Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

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.

See this speech in context