I move:
That the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill, 1993, be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 84 (1) and paragraph (5) of the Committee's terms of reference.
Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill, 1993: Motion.
I now call on an tAire and I welcome him to the House.
Thank you very much, a Chathaoirligh, I appreciate your welcome. This is essentially a Bill to tidy up legislation that has become outdated. Its purposes are, firstly, slightly to amend the Commissioners for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Act, 1931, and the Diplomatic and Consular Fees Act, 1939, by redefining the diplomatic and consular officers entitled to administer those Acts and, secondly, to consolidate the two previous Acts and the amendments.
The 1931 Act enables specified diplomatic, consular and honorary consular officers serving outside the State to administer oaths, take affidavits and carry out notarial acts. It renders such services, done abroad, as effective as if done by or before any lawful authority within the State. The Act also empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make regulations by order in relation to the fees to be charged in respect of those services.
The 1939 Act supplements the 1931 Act. It empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make regulations fixing the fees to be charged for services other than those authorised by the earlier Act — for example, passport, visa and general consular fees. The 1939 Act applies to services rendered by the same categories of diplomatic, consular and honorary consular officers serving outside the State as are mentioned in the 1931 Act, but it can also apply to any officer whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs may appoint specially for the purposes of the 1939 Act.
Amending legislation is required because the ranks of diplomatic and consular officers listed in these two Acts have become obsolete. Many of them, such as High Commissioner or First Secretary of Legation, no longer exist. More importantly, some officers who are expected to provide the services mentioned and to collect fees, such as ambassadors, third secretaries and honorary consuls-general, are not specifically identified in either of these Acts. The Bill, therefore, updates the lists of the ranks of diplomatic and consular officers entitled to administer the 1931 and 1939 Acts. The definitions and descriptions of diplomatic and consular officers contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 —"head of mission", "member of the diplomatic staff", "career consular officer" and "honorary consular officer"— are used. Those two conventions have the force of law in Ireland through the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act, 1967.
On the advice of the parliamentary draftsman, the Bill also consolidates the 1931 and 1939 Acts, so that the services provided and the fees charged by diplomatic and consular officers can now be covered by just one Act.
I welcome the Tánaiste to the House. It is probably a break for him from the other business he is engaged in at present. Let me repeat here what I said yesterday on the Order of Business, that is, to wish the Tánaiste well in the current talks he is undertaking and in the negotiations he has entered into. It should be clear that he has the support of all parties in the House and we all hope that his work will be crowned with success.
On this legislation, in spite of the breathless prose with which the Tánaiste presented it to us here this morning, it is in fact an extremely simple piece of legislation. It is entirely technical. I am sorry to see the end of such titles as the high commissioner and first secretary of legation——
I thought Fine Gael might regret that one.
Thank you, Tánaiste.
No interruptions please. The Tánaiste.
I will keep them for the Lower House.
I have a few little quotations in my pocket that I might take out and with which the Tánaiste might not be so happy. This Bill is straightforward, it is going to Committee and this House is represented on the Committee. Whatever problems there may be with the Bill — I do not see any — can be teased out on Committee Stage.
I would also like to welcome the Tánaiste to the House and I sincerely hope we will see a lot more of him in the House in the near future to debate the pressing matters mentioned by Senator Manning. I agree with the motion to refer this to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. As a Member of that committee I think it is important that issues relating to foreign affairs should be referred to it before they are discussed in the House.
The Bill is highly technical and tidies up some matters. The Bill refers to honorary consuls-general. I did not realise we had an honorarium for such a post in addition to honorary consuls. What is the difference between an honorary consul and an honorary consul general? If an honorary consul-general is being given the power to issue a very vital piece of paper, such as a passport, how are honorary consuls appointed? It seems to me that in the past honorary consuls were appointed because they had money, influence with Governments, were in places where there were no other Irish people, or they had influence in a certain place at a certain time.
The committee should examine very carefully the power of honorary consuls to issue passports and visas. To my mind this is a very dangerous practice, especially in an era when there are so many people looking for visas and passports, including Irish ones, which are valuable all over the world. Having agreed with the motion to refer the Bill to the committee I ask the Minister to explain the difference between an honorary consul-general and an honorary consul. How can a person in an honorary position be given the right to issue visas and passports? It does not seem right to me.
I was glad to hear the Tánaiste's explanation. It fitted in very well with what I thought the position is. This legislation is simple and technical and is precisely the sort of issue which, as Senator Lanigan said, can be teased out appropriately by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. This is why the committee was established. The concerns expressed by Senator Lanigan about the issuing of passports and so on, need not be debated here and it is appropriate that they be debated by the committee. I share also his concern about honorary consuls. This is a grey area. I remember when the Government was maintaining we did not have a certain position with regard to our diplomatic relations with South Africa, whereas we actually did. I found an Irish honorary consul in Johannesburg. Nobody seemed to know how this position came into existence.
