Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1997

Vol. 485 No. 3

Transfer of Sentenced Persons (Amendment) Bill, 1997 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank Deputies, particularly the Opposition spokespersons on Justice, Equality and Law Reform, for their co-operation in taking all Stages of this Bill today.

The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the transfer into the State of persons who have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment greater than the maximum penalties allowed under our law for similar offences. The immediate effect of the Bill when enacted should be to assist in facilitating the transfer of seven Provisional IRA prisoners who are currently in the United Kingdom. The Bill is relatively short, but it is of particular importance in the context of confidence building measures.

The Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995 provides the legislative basis for the operation of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons between Ireland and other parties to the convention. Section 7 of the Act provides for the issue of a warrant by a court here authorising the continued enforcement by the State of the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. In accordance with article 10 of the convention, section 7 permits a court to adapt the sentence to a sentence prescribed by the law of the State for an offence similar to the offence for which the sentence was imposed where the sentence concerned is, in its legal nature or duration, incompatible with the law of the State.

Under this Bill a court will be permitted to adapt a sentence that is incompatible by its duration with the law of the State only where an application in this regard is made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This should facilitate the negotiation of transfers with States which insist that there can be no question of the sentence imposed in the sentencing State being reduced, while at the same time allowing a mechanism for the adaptation of the duration of sentences where the States in question have no objection to this procedure.

It might be helpful, before going into the detail of the Bill, to give some brief background information about the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which is the basis for our 1995 legislation. The initiative for the Convention came in 1978 when, at a Council of Europe Conference, Ministers for Justice discussed the problems posed by prisoners of foreign nationality, including the question of providing procedures for their transfer so that they may serve their sentences in their home country. The text of the convention was approved by the Committee of Ministers in 1982, and opened for signature in March 1983. The operative date for the convention — the date on which it came into force — was 1 July 1985. Ireland signed the convention a year later on 20 August 1986 and ratified it following the enactment of the 1995 legislation.

The aim of the convention is to facilitate the transfer to his or her home State of a person who has been sentenced in a foreign state. The convention provides a procedural framework for such transfers and seeks to provide a simple and expeditious mechanism whereby the repatriation of sentenced persons may take place. The policy of the convention, which is based on humanitarian considerations, is to overcome the difficulties posed for prisoners serving sentences in foreign jurisdictions through, for example, absence of contacts with relatives and differences in language and culture.

For a transfer to take place a number of conditions must be met. The sentenced person must be a national of the State to which the transfer is sought; the judgment must be final; there must normally be at least six months of the sentence left to serve; the offence for which the sentenced person is imprisoned must also be a criminal offence in the State to which the transfer is sought; and there must be consent to the transfer from all parties, that is the person and the two States involved.

Under the convention the receiving or administering State is given a choice between two ways of enforcing the sentence imposed by the sentencing State. It may continue to enforce the sentence, in which case it is bound, subject to any technical modifications that may prove necessary, by the nature and duration of the sentence as determined in the original sentencing State. Alternatively, it may adapt the sentence to one prescribed by its law for the same or a similar offence.

Article 10 of the convention is concerned with continued enforcement of sentences. It states:

1. In the case of continued enforcement, the administering State shall be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the sentencing State.

2. If, however, this sentence is by its nature or duration incompatible with the law of the administering State, or its law so requires, that State may, by a court or administrative order, adapt the sanction to the punishment or measure prescribed by its own law for a similar offence. As to its nature, the punishment or measure shall, as far as possible, correspond with that imposed by the sentence to be enforced. It shall not aggravate, by its nature or duration, the sanction imposed in the sentencing State, nor exceed the maximum prescribed by the law of the administering State.

The Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995 has operated successfully so far, but an issue which needs to be addressed has been identified in relation to a number of prisoners in England who are seeking repatriation and are serving sentences longer than the sentences which could be imposed under our laws for similar offences.

As I mentioned earlier, section 7 of the 1995 Act provides for the issue of a warrant by a court here, the effect of which is to authorise the continued enforcement by the State of the sentence imposed by the sentencing State. However, in line with article 10 of the convention, section 7 permits a court "if the sentence concerned imposed by the sentencing State concerned is in its legal nature or duration incompatible with the law of the State" to adapt the sentence to a sentence prescribed by the law of the State for an offence similar to the offence for which the sentence was imposed. In adapting the sentence the new sentence may not aggravate it by its legal nature or duration or exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by the law of the State for a similar offence.

In operating the convention between here and the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom authorities have sought specific assurances about the length of time to be served by persons seeking transfers here. This has not given rise to difficulties where the sentences at issue would have been similar to those available in our law. Under the terms of the 1995 Act, it is a matter for the High Court to decide whether a sentence is incompatible in its legal nature or duration and whether to adapt the sentence. Therefore I, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, would not be in a position to assure the United Kingdom authorities, in cases where the sentences were greater than those permitted by our law for similar offences, that such sentences would not be adapted by the courts to the maximum permitted under our law.

Neither the convention nor the 1995 Act make the adaptation of a sentence mandatory on a State. In the Act the court is given discretion as to whether to adapt a sentence if it is "by its legal nature or duration" incompatible with the law of the State. While it is relatively easy to envisage circumstances where a sentence would be incompatible by its legal nature, for example penal servitude, which has been abolished here, there is no authority available to indicate how incompatibility in relation to duration of sentence would be determined.

Under the proposals in the Bill it would be left entirely to the court to adapt sentences where there is an incompatibility in legal nature. However, where there is an incompatibility as to the duration, the court could adapt the sentence only on the application of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Even then it would still be a matter for the court to decide that the duration of the sentence involved was incompatible with our law. This approach will allow me to offer assurances to those jurisdictions who are concerned that transferred prisoners would receive a reduction of sentence while allowing adaptation where jurisdictions are prepared to accept this.

Before commenting on the individual provisions of the Bill, it might be helpful to give some brief statistics on applications under the Act. One hundred and two applications have been processed by my Department for transfer into the jurisdiction. Successive Ministers have consented to the transfer of 53 applicants. Of these, 21 have now been transferred. This included 11 Provisional IRA prisoners. A total of 14 prisoners have been transferred out of the State to date.

Section 1 involves amendment of section 7 of the 1995 Act by way of substitution of new subsections for subsections (5) and (6). The new subsections will provide for applications to be made, in appropriate cases, to adapt the legal nature of a sentence and to adapt the duration of a sentence where they are incompatible with the position under our law.

