An Bille Um Choinbhinsiúin Chonsalachta, 1953—An Dára Céim.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

An tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha (Proinsias MacAogáin)

Mar léiríos an gearrtheideal is Bille é seo a bhfuil sé de chuspóir ginerálta aige cumhacht a thabhairt don Rialtas éifeacht dlí a thabhairt ó am go ham do choinbhinsiúin chonsalachta le tíortha eile. Baineann coinbhinsiúin chonsalachta le cearta, príbhléidí agus saoirsí oifigeach consalachta na bpáirtithe sna coinbhinsiún i dtíortha a chéile. Níl ach an t-aon Choinbhinsiún consalachta déanta againn go fóill—an ceann leis na Stáit Aontaithe, a síníodh an lú Bealtaine, 1950. Is é an gar-chuspóir atá leis an mBille cumhacht a thabhairt don Rialtas a chomhairlíú don Uachtarán an Coínbhínsíún sin a dhaíngniú. Tá sé daingnithe cheana féin ag Uachtarán na Stát Aontaithe. Is é ár gcleachtadh é i gcónaí deimhin a dhéanamh de go dtugann dlí intíre na hÉireann cumhacht dúinn ár n-oblagáidí eadarnáisiúnta a chomhlíonadh sara ngabhaimid na hoblagáidí sin orainn féin. Sin an fáth gur tugadh an Bille isteach sarar féidir an Coinbhinsiún a dhaingniú.

Ós cuid de dhlí na hÉireann an dlí eadarnáisiúnta, do réir Airteagail 29 den Bhunreacht, measfaí, b'fhéidir, nár ghá Bille mar é seo de bhrí go n-aithneofaí saoirsí agus pribhléidí oifigeach consalachta ar aon nós. Ní foláir, ámhthach, a thuiscint nach ionann oifigigh chonsalachta agus oifigigh taidhleoireachta agus go raibh difríocht tábhachtach riamh idir an dá dhream faoin dlí agus faoin ngnás eadarnáisiúnta. Ionadaí do stát ceannasach, a creidiúnaíodh chun stáit cheannasaigh eile, is ea toscaire taidhleoireachta, is cuma é a bheith ina ionadaí do rí nó d'impire nó do phoblacht. Le fada riamh tugtaí urraim ar leith don toscaire nó don ambasadóir, sa cháil sin dó, agus is é do-sháraitheacht a phearsan is bonn do na saoirsí agus na pribhléidí eile go léir atá aige. Tá na saoirsí agus na pribhléidí sin bunaithe go maith sa dlí eadarnáisiúnta. Is é an príomhcheann acu eis-tíriúlacht na hambasáide nó na léagáideachta ina gcónaíonn an t-ambasadóir nó an t-aire. Do réir teoiríce an dlí meastar gur geall le cuid dá chríocha dúchais teach cónaithe an toscaire agus nach mbaineann dlithe an stáit seo againne leis.

Luas an méid sin d'fhonn é a dhéanamh soiléir nach ngabhann aon cháilíocht acu sin leis an oifigeach consalachta. Níl an t-oifigeach consalachta ina ionadaí creidiúnaithe ó rialtas ceannasach chun rialtais cheannassaigh eile. Is chuige a ceaptar é chun náisiúnaigh a stáit féin a chosaint in áit áirithe agus is chun údarás áitiúla na háite áirithe sin a creídiúnaítear é. Bíonn coimisiún ceapacháin aige, ar ndóigh, agus is gnáthach, nuair a bhíonn rialtas na tíre a bhfuil sé lena fheidhmeanna a chomhlíonadh ann tar éis glacadh lena cheapadh, go dtugtar exequatur dó, ach ní thugann sin eis-tíriúlacht dó. Níl consal saor ón dlínse áitiúil. Tá a bheag nó a mhór d'aimhreas sa dlí eadarnáisiúnta i dtaobh na saoirsí is cóir a bheith ag consal de bhuaidh a oifige. De ghnáth meastar consal a bheith ina dteideal seo a leanas:—

1. Saoirse phearsanta i gcás gníomhartha a dhéanas sé i gcomhlíonadh a dhualgais oifigiúil, ar choinníoll go mbaineann na gníomhartha sin le feidhmeanna oifigigh chonsalachta do réir an dlí eadarnáisiúnta; agus

2. Saoirse do chairteanna na consalachta.

Mar is léir ón ngearr-thuairisc seo ar fheidhmeanna oifigeach consalachta, teastaíonn an Bille seo chun aon aimhris a bheadh ag baint leis an scéal a réiteach, chomh fada is tá an tír seo i gceist.

