Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1997

Vol. 153 No. 2

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

I thank Senators 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 in the United Kingdom at the moment. 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 the 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 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 sentence 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, that is to say the date it came into force, is 1 July 1985. Ireland signed the convention a year later on 20 August 1986, and ratified the convention 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 it 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 the following 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 own 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 who 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 UK, the UK 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 UK 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 makes 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 only adapt the sentence 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 going on to comment on the individual provisions of the Bill it might be helpful to the House to give some brief statistics on applications under the Act. My Department has processed 102 applications 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 PIRA prisoners. In relation to the transfer of prisoners out of the jurisdiction, a total of 14 have been transferred to date.

Section 1 of the Bill involves an 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, then the court may adapt the duration of the sentence to conform with our law.

The amendment to section 7(6) arises as a result of the amendment to subsection (5) which I have just 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, that is, that the adapted sentence must not either aggravate the original sentence or exceed the maximum prescribed by our law for a similar offence.

In order to remove any confusion which might arise from the use of the term "legal nature of a sentence", the Bill is making provision for the insertion of an interpretation of that term. Section 7(10), 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.

Section 2 of the Bill is in standard form setting out the short title and stating that it will be cited together with the 1995 Act.

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

Mr. O'Dowd

Fáiltímid roimh an Aire chuig an Teach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh díospóireacht mhaith againn ar na rudaí an-tábhachtach atá sáite isteach sa Bhille.

This is a very important Bill which incorporates a clear humanitarian principle. Prisoners should be brought closer to their dependants and families so that the families suffer as little as possible. It is right and proper for the State to arrange for the transfer of prisoners held overseas to serve their full sentences in Ireland.

The Minister, Deputy de Valera, stated in a 1995 report that it cost £300 for a relative to visit a prisoner in the UK. It would probably cost about £500 now. When parents get older and brothers and sisters are scattered around the world, the overseas prisoner suffers further punishment in addition to being imprisoned. This Bill is an effort to ameliorate that suffering.

We must also look at the historic role of prisoners in Irish politics, particularly in Sinn Féin. The politicisation of Sinn Féin came about through the prisoner movement and the H-block protests. Sinn Féin prisoners have played a major role in affecting the policies of that organisation, particularly in bringing about the first ceasefire. I gather from my reading of various articles that the failure of the British Government to deal fully with prisoner interests may have been one of the main reasons for the eventual breakdown of that ceasefire.

A member of my family, Niall O'Dowd, was part of the American involvement in brokering the first ceasefire. I am very aware of the effect the collapse of that ceasefire had on him and the entire country. We need to ensure that prisoners in the UK are transferred as speedily as possible and that their views are brought to our attention.

Deputy Neville and Senator Costello recently visited prisoners in the UK. Deputy Neville's report is very important from the Fine Gael point of view. He stated he was very disappointed at the rate of transfer of republican prisoners from the UK to Ireland. He is in weekly touch with many prisoners and he detects a growing level of frustration with the lack of progress on the transfer issue.

I wish to acknowledge the work of the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas and its interest in all prisoners, regardless of the reason for their imprisonment. It sent me a letter which states:

ICPO is concerned with all Irish prisoners throughout the world and this Bill applies to all, regardless of offence or country of sentence. We are worried that legislation is being amended in a "general" way to deal with a "specific and limited" group of prisoners, even if the aim of this is one of helpful intent, that is, to further the peace process by facilitating transfer.

It is our belief that this problem, that is, the integrity of sentences, is ultimately a political and/or administrative one and should be addressed in such a manner — that is, by political persuasion and administrative flexibility — permitted by the convention. After all, the convention, in the words of the Taoiseach's adviser, "itself establishes the framework within which prisoner transfers can take place but does not prescribe precisely how its provisions, including those relating to adaptation of sentence, should be translated into domestic law".

This amendment is of general application, to deal with all situations where a sentence imposed by a foreign court is greater than the maximum penalty provided for in Irish law. But it could have unforeseen consequences, even in terms of the peace process, not to mention the effects on prisoners in countries other than England.

The commission goes on to state that other questions arise about the proposed Government amendments to the legislation:

Is there a need for the new subsection (5), changing the legal nature of the offence to one "similar" and not comparable, if the High Court is already doing this in practice? The existing Act provides that if the foreign sentence is by its legal nature or duration incompatible with Irish law, the court may adapt it at the time a transfer warrant is applied for. At present, the adaptation is done at the discretion of the court. In relation to the republican prisoners who got 35 years for conspiracy to cause explosions there is a comparable offence, albeit commanding a lesser sentence.

In regard to the duration of sentence, has (5)(b) been put into place in any other country and what has been the effect, especially for long-term prisoners and politically motivated prisoners? How does this amendment fit in with the State's right to grant pardons, amnesties or early releases, especially for politically motivated prisoners?

If there are changes in remission in England or Northern Ireland in the future how would this affect such sentences affected by this amendment? For example, the UK may be lowering its remission rates to 8 per cent next year or some time in the future. Is it to be applied for the 35 year sentenced prisoners only? Could it be open to charges of discrimination?

It is ridiculous to think that all systems can be brought into complete alignment via amendments to the Irish transfer Act. It is harmful to introduce or amend in a general way legislation for a very specific and limited number of the prisoners. The downstream consequences are unforeseeable.