The new subsection (5)(a) will provide that when the High Court is requested to issue a warrant for the transfer of a prisoner into the State and where the sentence imposed by the sentencing State is, by its legal nature, incompatible with our law, the court may adapt the sentence to one which is prescribed by our law for a similar offence. Subsection (5)(b) deals with the situation where the duration of a sentence is incompatible with the duration which could be imposed under our law for a similar offence, that is, one which is longer than could be imposed here. In those cases the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have absolute discretion, where he or she thinks it appropriate to do so, to include in an application for a warrant authorising the transfer an application that the court adapt the duration of the sentence to one prescribed under our law for a similar offence. If the Minister makes such an application and the sentence imposed by the sentencing State is by its duration incompatible with our law, the court may adapt the duration of the sentence to conform with our law.

The amendment to subsection (6) of section 7 arises as a result of the amendment to subsection (5) which I have outlined. The new subsection (6)(a) will provide that the legal nature of a sentence adapted under subsection (5)(a) will, as far as practicable, correspond to the legal nature of the sentence originally imposed. However, the subsection goes on to stress that the adapted sentence must not either aggravate the original one or exceed the maximum penalty prescribed by the law of the State for a similar offence.

Under the new subsection (6)(b), where the duration of the sentence is adapted following an application in that regard by the Minister, the same conditions will apply — the adapted sentence must not either aggravate the original sentence or exceed the maximum prescribed by our law for a similar offence.

To remove any confusion which might arise from the use of the term "legal nature of a sentence", the Bill makes provision for the insertion of an interpretation of that term. Section 10(7), which is a new subsection, provides that a reference to the legal nature of a sentence does not include a reference to the duration of such a sentence. Sections 2 and 3 arise from Labour Party amendments which I accepted when the Bill was going through the Seanad. They deal essentially with the need to deal as expeditiously as possible with applications for transfers and to keep applicants informed of progress in relation to them. Section 4 is in standard form and sets out the short title, stating it will be cited together with the 1995 Act.

They are the provisions of this short but important Bill. I am sure it will receive widespread support in the House and I thank Deputies for their co-operation in agreeing to take all Stages today.

Mr. Flanagan

I welcome this legislation and I acknowledge the Minister's statement that he appreciates the indulgence of the House in agreeing to take all Stages today. Such a debate is not without precedent but I hope the Minister accepts that the Opposition, particularly Fine Gael, will not allow him to do this in future. We accept the urgency of the legislation and the Minister's comment that it will have an immediate effect on facilitating the transfer of seven prisoners. I hope the Minister is accurate in his use of the word "immediate" and that there will be progress on the prisoner issue when this legislation is enacted. I take the Minister's word "immediate" at face value. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through all Stages so that it can be sent to Áras an Uachtaráin as quickly as possible.

We would not be dealing with this legislation were it not for the participation of all parties in the peace process. It is important to note that the European convention and the introduction of legislation in this jurisdiction to allow for the transfer of prisoners is a basic human right which should not be seen as a political gesture or a confidence building measure in the peace process. Even if there was no peace process, the transfer of sentenced persons convention should have been signed and ratified by this jurisdiction and the 1995 Act put in place. That convention should operate in accordance with our human rights legislation.

It is only right and proper that where persons on conviction are removed from society and restricted in their movements by a custodial sentence, their families should be allowed to visit them and to keep in close contact. Rehabilitation is a fundamental cornerstone of our penal code. Unfortunately, the lack of a transfer arrangement over the years has ensured that the prisoner's family, not the prisoner, has suffered. Society has not given adequate recognition to the suffering of close members of prisoners' families. There are issues of cost, inconvenience, particularly for those families who visit prisoners in far away jurisdictions, and loneliness not only for the prisoners but perhaps more particularly for their families. Families suffer more than anyone else. We have not given sufficient recognition to the suffering of the families of prisoners in Northern Ireland, particularly in the context of the peace process.

This Bill seems to be directly related to the peace process. I welcome the changes which will help the movement of prisoners between the British jurisdiction and this State. There are a small number of Republican prisoners in British jails, although the figures must be revised following a court decision in London yesterday. Some of those who wish to be transferred have already arrived here. I hope the passage of this legislation will allow for the imminent transfer of a further seven prisoners.

I regret that progress to date has been slow, particularly during the lifetime of John Major's Government, and that an opportunity to build confidence was lost. No regard was given by that Government to the role of the prisoners in the initial ceasefire in August 1994. It did not give them any credit for the work they did or for their involvement in the consultation process. That allowed a climate of frustration and anxiety to develop which has not been sufficiently improved since then. Deputy Neville has expert knowledge of the relationship between the prison authorities and the prisoners in British jurisdictions and he will be able to update the House on the current situation there. He and other Members of the House, particularly of the Labour Party, must be complimented for undertaking many initiatives in this area.

I want to discuss the receiving institution which I assume will be Portlaoise Prison in my constituency. I ask the Minister to comment on a proposal which was floated two years ago that consideration would be given to the transfer of Republican prisoners from Portlaoise Prison to Castlerea in County Roscommon. My understanding was that this proposal did not become a reality because of the resumption of violence by the IRA following the Canary Wharf bombing. Now that a second ceasefire is in place and appears to be stable, has the Minister given any consideration to that plan?

One of the reasons such a plan was proposed was to make a further 50 or 60 prison spaces available in Portlaoise Prison. The high security wing in the prison has one prisoner per two cells or two prisoners per three cells. Given the Minister's programme for prison spaces and the improvements within the prison system, I thought he would use every opportunity to free up prison spaces not for Republican terrorist prisoners but for ordinary criminals, the bulk of whom travel to Portlaoise from Dublin. Perhaps the Minister could address this matter in the context of this legislation.

I congratulate the Minister for the speed with which he moved on a proposal to construct a new unit within the grounds of Portlaoise Prison, which is a sensible location.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Deputy is not biased.

Mr. Flanagan

I regret that more progress was not made on this matter when my party was in Government over the past two years. I understand the plan was first mooted in the 1970s. It subsequently died and I am delighted the Minister has decided to implement it. I look forward to a speedy construction of the unit and hope it will be operational soon. The prison in Portlaoise is of great importance to the town and the county of Laois. Portlaoise, the capital town of the county, has in many respects suffered down through the years by dint of the negative impact of having a prison building not too far from the centre of town, particularly since the prison has been such a high security institution over the years. The people of the town have lived with this problem and one of the reasons they were prepared to accept a prison, warts and all, was because of the obvious economic and employment benefits.

