Criminal Justice (Safety of United Nations Workers) Bill, 1999: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (
Miss M. Wallace): Ireland has a long and proud tradition of involvement in peacekeeping in many war torn areas. In opening the debate today on what is a short but nevertheless important Bill, I am conscious of the courage, professionalism and sheer dedication of the many men and women of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces who volunteer for what are often dangerous missions with the United Nations. The safety of Irish personnel serving overseas is always of paramount importance to the Government. To that end every effort is made to ensure the personnel who go abroad are adequately trained and equipped to carry out their mission. However, no absolute guarantee can be given with regard to the safety of our personnel overseas. It is a sad fact that not all of our gardaí and soldiers return safely. Indeed, it is appropriate here today that we remember the bravery of all of the deceased.
I remind the House that this year marks the tenth anniversary of Garda involvement with peacekeeping missions and in that time over 500 gardaí have served with the United Nations and OSCE peacekeeping missions throughout the world. Sadly, in the ten years, one member of the Garda Síochána lost his life in Sarajevo in 1995. I also remind the House that 77 members of the Defence Forces lost their lives while serving with UN missions. The last casualty was Private William Kedian who tragically lost his life on 31 May this year while serving with the 85th Battalion in the Lebanon. Today, too, we must not forget the many others who have been seriously injured in the course of duty with the UN missions.
The Bill will enable Ireland to accede to the Convention on the Safety of the United Nations and Associated Personnel which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1994. The purpose of the convention is to secure better protection of personnel engaged in UN efforts in the field of preventative diplomacy, peace making, peacekeeping, peace building and humanitarian and other operations. The current position is that 43 states have signed the convention and of that number 29 are parties to the convention, having ratified, acceded to or approved the terms of the convention.
It is not surprising, given our tradition and record of service with UN peacekeeping missions, that Ireland was active in promoting agreement on the adoption of this international instrument. In fact, we were a co-sponsor of the resolution which led to the convention. The adoption of the convention reflected the concern felt among the international community generally at the growing number of deaths and injuries resulting from deliberate attacks against UN personnel.
The deadline for signing the convention was 31 December, 1995 and, as Ireland did not sign by that date, we will now have to proceed by way of accession rather than by following the more normal procedure of signature subject to ratification. The convention came into force on 15 January last.
The Bill will give added protection to the Garda and Defence Forces contingents on overseas peacekeeping duties. I want to provide a brief outline of where the members of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces who will benefit from the terms of the convention are currently serving. I will begin with the Garda contingents.
At present, 50 members of the force are engaged in peacekeeping duties with the United Nations overseas to whom the convention applies – 35 are with the UN International Police Task Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina and 15 are with the UN force in Cyprus. There are also 650 members of the Defence Forces serving with eight UN missions overseas who will benefit from the provisions of this convention. The vast majority, over 600, are in the Lebanon.
Before going on to the details of the Bill, I wish to mention that yesterday the Minister published a discussion paper on Ireland's involvement in international police missions. The paper outlines the history of Garda involvement with peacekeeping missions. It is an opportune time, ten years after the first official involvement of members of the Garda Síochána in missions of this type, to reflect on the substantial contribution Ireland, as a small nation, has made to world peacekeeping and to plan for the future. The Minister has invited interested individuals, groups and organisations to give their views on the discussion paper to the Department. Arrangements are being made to have a copy of the paper placed in the Oireachtas Library for the information of Members.
With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the convention places certain obligations on states parties. The key requirements are in Article 9 which requires us to make attacks upon the person or liberty of United Nations personnel and associated personnel, attacks on property used by such personnel and certain threats against such personnel offences under our law. In addition, we are required to establish jurisdiction over these offences where the alleged offender is found on our territory and we do not extradite him or her. In that event, we are obliged to submit the case to the competent authority for the purpose of prosecuting the person in our courts.