Déanann an Coinbhinsiún Consalachta leis na Stáit Aontaithe foráil i dtaobh pribhléidí agus saoirsí a thabhairt d'oifigigh chonsalachta Mheiriceánacha sa tír seo. Is gá, dá bhrí sin, go ndéanfaí soiléir sa Bhille gur féidir na pribhléidí sin a thabhairt dóibh. Is é prionsabal an Bhille ina leith sin de go dtabharfadh an dá Stát an chomaoin chéanna dá chéile. Ní tabharfar pribhléidí agus saoirsí faoin Acht d'oifigigh chonsalachta aon tíre mura deimhin leis an Rialtas go bhfaighidh oifigigh chonsalachta na hÉireann a gcothrom sa tír sin.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

It is rather strange that the Minister should tell us about this Bill in our native language and that in the National Development Bill he would use a foreign language. Perhaps he has a good reason for that and will let us know the reason later on. I do not approve of the giving of diplomatic immunity to those of consular status as provided for in this Bill. Certain representatives of other countries have diplomatic immunity and diplomatic privileges which have come possibly from years and years of tradition. Actually, in the cases of persons who enjoyed diplomatic privilege it is an offence, in our law at any rate, for any person here to make any effort to prosecute them, or to make them amenable to the civil law. I do not know why we should endeavour to pass on that immunity or privilege to a consular official. The case apparently made by the Minister is that the head of another country has approved a like privilege for our consular officials.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

As I was saying, I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. This Bill creates a new class or perhaps extends a class that already exists. It seeks to extend a privileged class, persons enjoying ambassadorial or equivalent rank in this State. They are thereby exempt in all cases from the laws of the country to which they are attached, so that should any offence be committed by any person holding such rank that person could not be proceeded against in the country to which he is attached. This Bill seeks to confer that privilege on a lower rank, on a consul, a member of the consular rank. This Bill seeks to give such a person in this country very great privilege. I do not see any reason why the privilege enjoyed by a Minister or ambassador should be extended to cover the consul.

So far as I know, the law at present here does not give any privilege whatever to a person holding merely the rank of counsul unless he, at the same time, holds the rank of ambassador or equivalent rank. Why is it necessary to give privilege such as this to a consul, to a member of the consular staff, or, as the Bill provides, a consular employee? It may be said that we should give these privileges to consuls here because our consuls in other countries would have the same privileges. In my view, that is no answer. Our consuls surely do not want all the privileges that this Bill seeks to confer on consuls here.

There are some privileges which I would readily concede. I refer to Section 3, which enables grants of probate and administration to be made to consuls. I see no objection, either, to Section 4. Section 5 in my view is quite in order. Section 6 provides that a legal process may not be given effect to where it necessitates the entry into a consul's house. In such a case one could not recover from a consul money which by virtue of Section 7 (4) he had made himself liable to pay. Under Section 6 a person may not enter a consul's house to execute a legal process unless consent is given. Consent may be withheld and the legal process cannot be proceeded with and a consul might thereby successfully refuse to pay a creditor. It will be remembered that by virtue of Section 7 (4) a consular officer may not be exempted from civil liability arising out of a contract concluded by him in which he did not expressly contract as agent. Therefore, a consul may enter into a contract to render himself personally liable. The other party to the contract may succeed in obtaining judgment against him for a sum of money under that contract, but when he seeks to have effect given to his judgment, he will find that the sheriff cannot enter into possession of the consul's goods with a view to recovering the money, because of Section 6.

Section 7 (1) and (2) provides that a consular officer or consular employee shall not be liable in any proceedings, civil or criminal, in respect of acts per formed by him in his official capacity. At the moment, if a consul driving a motor car in the course of his duties happens to run down a person here and as a result of his negligence that person is injured and subsequently obtains judgment for damages, the injured person may recover those damages. But by virtue of these two sub-sections of Section 7, when this new privilege has been conferred on consuls, it will be impossible to recover the amount of such a judgment. It may be said that the foreign country concerned will surely raise no difficulty in a case of that kind.