The potential of the new unit is not to be underestimated. I hope the structure and design of the prison building will be more pleasing to the eye and in keeping with the environment of the area than one might normally accept from such a building where the emphasis exclusively appears to be on bricks, mortar and bars. I hope, whatever plan is finally agreed upon between the Department and the Office of Public Works, that an element of sensitivity and environmental consideration will be taken on board. Normally it is required under law that an environmental impact assessment is undertaken for a building of this magnitude. In this case, although, there is no need in law for such an assessment nevertheless there is a duty on the part of the authorities to ensure some assessment is undertaken. Whatever structure is ultimately built, it should be in keeping with the environment of the surrounding area, particularly the buildings on the Dublin road. A submission was made on this issue by Laois County Council and I hope its details will not only be carefully studied, but taken on board in the context of the development.

I commend the efforts on the prisoner issue by the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair since the summer. Movement on it has provoked loyalist concern that the transfer of prisoners represents another concession to republicans which should be resisted as unfair. I am not sure how this jurisdiction can assist the issue of loyalist prisoners but balance and parity should be foremost in the equation. All confidence measures put in place must strike a balance if there is to be movement towards a lasting peace. The loyalist ceasefire has been in place for three years and credit must be accorded to the fringe loyalist parties for ensuring it has remained in place, but they repeatedly point out that they have little to show on prison reform. I accept there are no loyalists in British jails seeking transfers simply because the campaign of destruction within the UK, particularly in England, has been perpetrated almost exclusively by republicans. They are correct when they say the transfer issue is predominantly a republican matter, but other measures should be taken on board to ensure loyalist prisoners and parties do not feel aggrieved by any progress that is made on the issue.

Progress must be reported in the case of prisoners on all sides of the Northern conflict. The only proposed loyalist prisoner transfer was that of Jason Campbell, which was a shambles and an embarrassment to those involved. I accept the early release of paramilitary prisoners is a totally separate issue from the Bill, but one which must not be too far down the agenda as political developments move forward. The extension of Christmas parole from Portlaoise and the granting of parole to those to which it has not been granted to date must be considered in the context of the continuing ceasefire. This is appropriate having regard to the record of those who have been granted parole in abiding by the regulations in the past.

I am sure other confidence building measures will be considered by the Minister during the four week Christmas respite from the talks. If progress is to be made, the ordinary citizenry of Northern Ireland must see a dividend from what is happening and that, unfortunately, has not been the case, as the talks have almost exclusively concentrated on constitutional and structural issues. There is a feeling on the part of Northern people that there has been no real dividend as far as their daily lives are concerned. I hope the Government and, more importantly the British Government, will look at areas such as demilitarisation. People living in Border areas have justified grievances with the lack of relaxation on the part of the security forces and much of the security in these areas has been almost intimidatory in recent times.

The question of parades is another vexed issue and by the time the talks resume in January the House of Commons will have enacted parades legislation. I hope the Parades Commission is given the type of remit that will not allow it to be merely a toothless tiger or to become in any way imbalanced or seen to be representing one view as opposed to the other. Unless there is movement on the Bloody Sunday issue before the resumption of the talks, it will be a most vexed issue also, as we approach another anniversary of the atrocity. I hope an independent inquiry and an apology will be forthcoming. Initiatives must be taken on the issues of policing and fair employment during the talks recess.

The Bill is similar to the 1995 Bill as it favours the families of prisoners rather than the prisoners themselves. I recall the sad plight of Paddy Kelly, a prisoner from my constituency, about whom there was an unfortunate wrangle between both jurisdictions before his transfer was effected. He died a short time after but the lack of compassion and the bungling and procrastination in the case was breathtaking and scandalous.

I wish to refer briefly to tariffs in regard to some of those who wish to be transferred. This is an area where the delay has been totally unacceptable. The setting of tariffs is very important and a source of great concern where, for example, commitment after commitment has been given to the Balcombe Street gang but tariffs have not been set and their transfers cannot be effected until that happens. I refer to a letter from the Northern Ireland Office dated July 1997 which stated that tariffs would be set a short time thereafter. In 1996 Irish embassy officials were told by the Home Office that tariffs would be set by the end of the year. In July 1997 the same officials were told they would be set by the end of the month and that did not happen. In September the embassy was again informed they would be set by the end of the month and there was no action. Deputy Cecilia Keaveney was told on 1 November that they would be set by the end of the month and that did not happen. Action of an urgent nature is required on this. I regret the administrative procedures between Britain and Ireland are cumbersome and time consuming. It requires a real engagement on the part of those involved. The Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs need to be engaged in this matter if there is to be real progress. Unfortunately we did not see that engagement on the part of Sir Patrick Mayhew or on the part of Michael Howard and his junior Minister Ann Widdicombe, who were less than helpful in the operation of the European Convention.

The measure today should be supported. There are issues to be debated on Committee Stage which I hope will lead to clarification on a number of points, with particular reference to the guarantee of sentences, the question of remissions and the constitutional issues. I hope the Bill will be enacted at the earliest opportunity. I am pleased the Minister has brought the matter before the House.

Dr. Upton

This legislation is welcome as part of a confidence building measure between the various elements engaged in the peace process. The legislation shows a certain level of compassion for prisoners and their concerns and will make life much easier for the families in their efforts to visit and keep in touch with them. It would also help prisoners more easily reintegrate into society on release from prison. This in turn would help them find a new life away from crime. The Bill is based on humanitarian standards and decency which will allow prisoners to serve their prison terms in their native country, close to their families and friends.

The Bill arises from a European Convention introduced in 1983 and ratified in 1996. It is noteworthy that Ireland was the last country in the EU to ratify this convention. This legislation follows on from and is an amendment to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995.

The objective of the Bill is to provide a means of dealing with concerns that may arise in relation to a number of prisoners in the UK who are seeking repatriation and are serving sentences longer than what could be imposed for similar offences committed here, or alternatively in the case of prisoners sentenced in the UK where similar provisions do not exist in Irish law.

The Bill ensures that repatriation to Ireland to serve out a prison sentence will not mean the term served will be less than if the prisoner had remained in the UK. This is primarily due to concerns expressed by the UK Government.

