This amendment is neither desirable nor necessary. Experience of the operation of the convention has shown that some States are not prepared to consent to transfers unless a guarantee can be given that the sentence imposed will not be reduced. If the sentencing state decides not to transfer a prisoner on the basis that the sentence would be reduced if that occurred, the legislation and convention would be rendered superfluous. In reality, some countries insist upon the integrity of their sentences being respected by the state to which a prisoner is transferred. Because consent is a three-way process, there is nothing the administering state can do. One would not be in the real world if one felt one could oblige a state to consent. One of the main concerns of sentencing states is that the integrity of their sentencing is respected. If that does not happen, there are no transfers, and in that case the convention cannot work. That is the position in the real world.
The only way in which I could give assurances to the British Home Secretary, for example, that the integrity of the sentences handed down by courts in his jurisdiction will be respected by courts in this jurisdiction is if the amendment to the 1995 Act proposed by this Bill is passed. Otherwise, it is quite clear I could not give the categoric assurances which are required. It may be the case that other states will seek such categoric assurances in the future. There may also be further cases, in addition to the seven cases to which Members are referring, where such a categoric assurance will be required.
The question of the need for categoric assurances is not locked into a 12 month timeframe or any other timeframe. Such guarantees could be required at any time by any foreign jurisdiction. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day is not in a position to give the required categoric assurance, that could only militate against the prisoner held in a foreign jurisdiction who wants to be transferred to Ireland.
It is quite clear this Bill will work to the advantage of applicant prisoners more than anyone else because of the requirement for three way consent. For example, the consent of this State and that of a prisoner in a British jail to his transfer to this jurisdiction is not sufficient — the British Government must also consent. If the British Government felt in certain instances that we would not respect the integrity of sentences handed down in British courts, the entire arrangement would probably be cancelled. Those are the pragmatic facts. There is no mystery about it — it is quite lucid.
I see nothing wrong in principle with what is being proposed. However, the situation will not have changed in 12 months' time or the foreseeable future. With the greatest respect, the amendment is pointless and should not be accepted.
Senator O'Dowd said the Bill was about people serving longer sentences in this jurisdiction than they would if they had been sentenced by an Irish court. That is not what the Bill is about. It is about this sovereign Government being in a position to give categoric assurances to a foreign jurisdiction, within the context of our legislation, that it will respect the integrity of sentences handed down by its courts. It is about facing the reality that if we do not do that, the unfortunate prisoners who want to be near their families will not be able to be transferred.
This Bill is not being proposed to do down prisoners or to ensure they serve longer sentences in this State than they received in other jurisdictions. It is about helping the transfer process by ensuring the Government can guarantee, where required, that the integrity of sentences imposed in foreign jurisdictions will be respected here. While the Bill will immediately affect seven Provisional IRA prisoners, it is not confined exclusively to them in terms of its scope or timeframe.
Senator Cosgrave said I should accept this amendment in light of recent difficulties in my Department. I am not aware of any recent difficulties in my Department. I am aware of the attempt by some politicians, in these Houses and elsewhere, to—