Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995

Vol. 455 No. 7

Estimates, 1995. - Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons: Motion.

Minister for Justice (Mrs Owen)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed at Strasbourg on 20 August 1986, as supplemented by the EU Agreement on the Application among the Member States of The European Communities of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons signed at Brussels on 25 May 1987, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 24 July, 1995.

The House will be aware that under Article 29.5.2º of Bunreacht na hÉireann:

The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

While in the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995, the House has made the necessary legislative provisions to give effect to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, as well as the supplementary EU Agreement, the motion before the House today is necessary under Article 29.5.2º to enable us to proceed with the ratification of the Convention and the Agreement.

Obviously the Government — and I believe all sides of the House — is anxious, particularly in the context of the consolidation of the peace process, that ratification should proceed without delay. This is the first available opportunity for the House to pass the necessary motion since the President signed the Bill into law on 17 July last.

Since its publication in April last, the transfer of sentenced persons legislation has received a positive welcome outside and inside the Oireachtas. 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.

Many of the amendments which we made arose from representations made by the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas and I am sure that all Members will join me in paying tribute to the role which that organisation played in this area generally and, particularly, in relation to the legislation. It is fair to say that the legislation as enacted represents a comprehensive and effective measure I am sure we are all pleased to see having been passed into law so quickly.

It is no secret that the measures necessary to give effect to the Convention were long overdue. I can assure the House that the delay in bringing forward the necessary legislative proposals did not arise through any lack of commitment on my part. On the contrary, I made it my business on coming into office to give priority to the necessary legislation and thereby fulfil a commitment in the Government's programme. It gives me great pleasure, therefore, that we have reached the stage at which I can put this motion before the House.

The thinking behind the Convention — and of the Act — is to address the position of persons serving sentences in other countries who may have to endure added suffering beyond that normally involved in the deprivation of liberty itself. Obviously, additional difficulties can arise because of language barriers and cultural differences, but in the majority of cases the greatest additional penalty is the absence of contact by the prisoner with family and friends. Indeed, a major practical concern of the Convention is not just to ameliorate the conditions for prisoners but also to alleviate the plight of their relatives, particularly through making visiting, and the maintenance of contact generally, easier.

Much of the attention given to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act has arisen in the context of the role which it will play as part of the consolidation of the peace process. Certainly it has that positive and worthwhile role and I know that is very much welcomed by the House, but I believe Members will equally welcome the fact that the Convention makes no distinctions based on categories of prisoners: in other words applications can be made under the Convention irrespective of whether there is a paramilitary background to the offences for which people are serving sentences.

The basic aim of the Convention is to provide for a simple and expenditious procedure under which persons sentenced in a foreign country can serve their sentence or balance of their sentence in their country of origin, if that is their preference.

It might be helpful to highlight three key aspects. First, the transfer procedure is voluntary. The sentenced person, the state to which he or she is seeking a transfer and the state where he or she is serving a sentence all must consent to the transfer. Second, although it is a Council of Europe Convention it is not confined to Council of Europe countries. Accession by non-member states is possible and so, for example, the Convention applies to the United States and to Canada. So far 26 of the 36 Council of Europe member states — as well as five non-member states — have ratified the Convention. Also four EU states have given effect to the EU Agreement on the operation of the Convention among member states. Third, the approach which the Convention takes is to set out administrative procedures. The Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act is an enabling one: it was not necessary to include in it all the matters contained in the Convention, many of which can be simply implemented on an administrative basis. What the Act contains are the legislative measures necessary to enable Ireland to give effect to the Convention.

Obviously a key consideration in bringing forward this measure is its likely implications for prison accommodation. While, clearly, concerns arise in this regard I believe they are not insurmountable and that what will be at issue in practice is drawing the right balance on humanitarian grounds, between facilitating transfers as much as possible and at the same time ensuring that undue pressure is not placed on our parison system.

The Convention could impact on prison population in terms of numbers in this country somewhat more so than it might do on others. This is because, on the one hand, we have a relatively small population of foreigners in our prisons today — about 180. On the other hand, we know that the number of Irish nationals serving sentences abroad at any given time far exceeds that figure. The latest available figures indicate that there are at least some 600 Irish nationals imprisoned throughout the world who would be eligible to have their cases considered under the terms of the Convention.

Clearly, not all those persons would be interested in a transfer and, indeed, in all probability only a small minority of them would be, but we have to be conscious of the fact that there may be a difficulty because the number of potential transfers into the State is higher than the number of potential transfers out. While I certainly do not wish to stand in the way of transfers unnecessarily, and would be keen to facilitate people where at all possible, the reality is that I have a duty to guard against placing an intolerable burden on our prison system. The best approach to this would be to draw attention to this potential problem when ratifying the Convention and enter an appropriate reservation at that time. This I propose to do by indicating at the time of ratification that Ireland reserves the right to limit the excess of inward over outward transfers in the light of the availability of prison spaces, and will regard the degree of closeness of applicants' ties with Ireland as a primary consideration.

This will allow the necessary flexibility between playing our part in implementing the Convention and avoiding unsustainable pressure on prison accommodation. I acknowledge freely that in the absence of the Convention being in force it is difficult to ascertain precisely the likely level of interest there will be in applications under it. It should be borne in mind that many Irish nationals serving sentences abroad — particularly in the UK — have long-established roots there and would have no interest at all in returning here. It is worth noting that at one stage the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas estimated that the number of prisoners seeking a transfer here would be about 40 and would level off at less than ten a year subsequently. It has to be borne in mind, too, that, if needs be, applications into the country could be dealt with on a phased basis. If an inordinate number of applications were to be received it will always be the case that I, as Minister for Justice, can withhold consent to transfers.

The Convention does not place an obligation on any contracting party to effect a transfer. Instead, emphasis is placed on the three-way consent to which I have already referred. Special emphasis is placed on the consent of the sentenced person. There would be nothing to be gained by transferring someone against his will and without the person appreciating fully what the legal consequences of the transfer might be. Accordingly, the consent of the sentenced person must be a voluntary and informed consent.

In addition to that three-way consent, the Convention lays down other criteria which must be satisfied before a transfer can take place which I will mention later.

Under the Convention the receiving or administering state can opt for one of two ways of enforcing the sentence imposed by the sentencing state: it may choose to continue to enforce the sentence, in which case it is bound, subject to any necessary technical modifications, by the nature and duration of the sentence as determined in the original sentencing state; or, alternatively, it may choose to convert the sentence into a decision which substitutes a sanction prescribed by its own law for the sanction imposed in the sentencing state.

As regards transfers of prisoners into this country, the Act enables us to use the procedure of continued enforcement, which is considered the more straightforward of the two procedures provided for in the Convention and should operate with greater certainty and, thus, generally in the best interests of the sentenced person. At the time of ratification we will be making a declaration to the effect that it is the continued enforcement procedure which Ireland will use. The Act provides that legal authority for the continued enforcement in the State of a sentence imposed by a foreign state will be by way of warrant issued by the High Court. The warrant will issue on foot of an application to that court by me as Minister once I have consented to the transfer.

As regards transfers out of the State, we have no extra-territorial jurisdiction and are unable, therefore, to legislate for the nuts and bolts of how a sentence will be enforced in another jurisdiction, but parties to the Convention will enforce the sentence in line with the terms of the Convention. The facilitation of transfers abroad is treated under the Act as an entirely administrative function as distinct from involving a judicial process. The 1995 Act provides a legislative basis for the exercise of that administrative function. In keeping with the aim of the Convention to provide a speedy and simple mechanism for transfers the Act provides that the legal authority for transfers out will be by way of warrant issued by me as Minister and there is no need for application to court.

The motion before the House today cannot be considered in isolation from the 1995 Act which provides the legal basis for how we will operate the Convention and in those circumstances it might be useful to remind the House of the key provisions of the Act.

Section 3 provides that foreign nationals serving sentences here must be informed of the substances of the Act in order that they may make an informed choice as to whether to seek to avail of it. Sections 4 and 5 deal with applications and legal authority for transfers of persons outside the State: that is, the outward "traffic" under the Act.

Under section 4 applications for transfer must be made in writing to me as Minister by the sentenced person concerned. If, however, the person is unable to apply him or herself by reason of their young age or physical or mental condition, application may be made on their behalf by an appropriate person, such as a parent or doctor.

Before an application can be granted the conditions for transfer as laid down by the Convention must be met. The first condition is that the applicant be a national of the receiving or administering state. Where, however, the person is a national of another EU member state that has ratified the 1987 Agreement that person may be deemed to fulfil this condition.

