sectarianism which is unacceptable. It cannot be excused or explained away. Some communities may feel fearful and under threat, but one does not take it out on one's neighbour because he or she is Catholic or Protestant. Neither can one blame sectarianism for disadvantage and poverty. I know many poor people in disadvantaged parts of Dublin who, when it comes to race or religion, are the most inclusive and open-minded people that one could meet anywhere. We should not confuse such issues.

To revert to the Bill before us, section 1 states:

In this Act "Principal Act" means the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967.

Section 2 states:

Part VIII of the Principal Act is amended by substituting the following section for section 39:

"39.—In this Part—

‘organisation to which this Part applies' means an international organisation, community or body standing designated for the time being by order under section 40 of this Act;

‘Vienna Convention' means the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations done at Vienna on the 18th day of April 1961 as set out in the First Schedule of this Act.".

When I visited Colombia in 2002, I met a group of trade unionists, including three Coca Cola workers named Hector, Efrian and Javier. They were working in a difficult situation because staff including shop stewards, were being assassinated by right-wing death squads. They told me at that meeting, on 4 December 2002, that 3,800 people had been killed since 1986. In the preceding 12 months alone, 178 trade unionists had been killed. They told me all about the deaths of workers in the Coca Cola factories. They asked us to contact the American, Colombian and Irish Governments, as well as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, on this issue. I gave a commitment at that meeting to bring this message to people's attention when I returned home. They also thanked us for having travelled to Colombia and expressed their deepest appreciation for our efforts. In discussing international relations, we must not sit on the fence. We should stand by those who have sought our assistance.

Granting of immunity to bodies in pursuit of Ireland's international obligations should be in accordance with best legislative practice. Comprehensively drafted legislation is an important requisite in this regard. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this wide-ranging debate on the Bill. As a small, independent country, we should focus on adopting an independent foreign policy by acting as international peace brokers. In that way, we will further develop the respect for our country that already exists at the UN and other international fora.

I sincerely thank all Deputies for their contributions to this debate. I have made careful note of what they have said. Many issues have been raised that are somewhat distanced from the remit of the Bill, such as the UN summit, Burma, Iran, the Council of Europe and the situation concerning illegal Irish immigrants in America. All of these issues have been raised in the past and can be raised again by way of parliamentary questions next week, as well as in the various committees. We will be only too delighted to deal with each of these issues and to respond to them in due course. It is important that today, however, we should focus on the Bill before us. The Bill is a technical amendment to the 1967 Act and is necessary to limit the discretion of the Government to make orders for the application of privileges and immunities.

A number of Members have raised the fact that no explanatory memorandum was circulated with the Bill, but there is no onus or requirement on the Government to do that. The legislation has evolved as a result of our experiences in the diplomatic field and following court decisions. There is a requirement to ensure that our laws are modernised, focused and applicable to the discretion needed by the Government in order to take its decisions. It is not normal for any Government to bring forward legislation that restricts it, but in this situation we are doing so because it is important at this time.

An explanatory memorandum is a tool to assist Members of the Oireachtas in their deliberations. Based on what has been said in the House today, I can give a guarantee that we will create an explanatory memorandum and have it circulated before Committee Stage. We circulated a background note through the Whip's office to all the parties two or more weeks ago. The note fully sets out and explains the elements of the amendment. We will ensure this is enhanced and incorporated in the explanatory memorandum.

The only kinds of immunities and privileges conferred by Government order have been of the nature of those found in the Vienna Convention. No abuse has arisen. This Bill has been produced merely to ensure the 1967 and 1976 Acts are in line with the best legislative practice as outlined recently by the Supreme Court.

A number of Deputies asked why this amending legislation is being introduced now and not earlier. Although the principles and policies test was first set down by the Supreme Court in the 1980 case of Cityview Press v. AnCO, it was only through developing jurisprudence which emerged over a number of years that the true significance of the judgment became known. There have been a number of important cases in recent years, including Laurentiu v. Minister for Justice in 1999 and Leontjava v. the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2004. It was considered prudent to await the Supreme Court ruling in the Leontjava case, which was delivered in June 2004, as this judgment further clarified the relevant issues. Now that these decisions have been reached it is possible for us to proceed with the legislation now.

