Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 1995

Vol. 455 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Treatment of Prisoners: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Éamon Ó Cúiv on Tuesday, 4 July 1995:
"That Dáil Éireann,
— acknowledging the constructive role played by both Loyalist and Republican prisoners in the calling and sustaining of the two ceasefires over the past ten months,
— welcoming the positive steps taken by successive Irish Governments since last autumn to begin the phased release of politically motivated prisoners who are members of paramilitary organisations and looking forward to further steps before the end of the year with a view to clearing the majority of prisoners in the reasonably near future.
— welcoming also decisions by the German authorities to release such prisoners in the light of the present situation and
— supporting the efforts of the Irish Government in the Anglo-Irish Conference and between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister to achieve progress on these issues,
calls on the British Government to play a positive role by addressing, without further delay, issues relating to prisoners, as a means of contributing to confidence in the peace process, in particular to
— legislate, as a first step, to restore 50 per cent remission to prisoners in the North to come into effect before Christmas,
— treat prisoners convicted of crime equally, regardless of whether they come from the security forces in Britain or the North or from paramilitary organisations,
— reverse all other punitive measures introduced in the course of the troubles and to implement the recommendations of the SACHR report, in particular the full restoration of electoral rights once prisoners have been released,
— investigate and order judicial review as a matter of urgency of all cases where aprima facie miscarriage of justice may have occurred,
— expedite the transfer of prisoners from British jails to jails throughout Ireland under the transfer of prisoners convention, where applicable,
— facilitate access by families, friends and political representatives to prisoners in Britain and to provide independent medical assessment and end special and oppressive restrictions on their freedom within British prisons,
— treat life prisoners on the same basis as other life prisoners in Britain and to indicate clearly the terms of their sentence to those who already served a long number of years in jail,
— ensure that no one is required to serve a double sentence following extradition to another jurisdiction and
— provide all necessary means and resources for victim support.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann fully supports the efforts of successive Governments to consolidate the peace process at every level
— by seeking progress towards the overall goal of an agreed political settlement through comprehensive negotiations,
— by pursuing an even-handed and constructive handling of all aspects of prison issues, including earlier releases, bearing in mind the role which the loyalist and republican prisoners have played in the peace process, the reduced risk of reoffence and the positive effects of improvements in this area on the prisoners, their families and the political climate in their communities,
— by recognising the sensitivities of all victims of violence,
— by promoting sensitive response to security developments on the ground in Northern Ireland in view of the dramatically improved security situation and
— by maximising the economic and other benefits of peace through increased North-South co-operation
and calls on the British Government to continue to co-operate in the joint pursuit of these objectives building on the progress achieved in the Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Document."
— (The Taoiseach.)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kirk.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

This motion is timely in light of recent events. Loyalist and republican prisoners have played a major role during the past ten months in encouraging others to become involved in the peace process. The decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, to release Private Lee Clegg was wrong until proper arrangements are made for the release of republican and loyalist prisoners serving sentences on mainland Britain and in Northern Ireland. Action needs to be taken quickly in this regard.

We should not adopt the view that offenders should be put behind bars and we should throw away the key. A number of prisoners have not been given a release date. On the question of visits, the action taken recently by the British Home Secretary was regrettable and not in the best interests of promoting harmony in the peace process.

When in Belfast on Monday I saw the plumes of black smoke over the Falls Road. This was a reminder of what could have happened if mistakes had been made by those involved in initiating the peace process. The Taoiseach and members of the Government should apply the maximum pressure on the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, who has been given a clear mandate and is now in a position to deal with the question of prisoners. I appeal to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, to make the necessary arrangements to allow prisoners, many of whom have been in prison for a long time to return home. When we contrast the way in which paramilitary prisoners, as they are often described, and Private Lee Clegg have been treated there is a gaping void which has to be filled quickly.

The success of the peace process will be assessed by many on 31 August. From what I have heard on the grapevine is is imperative that the question of prisoners is addressed immediately by the British Government. It should, as a matter of urgency, provide for a proper remission rate for republican and loyalist prisoners. In the 1950s and 1960s the two Governments took every opportunity to cater for those who had been imprisoned because of their involvement in the troubles. Prisoners should at least be told when they will be released, what the remission rate will be and proper facilities made available for their families, to which they are entitled. I urge the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice and their Government colleagues to exert the maximum pressure in this regard.

It is apparent to everyone involved in the peace process that there is an urgent need to address this issue. As a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body, I urge the British Government to devise a definite policy on prisoners as this issue has the potential to destory the peace process which was initiated for the benefit of everyone in the community, North and South. It would be a disaster if this were to happen because of the failure of the two Governments to address this and other relevant matters.

I thank Deputy Ellis for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution. At a time when progress is painfully slow the issue of prisoners should be placed at the top of the political agenda. When the peace process was initiated in August 1994 many people on this island and further afield were sceptical about its prospects for success. We are glad it has been sustained and hope it will gather momentum.

It will take time to complete the process of normalisation in the six Northern counties after 25 years of turbulence, violence and social, economic and political upheaval. In this regard the issue of prisoners is uppermost in the minds of many people in republican and loyalist areas.

The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is attended by a representative of loyalist prisoners. Members of that community are anxious to secure their release. There is consensus in the House which I hope will extend to those who make decisions at British Government level that the position should be normalised as quickly as possible for prisoners, many of whom have been in prison for a long time. One can imagine their state of mind and that of their families.

Recently I had the opportunity with two of my constituency colleagues, Deputies Dermot Ahern and McGahon, to hear the point of view of the spouses and children of prisoners from County Louth. One could not but feel for the many small children, some of whom barely know their fathers who have been in prison for a long time.

I wish to share my time with the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am glad to have the opportunity to address the House on this motion. In particular, I am glad of the opportunity it provides me to speak on the measures which have been taken in this jurisdiction in relation to prisons and other issues mentioned in the motion. I want to begin by putting those issues within the overall context of the peace process.

We are living in a time of change. Over the past 18 months or so we have witnessed the unfolding of events of truly historical significance for this island. It is widely accepted, and rightly so, that the combination of these events has brought about the best ever prospect of securing a lasting peace and a reconciliation between the two traditions on this island. For the sake of the people who make up these traditions — and for all our sakes — we must draw a line over the past and earnestly seek a better future for the present and future generations.