I will now refer in detail to the sections of the Bill. The main provisions are to be found in the first four sections. Sections 6 to 9 provide for consequential amendments to other legislation. The offences under the Bill relate specifically to attacks on United Nations workers and on the premises or vehicles of those workers. The definitions of "United Nations personnel" and "associated personnel" in the convention have been combined to form the definition of "United Nations worker" in section 1. Similarly, the definition of what amounts to a "United Nations operation" is as set out in the convention.
Section 2 provides for the situation where a United Nations worker is attacked. The section provides that an act done outside the State against a UN worker, which if done in the State would constitute one of the offences specified in Part l of the Schedule to the Bill, shall be an offence and punishable as if done in the State. The approach taken in Part l of the Schedule is to list the relevant offences against the person under our existing law. The list includes sexual offences under the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, the offences against the person provided in the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997, and the offence of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property under section 2 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1883.
Attacks on the property of a United Nations worker are dealt with in section 3 of the Bill and Part II of the Schedule specifies the relevant offences under our law. This section provides that an act done outside the State in connection with an attack on the premises or vehicle of a UN worker, which if done in the State would amount to an offence set out in Part II of the Schedule, shall be an offence and punishable as if done in the State. The offences listed in Part II of the Schedule are the offences against property set out in the Criminal Damage Act, 1991, and an offence under section 2 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1883. The section also includes a definition of what constitutes a "premises" or a "vehicle" of a United Nations worker.
Unlike sections 2 and 3, which rely on existing offences under our criminal law, section 4 creates a new offence of threatening which carries a penalty of up to ten years imprisonment, as outlined in section 4(3). In accordance with section 4(2) a person commits the offence if, in order to compel a person to do or to refrain from doing any act, that person threatens to commit an act which is an offence under sections 2 or 3 of the Bill and the perpetrator intends that the person to whom the threat is made shall fear that the threat will, in fact, be carried out.
All trials on indictment are conducted at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions but prosecutions for summary offences and the institution of preliminary examinations for indictable offences, while such examinations continue, may be commenced by others. Due to the unusual and international character of the offences dealt with, all prosecutions under the Act will, in accordance with section 5, require the consent of the DPP. The section also contains a provision to avoid multiple provisions in legislation relating to extra-territorial jurisdiction. As Senators may already know, under section 38 of the Extradition Act, 1965, an offence committed outside the State by an Irish national is, in certain circumstances, an offence under Irish law. In the event of an Irish national finding himself or herself accused of an offence under the Bill which has been committed abroad, any proceedings will be taken under it and not under section 38 of the 1965 Act.
Sections 6 to 9 of the Bill deal with consequential amendments to other statutes. I will mention briefly what those amendments entail. The Defence Act, 1954, is being amended in regard to the jurisdiction of courts-martial to deal with offences under the Bill. The effect of the amendments of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, is first, that pleas of guilty in preliminary examinations, while such examinations continue, in regard to offences in the Bill will be sent forward for sentence to the court of trial and, second, that applications for bail may be made only to the High Court. Senators will be aware that the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, contains provisions abolishing the preliminary examination in the District Court with the necessary consequential changes. However, until those provisions are brought into effect provision must continue to be made in regard to the preliminary examination. The Department is in consultation with the courts in regard to the changes in court rules which will be required before the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act can be brought into force.
Section 8 provides that offences under the Bill will be added to the Schedule to the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994. The effect of this provision is that the offences cannot be considered to be political offences and, consequently, extradition cannot be refused in regard to them on that ground. Given the seriousness of the offences in the Bill the Minister has decided that they should be subject to the bail regime provided for in the Bail Act, 1997, and this is provided for in section 9. The convention requires states parties to take jurisdiction over convention offences. This means that prosecutions for the same act could, therefore, be possible in more than one country. In this regard section 10 provides that where a person has been acquitted or convicted outside Ireland of an offence, then that person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under the Bill here, in respect of the act constituting the first-mentioned offence.