The second condition is that the sentence must be final and enforceable. In other words, all available remedies must be exhausted or the time limit for lodging an appeal against sentence and-or conviction has expired. This does not, however, preclude the possibility of a later judicial review of the sentence or a petition for pardon in light of fresh evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993.

The third condition concerns the length of sentence still to be served. Normally this must be of at least six months duration or be indeterminate. In exceptional cases, however, this requirement need not be rigidly complied with and, provided the receiving or administering state agrees, a transfer can be effected where there is less than six months left to serve.

The fourth condition is that the transfer must be voluntary — the sentenced person must consent freely and with full knowledge of what the legal effect of his or her transfer will be from the point of view of both jurisdictions. Consequently, the Convention and the Act in section 4, (5) lay particular emphasis on the necessity for full and informed consent, since transferring someone without consent would lack fairness and be, ultimately, counterproductive.

The fifth condition is that the offence concerned would constitute a criminal offence if committed in the administering state. This is intended to ensure compliance with the principle of dual criminal liability. It is not necessary that the criminal offence be precisely the same in all respects under both the law of this jurisdiction and that of the sentencing state, but some element of comparability or compatibility is necessary.

The sixth and final condition is that the administering state must also agree to the transfer. This condition confirms the convention's basic principle that a transfer requires the agreement of the two states concerned as well as that of the sentenced person.

Section 5 provides that the legal authority for the transfer of a person out of the State will be by way of warrant issued by the Minister for Justice. The warrant provides authority for taking the sentenced person to the point of departure from the State — which will normally be an airport — and for handing him or her over to the escorting officer authorised by the administering state.

While the delivery and removal of the sentenced person is being effected, he or she will be deemed to be in legal custoday. When a person has been transferred, the sentence imposed by this jurisdiction will continue to be enforceable so that if, for instance, the person should escape from lawful custody he or she would be liable to be taken into custody on foot of the original court order.

The sentence will cease to be enforceable, however, once the receiving or administering state considers enforcement to have been completed. We do not want to have a situation where a person who is granted the equivalent of full temporary release in a foreign state would be liable to arrest and imprisonment should the person return here. Accordingly, section 5 provides that the Minister may direct that the sentence be varied or cease altogether in order to give effect to the Convention.

The procedure for transfers into the State — that is, inward "traffic"— is set out in sections 6 and 7. The grounds for a transfer are to all intents and purposes the same as those for ongoing transfers which I have just outlined. The one significant difference is the role the High Court has to play in providing the legal authority for the transfer once it has been consented to. I will return to that in a moment.

Applications for inward transfer must be made in writing, either by the sentencing state or directly to me by the sentenced person. The legislation, as initiated, had provision only for the former method of application, but the House will recall that we thought it prudent to make an amendment to allow for applications to come direct to me from the prisoner as well as from the state where the prisoner is held. The ability of a person in another state to apply directly to me should help with any difficulty there may be of other countries perhaps, for example, delaying the transmission of applications. The legislation was amended to make it clear that the term "national" for the purposes of applications for transfer into the State should be interpreted in its widest possible sense and, so, it includes persons who, though not strictly speaking nationals, have close ties with this country.

Once I, as Minister, have satisfied myself that these requirements under the Convention have been met and I agree to the transfer, it would be a matter for me to apply to the High Court for the issue of a warrant providing legal authority for the bringing of the person into the State and the continued enforcement of the sentence here.

The role of the High Court is set out in section 7. In sum, the court must issue a warrant if satisfied that the necessary conditions for transfer have been fulfilled. In issuing a warrant for continued enforcement, the court will be bound by the type of penalty and duration of sentence determined by the sentencing state. There may occasionally be cases, however, where the legal nature or duration of the sentence imposed in the foreign jurisdiction will be incompatible with the law of this State. This could arise, for example, because of different penal systems with regard to the division of penalties, or the minimum or maximum length of sentences prescribed. In such cases the High Court may, under section 7, adapt the sentence to one prescribed by the law of this State for a similar offence. The adaptation procedure must take place within the very limited boundaries specified: the adapted sentence must, as far as practicable, correspond with that imposed by the sentencing state. Also, it must not aggravate the sentence imposed in the sentencing state and must not exceed the maximum sentence prescribed by the law of this State for a similar offence. In other words, the High Court may adapt the sentence to the nearest equivalent available provided this does not result in a longer sentence, so that the sentenced person is no less well off from the point of view of length of time still to be served.

Section 7 also seeks to make explicit that the High Court, in issuing a warrant for continued enforcement, must take into account any remission accured in the sentencing state. In other words if, say, a person has already earned one-third remission in respect of the portion of a sentence served abroad, he or she will be credited with it and this will be reflected in the amount of sentence he or she will be required to serve when transfered here.

The issue of the warrant will mean, in practice, that the balance of the sentence to be served in this jurisdiction will have the same effect as if it were a sentence imposed here. It will not be subject to appeal since that remains the prerogative of the sentencing state, but in all other respects will be served in precisely the same way as a sentence imposed here and will be subject to all the normal rules governing administration of sentence generally, remission and temporary release.

Enforcement will cease sooner than it would do in the normal course where notification is received from the sentencing state of any decision taken there, other than one concerning remission, which would mean in effect that the sentence would no longer be enforceable in that state. This could happen where there has been a quashing of the conviction by the sentencing state.

Section 8 provides for the legal custody of the person being transferred to the State in accordance with a High Court warrant and the designation and powers of persons authorised to take the person to and from any place under the warrant. Under the Convention the sentencing state alone has the right to take decisions on applications for review of conviction. If the outcome of such a review is that the sentence is to be quashed, then the administering state must reciprocate and terminate enforcement as soon as it is notified of any such decision or measure.

Section 9 contains a general power for the Minister or the High Court, as the case may be, to revoke or vary the warrant under which the person has been transferred either out of or into the State to give effect to the Convention where necessary.

Section 10 of the Act deals with two things. First, it contains what might be called an anti-discrimination clause. It provides that in considering applications for transfer there can be no discrimination between applicants without good reason. Second, subsection (2) deals with an obligation on me to furnish a statement specifying the grounds for any refusal of an application for transfer under the Act.

Section 11 requires that each year I must put before the Houses, by way of a separate annual report, an account of how all aspects of the legislation have operated and this will include information relating to each application made.

I should mention that the Act will not become operative until the process of ratification is completed — that is, under the terms of the Convention, on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the date of deposit of our instrument of ratification.

The process of ratification, which can proceed when we have passed the necessary motion today, will have very positive benefits for Irish nationals serving sentences in foreign prisons and particularly for their families. Equally, it will provide an avenue of hope for those non-nationals who happen to have been sentenced in this jurisdiction but who would prefer to be in their home country.

Given that this process is fulfilling our responsibilities as a member of the Council of Europe, the humanitarian nature of what is proposed and the part this measure will play in the consolidation of the peace process, I am confident in commending this motion that it will be approved by this House.

Mr. R. Burke

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a matter of deep regret that the British Government has not recognised the vital role played by republican and loyalist prisoners in Northern and British prisons in bringing about the peace process, persuading terrorist organisations on both sides of the necessity for that process and the support they have given it since 31 August last.

It is a matter of particular regret that there has not been any relaxation regarding the release of prisoners. I congratulate the Government on the action it took at Christmas and since in recognising the importance of a prisoner release mechanism to consolidate the peace process but that has not been reciprocated in the North. Surely it is illogical that there were fewer prison releases last Christmas when the peace process was in operation than the previous one.

The treatment of prisoners in British jails and the unhelpful statements made yesterday by the Home Secretary are to be abhorred. Since the ceasefire conditions in Belmarsh Prison have worsened considerably with the introduction of closed visits which can only be described as an act of sheer vindictiveness on the part of the British Government. During the past 20 years prisoner transfers were refused causing families unnecessary hardship. Additional punishments had been given, such as, confinement in special secure units, denial of compassionate leave, refusal of parole, closed family and legal visits and constant movement between prisons throughout England.

It is incumbent on both Governments to make progress in the peace process to allow the prisoner issue to be tackled but in tackling it one must recognise also the sensitivities of families and friends of victims who have been murdered or maimed during the 25 year conflict, which we all hope will not recommence.

Regarding the peace process, it is proper that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste should regularly fulfil their obligations by meeting British Ministers and officials as well as prominent American peace activists and the main protagonists who seek to develop a peace dividend from the historic peace process in operation since last September. It is terribly disappointing that nothing concrete emanated from Monday's meeting which was surrounded by hype and heightened expectations, not all of which were manufactured by the media. More was expected and much more needs to be done. It is a sad reflection on the inertia of both Governments that they could only re-echo the general commitment to the peace process made by the paramilitaries last year. It is incumbent on Government to fill the potentially dangerous vacuum that exists by political activity.