Both this Government and the previous Government have accorded top priority to the advancement of the peace process. They have understood and appreciated the importance of taking action at a number of levels and on a number of different fronts in order to underpin the process and to help ensure the achievement of its ultimate goal. The Joint Declaration, the Joint Framework Document, the ending of the national emergency and the continuing work of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation are testimony to what has been done and achieved to date.

As Minister for Justice, I have had particular association with a number of specific measures which have been taken in this jurisdiction to support the peace process. One of the most important of these measures has been the early release, to date, of 20 selected prisoners who had been serving custodial sentences for subversive-related offences. These releases have served to demonstrate that the benefits of the peace process extend to persons on all sides of the conflict. They have also provided a clear indication of the willingness of the Government here to exercise the kind of flexibility which is made possible in circumstances of continuing peace.

The Government is prepared to continue to exercise flexibility in relation to prison issues. It recognises the importance of maintaining this flexibility and the significance which parties within both traditions attach to prisoner releases. It is the Government's intention to ensure that the process of individual assessment of the suitability of prisoners for early release continues and that further such releases are arranged where possible as the peace process develops.

An important consideration for the Government in agreeing to the early release of prisoners is of course the likely impact which such releases an have on persons — and the families and friends of persons — who have been the victims of offences committed by the prisoners concerned. As the Taoiseach said when addressing this motion last night, no words can take away the loss, grief, pain and outrage felt by the victims. It is for this reason that the Government has been careful to ensure that each and every early release of a subversive prisoner in this jurisdiction is conditional not only on the prisoner keeping the peace but also refraining from doing anything, through publicity or otherwise, which would cause distress to the persons who may have been affected by the offence in respect of which the prison sentence had been imposed. This is the minimum to which the victims are entitled. It may, in some cases, go some way towards providing a level of reassurance and helping the victims, in time, to appreciate more fully the positive aspects of early releases for the greater good of the community in general.

The release of Private Lee Clegg has been the focus of particular attention in recent days. There are a number of aspects to the controversy surrounding the case but, in so far as the peace process is concerned, Private Clegg's release has raised a single very significant issue. That is the need to address, and to be seen to address, on an equal basis the case for early release of republican and loyalist prisoners, many of whom have already served substantial portions of their sentences. I believe that the reaction to Private Clegg's release, which has been witnessed in recent days in Belfast and elsewhere, has provided a deplorable and grim reminder to all of us who witnessed the violence, especially those who directly suffered the violence of the past 25 years, and it is now essential to demonstrate, by means of a shift of policy in relation to sentence management in Northern Ireland, that loyalist and republican prisoners will be dealt with in a fair and even-handed way. Such a move would be widely welcomed within both communities in Northern Ireland and would generate the kind of goodwill which could help to move the peace process forward to a further stage. I will return to this issue at the end of my statement when speaking on the amendments.

With regard to prisoners in general, I have recently introduced the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill. The Bill is now before the Seanad and can be expected to become law shortly. Since its publication last April the Bill has received a positive welcome, both outside and inside this House. It was the subject of a very thorough and constructive examination by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. It underwent considerable amendment during its passage in the House and its provisions have been significantly improved as a result. I pay tribute to the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas whose help with the Bill was invaluable and whose work over the last number of years has kept the issue of prisoners overseas to the forefront of our agenda.

Ratification of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons for humanitarian reasons is, of course, worthy in its own right and the convention makes no distinctions based on categories of prisoners, clearly, however, ratification has a particular role to play in the context of the consolidation of the peace process and I am grateful for the co-operation I received in the House in progressing this very important legislation.

I will briefly refer to other issues relevant to the peace process which come within the ambit of my responsibilities as Minister for Justice. The Government policy agreement contains a commitment to review all legislation and court arrangements associated with the conflict of the past 25 years. My intention is to proceed with the review as quickly as possible and, to that end, my Department is currently considering proposals in regard to the nature and format of the proposed review.

On the security front, there have been a number of measures taken in response to the Provisional IRA and loyalist cessations. Those measures have included the withdrawal of Border checkpoints, reductions in the security presence at prisons, ongoing reductions in Garda numbers assigned to Border divisions and the redeployment to non-security duties of gardaí who had until now been engaged exclusively on security-related work. These various measures are an indication of the confidence of the Government and the security forces in the stability of the peace process. I have already made it known that I expect further redeployment of Garda manpower from security-related duties will take place later this year. I look forward to those resources being used to very worthwhile effect in tackling other forms of crime such as drug related crime and organised crime.

Notwithstanding the very substantial progress which has been made in the peace process to date, it is clear that much more needs to be done to bring it to a successful conclusion. There is no such thing as a partial success in this peace process. Our target must at all times be the achievement of permanent peace and a new set of agreed relationships which will guarantee that peace. That can only be achieved if all parties work together in a spirit of mutual co-operation, commitment and compromise. That is the spirit in which the Government for its part will seek to advance the peace process and I appeal to all other parties to approach it in a similar spirit.

With regard to the amendments that have been put down, the decommissioning of weapons illegally held by paramilitaries and the ending of punishment beatings are important objectives supported on all sides in this House. For that reason and to avoid any misunderstanding, Deputies on this side of the House will support the amendment to amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputy Harney and Deputy O'Malley, subject to a minor amendment Deputy O'Malley will make this evening. However, the test of commitment to democratic policies remains that set out in the Downing Street Declaration.

I would also reiterate the point made by the Taoiseach in his remarks to the House last evening. He made it clear that in considering the peace process it is important not to single out any item and concentrate on it. All issues including the decommissioning of weapons, punishment beatings, prisoner releases, policing and progress on political talks are interconnected. Progress in one area makes progress possible in other areas. Decommissioning cannot be isolated and dealt with on its own. When dealing with the peace process, one has to recognise that it involves a complex and linked number of elements, none of which can be dealt with on a stand alone basis.

In supporting the amendment to amendment No. 1, I ask Deputies to bear in mind that I do so in the context that the overall goal of an agreed political settlement through comprehensive negotiations can only be achieved by pursuing an evenhanded and constructive approach to all elements in the peace process. To make any one element a precondition or to isolate it from the need to make progress at the same time on all the other issues runs the serious risk of destabilising that very process which I know all of us in this House are united in supporting.

Ten months ago the IRA guns fell silent. Two months after that loyalist paramilitary groups announced their ceasefire. True peace is not merely the absence of violence, but the silence of the guns has been an important step of great value. It was achieved thanks to the efforts of individuals with foresight and with a courageous readiness to adopt new categories of thought. Central to the new approach of republicans and loyalists, including the paramilitaries, was the realisation that there is a better way than violence, that the political process is the preferred route of the vast majority of the Irish people and that new methods of co-operation and political interaction must be tried.