The commission has suggested two possible amendments. The first is to amend the new subsection (5)(b) to read:

The Minister may, where he or she considers it appropriate and where the prisoner concerned, after being full advised of the effect in relation to him or her, has expressly indicated in writing his or her consent to such application, include in an application to the High Court.

This would, at least, ensure that the prisoner had fully considered the implications before any such application was made.

The commission suggests a second amendment which would provide that:

...subsection (5)(b) would remain in force for a period of 12 months only unless both Houses of the Oireachtas voted to extend its period of operation for another period of 12 months or succeeding 12 month periods. This would be without prejudice to the continuing validity of any orders made under the subsection. This would ensure that the power would lapse when the specific problem had been dealt with and could not be used for any extended period in a way that the Oireachtas did not intend.

The commission also suggests that "there may be a potential contradiction between subsection (5)(b) and subsection (6)(b)(ii) which suggests that the court could not require a prisoner to serve longer than the maximum permitted under Irish law". This should be clarified.

Now that there is peace in our land and the guns of the IRA and most of the other organisations are silent, it is very important for us to reach out and support those in the Sinn Féin movement who fight for peace. Even as I speak, changes are happening in our country. There is a mood for change and for peace. The transfer of prisoners to Ireland will support and underpin that desire. We will deal with other points on Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Donovan

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is the first time four Bills have been initiated in this House and it is to be welcomed. The Leader was praised this morning. I also praise the Minister's initiative. It is a great honour and an acknowledgement of the role of the House. I am proud of this development and would welcome similar initiatives from other Departments. It would improve the image of the House and show that it does not merely rubber stamp, but can also initiate and amend legislation.

While this is technical legislation, it is appropriate, given the ongoing peace process. I compliment the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, John Hume and many others for their work on the peace process. I also welcome the recent reestablishment of peace; please God it will continue. It is the most important development in the State over the past 30 or 40 years, despite the recent economic progress of the Celtic tiger. Peace on this island is of huge importance to people, both North and South, and to the development of the economy.

The purpose of this amending legislation was set out in the Minister's speech when he stated:

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 who are serving sentences longer than the sentence which could be imposed under our laws

A number of Provisional IRA prisoners are serving sentences in England of 25, 30 and 35 years. Under our laws they would serve sentences of probably 20 years in respect of comparable offences. This is where the difficulty lies. The Minister and the Government have grasped the nettle with this legislation, which is both timely and urgent.

While I concur with the view that legislation should not be rushed through this House, I am glad that my colleagues on the other side have agreed to take all Stages of this Bill today. It is an indication of the commitment by the Leader and the Minister that there was a lengthy debate yesterday on Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1997. A number of valuable contributions were made. Committee Stage will be taken next week. I am slow to criticise my colleagues on the other side, but the Labour Party engaged in a cynical exercise yesterday by moving an amendment on Second Stage, yet when a vote was called only one Member from the Labour Party was present. If a party or group moves amendments their members should be present to vote. Otherwise it is reasonable to speculate that amendments may be no more than filibusters to delay the progress of legislation.

This Bill will enable the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, 1978, which has been adopted by this country and Great Britain, to come into operation. It is a positive reflection on the relationship between the two states that the transfer of prisoners is allowed. However, there is a fear in Great Britain that prisoners from Ireland serving long sentences of 25, 30 or 35 years for very serious crimes, usually terrorist related and involving the planting of bombs in Britain by the IRA, would serve lesser sentences if transferred back to this State. This Bill guarantees that this will not occur and that if transfers of prisoners are to be made the type of offence for which they were sentenced can be taken into account and that, on application by the Minister to the courts, there will be a guarantee that the returned prisoners cannot apply to have their sentences of, say, 25 or 30 years, commuted to ten or 15 years.

Both countries are trying to accommodate the transfer of prisoners. This legislation guarantees that if Great Britain allows the seven Provisional IRA prisoners to be returned to Ireland they will serve comparable sentences in this country. That is the most important aspect of this Bill. Given the need to allay fears regarding the peace process and to build good relations between the respective leaders and Governments, we must give such an assurance to our colleagues in Britain.

I welcome the transfer of these prisoners. It is good that an Irish national serving a long sentence in Great Britain, away from his family, his relatives and his country, can be transferred to Ireland. It will resolve the geographical problems and the cost of access incurred by visitors. It also improves the level of co-operation and understanding that exists——

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. O'Donovan

It is important to note that certain conditions must be met before this arrangement is put in place. The sentenced person must be a national of the state to which the transfer is sought. If an appeal is lodged in Great Britain, for example, a transfer cannot take place until a judgment is made. A person must have at least six months of the sentence left to serve as it would not be practical or economically viable to transfer someone who is serving less than six months back here. The offence for which the sentenced person is imprisoned must also be a criminal offence here. The party concerned and the two states involved must agree on what should happen.

This is important legislation which amends the 1995 Act and gives substance to the 1978 European convention. I hope it is given a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. O'Toole

I compliment the Minister and his Department for introducing this legislation. It is good that conventions are dealt with speedily. I have often been critical of the Department of Justice for being slow to ensure that internationally agreed conventions are included in law. There seems to be a peculiar resistance in that Department to take the necessary action. I applaud the fact that this legislation will create confidence in the peace process and in the relationships between the different groups on the two islands.