It is worth recalling that prior to the introduction of the 1995 Act, some held the view that there would be a huge influx of prisoners as a consequence of the enactment of that legislation. Those fears were unfounded and approximately 10 per cent of prisoners entitled to apply for repatriation have done so to date.

This Bill is particularly appropriate to a country such as Ireland. Given that this country is an island, any Irish person who wishes to visit a prisoner in the UK or on mainland Europe must of necessity travel long distances with consequent large expenses and a good deal of inconvenience. This new Bill might result in a speedier processing of transfers than has been the case up to now. I understand that in as many as two-thirds of cases there are inordinate delays in processing. This is not acceptable.

It is important that the provisions in this Bill are administered in an efficient manner so that applicants can have their cases dealt with in a speedy manner. It is appropriate that the Minister should set some guidelines and take initiatives, either in his Department or with the British Home Office, to ensure decisions are reached rapidly. It is important that prisoners are kept informed of the state of play at regular intervals in relation to progress or lack of it in their application for a transfer. The amendments accepted by the Minister in the Seanad from my colleague, Senator Joe Costello, are welcome. Will the Minister explain why the provisions found necessary to be introduced in this amended Bill were not introduced at an earlier stage when the parent Bill was being enacted? This legislation is primarily designed to cover seven prisoners who have been anxious to return to Ireland for some time. Their applications have been pending for a long period under the earlier Act, yet it has taken until now to discover the flaws in the previous Act which are preventing their repatriation. Their cases were allowed to lie dormant when it would have seemed reasonable to expect that the difficulties preventing their repatriation would have been addressed at an earlier stage.

In the debate in the Seanad a number of issues were raised in respect of the constitutionality of this Bill. Will the Minister outline the care he has taken to ensure the Bill is constitutional and is not open to being challenged? The Bill will create a considerable disincentive for some prisoners to avail of its provisions because it provides that sentences handed down in other jurisdictions must be fully served here. The policy on remission of sentences is much less generous here than in the UK and elsewhere. If they remain in prisons outside Ireland they could not expect to fare worse and they would have a reasonable chance of faring better. This is a problem which should be addressed.

Will the provisions of the Bill apply to those who have already returned to Ireland under the terms of the 1995 Act? I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this question.

This legislation has been introduced as a means of enhancing the peace process and building confidence. If the peace process continues to develop and succeed, as we all sincerely hope it will, I am sure the question of an amnesty for many of those who have availed of transfers under this Act will arise. In the event of an amnesty being granted, unless some initiative is taken by the Minister, those people who have availed of the provisions of this Bill will be locked into long sentences whereas they may be granted an amnesty if they remain outside the country. The Bill is welcome as it will greatly benefit a small number of prisoners and their families. However, broader questions arise in relation to whether it is compatible with the Constitution and whether it will give rise to serious anomalies as the peace process develops and expands.

The Bill would appear to be primarily relevant to a small group of prisoners. The Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas has expressed concern about some of its implications. Will the Minister consider putting a time limit on the period the Bill will remain in force, say, a year or two years?

This Bill is important in that it takes into account the concerns of prisoners. Prisoners had an important role in the peace process and I am glad the Bill recognises that role.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

On 12 December 1997, two days after this Bill passed all Stages in the Seanad, four Irish political prisoners — Joe O'Connell, Hugh Doherty, Harry Duggan and Eddie Butler — entered their 23rd year in English prisons. When these men were sentenced Mr. Liam Cosgrave was Taoiseach. For over two decades these men had to endure the worst of prison conditions in England, constant movement from prison to prison and the ordeal which that entails for families trying to visit their loved ones.

These men and their families have served their time several times over. They do not qualify for repatriation because they have not received a tariff, that is a finite sentence from the British Government. If and when this tariff is given they face the prospect of many more years in prison when repatriated to this jurisdiction. I know the incredulity of these and other Irish prisoners at the Bill before the House. The issue of transfer and repatriation predates the peace process and the IRA cessations. It has been a just and reasonable demand of the prisoners and their relatives for as long as there have been Irish political and other prisoners in English jails. Transfer and repatriation have been sought in vain for two decades. Campaigners met rejection, excuses and prevarication. At this juncture I think of the suffering of Pat Kelly from County Laois — go ndéanfaidh Dia trócaire ar a anam dílis — and that of his partner, Angela, their child and family.

Implementation of the legislation is long overdue. While this Bill is designed to facilitate repatriation, there is grave concern among prisoners and their families at the requirement for the Irish authorities to fully implement in this jurisdiction the savage sentences imposed on prisoners in England. In the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons the first principle states, "The Parties undertake to afford each other the widest measure of co-operation in respect of the transfer of sentenced persons in accordance with the provisions of this Convention". It is clear that if the British Government had given the widest measure of co-operation to the Irish Government, this Bill would not be before us.

This is not a legal issue but a political one. Under the unamended Act there was no legal or technical impediment to the repatriation of all Irish political and other prisoners in England whatever the length of sentence. It was the British Government's determination to extract the full measure of retribution in the imposition of savagely long sentences on Irish republicans that led to this legislation. The Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas has rightly pointed out that the issue of the integrity of sentences is ultimately a political and-or administrative one and should be addressed in that manner, that is, by political persuasion and administrative flexibility. The amount of political persuasion applied by the representatives of the Irish Government to their counterparts in the British Government in this matter must be questioned. I am certain that in this as in the treatment of Irish prisoners the British authorities have shown no administrative flexibility.

This legislation is being rushed through in the last days before the House adjourns for Christmas. It is couched in general terms. The possible serious implications for political and non-political prisoners have not been fully explored. The full implications for the right of this State to grant early releases or amnesties to certain prisoners held or to be held in prisons here are not clear. The issue of remission of sentence is open to doubt in light of this legislation. In an excellent contribution to the debate in the Seanad Senator O'Dowd stated, "the downstream consequences are unforeseeable". I echo that sentiment.