On behalf of the Minister and for my own part I look forward to the debate in the House. I trust that what the Minister is proposing will meet with the general approval of Members. This is a short Bill, but one that will give an added measure of protection to the brave men and women of An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces serving with UN missions overseas. When this Bill is enacted Ireland will be in a position to accede to the convention. As Senators will be aware the Minister has an extensive programme of law reform underway in the Department and he was glad to have prioritised the preparation of this legislation. I sincerely hope that with the support of all sides of the House the Bill will be enacted quickly so that the accession process can be put in train. I will listen carefully to comments and suggestions during the debate.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. She has a happy record of bringing agreeable legislation to the House. When one adds to that her agreeable personality and general disposition, it makes our dealings with her pleasurable and satisfactory.
I welcome the Bill, my only criticism being that it should have been introduced long ago. The convention was agreed by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council in New York in January 1994. Ireland was one of the original co-sponsors of the convention, given our proud record of service of Irish personnel abroad with the UN on peacemaking and peacekeeping missions. A total of 22 countries of the original 100 countries which signed the convention had to ratify it in domestic law before it could be brought into force in international law. I am sorry to note that Ireland was not one of the first 22 countries to ratify it.
As a co-sponsor of the convention, it was extraordinary that Ireland did not ratify it. There was a period of one year in which it could have been signed after it was passed by the United Nations but Ireland did not sign it and it is now necessary to ensure its ratification by the accession route. That is fine, but Ireland should have ratified the convention. As one of its co-sponsors, Ireland gave a great lead, but that is where it ended because we failed to sign it even after it was lodged in New York for one year to allow countries to do so.
This time last year the New Zealand Parliament ratified the convention. It was the twenty-second nation to ratify it in domestic law and, after its instruments of ratification were lodged in New York, the convention came into effect. This matter was the subject of a Fine Gael Private Members' Bill in the other House, which the Government voted down, and it has taken until now for Ireland to deal with it. A total of 29 countries have ratified the convention and Ireland will be the thirtieth country to do so. Ireland has forces serving in the Lebanon and it is strange that if a potentially fatal attack took place on our forces there, the perpetrator could be prosecuted for it in New Zealand because it was a ratifying state before Ireland, but he or she could not be prosecuted in Ireland for the attack. If nothing else, this is an embarrassment.
The grave concern expressed by many countries at the high number of attacks on United Nations personnel working abroad on peacemaking and peacekeeping missions led to the convention. This included the killing, kidnapping and the causing of serious injury to members of defence and police forces from various member nations. The prevalence of this in the many areas of conflict in the world in which the United Nations was involved informed the introduction of the convention in 1994.
The launching of potentially fatal attacks on personnel working for the United Nations should be utterly condemned. As the Minister of State said, a total of 76 members of the Defence Forces and one member of the Garda Síochána have died on active service with the UN since Ireland first became involved in United Nations peacekeeping missions in the early 1960s. Our first outing in peacekeeping was in the Congo in Africa after its independence in 1961 when 26 members of the Defence Forces were murdered. Members of the Defence Forces also lost their lives in the Lebanon and Cyprus, while one member was killed in Syria. Others died of natural causes and in car accidents but all of the 76 died on active service with the United Nations. Ireland, therefore, had a particular interest in bringing forward the convention.
To send our Defence Forces to any area of conflict in the world as peacekeepers or peacemakers requires a motion of this House. It would be appropriate if this House honoured the memory of those 76 people who have died on United Nations duties in other parts of the world, given that they went at the behest of the Oireachtas, by having in the gardens, grounds or within the walls of this House a suitable memorial to those people who have given their lives.
I welcome the Bill. The convention, which contains 29 articles, outlines how it should be applied in all its states party. It defines the crimes against United Nations and associated personnel. I am pleased with the Bill because the crimes set out in article 9 of the convention make no reference to "threatening" but the Minister has introduced an additional crime of "threatening" whereby it will be an offence to threaten personnel of the United Nations who happen to work in this or any other country. I welcome that inclusion given that it is not contained in article 9 of the convention.