That call to co-operate is the challenge which faces all of us. We must together find a way of addressing the broad agenda which constitutes the peace process. In doing so we need to bear in mind the complex and interlocking nature of many of these issues. Of course, progress will not always be easy and there will be many difficulties on the way to overcome. However, we can draw inspiration from the scale of what has been achieved thus far. We should also be encouraged by the reality that progress in one area inevitably improves the prospect for advances across the agenda as a whole.

In this perspective the Government has consistently emphasised to the British authorities the need to respond positively to the new situation created by the ceasefires. What is required now is a pragmatic, flexible approach to the release of prisoners in an orderly way against a background of diminished threat to the community of reoffence. That is the route chosen within this jurisdiction by this Government and by its predecessor. As the Minister for Justice said, 20 prisoners have been released in this jurisdiction since last Christmas. The early release system in this jurisdiction has been operated pragmatically and progressively and with particular regard to the crucial requirement of ensuring the protection of the community.

The Tánaiste has consistently put it to the British authorities at meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference and at other bilateral meetings — the Taoiseach has done the same — that there must be prompt practical movement on prisoner releases in Northern Ireland. As recently as Friday of last week the Tánaiste re-emphasised to the Secretary of State that this is a key and emotive issue for the republican and loyalist communities.

We have indicated to the British Government the sense in the nationalist community that the lack of movement in this area has been leading to a build up of frustration both in the prisons and the broader communities from which the prisoners come. It has been made clear to the British in recent weeks that this worrying situation has been exacerbated by the perception that the case of Private Clegg was being dealt with in isolation from the broader prisoner issues. I do not want at this stage to dwell unduly on the Clegg case, but lessons can be learned from this case if the executive procedures used to free Clegg are applied equally to other life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland.

The Government has, therefore, consistently underlined the crucial importance of all cases in Northern Ireland being treated with rigorous impartiality, both as regards due process of law and any executive decisions which may be taken on sentences handed down by the courts after the law has run its course.

There are a number of other areas where the Government sees scope for progress towards early and orderly releases from prisons in Northern Ireland. The House will be aware that paramilitary prisoners in Northern Ireland who are serving sentences in excess of five years currently qualify for remission at the rate of 33 per cent. This rate was reduced from 50 per cent for those convicted of scheduled offences committed since March 1989 as a response to acts of paramilitary violence at that time.

There is little doubt that a reversion to 50 per cent remission in the first instance would now be seen as an important and timely initial step by the British Government. The change in question is not without precedent. The 50 per cent remission applied from 1976 until 1989 during some of the worst periods of violence. Many find it hard to understand the logic of a more restrictive remission rate now at a time when the guns are silent and the risk to the community must surely be a matter of serious reassessment in the light of the ceasefires.

A positive development would be to move now to increase remission rates, if necessary by the introduction of legislation. We have also urged improvement in life sentence review procedures and for temporary releases. In this regard I am glad to note that the Secretary of State recently relaxed the grounds for granting compassionate home leave in cases of illness of relatives outside the prison.

The controversy surrounding the Clegg affair and the broader question of prisoner releases should not conceal from us the suffering and wounds caused to the victims of violence and their families, some of whom are, of course, the families of prisoners. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has heard the anguish of the victims of violence of the past 25 years and I know it was a moving experience for those present at the forum to hear such testimony.

Deputies have rightly referred to the importance of transfer of prisoners from abroad to prisons in Ireland. In relation to transfers from England to prisons in this jurisdiction, the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners Bill, which must become law before we can ratify the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, has passed all Stages in the Dáil and is about to be considered by the Seanad. The Government hopes the convention can be ratified in the near future and preparations to give effect to its provisions are already well in hand.

As regards transfers from England to prisons in Northern Ireland, the Government has conveyed to the British our view that the programme of transfers should be operated as flexibly as possible and that transfers should be on a permanent basis. We have also pressed the British authorities to ensure that the regime is as flexible as possible and will be pursuing with them differences which have recently arisen with regard to arrangements for closed visits.

I have dwelt in some detail on the prisons issue because the Government fully realises its central importance. We agree with the thrust of the Opposition motion on the need for a forward looking and imaginative approach to prison issues generally and will be actively pursuing such an approach in all our contacts with the British authorities.

However, a motion on this issue should set it in the wider context and should reflect also the sense of the Dáil on key political, security and economic dimensions. These are crucial dimensions in the search for progress and in creating a climate of permanent peace. There are also, of course, a range of steps which can be taken in regard to prisons and we will continue to urge that these be implemented as quickly as possible.

If flexibility is essential in resolving the prisons issue, it is no less critical in the wider task of forging an enduring settlement. Such a settlement can only be reached through a process of open, inclusive negotiations in which each party puts forward its viewpoint with conviction but reaches out to others in a spirit of compromise.

The Government has already signalled its wish to have face to face discussions, without preconditions, with the Northern Ireland parties. I hope the unionist and loyalist parties will carefully consider this invitation, which is motivated by a recognition that dialogue offers the only path to eventual agreement. By responding positively, they will be serving not only the interests of the peace process but those of the unionist people as a whole who share with everyone else on this island a yearning for a lasting settlement.

The peace which we now enjoy offers an unrivalled opportunity to build a lasting settlement. For its part, the Government will continue to do everything it can to promote understanding and create conditions conducive to an agreement. By working closely with the British Government and in close co-operation with all the parties, we can make real progress towards this objective. We will not be deflected from that goal.

The peace process in Northern Ireland which has given the people of this island such hope and, even more importantly, given us a ten month period virtually free from violent death is clearly going through a delicate phase. It is a matter of considerable regret that the British authorities did not heed the advice offered by the Taoiseach as to the potential consequences of treating Private Clegg in such away as to convey to many nationalists that crimes committed in a uniform were to be regarded with less seriousness than those committed by others. It is equally a matter of regret that those associated with Sinn Féin were prepared to respond to the Clegg release by unleashing what appears to have been a well orchestrated campaign of rioting and destruction in Belfast over the past two days.