By passing this Bill the House is granting to an external power effective control over the prison term applying to a section of the projected prison population in this State. Thus the Bill is flawed in two fundamental respects. It is legally unnecessary to achieve the purpose for which it is intended, that is, the repatriation of Irish republican prisoners, and it is framed in a general and sweeping way which could have unknown implications that would be open to legal challenge. While I acknowledge sincerely the goodwill of the Irish Government in attempting to facilitate repatriation and alleviate the plight of prisoners' families, it should go back to the drawing board and negotiate special arrangements with the British Government so that its right to release prisoners held in prisons here is unimpeded. I offer my solidarity and support to Irish political prisoners in jails in Ireland, England and United States and especially to their families at Christmas time. Regardless of whether a division is called, I formally wish to register my rejection of this proposal and would like the record to show that I stood against the measure.

Ms McManus

On behalf of Democratic Left, I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is a small but important building block in the difficult and painstaking construction of a lasting peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. We only have to consider the current impasse in the Northern talks to appreciate just how difficult the process is proving to be. There are, however, grounds for hope. The talks will continue after Christmas and that in itself will offer opportunities for reconciling differences in an inclusive way.

The issue of prisoners has been of central concern to the paramilitary groups on both sides. Concessions on prisoners can have an important function in reinforcing the message that democratic dialogue in a context of ceasefires on both sides produces real and tangible benefits. They bring, too, responsibilities that cannot be ignored. The early release of prisoners was initiated by the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government shortly after the first IRA ceasefire in 1994. It was continued and accelerated by the rainbow Government up to the end of the ceasefire in 1996. The release of prisoners is a demonstration of belief by the Government in the peace process and the commitment of those associated with paramilitaries to try to find a non-violent way forward. On a number of occasions Democratic Left criticised the British Government for the slowness of the release of prisoners in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Confidence building has to be a two way process. Two men released by the previous Government have since appeared again in court on serious charges. One is currently before the courts on the most serious charge possible, the capital murder of a garda. Another had charges dropped in the Special Criminal Court last week amidst allegations of intimidation of a key witness.

The comment made by the Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, "good luck to him", following the escape from the Maze of IRA prisoner Liam Averill was, to say the least, misjudged. This man was serving a sentence for the sectarian murder of two Protestants in County Derry. How are the relatives of those murdered victims and the Protestant community in general expected to respond to Gerry Adams's comment? Had Private Lee Clegg escaped from custody would Gerry Adams have said, "good luck to him"? I doubt it. It behoves him as much as any of us not to inflame passions in such a one-sided, glib way.

We all need to be mindful of the victims when we consider the impact of this Bill. Sadly, there have been too many. Many have lost their lives while others have lost loved ones or suffered injuries and pain. We need to acknowledge that the families of prisoners have done no wrong. Yet, they are often punished by the imprisonment of the offender. The tribulations of families trying to keep contact and relationships going with prisoners located in another country are being acknowledged in a humane and decent way. I welcome this.

This Bill enables prisoners to be transferred to this State even though they have been sentenced to greater periods of imprisonment than are allowed under the law here for similar offences. Its immediate effect relates to seven Provisional IRA prisoners in Britain. The transfer is part of the developing relationship between these islands and reflects in a small way an opening up of a further connection between us.

In reply to the debate in the Seanad the Minister made a number of points relating to the Government's approach towards a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. I have sometimes been critical of him but in this instance I warmly applaud and support his views which outlined a balanced and realistic approach for the future. He pointed out that Nationalists and Unionists must have an equal stake in their society, an equal sense of ownership. How that is achieved depends to a great extent on the structures developed that can reflect the requirements of both communities. In the Framework Document a three strand approach includes new structures within Northern Ireland, new North-South bodies and new east-west bodies. It is important each strand is given equal weight and importance. The east-west bodies have only been sketchily outlined and the Government has indicated its willingness to involve itself fully in their construction. In a sense the transfer of prisoners between these islands is an example of how co-operation can be built. Now that devolution is changing the nature of the relationship between Scotland, England and Wales it opens up possibilities of new arrangements that can concentrate on issues of mutual concern. Obviously powers should be conceded to these bodies only where they are of clear, mutual benefit. There are obvious examples where this may be the case, such as those relating to the Irish Sea. A nuclear processing plant has been located close to our shores, yet there is no clear means, other than the legal route, of resolving the difficulties that have arisen as a result of that placement.

In turn, Dublin probably is the biggest urban conurbation located on the shores of the Irish Sea, which may be something that concerns coastal communities living in Britain. Therefore, building a connection on the basis of common concerns could be very worthwhile.

Quite apart from our interests in this, there is a central point relating to east-west bodies which would offer a balance to the North-South bodies already mooted and can provide the same assurance for Unionists that North-South bodies can provide for Nationalists. This does not imply any move toward this Republic agreeing to integrate into the British State in any form, no more than it implies the integration of North and South without the full consent of the Northern Ireland communities. What is clear is that this network of relationships can and will grow and develop. Successive Governments have worked toward this end. I am very glad that this Government is taking a pro-active role in this regard and I have no doubt will continue to do so.

At a time when there are indications of good progress overall at the talks on Northern Ireland this Bill represents a small but significant contribution to building confidence.

I am unclear on the final point in the explanatory memorandum, that new staffing or financial implications do not arise as a result of the provisions of this Bill. Recently I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister, to which he responded very fully on Wednesday, 10 December, which related to six men involved in a hostage taking incident at Mountjoy Prison, currently held in D Block, Portlaoise Prison. I asked the Minister the terms of their imprisonment, the time they had to spend in their cells, whether they had access to educational facilities and so on. I also asked the cost of maintaining somebody in that block in Portlaoise Prison. While we are all aware that such costs are high, the Minister's reply surprised me. The concluding paragraph states:

The average annual cost of keeping an offender in Portlaoise Prison is approximately £105,000. This figure takes into account approximately £4.8 million for overtime generally in the prison. The amount of this overtime attributable to the custody of the prisoners in question may vary from time to time.

Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. While I accept that that is an average figure, the immediate impact of the enactment of this Bill will be that seven IRA prisoners will be returned. Surely that will have staffing and cost implications, on which I should like the Minister to elaborate. I also seek his views on the overtime costs of prison officers.

Now that the Minister and the previous Government have initiated a prison building programme, it is important to deal with this issue once and for all. I do not think anybody can accept that overtime generally in Portlaoise Prison can be supported to the extent of £4.8 million, an inordinate amount, unsustainable in the longer term. My understanding is that conditions of pay have not been updated to take into account new arrangements in prisons. Will the Minister clarify this point and give the House the benefit of his views on how this matter will be dealt with?