Article 12 of the convention refers to the communication of information. Where one country has information on a person who may have attacked or committed a crime against a member of the United Nations personnel it will be obliged to communicate that information to another member state where the accused person may be hiding and also to the Secretary General of the United Nations. There are measures in the Bill to ensure the prosecution and extradition of persons accused of committing crimes against United Nations personnel.
Article 15 deals with the extradition of alleged offenders. Our existing extradition legislation is a sensitive issue and I am delighted it has been possible to find a way around it, whereby a person may not plead that an offence is political with a view to not facing the consequences of their actions, if such actions involved an attack on United Nations personnel.
Article 16 deals with mutual assistance in criminal matters between the signatories of the countries. Article 17 is a long provision dealing with fair trials and fair treatment for persons accused of such attacks. That is important because the standards of trials vary greatly from one country to another. The article lays down clear guidelines on what is a fair trial for anybody found so accused. All in all we welcome the convention.
I digress for a moment to refer to another United Nations convention to which we are a party but have not yet ratified – the United Nations convention on the establishment of an international criminal court to sit at the Hague in Holland. It involves the setting up, for the first time ever, of a permanent international criminal court that will try persons found guilty of crimes against humanity, against their own people or against people living within the borders of their country. There are a few leaders who could easily be arraigned before an international criminal court if one existed. We have had Nuremberg and ad hoc international criminal courts to deal with what happened in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. This proposal, following a great deal of discussion over 30 years or more, was agreed in Rome in July 1998. Ireland was a very willing contributor at that conference. Approximately 120 countries signed the agreement which provided that at least 60 countries would have to ratify it before the convention could come into force. So far fewer than 25 countries have done so. I find it disappointing that we have not—
I am reluctant to interrupt Senator Connor but it is not in order to go into such detail on this unrelated matter. I have allowed the Senator some latitude.
I disagree that this matter is unrelated. The Bill deals with abolishing the immunity which people felt they had if they attacked a person working for the United Nations. I am speaking about the United Nations going further and establishing another convention which would ensure that nobody would have immunity in committing serious crimes against humanity. I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure that her Department drafts the necessary legislation and to bring it before this House so that it can be passed and we can ratify the agreement. We, on this side of the House, would not hinder such legislation. We must be seen to ratify the agreement so that the 60 countries required to ensure its coming into force may then be found.
I welcome the Bill and sincerely hope it will not be long before we take the remaining Stages. I hope it will have a similarly easy passage through the other House so that we can go to New York with our instruments of ratification and join the other 29 countries who have ratified it. If an assault or fatal attack is made on a member of our Defence Forces in Cyprus, Lebanon or anywhere else the perpetrator can be prosecuted for that crime in Ireland once both Houses have done their proper duty in this regard.
I, too, welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank Senator Connor for his gracious remarks about her. Perhaps he will show the same devotion and affection for the Minister when next he comes before this House. That remains to be seen. Perhaps in this season of goodwill that will happen also.
It is up to the Minister to show a little graciousness towards me and other Members of the House.
I, too, welcome the Bill which has been a long time coming. I would like to record my appreciation of the enormous work carried out abroad by our Defence Forces and gardaí. This is more poignant with the coming of this Christmas than ever before because there are many soldiers and gardaí serving abroad in a voluntary capacity on peacemaking and other humanitarian missions. We must recognise the significant role they play. I am sure I speak for everyone when I wish those who are serving abroad at Christmas peace, happiness and protection. Our prayers are with them. It is a lonely time for people to be away. Sometimes we might think that soldiers who are serving abroad have a glamorous role but everyone who volunteers to go abroad with the Defence Forces or the Garda is taking an obvious risk and this should be recognised. I compliment the Defence Forces and the Garda on the great work they have done through the years.
It is appropriate to recognise and pay tribute to those who lost their lives serving this small nation abroad, whether in the Congo, the Lebanon or elsewhere. It is sad that 77 Irish citizens have lost their lives serving with the Defence Forces on United Nations duties over the past 20 or 30 years. That number includes a garda who lost his life in Sarajevo. It is important that we honour the dead and also those who were injured in some of these attacks. In one attack in Lebanon not too long ago a soldier died. Thankfully a colleague, who was severely injured, survived. Apart from those who died, hundreds of gardaí and many more soldiers have taken great risks. Sometimes we do not recognise the risk they take voluntarily to serve this country in peacekeeping missions on foreign soil. I want to compliment them for their important work.
