Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Thursday, 1 Jun 1995

SECTION 1.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), line 26, after "applies" to insert "or a state, territory or place designated by the Minister in an order under subsection (3) of this section".

It is apparent from the list circulated by the Minister that a large number of countries have not ratified this convention. This amendment seeks to give the Minister the power to designate a non-convention country or territory to be a convention state within the meaning of the Bill for certain limited circumstances.

It is possible that an Irish person in prison in a non-convention state could have a humanitarian case to make to the Minister and to the sentencing state for transfer out of that jurisdiction. In those circumstances, the fact that the person is serving a sentence in a non-convention state should not militate against the person concerned. An Irish citizen may be incarcerated far away, often in appalling conditions and unless this amendment is passed, he or she would have no hope of applying for transfer to this jurisdiction. The amendment is reasonable and would not involve any great cost because so few Irish people are imprisoned or incarcerated in a non-convention state. I ask the Minister to give serious and favourable consideration to this amendment.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 3 and 1 form a composite proposal. I should have sought the agreement of the committee to take amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together. Is that in order?

Mr. O'Donoghue

Yes, there is no doubt that they are related.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I am glad to return to the committee after my short attendance yesterday and I look forward to completing our Estimates later. The effect of Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment would be to allow the application of the Bill to countries which are not party to the convention. As Deputies know, the convention is not confined to members of the Council of Europe and, to date, about 31 countries — six of them non-European countries — have ratified it.

One would expect that if a non-member state wished to transfer foreign prisoners out of their jurisdiction or get their own prisoners back, they would simply accede to the convention and be brought into the loop. However, I accept Deputy O'Donoghue's point that there may well be countries which would just like to enter a bilateral arrangement. There might be countries with only one or two non-nationals in their prisons which may not want to commit themselves to a multilateral arrangement and a convention where they would have to deal with a wide range of countries. However, they might be happy to deal with Ireland in a bilateral way.

I have a certain sympathy with this amendment but, as Members know, these amendments came into my Department through another source just recently. I am a little nervous about accepting these amendments as drafted and the appropriateness of seeking to legislate in this precise way about future international agreements as technical issues might arise. I ask the committee for some time to consult the Attorney General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs because this goes beyond what the convention requires. We are extending it to allow for bilateral arrangements with countries which do not choose to be part of this convention. I want to be sure that we do not cause any difficulty with any other foreign conventions.

I ask the Deputy not to press this amendment and to give me time to consider it and draw up an appropriate amendment for Report Stage as I am sympathetic to what he is saying. This is the first time Ireland entered into this kind of arrangement with any other country about the transfer of prisoners. I am anxious to make sure that the Bill when enacted is operated in the most open way possible. For that reason I will get an opinion on these amendments and I will, as far as possible, try to accommodate them. However, equally, I must be conscious of any responsibilities I might have with regard to any other conventions or international agreements.

Dr. Woods

I support Deputy O'Donoghue's proposal, which is a good one, and the Minister's accession to the spirit of the amendment. It is convenient when a convention exists and all the rules are worked out. It is not difficult to have a bilateral arrangement with another country. Many of these countries may not want bilateral arrangements, nevertheless, if the Minister had the power to enter into bilateral arrangements with suitable countries, it would be a valuable extension.

The Minister mentioned that there were about 31 states but there is not 31 on the list. What is the position with EU member states?

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy only has the second half of the list.

Dr. Woods

Have all the EC member states signed?

Mrs. Owen

The countries who have ratified the convention are: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The states which are not members of the Council of Europe are the Bahamas, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States. The Deputy only has the second half of the list.

Dr. Woods

Perhaps before I finish I will have the rest. It is worthwhile to put them on the record at this stage.

Mrs. Owen

Those countries have ratified it.

Dr. Woods

I note that Greece has ratified it. A number of my constituents have had difficulties in Greece. The offences were not grievous but ones where they really did not understand the difference in the traditions. These people found themselves caught on the wrong side and consequently ended up in prison for quite some time even before the case came to court and they were sentenced.

One case involved a 21 year old who was there on holiday. Having been sentenced, he was in a prison on one of the islands under a local authority. The central authorities had very little influence on the situation. No one in the prison spoke English or Irish and it was a very traumatic situation. This can happen by accident when people are on holiday and become involved in a situation which they do not understand. It is very important that people understand the customs of the countries they go to. In any event it would be valuable to be able to transfer back home in a situation like that. Many countries are involved at this stage. Apart from the countries on this list, it may be worth while ensuring that the Minister has the power to make bilateral arrangements with other countries. I support Deputy O'Donoghue's view and hope the Minister will be able to accede to his request in this regard on Report Stage and to consider the possibility of bilateral arrangements where these can be negotiated.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

I support the proposal before us. It would be a pity if an Irish citizen in a foreign country happened to be held in a country which is not on the list. We should look after all our citizens. Those held in countries not on the list would probably be those in the most difficult circumstances. They would probably be living in a regime where things might not be as good as they should be. I welcome the Minister's offer to look at this again for Report Stage and I hope she will come up with a positive line on it.

Mrs. Owen

The case Deputy Woods outlined would not arise once this legislation comes into effect because Greece is a party to the convention. I assume the countries we might think about are places like Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong where from time to time we hear of Irish citizens being imprisoned. Those countries may not want to be part of an international convention like this. Any bilateral arrangements we would enter into would be under the parameters of the convention; there would not be loose arrangements. That is why it is not just a case of saying we will select Thailand or Taiwan or some country with which to make bilateral arrangements.