The anger at the preferential treatment given Private Clegg is understandable, but the folly of this campaign of rioting and destruction has been highlighted by Mr. Eamon Hanna, the Director of the Phoenix Trust, a cross-community development agency in west Belfast, who said that the rioting had set back the cause of economic regeneration in the area for many months, if not years. I am also concerned that just when my Department had launched the extension of the free travel scheme for those travelling to and from Northern Ireland, cross-Border road and rail travel should have been interrupted for the first time in two years.

This is not a time for the sound of marching feet and angry voices, as Sinn Féin seems to believe, but a time for cool heads and measured words. There is an obligation on us all, Government and Opposition, people inside and outside this House, nationalist and unionist, British and Irish, not to say or do anything which might make the current position more difficult or impede the objective, which we all want to see, of turning the current period of peace in Northern Ireland into political agreement on new structures which will ensure that the people on this island will never again have to face the awful scourge of politically motivated murder and destruction.

There is no doubt that the resolution of the position of those currently in jail serving sentences for politically motivated crime is a key element, but not the only one, in copperfastening the peace process. In the debate in this House in December 1993 on the Downing Street Declaration I made the point that the ending of virtually every campaign of politically motivated violence in this country and throughout the world had led to the early release of prisoners and that this was an issue which must be faced up to by both Governments. The Irish Government has responded by initiating a phased release of paramilitary prisoners from within our jurisdiction. This has made a significant contribution to maintaining the momentum of the peace process. There have been no problems with this programme and nothing to suggest that any of those who were released have again become involved in illegal activities.

In previous decades of this century, when IRA campaigns of violence ended, the process of the release of prisoners began shortly afterwards and continued without any decommissioning of arms. Surely with the ceasefires having held for ten months, there is now an unanswerable case for the British Government to do what it was prepared to do on every previous occasion and begin the release of prisoners. Nobody is realistically looking for a general amnesty or the throwing open of all gates and the mass releases of prisoners.

What is needed is the phased release of prisoners, with those who have served the longest being released first. This can be done through the system of releasing on licence, which has been used here and by the British in the Clegg case, or by the restoration of the 50 per cent remission rate, a suggestion which has been made by the Government to the British authorities and which is referred to in the Fianna Fáil motion.

Both the motion and the Government amendment rightly point to the important role played by loyalist and republican prisoners in the peace process. The experience of the past has been that time spent by paramilitary prisoners in jail has not been wasted, that many spend their time usefully thinking through the factors which brought them to jail in the first place and that many come out with a more realistic understanding of the problems of our society and the way in which they can be resolved. A phased release of prisoners would have a moderating impact on both republican and loyalist paramilitary thinking and would provide a boost for the peace process.

While continuing to press for such releases, we also need to try to understand the position of the British on this matter and, in particular, to understand the feelings of the victims of paramilitary violence. The Fianna Fáil motion is flawed in that it makes no reference to the victims of paramilitary violence. Compared to Northern Ireland and Britain, and with the exception of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974, we in this jurisdiction have not suffered anything like the same level of violence as those in Northern Ireland and Britain. We should be honest enough to admit that had we endured a similar campaign and were there those serving long sentences for crimes of mass violence within this State, then there might not be the same degree of consensus on the release of prisoners.

While continuing to press the British authorities to adopt a more flexible approach in relation to prisoners, both as regards releases and transfers of prisoners from jails in Britain to Northern Ireland, we must also continue to exert all possible pressure on the paramilitaries and their political representatives to show the movement necessary to ensure that progress is maintained. If the peace process is to move forward to a successful conclusion, it must be on the basis of give and take on all sides.

The question of decommissioning of paramilitary arms is a crucial one which will not go away. Its resolution will require imagination, ingenuity and trust on all sides. It should not be built into such a matter of principle that it will create further obstacles to the achievement of the principal objective — a political solution and a lasting peace. However, the political realities are — Sinn Féin and the IRA must be aware of this — that apart from the difficulties it creates for the British Government, the two main unionist parties in Northern Ireland, which between them represent close to two-thirds of the population, will not enter into all-party talks with Sinn Féin until such time as some progress is made on the decommissioning issue. I do not agree with the position of the two unionist parties, but we should try to understand it. Given that nationalist violence took such a horrific toll on members of the unionist community over the past 25 years, it is not surprising that they should have reservations about entering into dialogue with the political representative of those who still hold these weapons.

There are other ways in which paramilitaries can help to advance the process and demonstrate that they are continuing to move away from violence and accept the democratic standards of our society. One would be to end the horrific activities of the paramilitary punishment gangs, which continue to inflict barbaric cruelty on those whom they regard as having offended against them. Another would be to assist in the location of the bodies of paramilitary victims, some of whom were murdered more than 20 years ago and whose families are still suffering because they have never been able to give their loved ones a decent burial.

In the case of Sinn Féin, it can move the process on by ending its political equivocation and stating clearly whether or not it accepts concept of consent as regards any changes in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, which is enshrined in the Downing Street Declaration and the Framework Document and which has been accepted by all parties in this House. Like the members of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, I have seen members of Sinn Féin duck, dodge, weave and do everything possible to avoid addressing this issue. However, unless it faces up to this crucial issue and unless its leadership has the courage to tackle it, political progress will be extremely difficult.

I want to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue and Deputy McDaid. Perhaps you, sir, could indicate when my time is up. I also want to give the Progressive Democrates 15 minutes.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am astounded that the Government has decided not to accepted our motion and has instead tabled a bland amendment. As already indicated in this debate, we will not accept the amendment because it is not specific enough as regards prisoners in British jails. That is why we tabled this motion, which was done before we knew Private Clegg would be released. The fact that we were prepared to use the last Private Members' Time in this session to raise an issue which is at the kernel of the peace process and its progress shows our commitment to it. I castigate the Government for not accepting a motion which could be accepted by most parties. Our motion will now be defeated because the Government has tabled an amendment.

The fact that we will be voting against a Government amendment does not indicate that we are adopting a bipartisan approach to issues relating to the peace process. As an Opposition party, we will be making our position clear on the decommissioning of arms and other pertinent issues. Our party when in Government was one of the leading proponents of the peace process. If it were not for our party's contribution, perhaps the peace process would not be as well established. I say that for the benefit of Government Deputies present and they should give us some credit for that. I thought they might have indicated that by accepting our motion.

Regarding Private Clegg's release, as Cardinal Daly said, it was one of the greatest blunders made by the British Government. It is regrettable that the scenes on the streets of Belfast, Newry and other towns in the North have taken place. I concur with our colleague and one of my near neighbours, Mr. Seamus Mallon, when he said those scenes are distracting attention from the awful decision made by the British, that they may give others an opportunity to say that the peace process is dead and that some people will resort to violence again if things do not go their way.

