Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille um Chaidreamh agus Díolúine Taidhleoireachta (Leasú) 2005. I mo thaithí le hambasáidí agus taidhleoiríÉireannacha agus iasachtacha thar na blianta, is dream iad atá díograiseach san obair atá ar bun acu. Bhí siad i gcónaí an-chuidiúil dom agus dóibh siúd a raibh mé ag cur a gcásanna trasna. Chuidigh siad go mór liom. Chomh maith leis sin, d'éirigh liom i gcónaí i dtaobh na gceisteanna a bhíá gcur agam freagra cuí a fháil uathu. Dá réir sin, measaim gur chóir dúinn i gcónaí déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil an caighdeán is fearr tacaíochta agus cosanta á thabhairt againn dár dtaidhleoirí agus dá réir do thaighleoirí de chuid tíortha eile atá ag obair sa tír seo. Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuil caighdeán idirnáisiúnta i gceist anseo, mar táimid ag lorg pé rud a chuir muidinne ina luí ar ár dtaidhleoirí agus an fhoireann inár n-ambasáidí thar lear. Tá na tíortha sin ag lorg na cosanta céanna sa tír seo.

Sa Bhille seo, measaim go bhfuil aitheantas ar an dainséar go raibh an iomarca cumhachtaí ag an Rialtas ó thaobh na gcinntí a bhíodh á thógaint aige maidir le pribhléid nó diolúine a thabhairt d'eagrais idirnáisiúnta. Chomh maith leis sin, tá an Bille ag iarraidh go mbeadh an Rialtas in ann amach anseo cur le líon na n-eagras agus grúpaí a bheadh clúdaithe ag na pribhléidí sin.

The Bill recognises the dangers of the Government having discretionary powers that are too wide. I believe that they are still too wide regarding the awarding of privileges and immunities to international organisations, communities and other bodies. It is welcome that the Bill limits the privileges and immunities for which the Government may make provision by order to those that may be conferred under the Vienna Convention. However, those privileges and immunities include the inviolability of organisations' premises, means of transport, communications, private baggage, persons in private residence, as well as immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the State and from being obliged to give evidence as a witness.

Given the potentially serious consequences of those privileges and immunities for the public good, I feel that allowing the Government to be the sole arbiter of whether to award those to additional organisations is ill-advised. It would be preferable if the designation of such organisations, because of the gravity of what we would be granting them, were not the sole responsibility of Government. The Houses of the Oireachtas should be afforded the opportunity to contest a Government order relating to the awarding of such immunities and privileges before a decision is made. That could be done through a debate, either of the full House or in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which could examine the merits of the organisation or person in question.

Some effective mechanism must be put in place whereby the entire House has the opportunity to discuss it rather than its being a Government or ministerial directive or order. Effective mechanisms to enable the scrutiny of Government orders by both Houses of the Oireachtas should be put in place to ensure that the organisation or person who has been granted it is still complying with its terms when the decision to grant it comes up for discussion once again.

It is not open-ended; one does not grant immunity for ever more to an organisation. I presume that there would be time limits so that it comes up for review. Those organisations have a duty to comply with the Vienna Convention, and we must ensure that before the granting of a renewal or even in the first instance, those organisations or persons comply with it. Article 55(1) reads as follows.

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

The final stipulation is a major duty regarding embassies around the world and what went on in previous decades and probably still goes on among the staff and officials of some embassies who enjoy such privileges and immunities.

In asking the Government to grant such privileges and immunities, there is an onus on the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to demonstrate their necessity — reflected in the changes to this legislation that we have suggested — and the suitability of the organisation, including its practices, to enjoy them. The conferral of such privileges and immunities must be in the interest of and not compromise or undermine the public good. It is correct that we should examine and evaluate the use of diplomatic privileges and immunities to date. Has what we granted in the past been abused or worked well? Do we really need this legislation?

I asked the Minister yesterday how many certificates had been granted to people avoiding criminal prosecution because of their standing. In fairness, the answer was that no such certificate had been issued. That is a good sign. Embassies in Ireland and those who have such accreditation or privilege have not abused it. However, we must review the matter. It may be the case that embassies, when officials breach the law, quickly shift them out of the country. We have seen that in newspaper reports regarding other countries. The review should consider the activities of the British Embassy in particular in this State and the Government's ability to respond effectively to incidents within the constraints of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Acts 1967 and 1976.

Since we are dealing with foreign affairs and immunities, while I welcome this Bill, I hope that it does not proceed before another that seems to be stuck on Committee Stage, namely, that regarding the International Criminal Court, which is just as vital, if not more so. In a way, it is related to this Bill, which should not take precedence over it. I would welcome a discussion on Committee Stage.

This question might be more appropriate for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern. However, when I asked him, I did not receive an answer that made complete sense. Why should Ireland, as a neutral country, accord recognition to military attachés? There are military attachés in embassies in this State. I do not have a complete list, but I know that the British Embassy, for instance, has a military attaché. If my memory serves me right, so does the American Embassy. That begs the question what their role is. How many such attachés are there? Do all NATO countries have military attachés and what is their role? Is it similar to what we have seen in films and novels about the Cold War? Are these attachés the intelligence service operatives or contacts for their states? They must have a specific purpose. We do not purchase a significant amount of weaponry from other countries which might necessitate the presence of military attachés. Ireland is a neutral state and does not often engage in major military discussions with NATO countries. Deputy Boyle suggested a White Paper should be produced to deal with this entire area. Such a White Paper should deal with the issue of military attachés.

I welcome the thrust of this short Bill. However, it would be better for this House to concentrate on passing the legislation necessary to facilitate co-operation with the International Criminal Court given that it is four years since the passing of the associated referendum.

See this speech in context