I ask the Minister to explain if this Bill raises constitutional issues. I know transfers can only take place with the agreement of both states and of the prisoner or convicted person. Could a constitutional issue arise if a person who has not been proven guilty in our courts is given a jail sentence here? Could this lead to a petition under habeas corpus because we are holding someone in prison who has not been found guilty of a crime through our courts, although they have gone through a court procedure? Despite the fact they might have agreed to this when in another land and that it had the agreement of both states, that could not override the person's constitutional right not to be held in prison.

I ask the Minister to outline the relationship between this legislation and two other pieces of legislation here and in Great Britain which allow for a person to be brought for trial in this country for crimes committed in another jurisdiction. There must be complications because that legislation also dealt with some of these issues.

How do the different arrangements for probation tie in with the acceptable demand from the convicting state that nobody should get off serving their sentence? The difference between the UK and the Republic in terms of remission is that people often get remission in the UK and the North of Ireland of up to 50 per cent of the sentence. If someone is convicted in the UK and imprisoned in Northern Ireland for a crime for which they could have expected a 50 per cent remission for good behaviour but they opt to move to the Republic where the remission arrangements are not quite so generous, could this create problems? If someone from the North is convicted in a court in the South and the judge sentences them on the basis that they are likely to get remission of a proportion of the sentence but a year later they are transferred to a prison regime where there is a likelihood of a 50 per cent remission, would that have implications for the administration of justice in either this or other jurisdictions?

I am more concerned about the constitutional than the legal issues, particularly those associated with habeas corpus or with the imprisonment of someone by the State who has not been found guilty by our court system. I know this has not been challenged before but could it be said we are holding someone against their constitutional rights? I ask the Minister to examine that and the problems and legal complications of different remission rates in different jurisdictions and the relationship between this and other legislation.

This legislation shows compassion not so much for the prisoner but for the prisoner's family. They will be in a better position to visit them and help or facilitate their readmission to society. There are two sides to this story but we must welcome the possibility that a prisoner's family could have a good influence on them. This is to be welcomed. I welcome this legislation. I did not hear the main Opposition spokesperson so I do not know what their position is on the Bill. It seems to be advancing a policy on which this and the previous Government agreed.

Dr. M. Hayes

I commend the Minister on this Bill. Senator O'Toole raised most of the points I wished to make. The Bill makes an important contribution to the peace process. However, it is important to present the Bill as not being a concession to anything except humanitarian values and decency. It is important to facilitate prisoners who wish to be transferred to their native jurisdiction. This is primarily to ease the burden on families and to help rehabilitation. The Bill should be seen as a triumph of these principles rather than a reaction to any political process or pressure. The fact that we are introducing this legislation to advance a political process should not exclude the needs and requirements of other prisoners who might wish to be considered in the same way.

It is also important that the Bill is not seen as anything other than showing respect for the convention and for the transfer of prisoners on humanitarian grounds. It must be made clear that it does not involve a lessening of sentences or a disguised release. However, this raises the problem of variable remission rates. Under this provision, I assume that a prisoner retains not only his/her sentence but also his/her existing remission regime. There are already problems concerning the transfer of prisoners between Britain and Northern Ireland where different remission rates exist. Will prisoners receive the benefit of changes in remission rates in the other jurisdiction?

With a little luck, I can foresee a situation in a few years in which we will have an established peace and in which order will have been restored. In such circumstances authorities in all jurisdictions would legitimately look at the possibility of the early release of prisoners, even on parole. It is important that there should be consistency between jurisdictions. In some serious crimes the sentencing judge is consulted before remission is granted. Which judge will be consulted in these cases?

The feelings of victims should also be taken into account in all remissions. Where there is a crime there are victims. When victims are close at hand, administrations can reflect their concerns. However, it is easy to forget victims when they are far away. I hope some mechanism can be built into the administrative arrangements to take this into account. I welcome this Bill and commend the Minister on the speed with which it is being introduced. I hope it receives a speedy passage.

Mr. Caffrey

When I was asked about this Bill yesterday, I looked for the Dáil records to see what the Lower House had to say. However, I discovered that the Bill was being initiated in this House. At first I did not believe this, but it is encouraging to see such an initiative coming from this House and I hope it will be the forerunner for much legislation.

I welcome this Bill as I do any measure which underpins the peace process. That is essential. Senator O'Toole raised some constitutional issues in relation to this Bill. I am sure that the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons looked at these issues carefully. That convention is the forerunner to this legislation and the Bill would not have been possible were it not for that convention.

When discussing this Bill we are talking about republican prisoners in Britain, even though they are not mentioned. Six hundred Irish nationals are in prison throughout the world. Each of these prisoners has the same entitlement to request a transfer as political prisoners in Britain. However, run of the mill criminals are involved in a revolving door syndrome in our prison system. People who should be in prison are on the streets one week later. In such a situation we cannot open the sluice gates to criminals abroad who get homesick. The discretion ultimately lies with the Minister, but I would have grave concerns about placing further strain on our prison system. I am not speaking about political prisoners in Britain with whom this Bill is designed to deal.

I welcome the Bill from a humanitarian viewpoint. We know the problems and the cost involved in visiting prisoners in Britain. I can foresee legal battles concerning prisoners who have received the maximum 35 year sentence in Britain. What happens in cases where that jurisdiction decides that it will not allow a reduction in the sentence in the state to which a prisoner is being returned? This may result in more money for legal teams and, as always, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill. I would not like to see such a situation arising.