Coincidentally and unrelated to this motion, I agreed a few days ago, after many abortive efforts, to meet the families of a number of prisoners from my constituency which has been at the coal-face of the violence during the past 25 years. I was struck by the attitude of children whose fathers are in prisons on this and our neighbouring island. On the morning Private Clegg was released a mother told me that when her nine year old heard he has been released, she asked, "Does that mean Daddy will be released?" It is difficult to explain to children why their fathers are not being released when Private Clegg has been released. Our party leader referred to what Mrs. Thatcher said, that murder is murder and there is no dear doubt about it. There is justification to an extent for the claim sometimes made that there is one justice for the British and another for the Irish. If anything is to be achieved from the peace process, it will be achieved only on the basis that movement must be made in a balanced way. I suggest that applies to the decommissioning issue also.

Deputy O'Hanlon, a number of members of my party and I met representatives of the former loyalist paramilitaries two months ago in Belfast. It was intriguing that hard-line loyalists raised the prisoners issue with representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party to ensure that we would put enough pressure on the Irish Government and particularly on the British Government to secure movement on the prisoners issue. When account is taken of the sterling work carried out by Reverend Roy Magee who single-handedly convinced the loyalist paramilitaries in prison that a ceasefire should be put in place, it is interesting that they are now turning to the Fianna Fáil Party to state their case. It is important that our Government deals with the prisoners issue even-handedly and ensures that the British Government will do likewise.

On the decommissioning issue, Mr. Tim Pat Coogan is on record as saying it is the Orange card. It is important to emphasise that there is not only an onus on the IRA to decommission arms, but there is also an onus on the loyalist paramilitaries. Perhaps the British Government has not handled that matter as even-handedly as it should.

I appeal to Sinn Féin to recommence its talks with Mr. Ancram or another representative of the British Government; and rather than do it in the glare of the publicity of TV cameras, it would be more appropriate if it proceeded in a manner in which progress could be made.

I thank my colleague for sharing his time with me. There should be a clear policy on the early release of prisoners. That issue cannot be isolated, but should be encompassed in a resolution as part of the overall peace process. The Private Lee Clegg case is unquestionably a political issue and, accordingly, it should be addressed by the Government. Unlike what some political parties are saying and what the usual merchants of doom and gloom are claiming regarding Private Clegg's release, I emphasise his release should not be allowed to jeopardise the peace process, but should solidify it.

The manner in which the Private Clegg affair was handled has presented the Taoiseach with the key to the political prisoners issue. Is he prepared to grasp the opportunity? Unfortunately, having regard to the nature of the Taoiseach's comments last night, it appears he is afraid to grasp this opportunity and, therefore, is missing out on a unique opportunity to move forward the peace process. He is in a unique position to demand from the British Government that it immediately addresses the prisoners issue. The release of Private Clegg, which I believe was badly timed and smacked of typical British insensitivity to the nationalist people, has given the British and Irish Government a unique opportunity to work together to strengthen the peace process.

The pivotal role played by loyalist and republican prisoners in bringing about and consolidating the ceasefire has been acknowledged many times in this House and elsewhere. As we are all aware, especially at this time of the year, symbolism and gestures in Northern Ireland can carry a good deal of importance for both communities. I hope the Government will use its influence at the Anglo-Irish Conference and elsewhere to urge on the British Government the necessity for the wider use of the provisions of the 1961 Criminal Justice Act. Section 26 (1) of that Act gives discretion to the appropriate Minister to allow the transfer of a prisoner from one part of the United Kingdom to another. That provision was used in the case of Private Clegg. Why can it not be used in the case of Irish political prisoners?

The Fianna Fáil motion sets out in detail the many steps that should be taken. A reasonable person could not expect that all loyalist or republican prisoners should walk free tomorrow morning. Some are guilty of horrific crimes, such as the Shankill, Greysteel and other bombings. However, the majority of prisoners on both sides of the divide were not convicted of killing anyone. Many of them could be said to be victims of circumstances.

I congratulate Monsignor Denis Faul on his elevation today. He said that the early release of such prisoners would be of enormous benefit to the entire peace process. This is not something to be put on the long finger. We are now in the marching season and we have seen how easy it is to inflame emotions.

The peace process should be built upon and every opportunity should be taken to bring it further. A fitting tribute to the memory of Miss Karen Reilly would be that she did not die in vain, but that her death will have inadvertently strengthened the peace process. It is up to the Taoiseach and the Government to ensure that will be the case.

Historically the momentum for peace following prolonged periods of conflict can be maintained and accelerated only by major gestures. These gestures may not prove to be universally popular but that is not the litmus test of whether a decision is right or wrong.

The British Government took umbrage at protests from this country regarding the early release of Private Lee Clegg in isolation. It said it was none of our business and that it was a matter for a sovereign Government. To my knowledge, nobody questioned the right of the sovereign Government in Great Britain to make this decision, what was questioned was whether it made the right decision. I submit it did not.

Undoubtedly it was a very popular move from the perspective of the Tory right, but it was deeply offensive to those who had to live with the trauma and tribulations in the Six Counties for the past 25 years. It reinforced the view that there is one law for the British security forces and another for Irish men and women.

The British Government should not delude itself into believing this will be forgotten or that it has not had an adverse effect on the peace process. When the release of Private Lee Clegg is set in the context of the clear miscarriages of justice in the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Judith Ward cases, the inescapable conclusion is that British justice must stand in the dock. The administration of justice in any democracy is badly served when it is motivated by prejudicial and political considerations. The decision to release Clegg was an executive one and, as such, was a political act. Nobody in this country believes the British Establishment fiction about this being a quasi-judicial decision and therefore by implication above criticism. It was prejudicial because it was discriminatory as Clegg was released only because he was a member of the security forces although he murdered a young girl in west Belfast.

Recently I had come to the conclusion that at long last there was a British Government which understood the Irish problem. The release of Clegg has undermined my confidence in that conclusion. A major gesture on the issue of republican and loyalist prisoners is required urgently from the British Government. The message must be sent out loud and clear that we will not accept Ireland's difficulty being used by Tory politicians as their opportunity. It is not the first time that Sir Patrick Mayhew has trampled on the sensitivities of the Irish people.