It was clearly understood at the outset that the peace process would be demonstrated by a structured political process but that has not happened. It is unhelpful for British politicians to say that Sinn Féin or any other group, loyalist or republican, are disqualified from participating in a dialogue on peace consequent on their firm commitment to peace. That does not show good faith and the peace process was built firmly on the good faith of the key players to deliver what was necessary. Certain parties to the peace process have delivered on their side and we have had almost 12 months of peace. There are still many items of unfinished business and many examples of barbarity that appeal, but the peace process and the peace delivered is still the peace agreed. Other parties have not yet delivered on the potential of the peace dividend.

We, in Fianna Fáil, recognise that there are difficulties, obstacles and sensitivites to be kept in mind along the way, but there were just as many difficulties, obstacles and sensitivities before the ceasefire and the work was still done. When a multi-faceted process such as this loses its momentum somethings of its original impulse is also lost; we cannot afford that.

We fully support the Government in its official meetings and those behind the scenes, we hope its efforts will bear fruit, but time is of the essence and we have not yet seen any results. A great deal of time has been lost in tiresome word games, rowing backwards and kicking to touch. We want to give both Governments the benefit of the doubt but it is sad to witness so much effort resulting in such barely discernible progress; to describe it as a snail's peace would not overstate it. We all expect a breakthrough soon, which is what is needed to lower the tension that has invaded the political vacuum created by inertia.

I want to mention specially the great work being done by my party colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív, who has been going quietly about British jails over the past six months, where possible, listening to prisoners, meeting their families and representing their views to British and Irish officials.

It is a pity the Government did not see fit to accept the comprehensive Fianna Fáil motion tabled on prisoners which would have constituted a powerful democratic force behind its representations, in taking such a stand with the British Government before and after the Cannes meeting. It would have demonstrated to the British Government that our Government really believed what backbenchers in the House of Commons were saying to them. It would also have added force to the recent Labour Party mission clearly demonstrating our Government's strong commitment to necessary movement on the prisoners' issue: the fact that the Government did not accept our motion is a matter of deep regret.

With regard to the overall peace process, the prisoners' issue is a crucial one as is decommissioning of arms. However, decommissioning of arms was not a precondition of the peace process; the precondition was that there would be a ceasefire, yet the decommissioning of arms has been raised consistently in recent months. If there is to be an international commission established to oversee such decommissioning, let us examine its terms of reference in detail and allow its members to implement their mandate as soon as possible. Any such international commission should not be seen as an excuse for further delaying all-party talks. We heard the Taoiseach's view of those talks here this morning. I agree that all parties should sit around the table but the unwillingness of a party to so do should not be allowed to constitute a veto on the remaining parties to them.

The British and Irish Governments agreed the framework document — signed by the Taoiseach on assuming office — which has been in existence since February last, yet no progress has been made and it appears it has been put to one side. As a matter of priority, we want to see all-party talks on the Joint Downing Street Declaration, the framework document constituting its central element. If the Unionist parties want to place a document on the table, so be it, but the framework document is there; we want all-inclusive talks and nobody, Unionists or anybody else, should have the right to veto them. Let the talking begin at the earliest possible opportunity; let the decommissioning issue be tackled, as it must, as an item on the agenda or through the establishment of an international commission but let that not be seen as a mechansim for delaying those all-party talks because, if that happened it would lead to continous delays.

We must never forget that peace is a very precious commodity on this island and we should not allow any delay in talks to destroy the peace we now enjoy and long to see continued.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I very much welcome the motion and the finalisation of the relevant Bill, for which much credit is due to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn. Indeed, Fianna Fáil gave Sinn Féin a commitment to enact this Bill prior to Christmas 1994.

In the Bill's passage through the House, I argued strongly on several occasions that we should insert a right of a foreign national imprisoned in this State to obtain a transfer to his or her country of origin, obviously, subject to the consent of the receiving state. The reason I tabled and strongly argued in favour of that amendment on numerous occasions was that I believe it would impose a moral obligation on other states, in particular, the United Kingdom, to grant such transfer, as of right, from that jurisdiction to ours.

In retrospect my amendment must be seen to have been appropriate and proper. The British Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, is reported in today's edition of The Irish Times as having said yesterday:

We have a clear policy on the transfer of prisoners. It was set out in Parliament in 1992, and since then 18 prisoners had been transferred to Northern Ireland, three of them in the last week. There is no question of a change in that policy... It sets out the general desirability of prisoners serving their sentences nearer their homes and families, and sets out the criteria by which applications for transfer will be granted... We have clear criteria for the transfer of prisoners that have been applied consistently since 1992.

Either Mr. Howard has been living in cloud cuckoo land since 31 August 1994 or is speaking from a position of deep ignorance; either way, his comments were unhelpful, unwise, arrogant and provocative.

Perhaps the British Home Secretary would now like to explain what criteria were used in the release of Private Lee Clegg: were they the same criteria he so loftily said were established by Parliament in 1992? Private Lee Clegg was transferred from Ireland within weeks of his conviction for having murdered a young girl and released on licence having served two years only in prison. How could the same criteria shut English cell doors firmly on Irish prisoners requesting a transfer to Ireland when some of them were arrested as teenagers and remain in British prisons after 20 years?

The British Home Secretary might also explain why the British Government finds it necessary, following a ceasefire that will shortly move into its second year, to inflict unnecessary hardship on the families of Irish prisoners, by using the refusal of transfers as an extra judicial punishment; what cause is served by such action and, in addition, why the British Government finds it necessary to impose additional punishment on those prisoners, including confinement on special secure units, the denial of compassionate leave, refusal of parole, closed family and legal visits and constant movement between prisons throughout England because it would appear, since the ceasefires, conditions for some, if not all, Irish prisoners have worsened considerably. In that respect, Mr. Howard might also say what criteria are being used by his Government to dictate this policy.

Everybody knows that prisoners were an integral element of the ceasefires and — eventual peace. How then can the British Government explain the cruel, inhuman treatment of prisoners since the ceasefires? It does not make sense and is downright immoral. No amount of post-colonial, imperialist ignorance can advance the cause of peace in this island. Mr. Howard would do well to remember that the people of the Six Counties have just emerged from 25 years of horrific violence, mayhem and death. The last thing they need is indolence and arrogance on the part of senior members of the British Government with complete disregard for the promises they made so solemnly with regard to all-party talks.

I suspect it is not the case that Mr. Howard is not capable of learning the history of this country or, in particular, of the Six Counties, rather that he wishes to put his true blue unionism and naked hias on public display. Mr. Howard and others within the British establishment who share his political backwater should be consigned to the dustbins of history. Meanwhile, the remainder of us should look forward and request those who understand the problem on this island to look to the future in the light of the terms of the Joint Downing Street Declaration, which underpins the peace process, in which firm commitments of generosity and magnaminity were set out.

Preconditions such as decommissioning did not arise and, desirable as it is, will not be achieved prior to all inclusive talks. It is downright foolhardy to link the transfer or release of prisoners with the decommissioning issue. Any attempt, covert or overt, to use the release or transfer of prisoners as a pawn in the decommissioning of armaments is a dangerous road to go down. Nonetheless, some British politicians, not least Mr. Howard, appear to take that line. In doing so, they may well be digging a hole for the peace process rather than building upon its foundations.

We are not calling on the British Government to treat loyalist prisoners any differently from IRA prisoners. We are merely asking for movement on the question of transfers and release as a matter of common sense and ordinary justice. The words "parity of esteem" have been used a great deal during the past two years. If parity of esteem is to mean anything it will surely translate into action with a view to bringing that about.

Surely the British Government has learned by now that if it does not learn from Irish history it is doomed to repeat the same mistakes. It would be a tragedy for everybody on this island if violence were to resume. British intransigence on the prisoners issue is clearly giving rise to early scepticism from extreme republicans and loyalists. Under no circumstances must they be given even the flimsiest excuse to resume their murderous campaigns. Like many a time before, the future peace of this island is in the hands of the British Government.

We must be perfectly clear about one thing. The paramilitaries were promised that inclusive talks would begin soon after a ceasefire. Those talks did not begin. The British Government broke faith. It is time for it to turn over a new leaf and make a gesture on the prisoners issue in order to enhance confidence in the peace process and deliver on the spirit of the Downing Street Joint Declaration.

It is of crucial importance that prisoner releases and transfers also apply to republican socialist prisoners in a balanced way. Equity and justice demand that all prisoners be treated alike and fairly. There have been complaints from Portlaoise prison that the Provisional IRA group of prisoners receive more favourable treatment than the other groups of republican prisoners. Will the Government have the matter investigated to ensure there is not any discrimination between different sets of prisoners?