I know of two cases which raised difficulties. In one case a minister's car knocked down a lady and seriously injured her. When she endeavoured to recover damages for negligence the Minister not merely pleaded his diplomatic immunity but warned his insurance company—who were quite prepared to settle the lady's claim—that under no circumstances would he allow them to settle the claim. Despite the Road Traffic Act, under which motor drivers are insured, the lady was unable to proceed with her claim until the Minister concerned left this country. It was only then that the diplomatic immunity or privilege was lifted against the insurance company; he having left the country it no longer applied to the insurance company and they settled the lady's claim.

In another case the Minister did not go so far as to plead his diplomatic immunity. His motor car had caused damage to an animal. He indicated to the owner that it was not his fault but that in any event he was going to plead his diplomatic immunity if any proceedings were to be taken against him. Of course, no proceedings could be taken against the Minister because of the diplomatic privilege a Minister enjoys. Incidentally, a citizen would be committing an offence in taking proceedings against a person who had diplomatic privilege.

We are seeking to extend to consuls the same law that enables Ministers of foreign states to escape legal liabilities. It may be said that these things occur only occasionally, but we should not pass laws to enable them to occur at all. In my view, there is no reason for extending to consuls the privileges that are enjoyed by Ministers. If I had my way, I would not give Ministers any privilege at all. I would treat them as I would expect our Ministers to be treated in the countries to which they are accredited. I would not expect any privilege or immunity for our Ministers. I would expect that they be treated in the same manner as a citizen of the country to which they are accredited.

There are some things in the Bill which have my approval, there are a number of things which meet with my strong disapproval; and I think we should not give a Second Reading to it as it stands at present.

Professor Stanford

I regret that I did not hear the beginning of Senator O'Reilly's speech. I disagree with him in what he said towards the end of his speech. It is of the greatest importance that we should encourage foreign representatives and should give them the widest possible facilities and even privileges in this country. One of the pleasantest features of our life in Dublin to-day, in contrast with life in Dublin 20 or 30 years ago, is the wealth of foreign residents we have— some of them officially accredited and others camp followers, so to speak— who give our city the air of a metropolis and a European capital. The more we can bring it home to ourselves and to Europe that we are a European capital the better.

Since we do not often have an opportunity of discussing matters in connection with external affairs I crave your indulgence, Sir, and that of the Minister, in raising a small matter which is not directly mentioned in the Bill. It will not take long and it is not a controversial point. Recently, I had occasion to look into the facilities for travel in Greece and I found that, while we have an excellent honorary Greek consul in this city, he has not the power of granting visas. When I took the matter up with the Consulate-General of Greece in London, I found that whereas British citizens, Danish citizens, and Turkish citizens, can travel in Greece without a visa, Irish citizens have not got that privilege.

I would ask the Minister—he will forgive me for a certain irrelevancy, but it is not, as he sees, a controversial matter—if he would look into the possibilities of extending our diplomatic relationship with Greece and, in particular, of having the necessity for visas abolished for Irish citizens. It costs an Irishman £1 1s. 6d. usually whenever he wants to go to Greece and it does not cost that sum to any of the citizens of the countries I have mentioned. Further, I find in the latest Council of Europe news that the Netherlands have just concluded bilateral negotiations with Greece and Turkey respectively on the subject of the abolition of visas and now Netherlands citizens no longer need them. I urge the Minister, when he finds time for a small matter of this kind, to look into it for us.

I should like to add in conclusion, since I am an admirer of Greece both by inclination and profession, that when I did ultimately apply to the Consul-General in London for a visa, he returned my cheque for £1 1s. 6d. and hoped I would have a pleasant holiday. I would recommend that to our Minister, too. He can hardly imagine how much it warms the heart of a visitor in a case of that kind to get an initial gesture of hospitality and friendship in a small matter. If he ever has an opportunity of doing the same for Greek citizens coming to Ireland, I hope he will do so.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is rather amusing to think that a cheque from Senator Stanford was "bumped" by a Greek Minister, of all people. We get many bumps ourselves, but never bumps of that nature. I am aware of a certain accident which occurred recently in which a young lady was rather badly injured and I understand that she was told that the person causing the accident, claimed diplomatic immunity. I myself was the victim of another accident, the gentleman concerned telling me that he was a member of a consulate. I was never able to trace him and possibly I was dealing with somebody who had told me a lie. If we are according to Ministers here the same privileges as they accord to our Ministers elsewhere, I wonder could there be some inter-State agreement whereby, if a Minister of a foreign country here causes injury to a citizen, our State would take on the liability and recover in some fashion from that Minister's State. There should be some balancing up, because it is unfortunate that, if a citizen is run down by a Minister, that citizen has not got some redress because of a tradition in diplomatic appointments. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is wrong if such is the case, and some method of providing for damages of that nature might be established so as to avoid the sort of thing we have been told about and which I had already heard had happened in another case.