It is time for the British Government to dig itself out of the intransigent hole which it dug for itself and to move the peace process forward. There is no point, especially after the Clegg release, in trying to link the decommissioning of arms with the prisoners issue. That we have a cessation of violence, but we do not have progress in the peace process because of the stagnation and entrenchment of the British Government.

It would appear it really wants an abject surrender by both loyalists and republicans. That is not realistic. This is a far cry from the solemn promises of magnanimity and generosity in the Downing Street Declaration. Unless there is movement, there could be chaos. The ostrich approach of Sir Patrick Mayhew is in danger of catapulting us all back towards the past through indolence and ignorance.

The current British Government policy is increasingly falling prey to complacency, and the danger is that this island and the peace process could be the ultimate victims. Surely the atrocities in the Six Counties over a 25 year period are still fresh enough in the memory of the British Establishment to provoke a desire to avoid a return to violence at all costs. Surely it must recognise that the next step forward is possible. The British Government would do well to remember that intransigent and ignorant policies based on political expediency often drift past in coffins. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I move the amendment to amendment No. 1:

In amendment No. 1, after "Dáil Éireann", to insert "condemns the action of the British Government in releasing Private Lee Clegg and" and, after "comprehensive negotiations,", to insert the following paragraph:

"—by ensuring that members of all paramilitary organisations commit themselves irrevocably to democratic politics by decommissioning their weapons and ending their brutal punishment beatings within their own communities.".

I wish to amend the amendment to amendment No. 1 by substituting the words "regrets" for the word "condemns".

This motion deals almost entirely with prisoners. The Government amendment is more broadly based and somewhat more objective and, for that reason, I favour it. Because the Government amendment appears more reasonable, we have put down our amendments to it.

The regrettable events of recent days in the North arise directly from the action of the British Government on Monday morning last in releasing Private Lee Clegg — a convicted murderer given a life sentence — after serving a relatively short period in prison in a benign regime near his home in England. Cardinal Daly described this action as one of "crass insensitivity" and I see no reason to disagree with him.

When this release was signalled in the past three or four weeks, the overwhelming advice from this island was not to proceed with it. Serious consequences were foreseen. Notwithstanding that advice, the British Government, rather incredibly, and with reckless foolishness, proceeded to do something wrong and indefensible. The fact that it was without precedent has been borne out by the resignation from the Life Sentence Review Board of the head of the Northern Ireland Probation Service who was courageous enough to state in public that the Clegg release was a complete deviation from the criteria laid down for considering such cases.

This regrettable decision was obviously highly influenced by the vote taken in Westminster yesterday on the leadership of the Conservative Party. It is appalling to realise that a fundamentally wrong decision such as this, taken in defiance of all rules and precedents, should be used as an electioneering ploy and as an inducement to certain members of Parliament to cast their votes in a particular way.

It has been suggested by spokesmen for the British Government that Private Clegg did nothing wrong and that he is not really a murderer because they claim he did not go on duty that night with the intention of killing anybody. This flies in the face of the fact that he has been convicted by a duly constituted court and had the conviction upheld by two higher courts including, I believe, the House of Lords. It is impossible to be convicted of murder by a succession of judges and courts such as that unless they are satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant was possessed with the necessary mens rea, in other words, when he fired he had to have the intention of either killing or causing serious bodily harm without justification. All the courts were so satisfied.

The unfairness of the British Government's approach is underlined by the case of a man whose wife appeared on television a few nights' ago and explained that he had been convicted of attempted murder and has served more than 20 years, but was given no release date and was being detained under an extremely harsh regime. Such obvious partiality was bound to cause an outcry and to lead to trouble. The fact that the trouble appears to be orchestrated by Sinn Féin is by the way. The release of Clegg was a godsend and they took full advantage of it. However, the net result was that appalling images of Northern Ireland were once again flashed around the world. Hundreds of vehicles on fire and £2 million worth of damage done in two days is hardly the advertisement we want, North or South, for increased tourism and commercial investment.

It is abundantly clear that the most obvious requirement to lead to comprehensive negotiation is the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by those who have retained them since 31 August last. Nonetheless, neither the motion nor the Government amendment to it makes any reference to this most obvious and desirable development. Unionists generally have made it abundantly clear that they will not enter multilateral negotiations under the implied threat represented by the retention of these weapons. There will be no comprehensive or meaningful multilateral negotiations on a democratic, political basis when the most important part of one party's mandate is not the votes they got at an election but the retained arms they and their associates still control with all its implications.

Likewise, it is neither normal nor acceptable that those who claim to be ordinary political parties should number among their members and supporters people who even still frequently inflict vicious and brutal beatings on persons whom they unilaterally judge to have infringed some moral or social code they deem appropriate within a particular community. Since August last well over 100 people have been brutally beaten, in many cases, maimed for life, some of them were beaten close to death. The two points the Progressive Democrats highlighted in the amendment are self-evidently true and should be accepted by the House as part of the motion. Therefore, I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Justice say the Government was prepared to do that.

I have warned on more than one occasion that there is a grave danger that a particular agenda is being set in the ongoing debate on what is described as "the peace process." Even the very term "the peace process" has taken on a particular meaning arising from that agenda. There is a grave danger of this House and the general public falling into the trap of accepting that agenda as the real one. However, the real agenda is not just what Sinn Féin wants at any given moment, it is much broader and should encompass the aspirations, desires and fears of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Accepting a succession of Sinn Féin demands as the effective agenda is unwise, first, because of its alienation of so many other people and, second, because its set of demands threatens to be never-ending.

It is disappointing that, after ten months of substantial peace, so little progress has been made in areas such as North-South economic co-operation, the constitutional and institutional development of Northern Ireland internally and in respect of its relations with the south. Everybody has been so relieved at the ceasefires the real agenda is not being pushed. Sinn Féin is allowed to make the running. The majority of moderate people in the North and their political representatives are not really engaged in the process, which represents a great loss of opportunity and is particularly disappointing.

I appeal to moderate people in Northern Ireland to consider the desirability of encouraging their representatives to begin talking; that is equally true on the Unionist and Nationalist sides. By and large the two Governments have worked well together as facilitators in recent years. The Downing Street Joint Declaration and Joint Framework documents are of great assistance to the process. The external goodwill is manifest, particularly in the United States and the European Union. Today a joint meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Affairs was visited by the President of the European Parliament and Senator George Mitchell, President Clinton's economic envoy to Ireland, stressing that good will. There is anxiety everywhere to help and make progress but, in the last resort, progress can be made only in Northern Ireland. We know the overwhelming desire of the people there for peace but they can give lasting effect to that desire only if they insist that their representatives talk, negotiate, compromise and, ultimately, agree.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the motion and on its broader aspects.