It is time for the peacemakers in the British Cabinet to come out of the woodwork and advance the cause of a just and lasting peace at this crucial juncture in Irish history.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not have any objection to this motion and I am happy to support it. It is right that it should be moved now that the legislation has been passed. The convention was signed nearly nine years ago and, as is the case with many of these conventions, we have been somewhat remiss in not having ratified it for so long. Unfortunately, there are various other conventions that have not been ratified either, which many people would regard as being equally important and, in some cases, more important.

It is inevitable that one should conclude it is because of the peace process that this ratification procedure is now being brought forward and the legislation passed. Without it, this convention, like many others, would probably have been ignored. I am concerned about the effect this may have on our prison system. We do not have any definite prisoner figures and I do not believe much research was done on it. In her contribution, the Minister referred to at least 600 convicted Irish nationals held in custody abroad. In the debate on the Bill she referred to 650 but the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas say the figure is 1,200.

Mrs. Owen

They would be in countries not eligible under the convention. I am talking about countries eligible under the convention.

Mr. O'Malley

Potentially any country is eligible; they do not have to be members of the Council of Europe. They can accede to it and make arrangements if they accept the rules set out in the convention. If a significant proportion of the 600 plus prisoners were to opt to come back here, it would create huge problems for our prison system which is virtually on the point of breakdown anyway.

In the course of her contribution, the Minister referred to the estimate of the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas, that approximately 40 prisoners will apply initially and that there would be ten new cases per annum afterwards. If the commission is right in that figure — and I hope it is — that number is manageable. The Minister did not make any comment regarding her belief as to whether that is likely to be the actual figure. I would be surprised if the figure was so small; I would have thought it would be much larger.

I am a little concerned that many hundreds of prisoners might apply to transfer at a time when the prison system here is virtually on the point of breakdown. We have a revolving door syndrome, as the Minister and everyone else knows — people are in and out of prison in very short periods. That will be further accentuated by these transfers if the numbers are very large. The Minister should give the House an estimate of the number of people likely to be involved as these transfers could cause chaos.

I am given some reassurance that she has to agree to each transfer and that Ireland will enter a reservation to the terms of ratification of the convention. I am a little concerned about the nature of that reservation because it could be used to virtually stultify the whole process. The Minister stated:

This I propose to do by indicating at the time of ratification that Ireland reserves the right to limit the excess of inward over outward transfers in the light of the availability of prison spaces, and will regard the degree of closeness of applicants' ties with Ireland as a primary consideration.

I do not have any problem with the second proposal but if the first is taken literally, some future Minister could say he or she will only accept prisoners from abroad in direct proportion to the number here who are going abroad. Since the numbers here are clearly much smaller than the number of our nationals imprisoned abroad, that could limit transfers. However, it is a potential safety valve if the process became unmanageable and I hope it will not create further chaos in the prison system here which gives rise to so much concern.

If, in addition to this, we were to pass in the next year, say, a referendum changing the bail arrangements and if bail became somewhat less common than it is — it currently applies in practice to about 99 per cent of people charged — and the proportion of those getting bail on serious offences was significantly smaller, that of itself would create a huge problem in our prisons. The combination of that and this convention, if it were to result in the return of a huge number of people, could make the process entirely unworkable. I hope that will not be the case. What is relevant to this — and perhaps the Minister might deal with it in her reply — is how the bail question now stands and whether there will be a referendum. I believe she is of one view and that some of her colleagues in Government are of another. Our bail laws have been in place since 1966 when the O'Callaghan case was decided by the Supreme Court and it is time, almost 30 years later, we made up our minds to do something about this very serious problem. A significant proportion of offences are committed by people on bail and it is fair to say that those offences would not be committed if the people concerned were not on bail. We must have the most liberal bail laws in the world. They are unnecessary in the interests of individual liberties as the community as a whole has certain rights which should be protected.

The Minister gave a long and detailed account of how the Convention will work here. We are grateful for this as it is helpful. However, she did not deal with one of the most tricky points of all, the circumstances under which remission will be given to people who are transferred to Ireland. If she dealt with this point I missed it and I apologise——

Mrs. Owen

The rules are the same as those which apply here — one quarter remission.

Mr. O'Malley

I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that. It is more satisfactory that the Irish rules would apply to people in custody in Ireland.

Mrs. Owen

They will.

Mr. O'Malley

I think that is what is envisaged by the Convention in any event.

The question of prisoners is topical in the context of the peace process. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, the peace process must not be seen or portrayed as a Nationalist process and one of concern to Nationalists only. There is a huge political vacuum in Northern Ireland which has been caused by the fact that the agenda is essentialy being run by a minority party which I find difficult to accept as a member of a normal democratic political party. One of the reasons the agenda is being run in that way is that the elected representatives and leaders of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland seem to have virtually opted out. They are not taking part in the fundamental debate and they simply react from time to time to events and make comments on them. They have no input into what is going on because they choose not to have any. This is very regrettable as it has caused the entire debate and agenda to become somewhat one-sided.

There are many aspects one could talk about but if one reads the newspapers or watches television one would think prisoners were the only issue. This if far from the case and it is very disappointing that the moderate parties in the centre on both sides are playing such a relatively low key role in the entire process and that the effective interaction appears to be between Sinn Féin, which represents at most 10 per cent of the population in Northern Ireland, and the British Government. It seems from their present attitude that the Unionist leadership would prefer to have no power than to share power. The people whom they represent are being badly done by and this has inevitably led to a serious political vacuum. As in the case of everything else, every political vacuum is filled, and the manner in which this vacuum is being filled at present is not necessarily the best. This makes many people at home and abroad assume that the agenda is the real one and the only possible one. It allows people to call the shots and to say that their particular requirements are the only real ones which will make the peace process successful and permanent. Of course, this is far from the case.

If the process is to be successful and permanent we need a political settlement of a fundamental nature which will only arise from dialogue between all the parties. We would do well to remind ourselves that when we talk about all parties we are not only including the need to try to have Sinn Féin involved but we are also trying to ensure that those who represent much larger sections of the community will take their place at the table and play their full part. They have not done this to date and that is why the running is being seen to be made by those who are making it. This motion should be seen in this context. It relates only to a small number of people, to the priority requirements of a very small section of the community and is only one of many matters which should play a prominent part in the dialogue that should now be taking place.

Today the Taoiseach said he thought the procedures now under way might take some time and may be slow. This includes the establishment of a commission by the Irish and British Governments which hopefully will lead to procedures for the decommissioning of arms. I understand other procedures are supposed to proceed in parallel with this. However, if the procedures are slow and the kind of timetable implied by the Taoiseach is adhered to there is a danger in the circumstances of the political vacuum I have described that something will go wrong. If active genuine political dialogue and negotiations were taking place and everyone wanted to be actively involved then those dangers would not be as great and we would not have a lopsided picture where everything would appear to depend on one minority party and nothing else would appear to matter. If people are not prepared to play their part then they cannot blame a small unrepresentative minority party for appearing to speak for more people than they do and for giving their requirements a priority which is not warranted by the facts. This is a very sensitive time when everybody concerned should seek to reflect on where they stand and the contribution they can make. In particular, there is an obligation on the more moderate people to play their part so that a proper balance can be struck and a more complete picture given.

I am glad this Convention will be ratified but I do not regard it as a matter of major importance. It is a very small contribution towards the overall process. I hope when this is behind us that people will be able to get on with more fundamental matters and will not shy away from dialogue simply because all their requirements are not met in advance before that dialogue takes place.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I support the motion. As the Minister stated, the thinking behind the convention is to address the situation in which persons serving sentences in other countries may have to endure added suffering beyond that normally involved in the deprivation of liberty. For people in prison, 95 per cent of their punishment is the fact that they are in custody and it is proper that the prison system should be as humane as possible. I look forward to the implementation of the convention and the transfer of prisoners as rapidly as possible from Britain to the North and South or to wherever their relatives are located. The Minister referred to the importance of the convention to relatives and this should be taken into account.

Regarding prisoners who are not being transferred to this country, the Minister should impress upon the Governments of countries in which Irish citizens are held, particularly the British Government in relation to political prisoners, that it is unacceptable in any civilised society to treat prisoners with inhumanity or unnecessary hardship. Unfortunately, this applies not only to the prisoners but also their relatives when, for example, prisoners are moved around every six months.

I understand one prisoner was moved to eight different prisons in two years and I cannot see what that does for security, the image of a Government or the prisoner. The overwhelming majority of prisoners are eventually released and we all wish them to be rehabilitated in their communities as quickly as possible. I ask the Minister to raise the issue of moving prisoners with the British Government because it creates unnecessary hardship for the prisoners and their families.