He was appointed by Oliver North.
I wish to put on record my appreciation — I am sure many other people who have travelled abroad have had the same experience — of the very fine service we receive from our relatively small diplomatic staff abroad. I cannot speak highly enough of it. I have had occasion to travel widely in the last few months and have been looked after by ambassadors and others. They do a very remarkable and efficient job on comparatively small budgets. I wish to have it on the record that as politicians we very much appreciate the trouble they take to ensure we get a view of the country, that we are properly briefed and that we meet precisely those people we want to meet. It is very much appreciated and this should be placed on the record.
I share the views expressed by Senator Norris that honorary consuls throughout the world are in the main wonderful people. However, I must confess that the one I met was absolutely crazy. He was literally mad.
I think I know who it was.
The world is a small place. I am sure he was sane when he was appointed.
There is no guarantee of that either.
Subsequently, his condition deteriorated to the extent that he was absolutely mad. I was shocked when I met him. When this Bill is discussed by the committee they should examine how honorary consuls are appointed and whether they are appointed on a permanent basis. Some attention should be paid to the fact that they may need regular check-ups. This person is still an honorary consul in a major city in a major country. Perhaps the Minister of State would convey this to the Tánaiste. He should look at some of his personnel.
I welcome the motion and I compliment the Irish diplomatic staff around the world for the tremendous job they are doing. There are excellent ambassadors and personnel representing Ireland. They are highly cultured and intelligent and have a good understanding and grasp of the economic, diplomatic and political situations in the countries where they reside. They are doing us a great service.
The Tánaiste and the Minister of State should consider extending the role of the diplomatic staff abroad. The Culliton report made a number of recommendations in relation to industry promotion. Their role should be widened, because of their extensive contacts, experience and expertise, not only to represent us at diplomatic level but also to take a more active role in promoting Ireland for investment purposes. In recent times the President and the Tánaiste have used their visits around the world to more actively promote Ireland. I hope the Minister will extend this role to the staff of his Department and encourage this level of activity.
The powers of the diplomatic service abroad are reasonably extensive. In 1986 or 1987 we introduced a Citizenship Act. Under this Act citizenship can be conferred on people living abroad but whose parents or grandparents come from Ireland. There are difficulties in parts of the world in relation to the conferring of citizenship on and the issuing of Irish passports to some of these people. This needs to be examined.
I welcome any measures which bring greater order to the diplomatic service. I also welcome anything which enhances the monetary compensation received by diplomats for the work they do. Their lifestyles and their children undergo huge changes. They face many difficulties in adjusting to the culture, climate and atmosphere of the new countries where they take up positions. It is important that we take account of and recognise the impositions on their private lives that result from their posting to various missions. Like previous speakers, I welcome the Bill.
This Bill is very technical, as Members recognise. A number of points have been made. Senator Taylor-Quinn referred to the recommendations of the Culliton report. They are being studied. The Moriarty task force examined these in detail. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment set out last May how he intends dealing with them. A programme is underway to look at all the Culliton recommendations. The one mentioned by the Senator is being examined in that context.
The distinction between a consul general and a consul was raised. An honorary consul-general is a higher grade of honorary consul. Honorary consuls are promoted after a number of years' satisfactory service. Sixteen of our 56 honorary consuls are titled honorary consuls general so it is really a title given on the basis of length of service. They are only very selectively authorised to issue passports, some of them have a small stock of emergency passports. Most passports are issued by the Passport Office. Our consuls have only limited discretion to issue visas. Most of these matters are decided case by case by the Department of Justice.
Honorary consuls are appointed on the basis of their standing in their country, especially business links, and their knowledge of Ireland. As far as possible, they are Irish citizens. In recent years, they have normally been appointed initially for a trial period of three years. The point which Senator Magner made should be covered in future.
The honorary consul in Johannesburg is one of our longest serving honorary consuls. He is an Irish citizen who keeps in contact with Ireland and is extremely conscientious. His term of office will end with the opening of an embassy in South Africa. That explains the issue which was raised by Senator Norris.
This is a technical Bill which is welcomed on all sides of the House. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will be in a position to tease out any other matters of detail.
On a point of information, do they get paid for the work they do or is it an unpaid job?
They get £500 a year. It is honorary in the sense that it is a token payment.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 11.12 a.m. until 11.30 a.m.