Having listened to those Members who have already contributed this evening and the majority who spoke last evening it can rightly be argued that very little was said on either occasion with which one could disagree, as all Members adopted a very constructive tone.

On the broader aspect of the problem, bearing in mind that we must agree a formal motion at 8.30 this evening, it is extremely important that any signal we send is sufficiently broad to demonstrate that we fully recognise we are dealing with a problem of many parts necessitating many remedies for its resolution. In that respect I am very comfortable with the amendment tabled by Deputies Harney and O'Malley.

The British Government may have reached stalemate as far as decommissioning arms is concerned, this can occur when one attributes one aspect of a problem greater importance or significance than others. Accordingly, we must tread carefully when approaching the problem, fully recognising that it might be unwise and unhelpful if our Government made a priority or emphasised any one aspect of the problem.

In an interesting and inspiring contribution last evening the Taoiseach listed in very considerable detail 12 or 13 different but equally important issues of concern in respect of the peace process, in relation to each and every one of which movement is necessary if we are to achieve real, lasting progress.

We are dealing with a motion on the issue of prisoners and I am confident that the Government fully recognises its importance and sensitivity. Indeed in recent months the record of our Government and Minister for Justice in that regard has been very impressive, and will have sent a very strong signal to those formerly involved in paramilitary activities that there is a strong peace dividend to be gained by those who have decided to opt for peace rather than their erstwhile methods of political persuasion. That record demonstrates the commitment of the Government and Minister. On the specific prisoner issue, I welcome the commitment of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, highighted through their recent meetings with the British Government in particular, and the Taoiseach's meeting with his counterpart, the British Prime Minister, when real progress was made.

Our Government's arguments for an increased remission rate, the review of life sentences, in particular the issue of compassionate parole, have all been constructively advanced and constitute an important component of the peace process which must be worked on within the context of the many other issues and difficulties highlighted by the Taoiseach last evening as being part and parcel of the same problem and, consequently, of its resolution.

The Taoiseach listed in great detail the many obstacles we face but he also highlighted how we can all work together to overcome those obstacles. There has been concern about the lack of progress in the peace process but now that the British Prime Minister, John Major, is in a stronger political position, an opportunity exists for further progress on the part of the British Government and I hope some progress will be made in the coming weeks. I am confident Prime Minister Major will deliver in that regard.

The violent events of the past few days were a stark reminder of what life was like in Northern Ireland before the ceasefires. We all have an obligation to ensure that there will not be a return to that violence. The creation of a political process, built on the foundations of the peace process, will help us build a new future. There are many causes of division and doubt and many aspects to their resolution but we all must work together to secure that resolution.

The amended motion is the most constructive way to address this problem. There is a danger in giving one aspect of a problem a greater degree of priority than another. While the motion put forward by the Opposition deserves serious consideration by Government, the problems referred to therein must be addressed in the wider context. We must be extremely cautious in ensuring that all sides of the argument are dealt with in a fair and impartial manner.

We, in Dáil Éireann, must be concerned about parity of esteem because the messages we send from this House, particularly by way of motion, are heard on all sides in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, with the position currently obtaining in Northern Ireland, people are inclined to put their own interpretations on those messages. We must, therefore, be cautious in what we say in this House and how we say it.

I welcome the debate tonight and the discussion on the issue of the transfer of prisoners. It must be put in its proper context, however, and we must recognise that there are many parts to the problem which require a multifaceted solution. I am confident that the efforts of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Government as a whole, in putting pressure on the British Government and all other interested parties, will result in the progress that will lead to a better future for all the people on this island.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Burke, who will conclude the debate.

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Following the ceasefires there are many issues that need to be addressed, including policing and the decommissioning of arms illegally held and those legally held by sections of the community in the North. The issue of prisoners must be addressed also and the structures that will be put in place for the future.

This is a timely motion by the Fianna Fáil Party in view of the release of Private Clegg last Monday. The unilateral decision to release him was totally insensitive. Private Clegg was convicted of murder. He appealed his sentence to the highest court in Britain, the House of Lords, but the sentence was upheld. To release him in isolation without having regard to the position of other political prisoners, both republican and loyalist, was insensitive. There is also a certain cynicism about the fact that Private Clegg was released the day before the Tory leadership vote and one week before 12 July.

The sentences of all political prisoners should now be reviewed. This Government has approved the release of prisoners and that was a positive step forward in the peace process. If the sentences of prisoners in Britain and in the North were reviewed, I believe a number of them would be released. The provision for a 50 per cent remission, which operated up to 1989, should be reintroduced. That would be a positive step.

Prisoners in British prisons should be transferred to the North or to the South, according to where their relatives live. That would be a positive move. In addition, a more humane approach must be adopted in the treatment of prisoners in British prisons, and not just because of the peace process. All civilised countries should adopt a humane approach to prisoners. Those prisoners will eventually be freed and it is important that they are rehabilitated in their own communities as quickly as possible.

Transferring prisoners from one prison to another without informing their relatives is unacceptable. Some prisoners have been transferred to different prisons eight times in two years. Such treatment does not reflect well on any prison system and it is certainly not in the interests of security.

Refusing an application for parole by a prisoner, particularly one who has been in prison for perhaps 20 years, whose mother or father has died constitutes inhumane treatment. Denying prisoners independent medical attention is another issue that should be addressed.

I am concerned at the delay in progressing the peace process. Last night, our Leader, Deputy Ahern, referred to the fact that British politicians who came to Ireland to govern us down through the years made the same mistakes. During the past 25 years of violence in the North, the British Government made at least two serious mistakes. One of those was the introduction of internment in 1971 and the other was the manner in which it dealt with the crisis in the H-blocks in 1981. Both of those blunders were responsible for prolonging the violence in Northern Ireland and they contributed to an increase in the membership of the IRA.

I am concerned at the dilly-dallying by the British Government in the past 12 months in regard to the definition of the word "permanent", the whole question of the decommissioning of arms and the unilateral decision to release Private Clegg. The British Government should now move the peace process forward because it is within its power to do so.