Of the 191 members of the United Nations, 113 have diplomatic accreditation to Ireland with 54 based on the island of Ireland and 59 operating from the United Kingdom. This shows the respect for Ireland as a sovereign state and a small country playing a major role in diplomatic and foreign affairs throughout the world. It shows the desire throughout the modern world for accreditation to our country and the respect we have gained. This of major importance and enables us to have bilateral and multilateral relations with all these countries on many issues which ensures there is a consensual attitude on many issues that are of global concern in many of the fora in which Ireland is represented.

Some Deputies asked about the various organisations which enjoy certain immunities under Irish law. Some 37 organisations enjoy such immunity. Not all of these bodies have permanent offices in Ireland. The list of orders detailing these bodies is as follows: SI 216 of 1971, Council of Europe (Immunities of Persons Participating in Proceedings of European Commission and Court of Human Rights) Order 1971; SI 39 of 1972, INTELSTAT (Designation of Organisation and Immunities of Organisation and its Officers and Employees) Order 1972; SI 26 of 1972, International Atomic Energy Agency (Designation and Immunities) Order 1972; SI 178 of 1973, International Tin Council (Designation) Order 1973; SI 380 of 1974, International Cocoa Organisation (Designation) Order 1974; SI 141 of 1974, European University Institute (Designation of Organisation and its Officers and Servants) Order 1974; SI 79 of 1975, International Coffee Organisation (Designation) Order 1975; SI 324 of 1976, European Space Agency (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1976; SI 34 of 1976, APC-EPC Convention of Lomé (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1976; SI 329 of 1977, International Fund for Agricultural Development (Designation of Organisation) Order 1977; SI 275 of 1977, Financial Support Fund of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Designation of Organisation) Order 1977; SI 291 of 1979, European Space Agency (Designation of Organisation) Order 1979; SI 339 of 1980, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Designation and Immunities) Order 1980; SI 333 of 1980, Eurocontrol (Designation and Immunities) Order 1980; SI 321 of 1980, International Olive Oil Council (Designation and Immunities) Order 1980; SI 274 of 1980, International Natural Rubber Organisation (Designation) Order 1980; SI 105 of 1980, The Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1980; SI 235 of 1982, Common Fund for Commodities (Designation of Organisation) Order 1982; SI 203 of 1982, Intercountry Project for Statistical Computing (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1982; SI 184 of 1983, International Jute Organisation (Designation) Order 1983; SI 276 of 1984, International Tropical Timber Organisation (Designation of Organisation) Order 1984; SI 114 of 1985, ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1985; SI 394 of 1986, International Fund for Ireland (Designation and Immunities) Order 1986; SI 370 of 1986, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (Designation of Organisation) Order 1986; SI 290 of 1986, EUMETSAT (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites) (Designation) Order 1986; SI 242 of 1986, International Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF) (Designation of Organisation) Order 1986; SI 125 of 1989, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (Designation and Immunities) Order 1989; SI 116 of 1991, The Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1991; SI 65 of 1991, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Designation and Immunities) Order 1991; SI 64 of 1991, Council of Europe (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1991; SI 186 of 1992, International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1992; SI 144 of 1992, Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1992; SI 193 of 1993, European Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (EUTELSAT) (Designation and Immunities) Order 1993; SI 192 of 1993, European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1993; SI 191 of 1993, INTELSTAT (Designation of Organisation and Immunities of Organisation and its Officers and Employees) (Amendment) Order 1993; SI 465 of 1994, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Designation and Immunities) Order 1994; SI 329 of 1994, World Trade Organisation (Designation and Immunities) Order 1994; SI 186 of 1994, European Radio Communications Office (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1994; SI 392 of 1996, European Patent Organisation (Designation and Immunities) Order 1996; SI 459 of 1998, Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Acts 1967 and 1976, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (Designation and Immunities) Order 1997; SI 393 of 1998, Council of Europe (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1998; SI 476 of 2002, International Organisation of Vine and Wine (Designation) Order 2002; SI 89 of 2002, The International Organisation for Migration (Designation) Order 2002; SI 82 of 2002, The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement of Cotonou (Privileges and Immunities) Order 2002; and SI 914 of 2004, ATHENA (Designation and Immunities) Order 2004.