Mr. Daly

With the agreement of the House I should like to share my time with Deputy Keaveney.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Daly

When this Bill was debated in the Seanad over two years ago I pointed out to the then Minister certain inadequacies in its provisions which could delay the transfer of prisoners. Since then, very slow progress has been made in that regard.

I want to express my concern about two prisoners from County Clare who have been in prison in the United Kingdom for over 20 years, Joe O'Connell and Harry Duggan. In the earlier Seanad debate several requests were made to have their cases dealt with under the appropriate European Convention. This Bill gives effect to that European Convention but apparently does not reflect some of that convention's provisions.

I welcome any amendments to the Bill which will help to expedite the transfer of prisoners. The amendments are welcome and will aid the transfer of prisoners. Nonetheless there is an absence of any appeals mechanism in circumstances in which a State may refuse or does not give a satisfactory reply whenever the transfer of a prisoner is sought. I raised this matter in the Seanad in l995 by way of amendment with the then Minister, contending that Article 23 of the European Convention, which provides for friendly settlements between member states, could be embodied in our legislation, thus giving much greater effect to that convention if some amendments were accepted providing a mechanism by which member states would be obliged to participate in an appeals procedure.

I was unable to convince the then Minister of the necessity for such a provision which I still believe to be desirable. While I shall not press the matter today, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Article 23 of the European Convention whereby a European committee can intervene in an endeavour to resolve problems between member states who, because of the provisions of that convention, are not bound or obliged to give any information or reason for a prisoner not being transferred. In such circumstances the position could be remedied by the inclusion of an amendment which would provide an appeals procedure whenever a member state was not satisfied with an explanation for the nontransference of a prisoner.

I welcome the Bill in so far as its provisions go but, the Minister might favourably consider introducing amendments at a later stage to provide an appeals procedure such as I outlined on previous occasions.

Cecilia Keaveney

I thank the Minister and his Department for the speed with which they reacted positively to this issue which arose in specific cases. As other Members said, the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the transfer to this State of persons who have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment greater than the maximum penalties allowed under our laws which, when enacted, will have the immediate effect of assisting the transference of at least seven prisoners at present held in prisons in the United Kingdom.

Mention has been made of the fact that the Bill is a confidence building measure which will help the peace process. From talking to the prisoners concerned I am of the view that it should not be linked necessarily to the peace process. This legislation is required under the EU convention and it is a human rights measure, even though one does not have the right to be transferred, rather than a political link to the peace process. The Bill is important as a confidence building measure but it is also concerned with giving prisoners a chance to serve their sentences as close to their families as possible. That is extremely important to them.

Under the Bill, a court will be allowed to adapt a sentence that is incompatible by its duration with the law of the State only where an application in this regard is made by the Minister. That should help the negotiations currently ongoing in relation to getting the prisoners transferred. There was a significant lack of movement on this issue between December of last year and November of this year and no prisoner was transferred during that period, despite the fact that three applications were on the desk of the UK Minister, Jack Straw, for a number of months. During that time no action took place in regard to 24 sentenced prisoners in England, most of whom I had visited, which led to serious concerns.

I congratulate the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach on the role they played in enabling the three transfers which took place in the past few weeks. I understand a further transfer to the Republic has been sanctioned by the Home Secretary as well as a transfer to Northern Ireland. That will help the seven other prisoners awaiting transfer and constitutes movement in regard to half the prisoners currently serving time in England. While our concept of the movement that has taken place on this issue is different from that of the prisoners concerned and of the UK Government, the movement that has taken place since November is significant and worthy of praise.

An issue that does not seem to have been given the same momentum and which concerns prisoners who would like to seek repatriation is the question of the setting of tariffs. This issue affects a number of prisoners and I intend to press the Minister and the Taoiseach to try to get these tariffs set because until that is done these people will be unable to apply for repatriation, which is extremely significant to them and their families. This may link the issue to the peace process, and I do not want to do that, but it is important.

This is a human rights issue. People want to be close to their families and families do not want to break the bonds with their relatives. On another level, there is the economic consideration of relatives travelling to a prison in a particular part of England only to be told that their spouse or partner has been moved to the opposite end of England. This is a difficult issue economically as well as emotionally for those families.

People must have confidence that movement on this issue is taking place. That is why we should commend the Bill. Deputy Ó Caoláin might say we should go back to the drawing board but delays can be very worrying for the prisoners in jails in England. Their concept of movement on this issue is different from ours and that of the UK authorities and it is important that we advance a Bill that will enable the process to move on and allow these prisoners transfer to Irish prisons.

The timescale we have seen previously, where transfers sanctioned by our Minister in January of one year did not occur until November of the same year, was too long for the prisoners and families. These people wait from week to week convinced that this week their family members will come home. Having talked to both the prisoners and the family members, I know this is a trauma which cannot be understood by anyone not totally involved in the process.

There must be a constant momentum in regard to all prisoner issues, not just in England but also in Ireland, in terms of loyalist and republican prisoners. The need for that momentum is clear from the events of last weekend. I attended a cross-Border meeting last Friday evening in Derry along with representatives of the Unionist parties, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Independents, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. When we left the meeting we admired the Christmas decorations around Derry but, as a result of a breakdown in communication and a lack of meaningful discussion on all sides, some of those decorations did not exist the following night. That is very sad. I look forward to meaningful discussion and action to overcome what is a serious problem.

I commend the fact that there has been movement on this issue and I hope further issues will be agreed in the months ahead in the context of a more lasting settlement. Perhaps this Bill may be revised, subject to the agreement of both Governments, in the future.

Mr. Neville

I am convinced that the prisoners issue is vital to the peace process. The transfer of prisoners has not taken place as speedily as we wished when the Bill was introduced two years ago. If we had looked into the future at that time and seen that it contributed little, we would not have believed it. All political prisoners in Britain should be transferred immediately to Ireland. That is the wish of the prisoners concerned.

I visited the prisoners on 4 and 5 December and the one message we received from that visit was that there is an enormous level of frustration about the speed of the transfers. The prisoners believe that both the Irish and British authorities are not working towards a resolution of this problem. In previous visits, much of our time was taken up with discussing prisoners' conditions and family issues but the issues the three groups wanted to concentrate on were transfers, the setting of tariffs and moving the matter forward.