There is also the question of the placement of prisoners in British prisons. Often relatives are not informed that prisoners have been moved and prisons are often inaccessible to relatives — in particular, elderly relatives — travelling from this country. This issue of access to medical treatment must be addressed but unfortunately, there are incidents where easy access to such treatment is not available.

The issue of closed visits and compassionate parole also arise. Some prisoners have been in prison for over 20 years but are not released when a parent dies which is unacceptable in a civilised society. Recent problems in British prisons could have been avoided if the administrative procedure relating to the transfer of prisoners had been expedited. I understand decision taken six months ago were only implemented in recent weeks after problems arose in prisons, such as the dirty protest.

The motion, which is welcome, is very much related to making progress in the peace process. As I said in the recent debate on this matter, the sentences of all political prisoners in this country and in Britain should be reviewed. I am sure some prisoners would be released and those in a similar position to that of Private Clegg in terms of doubtful convictions should certainly be released — although Private Clegg's case was heard by the highest courts, including the House of Lords, and they all upheld his conviction.

Following 11 months' peace, it is time to reinstate the system of 50 per cent remission of sentence. This existed up to 1989 but was removed as a result of a very high level of violence. As there has been a total cessation of paramilitary violence for 11 months there is no reason the 50 per cent remission of sentence system should not be reinstated. This would help to further the peace process.

The position of republican and loyalist prisoners must be addressed and I share the concern expressed by my colleagues about the political vacuum. On 31 August last year, the republican paramilitaries stopped their violent campaign and they were followed some weeks later by the loyalist paramilitaries. It is unfortunate that, 11 months later, a political vacuum exists and, regrettably, the undoubted cause is the intransigence of the British Government.

The first delay centred on the definition of "permanent" but after a few months it was accepted that the paramilitaries on both sides were committed to pursuing their aims through democratic means. There is also the ongoing debate about decommissioning, which is very one-sided in that republican paramilitaries are expected to hand up their weapons. However, in terms of decommissioning, it is important to recognise that there are far too many weapons in Northern Ireland in the hands of republicans, loyalists and the security forces.

The release of Private Lee Clegg raised tension even higher than normal in the week before 12 July. We saw some of the consequences of that decision in Portadown and the Ormeau Road. It is important that people appreciate the fear which exists, particularly on the Garvaghy Road in Portadown when families were up all night worried that their homes would be burned.

It was unfortunate that elected leaders of unionist political parties, particularly Mr. David Trimble and Dr. lan Paisley, increased the tension at that time with some outlandish statements. Mr. Ken Magennis, MP, also made scaremongering, unhelpful statements. It is important that all politicians on this island, particularly those from the northern constitutional parties, sit around the table and look to the future.

I listened carefully to the Taoiseach's remarks this morning. In common with many others, I am disappointed at the outcome of the meeting between the Tánaiste and Sir Patrick Mayhew, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on Monday. Our expectations were raised and phrases such as "very good authority" were used. We were told it was a "very positive" meeting but now it was merely a "good" meeting; its results were toned down. Given the Taoiseach's remarks this morning, is the Government isolating decommissioning from other aspects of the peace process? I would be concerned if that happened because everything must be considered in tandem.

Decommissioning is important but other issues are equally important, such as policing and prisoners. Regardless of the decisions made by the British and Irish Governments, I urge the Taoiseach to ensure that they have the support of the majority of the representatives of the nationalist population. It would be unheard of if an Irish Government went ahead and agreed to something with which the constitutional representatives of nationalists disagreed. I urge the Taoiseach to bear this in mind in terms of whatever action is taken because it would not be progress if he did not have the agreement of the representatives of nationalists in the North.

In conclusion, I ask everybody who has influence to ensure that all-party talks are started without delay. The worst possible situation is a continuing political vacuum. It is in the interests of the Nationalists, the Unionists and of the British and Irish Governments to start round-table talks and to make some progress. None of us knows what dangers might arise from a continuing political vacuum. In the last 25 years we have seen examples of major blunders by the British Government. Internment was a major blunder, the way the H-block issue was handled was a major blunder, and it is important that another major blunder is not made now.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This convention is before the House because it is an international agreement involving a charge upon public funds. It is important to realise that even though this convention has the full backing of the House a cost is involved and it is impossible to accurately assess what that cost will be. It costs about £40,000 per year to keep a prisoner in jail. How can we assess the extent of the applications to transfer to Irish prisons? At the moment, there are 180 non-nationals in Irish jails and they are welcome to apply for transfers. This would make extra space available and relieve the charge on public money. Not all of them will apply for a transfer however. Some 600 Irish nationals are prisoners abroad and about 400 of them are in prison in the United Kingdom; I gather that about 35 of those in Britain are in jail for paramilitary and related offences.

The question arises as to how many of those prisoners will apply to transfer to Ireland. It cannot be assumed that all will do so. The prospect of the reintroduction of the 50 per cent remission rate in the United Kingdom — twice the remission rate here — will be a restraining factor. Another possible factor to weigh in the balance is the fact that the families of many of those Irish prisoners are living in the United Kingdom. However if they come here they can, as have other paramilitary prisoners, apply for early release. I cannot say what decision those prisoners will make, but we must accept that there will be some cost involved. Despite that, it is correct to approve this convention and accept such a charge.

We signed this convention when Fine Gael was last in Government in 1986, and it is time the necessary provisions were put in place to give effect to it. Now is a good time to put such provisions in place because of the possible impact of such legislation on the peace process in Northern Ireland. It will not have a major bearing on the peace process but it is another instrument which could, in the future, be used to maintain the momentum of the process.

There have been a number of references to the current state of the peace process. We all share a great impatience at the delay in getting all party talks under way. There are hopeful signs, however and I am more optimistic about the situation than many of my colleagues. Having said that, one of the dangers to the peace process is the desire to find instant solutions. It will be a long time before we come to a political solution agreed to by all sides. It will take years rather than weeks or months. When looking at the peace process we must restrain our impatience and our natural desire to have a solution in place immediately; this is not possible. There will inevitably be times when it appears that the process is moving with great momentum and times when it is moving very slowly but the most important thing is it keeps moving.

The major factor underlying the peace process is the continuation of the ceasefire. A continuing commitment to that makes it possible to work towards putting a political solution in place. How best can we work towards that political solution? There is a natural tendency to seek scapegoats when progress is not immediately obvious. The most important contribution anyone with an interest in Northern Ireland can make is to ensure that all comments are moderate and that one is careful in selecting scapegoats.

I accept that there is an apparent paralysis in political movement in Northern Ireland at present. There are a number of reasons for that. This paralysis is not total. I believe the personalities involved are assessing their positions and prospects and that this may be part of the reason for this apparent paralysis. It is clear that the British Government has not been making any great contribution towards maintaining the necessary momentum recently. I, like many others, was very concerned at what seemed to be a mistake in the manner in which the case of Private Lee Clegg was dealt with. It was not dealt with in the context of the Northern Ireland situation or the Irish situation generally. I am concerned that the decision was taken in a way and at a time that had more to do with the internal United Kingdom politics than with the Northern Ireland peace process.

This subject is so broad that we can only touch on it. I hope the convention which we are approving under Article 29 of the Constitution today will make some contribution to the development of the peace process. In relation to the peace process generally, I encourage all people of goodwill to continue their efforts and be moderate in their comments. If that is done I believe we will see positive progress towards the political solution we all seek in the months ahead.

Kathleen Lynch

I welcome this motion. Most Deputies with an interest in this area have spoken on this issue during the last year. I thank the Minister for a comprehensive explanation of how the procedure for the transfer of prisoners would work. We all had our own ideas but we were not quite certain how it would be dealt with legislatively. Despite the fact that this issue has been on the backboiler since 1983, it is now more relevant than ever.

It will shortly be 12 months since the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries laid down their arms. However, peace is not merely the absence of war. Recent events in Northern Ireland have demonstrated the fragility of the peace process and it behoves us all to be moderate and tolerant so that what we have continues. We must also accept how difficult it was to bring it about.

Last night I read a speech by the late John Kelly. I always admired him because he was such a great contributor. His remarks addressed the first ceasefire and brought into stark reality the fact that it only lasted a year and floundered because of lack of initiative, nothing was offered and matters did not proceed quickly enough. This is why the legislation facilitating the transfer of prisoners is so important. We must continue to realise that we would not have peace if it had not been for the input of prisoners in bringing it about. Those who had nothing left to lose gave so much and were prepared to make a sacrifice.

Over the past few weeks we have witnessed appalling scenes of sectarian violence and hatred. Orange halls were burnt, street confrontations were orchestrated and neither side lost any opportunity to provoke the other. It is difficult to explain why we do not understand the situation in Bosnia when we see a similar situation so close to home.