I welcome the fact that the Bill gives greater protection to Ireland's peacekeeping forces. It is hard to imagine that attacks on UN personnel or workers, which is the term being used now, or property or threats against such personnel have not had international recognition to date. This begs a question, which I ask the Minister of State to answer in her reply – what protection was given to members of the Defence Forces and the Garda prior to the ratification of this convention for the past 30 or 40 years? It troubles me that it has taken five years since the convention was ratified in America for us to come thus far. I question why it took so long. It is easy for us to compliment and praise our soldiers and gardaí but one must also bear in mind that the protection which is spelled out in this Bill should have been there for many years, if not decades. Admittedly, the wheels of the law turn slowly, particularly when one is dealing with international law and conventions. It seems to take a long time for such legislation to come before the House and I am somewhat concerned about that.
On a note of academic value only, the Minister of State might outline in her reply the reason or reasons that the words UN "personnel" has been changed to UN "workers". There is probably a simple answer but I often wonder why the draftsmen change the wording. Often it can cause confusion.
The Bill is technical. Although it is short, it is significant in that it creates certain offences in international law and certain protection for gardaí and soldiers, and it must not be underestimated. Apart from allowing Ireland accede to the convention the Bill also amends certain existing law. Section 7 amends the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. The importance of the Bill and the Minister's approach to it is signified in that it provides that a person charged with the offence of murder, attempted murder or conspiracy to murder contrary to section 2 of the Bill may not, on a plea of guilty, be dealt with summarily in the District Court or sent forward for sentence and that in these cases applications for bail must go to the High Court. That, in itself, indicates the serious nature of any threat to the life or person of a member of the Defence Forces or the Garda serving abroad. The section treats this matter very seriously and takes it out of the remit of the District Court. This is an important development and I welcome it.
As did Senator Connor, I want to comment briefly on the amendment of the Schedule to the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994. This is a sensible and important provision. The real significance is that the excuse or defence that an offence is political will not be tolerated and extradition cannot be refused on that ground.
Section 10 of the Bill provides that where a person has been acquitted or convicted in another state, for example, if a person was tried for a crime under this convention and acquitted in New Zealand, which is a party to the convention, then the State is obliged to recognise such an acquittal in another jurisdiction.
I welcome the Bill. Even though it is short and concise, it is hugely important to the role of our peacekeepers. It is also important at this time of year that, through the Minister, the House sends its best wishes for happiness and peace at Christmas to the members of the Defence Forces and the Garda who are serving abroad, whether in the Lebanon, Bosnia or elsewhere.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, to the House and welcome the Bill. Although it is short, it is an important Bill and I am happy to support it. The Bill will give extra protection to the members of the security forces who serve abroad. We can see from the figures, to which the Minister of State referred, that many hundreds of people, both from the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces, have served Ireland well and proudly in various peacekeeping roles in many countries.
Senator Connor raised a relevant point. As we approach the millennium it would be fitting to consider honouring those Irish men and women who have given their lives abroad in the cause of peace. Putting a suitable memorial in place, whether in the grounds of Leinster House or elsewhere, is a matter that deserves close consideration. I support the sentiments behind Senator Connor's suggestion because it is important for us to play our part.
Ireland has signed the convention and it is important that we should follow that up in subsequent action. There was an opportunity to do so in 1995 but it was not taken up at the time. I suppose, however, that it is better to do so late rather than not at all. We should avail of the opportunity to pass the Bill which I support.
The Bill is an essential part of the protection of our personnel who work abroad with the United Nations. It is appropriate that it should be introduced before the House now, but it is a pity it has taken since 1994 to implement what is a very worthwhile Bill. It affords a certain amount of protection to our forces abroad. If atrocities are committed against Irish workers abroad, at least there will be rules and regulations under the convention to deal with those responsible. An essential element of the Bill is that attacks upon the personal liberty of United Nations personnel and associated personnel, attacks on property used by such personnel and certain threats against personnel will be constituted as offences under law.