The previous Government introduced the forerunner to this legislation which will enable the Bill to pass. I have no great concerns with the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The Minister has scored a first on two counts this week. This is an important milestone in the history of Seanad debates. He scored a first in that he has four Bills before the House this week. From my recollection of events in the Lower House, he has also scored a first in that the Second Stage debates of all four Bills are being taken this week. Ordinarily we would be surprised and express amazement that a Minister could make such an achievement. However, in the case of this Minister, I am not surprised because of the time I spent with him in the Lower House. I am aware of his ready grasp of the law and his understanding of the need to bring forward legislation in this and other areas as part of a comprehensive anti-crime package.

I never fail to be impressed by the Minister's work rate. In that context I was deeply impressed when during his time in Opposition he introduced many important Bills which will be proven in time to be landmarks on the road to effective anti-crime laws. I am equally impressed that after such a short period in office the Minister has brought forward so many important Bills. I commend him — I hope the House will support me in this regard — for delivering on commitments he made while in Opposition.

If any Opposition spokesman who subsequently became a Minister was ever faced with a barrage of criticism in the national media, it is this Minister. He is currently a target for — in some cases, reasonably legitimate — criticism in respect of statements and assertions he made and views he expressed.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I am disappointed that my flow was interrupted. Nevertheless, such things happen in politics. Life has its ups and downs and political life is no exception.

Miss Quill: Children must have their playtime.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Yes, certain people must have their fun. However, they should not do so during debates on such important and significant Bills. While I fully sympathise with the grievances of Members on the other side of the House, contributions — I do not proffer my own as being special — on such an important and timely Bill should not be interrupted.

This short Bill is an amendment to section 7 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995, and is designed to overcome a bottleneck which occurred as a result of the workings of that Act. The bottleneck arose from the unwillingness of certain states, particularly Britain, to operate under the 1995 Act where a court had the right to adapt sentences where incompatibility occurred. It revolved around a certain category of prisoner, namely, seven Provisional IRA prisoners held in Britain. At this early stage, it is important that the Minister, recognising the existence of the bottleneck, brought forward this legislation to address it and ensure the smooth operation of the 1995 Act.

The Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995, was introduced to enable the ratification of the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and it was welcomed by all sides of the House. I am glad to discover that all sides of the House equally welcome this amending legislation. Brief as it is, the Bill will be equally significant in promoting the smooth repatriation of prisoners where there is full compliance with the conditions outlined and defined by the Minister and other Members.

When the 1995 Act was brought before the House, there were in excess of 600 Irish nationals serving sentences in other jurisdictions. As Senator Caffrey indicated, it is fair to state that successive Governments, in taking account of and considering the convention, were concerned about the impact of such transfers or repatriations on the Irish prison system. However, I understand that on closer examination ways and means to alleviate that concern have been discovered. None of these is more spectacular than the Minister's decision to increase prison spaces by over 50 per cent of current capacity. There is no doubt that our prisons are bursting at the seams or that a repatriation of 300 to 600 prisoners from foreign jurisdictions, all at once or over a short period, would have dire consequences in respect of prison conditions. However, a phased repatriation programme — which is likely to happen — in addition to making additional spaces available will address this problem.

The most fundamental underlying principle of the convention and the 1995 Act involves a response, on humanitarian grounds, to the concerns of this jurisdiction in respect of Irish nationals serving sentences in foreign prisons and, as other Members stated, its concerns about their families. It is unnecessary to deprive relatives of access to members of their families incarcerated in foreign prisons. Incarceration is, by definition of the sentence and the law which guides and directs it, an adequate punishment not only for the prisoner serving it but also for his or her family. People should not be deprived of access to members of their families. While I accept some of Senator Caffrey's concerns, I believe that any modern democracy with a degree of humanity must take into account concerns relating to prisoners and the potential for their rehabilitation. As other Members stated, in many cases ongoing contact with their families facilitates such rehabilitation.

Of more fundamental importance is the significance of this legislation in addressing an important stage in the development of Anglo-Irish relations, that is, the peace process. We are at a critical stage where new momentums have been given by both Governments. For example, the Taoiseach's meeting last week with David Trimble was a milestone in the history of Anglo-Irish relations, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. To my knowledge, it is the first time a Taoiseach has met the leader of the main Unionist party. It is imperative, therefore, that both Governments do everything possible and avail of every opportunity, resource and initiative to propel that process forward. I welcome the contribution this Bill will make in facilitating and reassuring the British Government and in breaking down its reluctance to facilitate the transfer of a limited number of Provisional IRA prisoners for the reasons to which Senator Caffrey, other Senators and the Minister adverted.

From speaking with the Minister since his appointment, I understand there has been tremendous co-operation between his office, that of his counterpart in Britain and Ministers in Northern Ireland and that smooth transfers have taken place, and did so before his appointment. It is vital that the process of repatriation continues, that hard cases, which cause difficulties and are sensitive for the British establishment are addressed and that the assurances provided in this Bill, which I am sure will be adequate, reassure the British authorities of the Minister's commitment and sense of responsibility in addressing their concerns and successfully remove the bottlenecks. It is imperative that any bottleneck which inhibits or slows down the momentum of the peace process is cleared as quickly as possible. It is heartening that the Minister has risen to this challenge at such an early stage.