Since last August punishment beatings, which are almost a weekly occurrence, have ensured that there is still fear on the streets in Northern Ireland. However, in recent weeks the fear has been intensified as each side eyes the other warily and ordinary people look to us, the politicians, to avert a return to the violence which has claimed over 3,000 lives. We keep saying it must never happen again, but violence continues.

Against this background, the blunt refusal by the British Home Secretary to contemplate changing the legislation regarding prisoner transfers is deeply disappointing. It is regrettable that the British Government has not responded more generously to the paramilitary ceasefires, especially with regard to the prisoner issue. A flexible attitude by the British Government would do much to get the peace process back on track. It is the one issue which would show good faith and ensure that people remain focused and committed to the very fragile peace we now have.

However, neither the Irish nor the British Governments, nor indeed any one party bears sole or even the main responsibility for the peace process. The paramilitaries, ourselves, the British and all sections of society are involved. We must all clearly demonstrate that we are committed to the path laid before us, the path of democracy. We must also continue to reassure those involved that we are all committed to this path.

Peace is not merely the absence of war; it also implies an acceptance of democratic principles. The first and foremost of these principles is consent. In this respect I would welcome an unequivocal commitment by Sinn Féin to the principle of consent enshrined in the Downing Street Declaration and the Framework Document. I also urge Sinn Féin to abandon the tactics of street protest and to use its enormous influence. It must not exploit the sectarian tensions but use its influence to defuse them. We must continue to assure Sinn Féin that we are all, including the British Government, on the same path and agree on what needs to be done.

A democratic mandate brings responsibility with it. However, this has been sadly absent during the past few weeks by all concerned. Democratic Left supports the Government's efforts to move the peace process forward and to address all the relevant issues. I hope the British Government will match the effort being made in this jurisdiction and that it will start doing so by adopting a more flexible approach to the transfer of sentenced prisoners.

However, the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons must be viewed not only in the context of Northern Ireland, but in the broader context. The Council of Europe Convention and the supplementary EU agreement date back to 1983. As in so many other cases, we were unable to ratify the convention because of absence of relevant domestic legislation. The transfer of sentenced prisoners legislation, debated in the House earlier this year, brought us closer into line with internationally accepted human rights practice.

Despite the immediate relevance to the situation in Northern Ireland, the purpose of the legislation is primarily humanitarian, rather than political. Civilised standards demand that prisoners should be able to serve their sentences as close to their homes and families as possible, for the sake of the families, if not of the prisoners. Families of prisoners are often the hidden victims. Many families do not want the glare of publicity that comes from having to travel long distances, and from having to go public to make known the plight of a family member or friend. As a nation we pride ourselves in placing great store by the family. However, we appear to have no regard for the families of prisoners and the legislation will help.

Families of prisoners are often forced to undertake long journeys at considerable if not prohibitive expense to visit them. Quite apart from the consolidation of the peace process, for this reason I would welcome increased flexibility on the part of the British Government with regard to the prisoners' issue. I hope Mr. Howard will reconsider the issue and will not allow his Government's stance to be influenced by purely domestic politics. It is far too serious for any of us to allow the opportunity to slip, an opportunity which could give us the time, flexibility and understanding to create a trust between all parties involved to bring this fragile peace one step further. It appears to be stagnant at present and we are all worried about this. We are all being tolerant and understanding, but I sometimes wonder how far this can go.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I dtosach báire cuireann sé áthas orm labhairt uair amháin eile ar an ábhar seo. I compliment the Minister on introducing the motion. If she had not done so it would not have been introduced until September at the earliest. We would then have had to wait three months from that date for ratification. However, the motion allows her to proceed and lodge the document of ratification. Anybody concerned with this matter will appreciate that the Minister has brought forward the motion, introduced the legislation and acted with all speed in ensuring that the legislation becomes operable at the earliest date.

This is an important convention in its own right and as a humanitarian convention. It is something that, as a civilised State, we were perhaps remiss in not introducing sooner. However, better late than never. Not only does it allow us bring home our nationals, it also facilitates those who are in prison here from other countries to seek transfers to their own countries. As the Minister said, prison sentences should not be longer because a person is from a different country. The legislation, and this convention, represent a breath of fresh air, particularly for the families of prisoners. I hope that in the three months there will be action on the question of transfers.

Unlike a previous speaker, I am not concerned about numbers. I do not believe there will be a large number of requests for transfers, although there will be a reasonable demand. The Minister has provided for that and she will be able to deal with the demand. We must ensure that this process is up and running as soon as the convention is operable. I hope countries from which requests for transfers come — for example, Irish prisoners in Britain — will reciprocate by dealing quickly with transfers and that an efficient and speedy transfer system will be put in place.

As somebody who has visited prisons in Britain on two occasions and made three journeys there on that subject in recent months, I could not speak in the House without mentioning the republican and the few loyalist prisoners in Britain. There are approximately 33 such prisoners there some of whom come from Northern Ireland, while the remainder come from the Republic. The number, therefore, seeking a possible transfer to the Republic will not be significant. However, it is of great significance in terms of the peace process. The numbers should and could be reduced by the British if they acted in a humane way towards prisoners in their custody.

I would like to mention five prisoners about whom I have spoken before. Prisoners Gibson, Kinsella, Norney, Nordonne and Dowd should not be transferred anywhere because they have already served 20 years and were the subject of a recommendation last February by the Lord Chief Justice that they should be released. Those prisoners should be released by the British Home Secretary. A previous speaker said there was an attempt to look for scapegoats. I have never operated on that basis in politics. However, as I became more involved in the prisoners issue, I saw the way they were treated. The more legal cases of which I became informed, the more I realised that the transfers which have taken place to the North to date were on foot of court warrants.

There is an obduracy in Britain to recognise the problems and the solutions needed in the North which I found starting. I was disappointed to discover that because like many people I had hoped we had entered a new phase of Anglo-Irish understanding at office level, at ministerial and Civil Service level, of the dynamic of Irish politics in its broadest sense and of the strained relations which often exist between British and Irish people, particularly between Irish people and their relations with British institutions.

Having visited Britain in the past few months my faith in that progress has been somewhat diminished. I am not that sure that there has been a sea change in British attitudes to Irish people, particularly to Irish prisoners. We must ensure they realise that the consolidation of the peace will be based on trust and that trust with prisoners and their families is an important part of this process. By passing the legislation and this motion, we will be showing that we are willing to move forward and face the problems of many of these prisoners. That is not to take away from the wider aspects of the Bill which I welcome. However, it is of immediate importance to the ongoing peace process.

We have put the necessary administrative and legislative programmes in place so nobody can point a finger at us and say that we have not done everything to humanely deal with this problem which resulted from the political vacuum in Northern Ireland for 70 years. We have initiated the early release of prisoners and have introduced the legislation and this motion to the House. I hope the British Government will look at the positive effects of such forward thinking in this jurisdiction. Those who are interested in building confidence will see this as a positive building block for the future. They should follow our example and take a positive attitude to ensuring peace and deal with the political situation.

Those of us who visited the prisons, including members of the Labour Party who did so recently, will know that the regime under which the prisoners are kept is unnecessarily repressive in view of the ongoing peace process. There is no justification for the type of security measures in force 11 months after the ceasefire. It shows a lack of understanding of the dynamic of the paramilitaries to believe that there is a high risk. We must continue to highlight this issue and to move forward. Without progress on the prisoners issue, we will find it difficult to make progress on the peace issue. I recognise that there are other factors in this process. However, given the negative attitude to the prisoners issue, there is a danger that the peace process might get sidelined into that issue or get stuck in that rut because it is the most immediate matter to be dealt with. We should deal with that issue in a positive way so we can get back to the peace process, which is a multifaceted one with each side being prepared to give and take.

If a prisoner is transferred here in six months and subsequently the House of Commons, or another parliament, introduces extra remission — for example, 75 per cent, which would affect the prisoner — would that automatically apply to that prisoner? That is an important issue because prisoners will consider the attractions of being transferred here against the possible disadvantage of awaiting legislation which might be introduced.

Mr. Bree

I wish to share my time with Deputy Costello.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Foxe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Bree

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Government motion which I support. Over recent days I, and three colleagues from the Parliamentary Labour Party, visited a number of prisons in England where we had an opportunity to speak with some of the Irish prisoners detained there. While the conditions of imprisonment for Irish prisoners convicted in the UK of politically related charges have always been harsh, in recent times the conditions have deteriorated alarmingly. This is a cause of concern for all of us interested in the further development of the peace process.

Eleven of these prisoners are now serving their twentieth year in prison and none has been given any indication of a release date. The youngest was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975 for using a firearm to resist arrest; he was 17 years old at the time. Twenty years later, with half of his young life spent behind bars, the British Home Office will not give him any indication when he might be considered for release.