I reiterate the view expressed by Deputy Ó Caoláin. This is a humanitarian as well as a political issue. Extreme stress is being suffered by families travelling from the Republic to Britain in addition to a great deal of expense. The cost of visiting these prisoners over a three or four day period is between £700 and £1,000. There is no assistance available to families who want to travel to visit these prisoners. Families living in Britain get a grant from the Home Office to visit prisoners but that money is not available to families travelling from the Republic.

There is a humanitarian aspect to this issue. Many prisoners have visits from their families once or twice a year but contact with wives, partners and children is not being maintained. It is difficult enough to maintain a relationship when one is in prison for five, ten, 15 or 20 years, but it must be extremely difficult when one receives visits from relatives only once or twice a year. I along with Deputy Flanagan and Mary Flaherty visited prisoners in January 1996. Our report of that visit states that the resolution of all major world conflicts has shown that progress on the prisoners issue is essential to underpin progress on the larger agenda. It also states that the prisoners issue must be central to the peace process. With regret we concluded that the current Home Office treatment of prisoners was actually damaging and destabilising the peace process. That was the case in those circumstances. It is difficult to say that any one issue affected the broader agenda, but the level of frustration felt at that time about treatment in the SSUs, the medical treatment available and the general approach of the Home Office to political prisoners, which was unbelievable, did play a role. I was pleased to note during my recent visit that approach has changed. The position has improved dramatically in the way the prisoners are treated, but prisoners in Franklin, Full Sutton and Belmarsh want to concentrate on the issue of transfers and moving it forward. Many improvements have yet to be made.

There was a good deal of frustration about the setting of tariffs and this Bill will assist in that area. The setting of tariffs for the prisoners referred to, Harry Duggan, Joe O'Connell, Hugh Doherty and Eddie Butler, is of utmost importance, but I am not convinced it will happen quickly. I impress on the Minister the need to move forward this issue with his counterpart in the Home Office. We met representatives of the prison service and during our discussion they accepted that promises made over a number of years, especially during the past 12 months, were not kept. They accepted that the promise that tariffs would be set was not kept. We impressed on them the need to move this issue forward. It was announced that representations were made recently and we do not know what delaying effect that will have. We tried to probe further into that, but we did not get much information. The Minister will have an amount of work to do to ensure that the tariffs are set and that those concerned are transferred immediately. All the republican prisoners stated that one of the key issues concerning transfers is the transfer of those who are serving long sentences, such as the Balcombe Street gang. The Minister should start to address this by ensuring that those who have served long sentences are transferred very quickly.

I wish to raise a number of other issues, particularly the levels of remission. Is it the case that when prisoners are transferred they will serve longer sentences in Ireland than if they had stayed in Britain because of differences in remission rates? Liam O'Duibhir points out that if he is transferred he will serve 22 years in Ireland, but his counterpart, who was sentenced on the same day for conspiracy, will serve only 17.5 years in Northern Ireland. There is a difference between the two jurisdictions of 5.5 years in the sentence handed down for the same crime on the same day. The Minister might deal with that in his reply. It was also pointed out to us that 22 years will be served for conspiracy. No weapons or explosives were found. One prisoner will serve 22 years while the Shankill butchers who had multiple murder convictions were released after serving 17 years. Gareth Pierce raised that issue at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation when the prisoners issue was discussed. She said there seemed to be a totally different approach to the Irish charged with committing political crimes in Britain. She also said that the likely sentence handed down for a particular crime to an Irish person would be in the region of 35 years compared to 17 years for a person from the Middle East and seven years for an animal rights activist. She said there seemed to be a different approach towards sentencing and in the attitude of the British towards Irish political prisoners compared to others.

Sixteen files have yet to be transferred, four are in the UK and four are with the Minister. I understand from the British prison that Dingus Magee's file has been in Ireland since July and the Minister might outline the reasons for the delay in dealing with it. I impress on him the degree of frustration felt by republican prisoners in England, the need to move quickly on this issue and the implications for the peace process.

Mr. Deasy

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak, even for a limited period, on this issue. I have been the leader of the Irish delegation on the Council of Europe, a strictly humanitarian body, for the past two years. My tenure of office is coming to a conclusion. I have constantly raised the plight of republican prisoners in British jails during that period. I was astounded to read a statement made by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, in summer 1995 to the effect that despite the ceasefire having been in operation for a full year the conditions of republican prisoners in British jails had considerably worsened. In case anyone might misinterpret my language, that is exactly what he said and that was exactly the position. It was extraordinary and an incredible contradiction that despite the ceasefire having been in place for a full year the conditions of republican prisoners had worsened.

When I took over as leader of the Irish delegation on the Council of Europe in spring 1996 I immediately put down a motion to the effect that the conditions of Irish republican prisoners should be examined by the Council of Europe. From the time the motion was discussed in May 1996 until May 1997 the British delegation on the Council of Europe thwarted the efforts of the committee to visit the prisoners in England. It was in my view a sadistic and vindictive act and it was only when a general election was announced for 1 May 1997 that the then British Government announced it would allow a delegation from the human rights committee of which I was a member to visit the prisoners in Belmarsh, Whitemoor, Full Sutton and Franklin. Their visit took place two weeks after the general election on 12-13 May. That scandalous state of affairs cannot be tolerated or allowed to pass without comment. I am glad that since the change of Government matters in England have improved quite considerably, although they are not altogether as they should be. Closed visits are no longer the norm. Republican prisoners are now allowed open visits. However, Belmarsh Prison, which is only a remand prison, still has a severe regime and the special security units are still in operation.

The activities of the British Home Office, which is in control of the prisons, have been entirely irregular and contrary to all conventions on human rights and this Government should not be slow to say so. We, in this House, and Governments past and present have been remiss in allowing such a situation to pertain. The former Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, M.P., the British Cabinet and perhaps the Prime Minister may have tolerated a vindictive attitude or even a racist attitude towards republican prisoners in British jails. Despite the best advice from the chief inspector of prisons in England and the chief medical officer in charge of prisons in England to the effect that the conditions in which republican prisoners were being held were inhuman, the practice continued and it took a change of Government to have this situation improved.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this valuable debate.

The background to the Bill arises in the context of my consideration of a number of cases where the sentence imposed in the UK was greater than the maximum sentence for a similar offence which could be imposed here. When considering those cases, it was clear I would not be in a position to offer the usual assurances which the Home Secretary would want before consenting to the transfer of the persons involved. So that I would be in a position to give those assurances and, thus, facilitate the transfer of the persons in question, I decided it was necessary to make the change in the law which is in the Bill before the House.