During the 1980s I travelled to Britain on a number of occasions where I met representatives of organisations representing the Irish community. It would be remiss of me not to pay a compliment to them on the work they have done over many years for Irish emigrants. I met some councils where — it was almost as if the League of Nations was present — the Irish community was held in extremely high regard, primarily because of the work of these Irish organisations. The previous Minister and, I am sure, this Minister would commend the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas which has done vital work in assisting the welfare of Irish emigrants. The commission and organisations representing Irish residents in Britain have reached out to our prisoners there in a meaningful way. I commend the Minister and welcome the Bill, which appears to have the support of all sides.

Mr. Costello

I compliment the Minister on the broad package of legislation he has presented to this and the other House. I commend the Leader on initiating four Bills in the House, which has been noted by others and is a record. However, I must protest that we are taking this legislation in less than three hours and that all Stages must be completed by 2 p.m. There might have been justification for a guillotine if the Bill had gone through the other House first, but this important legislation was initiated here. It requires careful examination and analysis. Contributions made, the document read into the record by Senator O'Dowd relating to the reservations of the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas and questions raised on the constitutionality of this measure in terms of precedence in law require considerable analysis which can be done only on Committee and Report Stages. It appears Second Stage will take up most of the time and that we will have a limited amount of time to deal with amendments tabled. It is unacceptable to the House that legislation should be passed in a day because we need time for reflection. It is an insult to legislators that it must happen in this way and I protest against it in the strongest terms.

The Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act was fine legislation. The European convention was introduced in 1983 and ratified in 1986. Unfortunately, we were the last country in the EU to enact the convention. Thankfully, we did so in 1995 even though at the time there was a fear that there would be a huge influx of prisoners into this country. Approximately 140 prisoners have applied to date, as was expected by the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas. Roughly one-tenth of those eligible to apply have done so.

This legislation has a good and humanitarian purpose and will facilitate families rather than prisoners. It will ensure families will not have to travel long distances, incur large expenses or endure hardship when visiting relations and friends in distance climes. Because we are an island community, anybody visiting a prisoner in another jurisdiction other than Northern Ireland must travel by air or sea, which may be very expensive.

There are considerable concerns about the delay in transfers to date. Approximately twothirds of those who have applied have not had their applications processed. Each jurisdiction seems to blame the other. When I get in touch with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I am assured there is no delay there and when I contact the Home Office, I am told the same and yet two thirds of applications have been received for 22 months and have not been processed. We need to streamline procedures and set a time scale for processing applications when the prisoner applies. It is important to say that because we are talking about amending legislation for a specific group of prisoners. For the majority of prisoners who have applied, the administrative side has fallen down and they are waiting for their applications to be processed. Prisoners who have contacted me and other Members of this or the other House have made the same complaint. They cannot understand why it takes so long; the process is confusing in terms of who is responsible for the delay and they are not kept abreast of where their application stands. These matters should also be addressed.

Tariffs are an administrative matter for the Home Office and have nothing to do with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; legislation is not required in this regard. Why can that not be set when it has been promised for the past 12 months or more? The repatriation process cannot begin until such time as the tariffs are set.

Although the legislation has given rise for concerns, it is welcome in that its purpose and intent is to facilitate the transfer of prisoners who were finding it difficult to have their applications processed without an enabling provision of this nature. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how the need for such an amendment arose. Who was responsible for the initiative? Did it come from the Home Office? Did it come from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Why was it suddenly discovered out of the blue that there were seven prisoners for whom amending legislation would be required? Why did not it happen in 1995 or 1996? These people submitted their applications a long time ago. Why did it happen and who was responsible?

The Bill refers both to the legal nature and the duration of time. It refers to all prisoners, even though the Minister stated in his opening remarks it is intended to refer to seven prisoners in a particular jurisdiction. There is no reference to a number of prisoners, a category of prisoner, a jurisdiction, a period of time, a sentence or an offence. It is a generic, wide ranging provision. It could apply to Turkey, China or any other jurisdiction which has or will have in the future reciprocal legislation of this nature with us.

That gives rise to considerable concerns. Why is it not tied down in any way? Does it mean that any jurisdiction can make similar demands on us in relation to its transfer process and that we would have to introduce amending legislation to suit that jurisdiction if it is not prepared to make the transfers subject to the decision, which is normally made be the court, on the nature of the offence when the Minister makes an application on receipt of that application?

It also raises a constitutional question. If people in another jurisdiction were sentenced for conspiracy to 35 years imprisonment, and the maximum comparable sentence in this jurisdiction was 20 years, combined with the one-quarter remission in this jurisdiction and the one-third remission in the sentencing jurisdiction, effectively we are doubling the length of sentence. It seems to me that at some future date a court could decide that this is unfair and contrary to natural justice. Where then would we be? Has the Minister addressed the particular concerns that we are effectively introducing a very stiff new sentencing process which has not been imposed by this jurisdiction but by another? Another jurisdiction has insisted that we accept fully a very severe sentence, half of which this jurisdiction would regard as the maximum warranted sentence.

It also brings into question other sentences which are relatively similar in nature, where prisoners have already been sentenced here for the same type of offence, such as conspiracy, with other offences, such as possession and where the major part of the sentence would relate to conspiracy — in fact, more than 20 years of the sentence could relate to conspiracy. How does that tie in with this Bill when a number of prisoners convicted of similar offences have already been transferred to this jurisdiction and no such amending legislation was required? Many such issues need to be addressed.