In many places around the world I have seen the fantastic work done by Irish troops, members of the Garda Síochána and civilians working with the United Nations. Last week I had the privilege of witnessing an Irish woman in charge of the United Nations development programme in Tanzania. Another Irish women is in charge of the World Food Programme in Tanzania and our chargé d'affaires there is also a woman. I am afraid that the gender balance is going out the door in certain areas. UN personnel operate in areas of particular concern where crimes have been committed against such personnel.
A large number of our forces have been killed or injured in various locations around the world. We should examine provisions to adequately protect people who work abroad with voluntary organisations. We should address the needs of non-UN personnel working in conflict areas who, in some cases, are seconded from charities operating under the aegis of United Nations programmes.
Earlier this year, Mr. Ken Hickey, a volunteer worker in Lesotho, was murdered when someone was trying to steal his car. The perpetrator of the crime is known to the authorities. Three people who were peripherally involved were brought to court, but the actual perpetrator went to South Africa. If protections such as those contained in the Bill were afforded to people working in voluntary bodies as well as with the United Nations, we could ask the South African authorities to send the perpetrator back to Lesotho to face trial for murdering an Irish aid worker.
We should acknowledge the work being done by our personnel abroad. Senator Connor suggested that a statue should be erected in their honour, but it would be better to ensure that such workers are protected by laws such as the Bill proposes. We could establish a bursary rather than erecting a statue, the purpose of which, in time, may not be recognised. In serving abroad with the UN, people make a huge commitment on behalf of their country and the international community. In certain areas they voluntarily place themselves in the firing line. As we have seen in Lebanon over the years, when battalions change over every six months there is a heavy bombardment of their positions during the changeover period. Such attacks are probably aimed at frightening the new arrivals or showing that the Israelis do not really care about the situation in southern Lebanon.
UN service is not the holiday that many people consider it to be. It is a huge commitment to be away from one's family, friends and country for six months at a time. We should pay due regard to the fact that for many years this has been done on a voluntary basis within the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána. I commend the Bill to the House.
I also welcome the Bill but once again we have been extraordinarily late in signing a United Nations convention. I realise, however, that it is not the Minister of State's fault. It is an extraordinary habit we appear to have and in view of the widespread support within the country for our involvement in the United Nations, it is a great pity that this should occur. I cannot see why there should have been any problem in signing this convention before 1995.
I am glad the Minister of State has brought the Bill before the House today. We are enormously proud of the work done by everyone who serves abroad, whether they are from the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána, or civilian workers with the United Nations. I am unclear as to whether civilian workers are also covered by the legislation. They do not work abroad in a national capacity, but deal with the effects of serious international disputes. I would like to think that anyone who serves in this capacity, fulfilling a duty which in many cases is altruistic, will be covered by the terms of the Bill.
I am delighted that the offence of threatening has been included in the Bill. It is a good idea. We must ensure that not just the physical health but also the mental health of those undertaking these onerous duties is protected. We know only too well about the effects of post-traumatic stress in some of these areas. Dealing with a threatening situation can be as serious for the individual as the effects of physical conflict.
Will workers abroad be entitled to the same legal protection as if they were working in this jurisdiction? I am sure we can tease out this matter on Committee Stage. I have some concerns about it, however, because it is not clear to me whether they would have that protection or not. I commend the Minister of State for having eventually brought the Bill before the House. Given her efficient methods, I know that any other conventions will receive a far speedier turnaround period. We should not be so tardy about ratifying conventions which it is patently obvious should have been ratified earlier.
I thank Senators who contributed to the Second Stage debate on this short but important Bill. I compliment Senators on the tone of the debate and the general welcome for the Bill from all sides of the House. Ireland has a proud tradition of involvement with UN peacekeeping missions in various parts of the world. As a nation we can be extremely proud of the contribution we have made. Members of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces have served with distinction on many missions over the years and it is only right and fitting that they should have the protection that this convention affords.
