Select Committee on Foreign Affairs debate -
Thursday, 11 Nov 1993

SECTION 1.

Deputy J. O'Keeffe

I move amendment No. 1:

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

We in Fine Gael are drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that we are now a member of the European Union. This raises the question of whether this Bill needs to take account of this fact. The European Union came into operation 1 November 1993 but the Bill would have been drafted prior to that. Article 8 (c) of the Treaty of European Union provides that every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in which the member state of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any member state on the same conditions as the nationals of that member state. Before 31 December 1993 member states shall establish the necessary rules among themselves and start the international negotiations required to secure this protection. I can envisage two situations. An Irish citizen may need to avail of diplomatic or consular services in Burma, but we do not have anybody resident there. Under the Maastricht Treaty he is entitled to go the British or French Embassy and is legally entitled to be protected and looked after as well as having consular acts performed and so on. The question of fees he should pay for those services then arises. In the second case, we have a mission in Maseru, the capital of Lesotho, and I could envisage a situation where a citizen from Luxembourg, which does not have representation in Maseru, needs to avail of such services. Under the Maastricht Treaty if a citizen of Luxembourg requires diplomatic or consular services in Lesotho he is entitled to go to our office and have those services provided. The question is what fees should be charged in that situation. The point I am raising is whether it is necessary to provide for fees in this Bill, which lays down conditions and regulations about consular and diplomatic services.

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

I thank the Deputy for his comments on this amendment. I would draw a distinction between the two examples given by the Deputy. One refers to Irish officials providing services to foreigners, including citizens from our European Union partners and the other refers to European Union officials providing services to an Irish citizen in a third country. The Deputy referred to Article 8c of the Treaty. The implications arising from the proposed amendment would be very far reaching. At present only a limited number of categories of persons are authorised to perform notarial acts and to take oaths for Irish legal purposes. We would have to seriously consider whether such powers should be extended to Government officials of another State. The question of sovereignty would also have to be considered.

I sympathise with the situation in Lesotho. There are no real complications there, in that an Irish official could provide services for one of our European Union partners. We are talking here about our legislation which goes back to the 1939 Act. We received this amendment only last night and I have made the distinction between the Lesotho case and others. I suggest that we come back to this on Report Stage as I am concerned that here we are trying to do too much and might extend beyond our sovereignty by getting into territory where Government officials from another State would be taking certain actions. If there is a challenge in relation to a foreign diplomat carrying out the proper procedures, if there is a sworn inquiry, would the diplomat have to come to Ireland? I am willing to look at the case in Lesotho where there is an Irish official dealing with services over which we would have some control.

Deputy Ferris

The most important point relates to sovereignty, and Deputy O'Keeffe from his experience realises the difficulties that can arise. This Bill is in accordance with the Vienna Convention, so I presume it has international implications. The question of fees is important as well, but can the Minister assure us that even if it is not possible to accept this amendment because of our sovereignty, there is an international understanding that people can be assisted by the nearest available embassy irrespective of whether it is within the European Union or Europe as a whole, provided it is recognised internationally?

Deputy Durkan

Will the Minister indicate whether this is truly updating legislation in the light of the European Union and various European Acts passed or pending? Will this legislation cater for anything that is likely to happen under European Union and European integration in the next ten or 15 years? We should be ahead of our time with updating legislation. Given European integration I hope we will find opportunities to ensure that we do not encounter snags or pitfalls due to being part of that great European Community.

Deputy T. Kitt

I am anxious that we should be in line with European Union legislation and that is the thrust of this Bill. To that extent I welcome Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment. I suggest that we look at it on Report Stage and consider how we can have a meeting of minds. There are guidelines for the protection of unrepresented EC nationals by EC missions in third countries. The scope of the guidelines is confined to a number of categories of assistance — in cases of death, serious accident or illness, cases of arrest or detention, cases of victims of violent crime and relief and repatriation of distressed EC nationals. That is as far as we have gone with regard to Article 8. We are making progress in that area.

With regard to the point made by Deputy Ferris, Article 8 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, which relates to the exercise of consular functions on behalf of a third State reads:

Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a consular post of the sending State may, unless the receiving State objects, exercise consular functions in the receiving State on behalf of a third State.

I hope that addresses the problem articulated by Deputy Ferris on this matter. I appreciate the thrust of the amendment but we need to be cautious with regard to sovereignty. We can look at it on Report Stage.

Deputy J. O'Keeffe

I am satisfied with the Minister's response. It was our duty as part of the Opposition to raise this serious issue in the context of the new developments under the Maastricht Treaty. In relation to sovereignty, there is a share in sovereignty among member states within the European Union and to a certain degree we must take on board. I will be happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the Minister will look into it on Report Stage.

Senator Taylor-Quinn

I welcome what the Minister said on the guidelines in relation to the treatment of non-EC nationals. I hope that on Report Stage the Minister will be in a position to seriously consider this amendment because when we passed the Treaty on European Union in 1993 the issue of sovereignty was dealt with at that point. To raise the issue of sovereignty in relation to the application of the treaty at this stage may be a little bit late in the day because we are already bound by the Treaty. The Minister should take this into account in his consideration of this section on Report Stage.

Deputy T. Kitt

I will consider this area between now and Report Stage and we will come back to the Committee. Our relations with our partners in the Community is like foreign policy in other areas, an evolving process and there are no benchmarks along the way. I have outlined some of the developments in relation to Article 8c and it is appropriate that relations in the European Union should evolve. I will certainly take account of the points made on this amendment by Deputies and will come back and be as helpful as possible on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.