I ask the Government to support this motion. Members of this House should be seen to be unanimous and to have a sense of urgency in regard to the question of prisoners. The Government has already moved on that issue and it would send a worthwhile signal to all concerned if we were to have unanimous support for this motion tonight. The re-election of Mr. John Major as Prime Minister and the re-appointment of Sir Patrick Mayhew as Secretary for Northern Ireland indicates that the difficulties of the last few weeks in Britain have now been resolved. I again ask the Government to use its influence with the British Government to move the peace process forward. I have no doubt that history will judge harshly the politicians who do not grasp the opportunity for peace.

The issue of prisoners is extremely important in the peace process. Our motion concentrates attention on all its facets. A united call by this Dáil on the British Government to take action could have had some effect. The Government amendment diffuses and dilutes the impact of the Fianna Fáil motion and, not for the first time, lets the British Government off the hook in a week it has behaved abominably.

We do not want to see the views of the Government increasingly ignored because it fails to put them forward with sufficient vigour or because the British Government takes them for granted. On 4 April last I and another Deputy tabled questions on the issue of prisoners in Belmarsh Prison and the programme of releases of provisional IRA prisoners in British jails. In reply the Government pointed to the need for careful consideration of the position regarding prisoners and made clear its view that a sensitive approach in this area had an important contribution to make to the consolidation of the peace process. The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, was talking about a sensitive approach by the British Government. What effect have his representations had when they have been so ignored, as evidenced by the Clegg case and the fact that there have not been releases since?

The Tánaiste went on to say he believed that if tackled on a pragmatic and sensitive basis these problems could be satisfactorily resolved without any loss of principle. He achieved no results from the pressure he exerted. He concluded by saying that the Government would continue to keep these matters under review in its contacts with the British Government to encourage a flexible and sensible approach to dealing with prison issues generally. We have heard pious platitudes from the Tánaiste but have seen no action. It shows how little effect our Government is having in its discussions with its opposite number.

I am disappointed that the Government will not support this motion. I am even more surprised that Deputies who have adopted a high profile on the issue of prisoners, for example, Deputies Costello and Bree, are satisfied with the Government's approach to our motion. There is no point in appearing on public platforms and then failing to use their influence with their party in the Dáil where it counts.

Last night the Taoiseach said to say that all issues had to be treated together was a recipe for stagnation. The Government's argument would have more credibility had it persuaded the British Government not to proceed with the unilateral decision on the release of Private Lee Clegg. The British Government argues that it was a separate issue and had nothing to do with other prisoners. That is making a nonsense of the Taoiseach's argument. Our position is that, given the decision on Private Lee Clegg, there has to be movement on prisoners independent of movement on other issues. We did not create this situation; the British Government did. It is of no use for our Government to wring its hands in helpless impotence. It could start to show some resolve by supporting our comprehensive motion. This would send a powerful message to the British Government and to wider opinion that we expect to see progress on this issue.

In the last few days the notion has been put forward that the Clegg decision somehow came within agreed guidelines for prison releases. If that is so, why did the head of the Northern Ireland Probation Office Ms Breidge Gadd resign her position? The reality is that the decision on Clegg was political and not, as the British Prime Minister said, judicial. Were the Provos still active, it would be fair to say that this one decision showed that Sir Patrick Mayhew and the British Government are perfect recruiting officers for them. It is proof, unfortunately, of the feeling that has prevailed in Ireland for hundreds of years that there is one law for the British and another for the Irish. Why has our fair country been blighted by incompetent British politicians who show more concern for day to day internal Westminster political issues than for the nuances of the problems in Northern Ireland, particularly in recent years. Last night our party Leader said that the Home Counties seem to matter more than the Six Counties. The Six Counties are important to us.

The peace process must be built upon. Mutual confidence is vital in that regard, but what message does Clegg's release give to the people of the North and of this island generally? The role of the prisoners in the peace process has been fundamental not only in bringing it about — it was their positive input into the discussions at the time on the republican and loyalist sides that brought it about. They have continued to support the peace process despite the fact that the British ignored its human dimension. Fewer prisoners were released at Christmas 1994 when the peace process was in operation than at Christmas 1993 during the conflict. A Government that ignores the humane factor, the role of the prisoners, is playing with fire.

I praise the Irish Government for its role. It deserves praise for releasing the 20 Provisional IRA members since the beginning of the process. Many of the prisoners in the North were young people who were sucked into the conflict at the time. We must be sensitive to the victims of violence, but we must draw a line in the sand and look forward to the future. We must show some humanity to the prisoners. In talking about the prisoners, we must talk about the regime in British prisons and the failure of the British authorities to show humanity in relation to it.

On the subject of judicial decisions, there are judicial recommendations about releases of and transfers of prisoners. The British Home Secretary is sitting on them, but we are told that Sir Patrick Mayhew's decision to release Private Clegg was a judicial decision. The question of people who have been on the run and have not been home for up to 20 years must also be tackled in the context of the peace process if we are to have a final comprehensive peace on this island.

I regret that the Government has not agreed to accept our comprehensive resolution on prisoners which we tabled last Friday. The amendment by the Progressive Democrats, touching on the release of Private Clegg, is important. However, we on this side of the House want the full comprehensive resolution we tabled to be voted for and passed in this House. The peace process is not just about the prisoners or about the decommissioning of arms, important though that is. It is about a range of items which have to be tackled in all-party talks in the North which should now begin. Let there be no prevarication or further delays. Let us get on with all party talks. Peace should not be taken for granted. What we have now is an absence of violence but what we need is long term peace. That must be negotiated by all sides that hold a democratic mandate. I call for that peace process and for round table peace talks to get under way as soon as possible in order to build on what we have had on this island for the last ten months which was negotiated by this party when in Government with the Labour Party. We call for support for our motion.

I am required to put the question on the amendment as amended by the House.

On a point of order——

The Chair is on his feet. I am putting the question and I will hear the point of order then.

What is the question?

The question is: "That the amendment as amended by the House, to the amendment be made.

What is the amendment as amended by the House?

The word "condemns" was replaced by the word "regrets".

This is total nonsense. For the last two nights we debated a comprehensive motion in my party's name. We now have a watered down amendment.

That is a matter for the House.

We are making a joke of it. Everyone in the House condemned the British Government and now we have a "regret". We may as well congratulate it for what it has done. Let it walk free again. Come off your knees for once.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Nil, 49.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Donnell and J. Higgins; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.

The question is: "That the amendment, as amended, be made."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 48.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, James.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick West).
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Motion, as amended, be agreed to" put and declared carried.
Top
Share