We have had a constructive debate on Second Stage during which many issues were raised, including some of direct relevance to the Bill and others which related more to our international obligations. Many Members raised an important concern in regard to the delay in debating this issue in the House. An important point is that although the deadline for signing was 31 December 1995, the convention was entered into on 15 January 1999.
It really only applies from January of this year. Senators Henry, O'Donovan and Connor raised the issue of the delay. It is important to say that a fair amount is happening in this area of incorporating conventions into our law. In regard to the legislative record of the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, this Bill and the torture Bill are just two examples of Bills before the House which involve the ratification of, or accession to, conventions. There is also legislation on the war crimes tribunals which will allow war criminals to be brought before the tribunals. The Minister has given priority to this issue and has an extensive legislation programme in place. I hope Senators will be reassured by the realisation that there has not been a five year delay but that this has only applied since January.
Senator Connor referred to the ratification of the statute on the international criminal court. Some 90 states have signed that statute, including Ireland. The six states which ratified it are Italy, Fiji, Ghana, San Marino, Senegal and Trinidad and Tobago. Senators will appreciate that the measures required prior to ratification and the actual timescale of ratification will vary from state to state. Work is ongoing by the preparatory commission in New York, which is currently meeting to address the matters necessary to ensure we can have an effective court when the statute enters into force. As Senator Connor said, it must be ratified by 60 states but only six have ratified it to date.
A detailed examination of the statute by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office, is needed to determine the precise nature and scope of the legal and administrative measures which may need to be adopted in order for Ireland to meet its international obligations under the statute. Ireland and all our EU partners have committed themselves to take whatever measures are necessary within their respective domestic legal systems to enable them to ratify the statute of the international criminal court as quickly as possible. I hope that is of help to Senator Connor who raised the issue.
Another important question was raised in regard to whether the Government opposed the legislation proposed by Deputy Gay Mitchell earlier this year. Deputy Mitchell was granted leave to introduce his Private Members' Bill, entitled Safety of United Nations Personnel and Punishment of Offenders Bill, 1999, on 10 February 1999. The Bill was not opposed by the Government but Deputy Mitchell sought leave of the Dáil on 9 November to withdraw it.
Senator O'Donovan inquired about the use of the term "worker" instead of "personnel". The definitions of "UN personnel" and "associate personnel" in the convention have been combined to form the definition of "UN worker" in the section. The use of the term "UN worker" is included on the advice of the Attorney General.
Senator O'Donovan also asked about the sort of protection available to Garda and Defence Forces personnel before this convention came into operation, which is an important question. The protection available for soldiers and gardaí serving on missions sanctioned under Chapter VII of the UN Charter was the law relating to international armed conflict. Generally speaking, this was contained in the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Those conventions did not, however, apply to personnel on peacekeeping mission. This convention was drawn up to cover such personnel. Ireland is a party to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Effect was given to them in Irish law when we enacted the Red Cross Act, 1954, the Prisoners of War and Enemy Aliens Act, 1956 and the Geneva Conventions Act, 1962. Last year, we updated our law to give effect to two protocols which were concluded in Geneva on 10 June 1977 and which are additional to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
Senators Cregan, Lanigan and others spoke about the possibility of a memorial to those who gave their lives while serving on missions abroad. I will convey the important concerns and comments expressed by Senators to the Minister for Defence.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed during the debate and the many interesting comments which were made. I understand Committee Stage is due to be taken next Wednesday, 15 December, which means we are moving fairly fast. I hope that will allay the concerns of some Senators in regard to delays. I join with the Senators who sent good wishes to the soldiers and gardaí serving with overseas missions at this time of the year and wish them a happy and peaceful Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
I understand it is not to be taken before next Tuesday. It will probably be taken on Wednesday.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 15 December 1999.
Sitting suspended at 3.57 p.m. and resumed at 4.10 p.m.