In bringing forward this legislation, I am merely facing reality. The British Home Secretary and the British Government require a categoric assurance from the Government that the integrity of the sentences imposed by British courts would be recognised and applied here. If I could not give that assurance, the probability is those transfers would be refused. That the assurance is given does not mean that at some future date as matters develop the British and Irish Governments might be able to come to some new arrangement. However, any such arrangement would have to be by consent so this Bill is for the benefit of the prisoners and is a recognition of reality.

There was a reference to delays in processing applications for transfers. I appreciate the time it can take to process applications for transfers can be frustrating for those concerned, but owing to the complexity of the documentation required to effect a transfer the administrative process can be quite time consuming. For example, legal confirmation must be obtained that the offences for which sentences are being served would constitute offences under Irish law. When the application is consented to by the sentencing state, the administering state and the person seeking the transfer, an application must then be made to the High Court for the necessary warrant authorising the person's transfer and subsequent imprisonment here before the physical transfer can take place between the two jurisdictions concerned. I assure the House that every effort is made to process each application as speedily as possible, once the three-way consent between the jurisdictions involved and the sentenced person is forthcoming. It must be remembered that two jurisdictions are involved so the pace at which an individual transfer application is dealt with is not entirely within our control.

I keep in touch regularly with the Home Secretary about transfers from the UK and I appreciate the attention he gives to these matters. Equally there is a high level of co-operation between my Department and the Home Office in processing applications.

The House will appreciate that the question of transfers of prisoners from England to the North is not directly within my remit but it is a matter in which my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, takes a particular interest. I will bring to his attention what has been said about this matter during the course of the debate.

Obviously given the context in which this legislation is being brought forward, it was inevitable that the debate would touch on a number of aspects concerning the North and, in those circumstances, I am sure the House will bear with me if I say a few words about political developments there generally.

As a legacy of Northern Ireland's difficult history, there is a lack of inter-communal trust and mutual confidence. Building this trust and confidence is an essential task which must concern all of us. The Government attaches deep importance to building confidence as an essential element in underpinning peace in Northern Ireland. The creation of confidence is also a vital component of the peace process. Only by the creation of this confidence can the two sides make the compromises and accommodations necessary to achieve an overall agreement in the talks.

There are a number of areas where sensitive and generous action can make a significant difference to the talks process. One of the most important of these, as the Bill recognises, is prisoner issues, an area of great concern to Sinn Féin and the loyalist parties.

The most important confidence building measure is already in place in the loyalist and republican ceasefires. The peaceful atmosphere has helped provide the necessary foundation on which to promote meaningful dialogue between the parties, and to develop measures to increase reconciliation and trust. It is essential, therefore, that we focus in an imaginative and progressive way on all the questions relating to those who have been imprisoned in the context of the conflict, both republican and loyalist, while also giving full attention to the concerns of the victims of violence.

If we are to secure lasting peace, there must be progress in the multi-party negotiations towards a political settlement towards an honourable and just settlement which will command the support and allegiance of all the people in Northern Ireland. There has been substantial progress in the multi-party negotiations since September. We have come a long way since the stalemate of the first 15 months of the talks, but there is still much to be achieved. As the talks chairman, Senator Mitchell, has put it, the talks are now getting down to brass tacks. We need now to step up the pace and get into more intensive negotiation on the core issues.

A small working group of the chief negotiators from each party and the two Governments has been engaged in identifying key issues where agreement is required. It has also been considering how to organise the work ahead to deal with these issues.

Over the past two weeks the members of this working group have covered a great deal of ground and addressed the issues which go to the core of the talks process. However, despite the obvious commitment of all the participants to reach agreement, they were unable to complete their deliberations and produce a list of key issues and a programme of work before Christmas.

It is important to recognise that this work has been valuable in terms of identifying common ground and in clarifying the scope and extent of the issues which remain to be resolved in negotiations. This will be the immediate focus of the talks when they resume in January after the Christmas break.

The broad outlines of an agreement are already clear. Its basic characteristics, across all the key relationships, should be partnership, fairness and mutual respect. The Framework Document and the draft report of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation represent the basis of the Government's approach, but we do not wish to impose a blueprint on anyone. We are willing to examine any proposals which meet agreed objectives.

It is not for the Government to prescribe the form of institutions in Northern Ireland, but we believe there should be structures which allow the two communities to work together for their shared benefit in a wide range of issues. Nationalists and unionists must have an equal stake in their society, an equal sense of ownership. Reforms promoting justice and equality, including in the policing area, should also be agreed. There is a need for new North-South structures which, as the Taoiseach said in Belfast last week, will enable "mutual co-operation in the interests of developing the issues that would be common to the island of Ireland." Such structures will also help to give expression to nationalists' sense of an all-Ireland identity. They must be meaningful, have the capacity to make decisions and agree policies. However, they can only work by agreement and in a democratically accountable way.

We are also willing to develop more substantial east-west links. These would allow for enhanced co-operation between Ireland and Britain on a wide range of practical issues. We also recognise that these matters are of particular importance to Unionists. Moreover, devolution within Britain opens up a range of exciting new possibilities. As part of these changes we have expressed our willingness to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement with a new and more broadly based agreement.

These arrangements will have to be compatible with each other. They should be interlocking and mutually supportive because it is impossible to address any one of our key relationships in isolation from the others. There is also a need for balanced constitutional change in both jurisdictions. In the context of a satisfactory overall settlement, we would, as set out in the Framework Document, propose that amendment of our Constitution. It is also very important — on this there is already a broad consensus among the parties — that this institutional structure be underpinned by provisions to address the equality, justice and human rights agendas.

We should not underestimate the challenge that faces all the talks participants to find acceptable political structures which can command the agreement of both communities. As already stated, the elements of a settlement, which can be combined into a comprehensive and durable agreement for our time, exist. The talks provide our best chance to achieve such an outcome. In January the talks will enter the most intensive and decisive phase of the peace process to date. It is essential that everyone engaged in the talks grasps to the full the opportunity that now beckons. We must all build on the good work of the autumn and work together in January to reach agreement by May.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his indulgence. Unfortunately, due to lack of time, I will not be in a position to reply to the important points made by Deputies in the Second Stage debate. However, I will endeavour to reply to them on Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 12.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil today: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Question put and agreed to.