Mr. McGuire

This is an occasion on which many of us would like to say something about the diplomatic corps in this country. I agree with Senator Stanford that, since the establishment of a diplomatic corps in Dublin and in Ireland generally, we have had all sorts of benefits from the appearance of these people in our midst. We have had political and cultural benefits, as well as benefits to our social life, and not the least of these is the contribution they make to the cultural life of the country. They have shown themselves to be very interested in the arts, in our history, our historical buildings and our historical life and I think the contribution they have made under these headings far outweighs any material disadvantages —and I think they are very small— which may arise by reason of occasional accidents and injuries to our citizens. The terrific amount of good they have done brings the scales down heavily on one side as compared with the few small accidents which have happened in which citizens have suffered.

Senator O'Reilly has a good point when he says that, if a citizen is seriously hurt and perhaps maimed and undergoes not only bodily but financial suffering, it is only right that something should be done to compensate him. I feel it is our duty as a State to do something about it. I cannot see why the Department of External Affairs cannot take out an ordinary insurance policy against accidents under these headings which would satisfy all parties. Even on an insurance basis I think an actuary would find that, considering the number of years for which we have had diplomats and the number of diplomats and the number of accidents which have occurred involving compensation, or which would have involved compensation, the premium would be very low and I suggest that, if the Department took out such a policy, it would be a way out.

Mr. Aiken

When I heard Senator O'Reilly's opening remarks, I thought he was going to enter into the competition to slander the diplomatic corps. The situation is that we get reciprocity. Diplomats here have certain privileges and immunities according to international law which we recognise in our Constitution. These immunities and privileges cannot be denied to them unless we change the Constitution or change international law. However, in modern times the diplomatic corps in various countries have to conform to local traditions and they do it by and large. According to international law we could not compel a diplomat here to insure his car but the fact is they do. I do not know when the case arose in the dim and distant past where some diplomat is alleged to have pleaded his immunity in an accident case. No such plea ever arose about a car in my time. The diplomatic corps have agreed, as a whole, to have their cars insured here and not to plead their diplomatic immunity or privileges in a case in which somebody is injured by their car.

I do not know what Senator O'Reilly wants me to do. The Government of which he boasts up and down the country——

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

The Government?

Mr. Aiken

——agreed to have a consular convention with the Government of the United States and on the 1st May, 1950, they signed a consular convention in which they agreed to give these privileges to consuls. Does Senator O'Reilly want me to repudiate the agreement that was signed by his pet Government?

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Yes.

Mr. Aiken

Senator O'Reilly seems to have the intention of leading a revolt in Fine Gael. More power to his elbow. I hope he will not succeed, however, in carrying the day in this particular field. This Bill proposes to grant to consuls certain immunities which we promised the American Government we would grant to American consuls here and the immunities are indicated in the agreement which we signed in 1950 with the Americans. A consul can only be given the privileges provided for in the Bill on the fulfilment of two conditions: one is that the country from which he comes grants similar privileges to Irish consuls in their country; and the second is that he must be fulfilling his consular duties if he is to get these particular privileges. The privileges only cover him when he is carrying out consular duties. In the case of a diplomatic representative his personal immunities cover him at all times when he is within the country whether or not he could be held to be engaged in diplomatic work. According to the law and the practice he is always engaged in diplomatic duties and he is always covered. A consul will only be covered when he is engaged upon consular work.

Senator Stanford raised the matter of the necessity of obtaining a visa to go to Greece. We have a number of agreements with various countries in which both sides agree that visas would not be necessary. If we allowed Greeks to come here without a visa we would only do so on the undertaking by the Greek Government that they would allow Irishmen to travel there without a visa. However, the case can be examined.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1954