What will happen in the future should the peace process succeed? We know how much the prisoner issue contributed to the peace process. How will that work down the road should the Minister, or one of his successors, wish to grant an amnesty or pardon when he has already introduced amending legislation which will respect the integrity of the offence, when he has gone to the High Court and applied to have the sentence so respected?

I say all this because I spoke to most of the people who will be affected by this legislation only last Thursday and Friday. While they welcome the legislation in principle, they are not anxious that precedents be established on their behalf which could have a detrimental effect on the authority of the legislative and judicial processes in this jurisdiction. These are matters to which I hope the Minister has answers. I will be listening carefully to his response because there are many issues which need to be teased out and carefully explained. These concerns were expressed to me by people who are directly affected and the organisations involved with prisoners, such as the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas — the Minister will presumably be aware of that organisation's concerns because, like me, he received a copy of the fax, which Senator O'Dowd read into the record, relating to the legal opinion it had received about these matters — NIACRO and the British Probation Officers Organisation.

No doubt the Bill is being introduced with the best of intentions and it is intended that it would contribute substantially to the peace process because the prisoners were a party to the initiation of the peace process and the building of confidence in that regard. It will also make many families happy in that it will bring their loved ones in prison close enough so that they can visit more often and without too much hardship. These outcomes are very desirable but for us, as legislators, the moot point is will this legislation stand the test of time and stand up to a constitutional challenge? Is this legislation being directed by another jurisdiction in relation to a single category of offence? Will we find similar demands being imposed upon us in future? If that is the case, it would not be in the spirit of the convention which allows the discretion to be made in this jurisdiction by the High Court. I am worried that we would get into the business of specifics in relation to one jurisdiction and one category of offence.

I will listen carefully to the Minister's reply. I hope he will accept some of our Committee Stage amendments.

Miss Quill

I also welcome the Minister to the House and join with others in commending him warmly for the nature and scale of this Bill. For some weeks after the appointment of the Seanad we were grumbling that we did not have enough to do; now we are grumbling that we have too much to do. That is a very good complaint.

Having said that, I also acknowledge that, while this may appear to be a short Bill, it is of fundamental importance and it will have far-reaching consequences in this country on a number of fronts. First, it enables us to incorporate into Irish law the provisions of the Council of Europe convention, and it is important that that would be done. Second, by so doing, it helps us to advance decent humanitarian principles.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I ask Senator Quill to resume.

Mr. Cassidy

I understood quorums would not be called today as they were yesterday. We are all aware of how precious is the time available to discuss this Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The calling of a quorum is at the discretion of any Member. While I appreciate the Leader's concern, I believe everyone who wishes to will contribute. I ask Senator Quill to continue.

Mr. Cassidy

I remind the Leas-Chathaoirleach there is a 2 p.m. deadline for this Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I appreciate that, but it is at the discretion of any Member to call a quorum. I call on Senator Quill.

Miss Quill

The application of this legislation in the context of the ongoing talks will be an important element in the process of confidence building. When historians research and write about the role played by prisoners in the Northern Ireland troubles, specifically since the introduction of internment, and their involvement at key times, such as the dirty blanket protests and the Birmingham Six, it will be seen that prisoners and the way their issues were treated by both sides were a potent force in the Northern Ireland troubles. It is welcome in the context of the recent peace process that prisoners were a potent force in creating the conditions for peace. That is an important factor which must be acknowledged and which merits more time for discussion than we have today. Members on both sides acknowledged that by giving an unguarded welcome to this Bill. We hope it will have a beneficial effect, in the short and medium term, in bringing about not only permanent peace but also the political conditions in which all people on this island can live side by side as civilised communities in a modern democratic state.

This Bill is also important in that it acknowledges the great hardship families undergo when a member — often, though not always, the father — is in prison. When a member is in prison in a different jurisdiction, the hardship is multiplied many times. There is suffering at both levels. The imprisoned person in a different jurisdiction and culture is removed from the nourishment he or she draws from other family members and which often leads to a change of heart and helps towards their rehabilitation. I cannot imagine that any man looking into the eyes of his young children would not be prepared to reconsider the deed that put him in prison in the first place and would not be prompted on the road to rehabilitation and leading a crime free life. That becomes extremely difficult when prisoners are at a great distance from their families. It is important to minimise the hardship for families who want to visit the person in prison. By repatriating prisoners we are helping greatly to do this and that is the second positive point of this legislation.

This Bill can and, I hope, will have positive and long-term benefits for all parts of this country. When examined in detail, it is very broad and has applications far wider than for IRA prisoners serving in British prisons. I was a little cautious when I heard a previous speaker speak of an amnesty for all prisoners. I remind Members we are a considerable distance from the point and time when I hope that will be a reasonable prospect. We must move towards it in a series of reasoned and reasonable steps.

Senator Maurice Hayes wisely cautioned that we must always take into account not only the welfare and future of the prisoner but also the feelings and future of the victim. That is a fine balance which must be maintained when dealing with crime. With political crimes, we are dealing with a much wider pool and are at a finely balanced and critical point in the talks. We must maintain the balance between sides which are only beginning to grow marginally comfortable with each other. It takes much time, patience and reasoned discussion — listening, talking and otherwise — to wear out the folk memory and bitterness which besets a society when terrorism has continued for a long time. It is a slow process which must be underpinned with measured, finely tuned legislation. This Bill meets that standard and, while I recognise that we will visit this issue again, I warmly welcome it and give it my party's full support.