If we contrast that with the case of Private Lee Clegg we begin to see how British justice works. Private Clegg was convicted in a court of law of murdering a young Irish girl in Belfast. However, after serving only four years he was released. This confirms — if confirmation were ever needed — that there is one law for the Irish and another for members of the British security forces.

Another example is the case of Seán Kinsella whom I met in Full Sutton Prison. He is the eldest of four children. He has served nearly 20 years in prison. His 76 year old mother is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and has not seen him for the past eight years. A letter from the British Home Office sent in February indicated that the British Lord Chief Justice stated he was satisfied that Seán Kinsella and four other named Irish prisoners had served long enough, and if they were to be released some months short of the 20 years recommended at their trials, he would have no problem with that. Six months later, despite this, there is still no sign of any release.

Most of the Irish prisoners convicted of politically related offences are held in what are called special secure units or SSUs. These are prisons within prisons and people held in them have no contact with the general prison population. The units are small, usually holding eight to ten prisoners, with limited facilities. Prisoners are monitored at all times by prison officers and by cameras. Prisoners held in SSUs are confined all day; they are not allowed to participate in any of the normal jail activities, such as going to the library, the main gym or playing fields. A number of observers have expressed concern about the oppressive nature of SSUs. Many believe that prolonged detention in such facilities can only be detrimental to a person's health and wellbeing.

Two of the prisoners we met in Whitemoor Prison came off the "dirty protest" specifically to speak to us. They told us of the terrible conditions in the segregation unit in which they were held and also conditions in the special secure unit in the prison. They complained of 24 hour confinement without seeing daylight, food deliberately left to go cold before being given to them and the water supply to their cells being cut off regularly. They told us they were refused a knife and fork with which to eat thereby forcing them to eat with their bare hands. They were refused letters and other forms of outside communication and were denied books and newspapers. They told us that during the night prison warders constantly banged the metal flaps on the doors and switched the cell lights on and off.

It is obvious that Irish prisoners being held in Whitemoor and Belmarsh Prisons are being subjected to a savage regime that would not be accepted in any other civilised country. Gareth Pierce, the solicitor who has done so much for Irish prisoners over the years, told me that when I met her on Saturday last that conditions for Irish prisoners in England today were appalling and unacceptable. It is common knowledge that the conditions of imprisonment of Irish prisoners convicted of politically related offences in Britain have always been harsh. However, with the development of the peace process it was hoped that this issue, with others stemming from the conflict in the North, would be resolved. It is most unfortunate that the response to date from the British Government on this issue has been negative in the extreme.

Having had the opportunity to speak to prisoners, their families and legal advisers it is clear the prisoners have shown great restraint in the face of provocation, and a great majority of them are seeking to resolve the issues so far as possible without engaging in prison protest. If they are to resolve the issues they will need the continued assistance and intervention of all who wish to see the peace process further developed at this crucial stage.

In that context I wish to pay tribute to the Tánaiste for the time, attention and effort he has devoted to the prisoners issue. I also wish to thank the Ambassador and his staff in the Irish Embassy in London. Their work is much appeciated by the prisoners and their families.

The Tánaiste and his colleagues in Cabinet will be aware of the growing frustration regarding this matter. The Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill has already been passed and this motion demonstrates the Government's determination to have the issue resolved. The adoption of this motion will allow for the transfer of Irish prisoners, political and others, from the UK to Ireland and I have no doubt this will assist in lessening tension here and in the UK.

Mr. Costello

I welcome this motion to ratify the convention. I compliment all who have been involved in passing the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill so quickly after the formation of this Government. The Minister was very helpful and understanding with amendments to the Bill. The Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas campaigned on this issue for a long time. A number of people here and abroad have devoted many years to try to get the transfer of sentenced prisoners legislation on the agenda and enacted. When we spoke about the transfer of prisoners to Northern Ireland questions were raised about the lack of legislation for the transfer of prisoners to the South. Thankfully that will be a possibility when the legislation comes into effect from 1 November.

Approximately 50 per cent of the Irish prisoners serving in English jails — approximately 33 republican prisoners and four loyalist prisoners — would be eligible under the legislation to apply for transfers. Quite a number of the prisoners applied for transfer to Northern Ireland but were refused. The six prisoners we met in Full Sutton Prison had applied for transfer to the North but were refused, and they have now applied to the Home Office and the Minister for Justice for transfer to the South under this legislation. We hope their applications will be received sympathetically.

In addition to the political prisoners, this legislation applies to about 600 other prisoners who would be eligible to apply for transfer to this country. There are about 180 prisoners in this country who are non-nationals and would be eligible to apply for transfer out of the country.

The treatment and conditions of prisoners held in British prisons is an issue of concern at present. Four Members of the Labour Party — Deputy Bree, Deputy Broughan, Senator Maloney and I — visited three prisons over the past few days and we were concerned about the descriptions given to us by the prisoners we met. Deputy Bree has outlined in graphic detail the conditions in which the two prisoners who came off the dirty protest were detained.

The prisoners were kept in 24 hour solitary confinement. The food was cold, meat was provided with every dish for one prisoner who was a long standing vegetarian and no cutlery was provided to eat the food. Letters and other forms of communication were not available to them. Doors were banged and lights were left on day and night. The prisoners' light was artificial and the lights would be flickered from time to time to ensure the prisoners got no opportunity to sleep.

We were given this appalling list of conditions of detention by the two prisoners who came off the dirty protest to speak to us. The Home Secretary has agreed to examine those conditions but what is really needed is a solution to the problem. There is no reason the prisoners could not be transferred to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland would remain in the jurisdiction of the British Government and those transferred here would come under the terms of the legislation recently passed.

We must expedite this matter in the interests of the peace process. We cannot view these conditions of detention simply in terms of British prison policy; rather they must be seen in the broader context of their policy in relation to the peace process and the future of Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, I would like the Minister to look at one issue. In Ireland we have a one quarter remission of sentence whereas in Britain it is a one-third remission. Considering that a one-third remission is pretty much the norm both in Britain and other European countries, this would be the appropriate time to synchronise and standardise the period so that remission for the ordinary prisoner being transferred here would be increased from one quarter to one third. In relation to Northern Ireland, the 50 per cent remission which was the norm up to 1989 should be restored.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I welcome the support which Members on all sides of the House have extended to this motion and I thank the Opposition for their co-operation in allowing it to be taken in this session. The Government made clear in its programme on taking office the importance it attached to proceeding to ratification of the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. With the adoption of this motion by the House, following the signing into law by the President on 17 July of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act. 1995, the way is now clear for this country to become a party to the convention.

The Government intends that the convention will be ratified without delay and, as provided in the convention, it will come into effect three months after the date of ratification. As was made clear in the debate on the transfer Bill, the Government intends to ensure that preparatory work to facilitate the operation of the convention is put in hand straightaway without waiting for the convention formally to come into effect. This reflects the Government's determination to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays once the terms of the convention become fully operable.

The Minister for Justice has provided a detailed account of the provisions of the convention. Its intent is to ensure, subject to the agreement of the two Governments concerned and of the individual prisoner, that prisoners can serve their sentences close to their family and local communities. This reflects the conviction that the punishment imposed by custodial sentence should not be compounded by additional hardship on the families and relatives of those in custody.

I was struck, as were others, by the excellent and well informed debate which preceded the adoption of the transfer legislation. The Government was pleased to be able to accept a number of amendments to the Bill, many of them put forward with the support of the excellent voluntary organisations active in the field of prison welfare and I believe the Act is significantly better as a result. This illustrates the progress which can be made when the temptation for political point-scoring is resisted and all sides of the House work together in the common interest.

The ratification of the convention is, of course, a significant element in the Government's response to the peace process. We have stressed from the outset the importance of dealing with prisons issues in a positive and forward-looking manner, the ending of the paramilitary campaigns has created an entirely new context, most particularly because, self-evidently, the level of threat to the community has been significantly reduced.

It is against that background that the Government agreed to the early release of 20 prisoners in this jurisdiction. This was in keeping with the Government's view of the contribution which a visible response to the new situation could make to the strengthening of community confidence and to the consolidation of the peace process itself.

It is precisely because of the very real and immediate impact on local communities, on both sides of the divide, that the Government has paid particular attention to developments in the prisons in their continuing dialogue with the British Government.

We have followed closely the situation in prisons in England. I know that Members of this House on all sides — including the members of the Labour Party parliamentary party who have just returned from a visit to the prisons, Deputies Costello, Broughan, Bree and Senator Maloney, as well as Deputy Ó Cuív who has also taken a close interest in prisons issues — have also been monitoring the situation carefully.

