Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

The Vienna Convention also affords the premises of an embassy of a foreign country or international organisation freedom from taxation. I presume these and other inviolabilities outlined by the Minister of State, including the inviolability of archives and official documents and of the person of the diplomatic or official officers of the foreign state or international organisation in question, are not in any way impacted by this legislation. Deputies Michael D. Higgins and Allen and other speakers have already referred to this.

As we continue to expand our diplomatic boundaries to include new missions throughout the world, reciprocal arrangements will be put in place. In some cases, the level and degree of immunity which representatives of other states would expect, as dictated by conditions in their homeland, may not necessarily accord with what is suitable to afford them in this country or some of our neighbouring countries. I travelled on one occasion to a country which, for diplomatic reasons, I will not name. It was pointed out to me the existence of apartment blocks where an immigrant population was housed. Upon observing that this seemed to be poor treatment of the immigrants in question, I received a reply which I will not pain the Minister of State's ears by repeating.

In countries where democracy has not long or has never resided, there may be a different attitude to rights, freedoms and privileges to that which prevails here and in the United Kingdom and United States, for example. This will also affect our diplomats who are sent to those states and we must bear this in mind at all times. In respect of the diplomatic staff sent to Ireland from such states, it might be useful to acknowledge that their homeland may not necessarily be the hub of democracy. In this regard, situations may present themselves for the Department of Foreign Affairs in the event of activities which could be regarded as doubtful.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins rightly referred to some of the activities that went on in various embassies over the years. During the Cold War era it was suggested there were more wires in at least two of the embassies than would incinerate a joint of meat. Those who stayed on the premises were risking their health. That is how operations were conducted at the time. It was an abuse of the diplomatic system, albeit an established and accepted abuse. One moved in, installed eavesdropping equipment, wires, telephone jamming and tapping devices and other electronic gadgets to spy on one's hosts. It is likely this established practice still goes on and will continue. The problem is that as we expand our boundaries in terms of diplomatic missions, we must recognise we will encounter more of this type of situation than we did in the past. From time to time, we read of situations where for one reason or other a diplomat encounters difficulties but is covered by diplomatic immunity. Will this Bill affect such situations? Was a person previously covered by diplomatic immunity if, for example, he or she was involved in a row outside a nightclub and, if so, will that continue to be the case? I do not refer to the provoker of the attack but to a potential innocent bystander who may require cover. The Minister of State might clarify that issue.

Freedom of communication, which is provided for in the previous Act, covers a multitude of circumstances, such as the right of an individual to communicate with his or her embassy, non-interference in the transmission of documents and the freedom for diplomatic staff to go about their work in the same manner as in their home country. The latter circumstance may have a different meaning for some of the newer democracies. We need to keep an eye on that matter.

I pay tribute to the diplomatic service, which does a tremendous job. The expansion of its boundaries has brought great benefit to this country. Embassies are trade as well as diplomatic missions and work on a 24-hour basis in important locations. From an economic as well as a prestige point of view, it is important that people are located in as many places as possible. Deputy Boyle remarked that the ambassador to Mexico covers a whole region in Latin America. We have a massive population in that area and are increasing trade with it. It is imperative that individual missions are located in each of those major countries. Latin America is going to experience significant economic expansion and has entered into agreements with North America which will have an impact on world trade. We need to have diplomatic missions which can act as the voice of Ireland in that region.

I remember a situation where I received significant publicity. While someone once said that all publicity is good publicity, I do not think that applied to the situation in question. I was in Australia as part of an august delegation.

See this speech in context