Deputies can see from that list that there are individual organisations and also statutory instruments which were enhanced, renewed and changed as required as a result of subsequent decisions being taken either at an international convention or by those bodies in convention on a global basis. We had to reflect those decisions in our statutory instruments.

The reference to which bodies may benefit from privileges and immunities is contained in both the 1967 and 1976 Acts and is not amended by this Bill. The Bill also deals with the nature of immunities which may be granted. It clarifies and defines that which may be granted and strengthens the position, role and relevance of the decisions taken and to be taken by Government, as clearly laid down by law through Oireachtas Éireann. Today we are enhancing the role of the Oireachtas in containing and restricting the Government to the decisions which it takes under both the 1967 and 1976 Acts, which is an important decision.

A number of issues and questions were raised to which we can return on Committee Stage. Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised various military questions and I was interested in his attitude, particularly regarding the role of military attachés in particular missions in Ireland. As a sovereign state, this State cannot dictate to another sovereign state the capacity, qualifications or relevance of the people they place on their missions. Our job is to ensure that, based on the information we have, the international obligations which we must fulfil and the laws which govern this area, including the Vienna Convention, we take our decisions based on the requirement imposed and the desire of another sovereign state to have an accreditation to our country. Whoever countries decide to send, once they have made their decision and the criteria are met, the Government is obliged, after due relevant examination of both the individuals proposed and the accreditation required, to accept the decision.

All these people carry diplomatic passports and as all in this House know, a passport is a sacrosanct document, the most important document one can have next to one's birth certificate. Respect for passports, be they the ordinary passports of the citizens of any state, or diplomatic passports, is critically important for the mobility of all people and for their protection.

Deputy Durkan raised a question with regard to someone breaking the law in or outside a nightclub. This law of immunity would apply in such a situation unless the dispatching mission or country decided to waive the immunity. We are fortunate that never in the history of this State has any diplomat been granted immunity in this country as a result of being involved in a criminal activity elsewhere. We have a strong and unique record in that area. It shows the information, intelligence, focus and commitment which exists with regard to ensuring that we do our job to the highest standards of integrity and that the sovereign states which send their missions to us send us only diplomats of the highest quality.

I echo the tributes paid to our ambassadors and diplomats throughout the world. As many Members have noted in the debate, they do an outstanding job on behalf of our country. They do a unique job in that the Irish flag flutters high across the world. It is served by people of unique abilities and commitment and absolute dedication. As Members of this House and members of Government, we have been privileged to benefit from the wise counsel, total commitment and absolute integrity of these people who serve their country and its citizens.

They serve others as well, namely, those of the countries in which they are domiciled and those who find themselves in difficulty. One can recall the tsunami earlier this year. Our ambassador to Malaysia, Daniel Mulhall, came all the way from Kuala Lumpur, based himself in Phuket and discharged an outstanding service to the people of that troubled region at a difficult time. He not alone looked after the citizens of Ireland who were unfortunate victims but also looked after other citizens, from Europe and elsewhere, who required diplomatic services at that time. The delivery of that service has been acknowledged across Europe and the world.

Deputy Boyle is anxious that we extend our missions to different parts of the world. Obviously there is a cost involved. We must be very measured in what we do and very careful where we place our missions. We have now changed our focus to some extent. For a small country like Ireland, having very strong missions in different parts of the world, it is critical that we have good representation. Accordingly we are opening consular offices in different places, with quality people delivering a focused service in important areas to ensure we can continue to cover the world and supply the highest level of diplomatic cover possible, taking into account the resources required to do so. We thank all of our diplomats at every level for the services they give to our country day and night, seven days a week, year on year. We are very grateful.

This Bill will serve to address a technical concern regarding existing legislation which has arisen from recent case law. The Bill places a limitation on a legislative power which has been delegated to the Government so that existing legislation is in accordance with best legislative practice. In addition, this Bill will ensure that existing orders are on a firm basis. Both of these are important to the conduct of Ireland's international relations.

I look forward to this Bill being brought before the select committee in due course. I look forward to the contributions of members of the committee. All the questions raised today can be revisited there. We will circulate the explanatory memorandum to ensure that everyone is fully briefed on the requirements contained in the Bill so that we can continue to enhance the legislative programme which is critically important to the running of a modern nation in an important area of global activity.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share