Mr. Mooney

Like my colleagues I welcome this significant legislation. I listened with great interest to the contributions, particularly that of Senator Costello who has a long track record on prisoners' rights and interests. I share some of his concerns but I have every confidence in the Minister and the Department, who have gone into some detail not only in the drafting of the legislation, in which balance is required, but also in negotiations with the British authorities leading to the drafting and presentation of the Bill.

This legislation is an act of faith on the part of our Government. There was a logjam in that the British authorities refused point blank to agree to the transfer of prisoners because they did not believe the Irish Government would agree to the sentencing policy imposed by the British courts. We are now signing up to the European Convention on the Transfer of Prisoners and that is a welcome development.

The case of Irish prisoners in British jails — as distinct from Irish prisoners in jails elsewhere, who are also affected by this legislation — has been a running sore for the duration of the war since 1968. In this time many people have been sentenced in British courts for terrorist offences. I have taken more than a passing interest in these cases, including the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the less high profile cases. It always struck me that younger, more idealistic terrorists, irrespective of their motives, carried out the most heinous crimes against humanity. The people I felt for were the families, who were as much victims as those who were bombed and killed. Many of them, particularly the younger members of families, have been scarred to an extraordinary degree. For a variety of reasons, not least the petty vindictiveness of the British prison system, sons and daughters of prisoners were unable to meet their fathers and if they did have an opportunity to visit, it was so restricted they were not allowed to display basic affection such as putting their arms round them. One can imagine the long-term psychological impact on youngsters who saw their fathers in jail and were unable to hold their hand.

As a result of the ceasefires and the easing of tension in Anglo-Irish affairs and North-South relations, one hopes that day is now gone. The recent downgrading of the security status of republican prisoners in the UK has meant that families are not only able to visit on a more regular basis but can have open visits. The groundswell of anger and trauma, coupled with the desire to visit imprisoned spouses and family members on a regular basis, has led us to this important juncture in Anglo-Irish relations. For that reason if for no other I welcome this initiative.

Reference has been made to the ongoing peace process and, like the Government, I believe the issue of prisoners is central to unblocking any obstacle which may arise as the peace process negotiations continue and, one hopes, arrive at a fruitful conclusion. Preventing the consideration of issues concerning loyalist and republican prisoners in Northern Ireland will have a detrimental effect on the long-term viability of any political settlement. This is within the Minister's brief and as a result of his many dealings with his opposite number in Britain and the Northern Ireland Office, he is more aware than most that this issue is central to a future political settlement on the island. The significance of this legislation is all the more enhanced by the delicate position of the ongoing negotiations.

I join colleagues in paying tribute to the unsung heroes, those who represent English mainstream liberal opinion, which is sadly not always evident here but has been a part of the British tradition for many decades on a variety of human rights issues. Ms Gareth Pierce has represented many Irish prisoners on remand, some of whom have been convicted of awful crimes. Her compassion and humanity in dealing with prisoners and their families has been nothing short of saintly. If we refer to the late Mother Teresa in revered tones, we should place Gareth Pierce in the pantheon along side her, as another person with a humane view of life.

The Commission on Irish Prisoners Overseas, set up on the initiative of the church, carries out extremely valuable work not only with Irish republican prisoners in the UK but with Irish prisoners all over the world. This legislation will prove an attractive option for prisoners in other parts of the world who have for some time requested the possibility of transfer back to Ireland.

Senator Costello and others touched on the act of faith on the part of the Irish Government. For instance, will this jurisdiction honour the agreement, solemnly entered into, to ensure continuation of sentence? The Minister pointed out that Article 10 of the convention is concerned with this point. It should be emphasised that the State may, by court or administrative order, adapt the sanction to the punishment or measure prescribed by its own law for similar offences. There is no legal obligation on the State to change the sentence and it can only be done at the request of the Minister of the day. The precedent set by this Minister, which will be adhered to by his successors, will ensure that the legal agreements entered into — and the moral imperative on any future Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — will be binding. Notwithstanding that, one hopes that with a future political settlement encompassing all the people of the island and the resulting improvement in Anglo-Irish relations, the issue of prisoners will be addressed in a general sense. Hopefully, at that point the severity of many of these sentences may be reviewed. For the purposes of the Bill a strong message has been sent by the Minister. As drafted it is the best that can be done in the prevailing circumstances.

I have no doubt the Bill will lessen tension and create an environment in which families will be able to visit their loved ones without the difficulty and expense of travel. I hope it will make a contribution to the peace process. I also hope there will be a humanity in the Irish prison system which was lacking in the British prison system for the prisoners concerned. I cannot help but reflect on the late Giuseppe Conlon as an example of the petty vindictiveness of the British prison system towards Irish prisoners. He was an innocent man who died primarily as a result of the treatment he received in a British jail. Whatever we may think of our prison system I hardly think such a situation would pertain in an Irish jail.

The severity of sentences is a tradition in British law which does not only apply to republican prisoners. The great train robbers received excessive sentences for the crime they committed. I hope a message might be sent to the British judicial establishment with regard to the severity of sentences. One must question the heavy sentences handed down to many prisoners. The crimes were awful but I wonder if the sentences were a vindictive revenge on the part of the British establishment because the persons were Irish.