Their contributions to this afternoon's debate have been particularly valuable, based as they are on direct experience of the situation at first hand.

I can assure the House that I have given particular priority to prisons' issues in all my contacts with the British Government, including at recent meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and at my meeting with the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, which took place on Monday of this week.

As Deputies have indicated, it is clear that in some respects the situation for a number of prisoners in Britain has worsened in recent weeks. This is a regrettable development, and one which cannot be helpful in terms of the strengthening of the peace process. The prisoners played a key role in the ceasefires and they continue to do so. It is essential that the issues which have arisen be speedily addressed and resolved.

The Government's views on this and on the other issues have been conveyed clearly and comprehensively to the British authorities in recent days. We expect that steps will be taken to resolve the situation which has arisen at Whitemoor Prison. Because of the importance we attach to ensuring appropriate arrangements for visits by family and others we will continue to press for a flexible approach which will permit proper visiting arrangements to be resumed for all the prisoners as soon as possible.

Officials of the London Embassy have closely monitored developments in the prisons and have carried out a comprehensive programme of visits to the prisoners concerned over recent months. I am pleased that difficulties which arose over arrangements for visits by the embassy to protesting prisoners at Belmarsh and Whitemoor have now been overcome. Officials of the embassy had open visits with prisoners in both locations within the past 48 hours. These meetings facilitated extensive and detailed discussions with all the prisoners about whom concern has been expressed.

On foot of these meetings and the close contacts which the Department and the embassy maintain with the families of the prisoners and their legal representatives, we will be continuing to explore actively with the British authorities how the situation can most effectively and speedily be defused. In that context we will be addressing, as we have consistently done in our contacts with the British authorities in this area, the range of issues to which Deputies have drawn attention, including visiting arrangements, conditions in the cells, access to exercise, medical provision and, of course, the issue of transfers.

As regards transfers, some of those who have been involved in the protests at Whitemoor were told in April that their transfers had been approved. I think it is important to say that what is at issue is not a change of rules, rather an implementation of the policy on transfers which began last year. If this is done in a manner which reflects the urgency of the situation as far as the prisoners and their families are concerned, there is no reason to expect anything other than the full co-operation of the prisoners themselves. We have strongly urged this course of action on the British authorities and will continue to do so. I am certain that sensitive handling of the situation in the prisons concerned will have positive results. We would like to see in addition every effort made to avoid anything in the nature of harsher treatment of prisoners who are already held in highly secure conditions.

The other delay about which concern has been expressed at this time is that of the referral of five cases to the Parole Board. I understand the High Court in London recently gave permission for court action in this matter. I hope, therefore, that these cases, involving prisoners who have been in jail for over 20 years, will be taken up as a matter of urgency and an early date set for their release as the Lord Chief Justice recommended last February.

There has been some comment with regard to the recent reported remarks of the British Home Secretary. I would simply make the point that the issue of prisoners figured prominently in discussions which we have had with the British Government at all levels, including those involving the Taoiseach and myself as Joint Chairman of the Anglo-Irish Conference. Referring to the prison regime in Britain, he indicated that it was not proposed to change the rules regarding transfers. Our concern, which we have made clear to the British Government, is that the existing rules should be applied in a flexible and forward-looking manner.

It was also indicated that the existing parole system for prisoners in England and Wales, for which the Home Secretary is responsible, would be maintained. Here again our concern is to ensure flexibility in operation. We have, of course, as the House is aware, made clear our view that the remission regime in Northern Ireland, which is quite distinct from the parole system in Britain and for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible, should be revised to restore 50 per cent remission. We will continue to press strongly for change in this area.

It is recognised on all sides that the situation with regard to prisons in Northern Ireland is a central element in the peace process. The attitude of both republican and loyalist prisoners in the run-up to the ceasefires was of considerable importance and the view is strongly held in both communities that there should be movement on prisoner releases. For our part, we have kept this issue firmly and centrally on the agenda of our meetings with the British Government at every level.

I have argued in detail for a more flexible use of life sentence review mechanisms for paramilitary prisoners, the kind of flexibility that was used in the case of Private Clegg. It is crucial that all cases should be dealt with equally under the law. Special treatment for any one individual, particularly in isolation from the broader question of paramilitary prisoners, is undesirable and unhelpful.

Similarly, an increase of remission for long term determinate sentence prisoners would generate goodwill and would be no more than a reversion to the situation that existed from 1976 to 1989. We will continue to press the case for movement in these areas.

The day to day regime of prisoners in Northern Ireland has also been an issue which I have kept under close and continuing review. I am glad that the Secretary of State relaxed the rules governing compassionate parole. This is a modest step, but it is in the right direction.

We have consistently and vigorously used the mechanisms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to discuss with the British Government the importance of sustained, visible and rapid de-escalation of the posture and level of the security forces in response to the ceasefire. The House will be aware that for some months now the British Army no longer routinely operates on the streets in much of Northern Ireland. There have been limited troop withdrawals. Cross-Border roads are being brought back to full standard following the decision last year by the British Government to reopen them. Problems of harassment by the security force have already diminished.

In sum, therefore, a number of adjustments have been made to the security presence since the ceasefire, the progressive withdrawal of troops from the streets, the removal of some of the infrastructure of the conflict and the withdrawal of some units from Northern Ireland.

We wish to see further speedy progress in each of these areas. The progress of de-escalation by the security forces is an essential element in the continuing response to the new realities brought about by the ceasefire. The key point for the Government is that the primary benefits of peace should be seen by people going about their daily business and it is my wish to see that all people and areas in Northern Ireland have equal access to the benefits of peace.

I have spoken at some length on prisons and related matters and of the efforts being made by the Government to move ahead on a number of difficult but vital issues. The Government's commitment to progress in these areas and its determination to act with direction and vigour fully reflects its approach to the peace process as a whole.

There is now a unique opportunity to build a secure future for all the people of this island, North and South. The Government is determined to ensure that this opportunity is fully exploited. It will continue to accord the advancement of the peace process the highest priority and to work unflinchingly for the lasting agreement on which a true peace will be built.

The guns have been silent for almost 11 months. The challenge now facing all of us is to translate the absence of violence into a lasting and just peace. The Government believes this can best be achieved by early movement to inclusive political dialogue. Such a dialogue threatens no legitimate interests. On the contrary, it offers the prospect, one might say the only prospect, of real stability and security for all the people of Northern Ireland.

I had an opportunity to review progress in this area at my meeting last Monday with Sir Patrick Mayhew. We considered in some detail how comprehensive discussions involving all the relevant parties, including Sinn Féin, might be initiated. I emphasised the primary importance which the Government attaches to getting such discussions under way at the earliest opportunity. I believe our discussions were helpful in expediting progress in this regard and we agreed that the two sides should remain in close touch in the period ahead.

The meeting also provided an opportunity to consider how certain difficulties which have arisen might be overcome. The House will hardly need to be reminded that the peace process has confronted many difficulties in the past. Those difficulties have been faced and have been overcome. This is due in no small measure to the absolute determination of people of all traditions in Northern Ireland to ensure the success of the peace process. By proceeding in this spirit, current difficulties, including those in relation to decommissioning, can be overcome.

It is self-evident that dealing with the paramilitary arsenals is an essential element in the peace process and crucial to the achievement of a lasting peace. We can draw encouragement, therefore, from the fact that there is agreement on all sides that this is one of the issues which must be addressed in the search for an overall agreement. As I have said previously, we must avoid becoming entangled in a circular argument as to which comes first, political progress or decommissioning. Neither can be solved in isolation; progress on one is more likely in tandem with the other.

We have indicated that serious discussions on all these issues should get under way as quickly as possible. We have also made clear our readiness to consider a range of options which may facilitate progress in particular areas. Precisely because it is important in these matters to proceed on the basis of the widest possible agreement, we have not come to firm conclusions in respect of any single line of approach. We will continue, as we urge others, to maintain maximum flexibility. The Government's objective has been to find solutions, bridge gaps and facilitate movement and we will continue to pursue this approach in a proactive fashion.

There is now an unrivalled opportunity to build a lasting settlement. Such a settlement will only be reached through open, inclusive negotiations in which each party puts forward its case with conviction but reaches out to others in a spirit of compromise. The Government is determined to leave no stone unturned to advance that process. Our door remains open to all who wish to explore, without precondition, how best to move forward. We hope that those, particularly in the Unionist community, who have found it difficult to join us in dialogue in the past, will reflect further on the opportunity which now beckons. They have nothing to lose. All of us on this island have a great deal to gain. For our part the Government will do all in its power to ensure that the prize of a lasting peace does not go unclaimed.

Question put and agreed to.