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

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate. Reference was made to delays in processing applications for transfers. I appreciate that the time it will take to process applications for transfers can be frustrating for those concerned, but owing to the complexity of the documentation required to effect the transfer, the administrative process can be 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 actual 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 when the three way consent of the jurisdictions involved and the person concerned 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.

With regard to transfers from the UK, I keep in touch regularly with the Home Secretary and I wish to record my appreciation of the attention which he gives to these matters. 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 Britain to the North is not directly within my remit, but it is a matter in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs takes a particular interest. I will bring to his attention the points made on this issue in the debate.

Given the context in which this legislation is being proposed it was inevitable that the debate would touch on a number of aspects concerning the North. I am sure the House will bear with me if I say a few words on political developments generally. 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 much remains to be achieved. As a legacy of Northern Ireland's difficult history there is a lack of intercommunity trust and mutual confidence. Building this trust and confidence will enable the two sides to reach to each other and make the necessary compromises and accommodations which will lead to lasting peace. The Government attaches deep importance to building confidence as an essential element in the underpinning of peace in Northern Ireland.

There are a number of areas where sensitive and generous action can be taken and where it can make a significant difference to the talks process. One of the most important of these, as this Bill recognises, is the issue of prisoners. The assurance of a peaceful atmosphere has helped to 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 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 achieve lasting peace there must be progress in the multi-party negotiations towards a political settlement. As the chairman of the talks, George Mitchell, has put it, the talks are now getting down to brass tacks. We need to step up the pace and get into more intensive negotiations on the core issues. A small working group of the chief negotiators from each party and the two Governments has been engaged in identifying those key issues where agreement seems to be required. The working group has been considering how to organise the work ahead to deal with the crucial issues. The working group will report on 15 December to the review plenary which will lay out a work programme for the second phase of the talks which we are now entering and which will be the decisive phase.

The broad outlines of an agreement are already clear. Its basic characteristics across 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. 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 there should be structures which allow the two communities to work together for their shared benefit on a wide range of issues.

Nationalists and Unionists must feel 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 on Monday, will enable mutual co-operation in the interests of developing the issues that will be common to the island of Ireland. Such structures will also serve to express the Nationalist sense of an all-Ireland identity. They must be meaningful and have the capacity to make decisions and agree policies. They can only work by agreement and in a democratically accountable fashion.

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 recognise that these matters are of particular importance to Unionists. 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 must be compatible with each other. Indeed, they should be interlocking and mutually supportive. It is impossible to address any one of our key relationships in isolation. There was also a need for balanced constitutional change in both jurisdictions. In the context of a satisfactory settlement we would, as set out in the Framework Document, propose the amendment of our Constitution. It is also very important — and there is already a broad consensus among the parties on this matter — that this institutional structure be underpinned by provisions which address the equality, justice and human rights agendas.

We should not underestimate the challenge that faces all participants in the talks to find acceptable political structures which can command the agreement of both communities. However, the elements of a settlement exist and if we seize the opportunity these can be combined into a comprehensive and durable agreement. The talks provide our best chance to achieve such an outcome. We must all build on the good work of the autumn and work together to reach agreement by May. The Bill has a significant role to play in confidence building measures and it is in this context that I warmly thank Senators for the wonderful co—operation they have so far given in dealing with it.

Senators O'Toole and Hayes raised the issue of remission rates. Under the convention sentences are governed by the law of the state to which the prisoner is transferred. This means that the balance of a sentence of somebody transferred here is subject to our remission rate, which is one quarter. However, in considering cases for release, a Minister could take into account the fact that a person would have been entitled to a higher remission rate in the sentencing state as one of the factors to be considered.

Senator O'Toole wondered whether the Bill raises constitutional issues. It is because of such issues that the 1995 Act requires a court to issue a warrant before a person can be transferred into this jurisdiction. The 1995 Act is not relevant to trials taking place in the jurisdiction for offences committed elsewhere but deals only with persons already sentenced.

Senator Costello mentioned discussions about Ireland's legislation and I know the Senator has taken a particular interest in one issue. I met with the relevant groups, including the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas on 10 November with which I had a wide ranging and most helpful discussion. Senator Costello also wondered about the origins of this legislation. I initiated the legislation — I do not mean to be boastful — in the context of considering particular cases which came before me. Having studied those cases I realised it would not be possible for me under existing legislation to give a categoric assurance to the Government of the United Kingdom that I would be in a position to respect the integrity of sentences handed down by its courts. It is of fundamental importance that the British Government be assured this happens, failing which there is the possibility that it would not transfer any more prisoners. In such circumstances I felt it appropriate to amend Irish law to ensure I could give a categoric assurance to the UK Government that, in respect of transfers, I would be in a position to guarantee respect for the integrity of sentences handed down in British courts. That is the genesis of the legislation.

I am particularly pleased that the legislation will pass through this House and the Dáil before Christmas. The issue of prisoners is of considerable importance — it cannot be overstated — to the peace process. My sincere wish is that, following passage of this legislation and the assurances I will then be in a position to give to the British Government regarding respect for the integrity of sentences handed down in British courts, we will see further transfers of Irish prisoners held in British jails in the not too distant future.

Question put and agreed to.