A proper structure for dealing with requests would have to be put in place. I will move amendments on the requesting mechanism for a prisoner. We will be able to reach agreement on other parts of the Bill which will help in considering this kind of bilateral arrangement. The rules applying to a bilateral arrangement will be the rules which apply to parties to the convention. With the agreement of the committee I will come back on Report Stage on this amendment.

Chairman

On the point Dr. Woods made regarding his constituent in Greece, am I correct in assuming this case would not be covered by the legislation before us because the prisoner in question is on remand and there is no provision for remand prisoners in the legislation?

Dr. Woods

I only mentioned that the prisoner was on remand because of the difference that makes. He was subsequently sentenced. After the sentencing the convention would have applied.

Chairman

It was a source of concern.

Dr. Woods

It is a grave concern because there can be a very long period before cases are heard, as occurred in that case. Citizens of two other countries where in the same position but those countries had their nationals taken out the next day. They were given fresh passports and taken away and there was no more about it.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I welcome the Minister's statement that she will give serious consideration to this. I appreciate it would involve bilateral arrangements, but it is possible for a small country like Ireland which is not involved in international conflicts to have bilateral arrangements with certain countries who would not be prepared to become parties to the convention. I agree with the Minister's suggestion and await her view on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (1), line 30, after "deprivation" to insert "or restriction".

This section defines the word "sentence" to be any punishment or measure involving deprivation of liberty ordered by a court or tribunal for a limited or unlimited period of time on account of the commission of an offence. I propose to insert the word "or restriction" after the word "deprivation". As the Minister has outlined, there are countries with different laws to ours and this amendment would permit an extension of the Act to alternative penalties, such as house arrests and weekend and evening prison, which apply in some countries. For example, in this country, instead of imposing a prison sentence, courts often impose a community service order and there are penalties imposed in other jurisdictions throughout the world where the liberty of the individual is only restricted. In those circumstances the powers under this Bill should also apply to a person whose liberty is restricted as opposed to a person who has been deprived of his or her liberty.

Mrs. Owen

I understand what the Deputy is trying to do in this amendment to extend the scope of the convention, but I cannot agree to it because it would extend the Bill to alternative penalties used in some countries, such as weekend or evening imprisonment.

The definition of the word "sentence" used in the Bill is identical to that in the convention, which is clearly meant to apply only to punishments where there is deprivation of liberty. Community service orders and weekend or evening imprisonment are not meant to be covered by the convention. To introduce the concept of restrictions would go beyond what is covered in the convention and would widen it a great deal.

The convention has been founded to deal with people who have received a final sentence and who are in prison in another country for a crime they have committed. If we widen it to include the kind of thing that Deputy O'Donoghue is talking about, we could conceivably allow somebody who has been fined to come back here because the fine they would be liable for here for a similar offence might be less. This is a transfer of sentenced persons Bill, giving an enabling power to implement a convention on the transfer of sentenced persons. It does not attempt to sort out the difficulties people might get into in other countries where they would be subjected to something less than the deprivation of liberty. It would not be good for this Bill to go beyond what the convention is asking for here. At some stage in the future there may be a case to look at this side of it again but I do not believe this would be appropriate now.

If this amendment is accepted, we would have to take somebody back, for example, who might have been subjected to evening imprisonment. We do not have that concept here. How would we deal with a continuing punishment on a person who received that type of sentence in another country? I want to implement the convention so that we have a humanitarian system where sentenced persons serving a sentence in another country have the option to come back here to complete their sentences. This Bill is not supposed to be a new criminal justice system to take on board what the Deputy is suggesting. I regret I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. O'Dea

We are not particularly hung up on this amendment, nevetheless the Minister said it might extend the Bill into the area of fines. The amendment refers to a restriction of liberty but a fine is very different from a restriction of liberty. Perhaps what is envisaged is that somebody serving what we would not recognise as the standard type of imprisonment in a country with a different system, would be able to come here — I understand it has not been fully worked out — to serve a sentence instead of the remainder of the community service order in a foreign country. I do not believe many people would avail of that.

The Minister mentioned the convention and directives. It seems that the section as drafted is only applying the minimum which we are obliged to apply. In view of the difficulties the Minister outlined, we will not press the amendment, but it is something which should be kept in mind in relation to future amendments to this legislation.

Mrs. Owen

Perhaps a better example would be somebody on probation in another country. Deputy O'Dea, with his legal background, should think about the machinations of somebody on probation in another country. They do not have the same humanitarian considerations when on probation. We could argue that everybody convicted in another jurisdiction could claim that they can come back and avail of the services here to implement probation or community services. I am glad the Deputy is not pressing the amendment because the essence of what we are doing is to bring about an Act which will allow for the transfer of sentenced persons, nothing wider. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. O'Dea

More work needs to be done on the details.

Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)

The transfer of a prisoner incarcerated in another country and who wants to return here for whatever reason, to facilitate visits from relations, etc., is straightforward, but it would be more difficult if community work or the equivalent in another country was involved. The thinking behind this might be idealistic, but there are practical difficulties.

Mr. O'Donoghue

We will not press the amendment, but when I spoke of alternative penalties, I did not mean fines but a restriction as opposed to a total deprivation of liberty. One could envisage a situation where a house arrest might take place, for example, in a conflict a soldier serving with the UN in a foreign country could be placed under house arrest. If this occurred or if jurisdictions placed people under house arrest for certain reasons, this amendment might be appropriate, but I can see the Minister's difficulties with the amendment and, in the circumstances, I do not intend to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Woods

What does the Minister consider the potential number of sentenced prisoners who might be transferred home as opposed to the number transferred outwards in any year? This obviously relates to arrangements which would have to be made as regards accommodation, which, as the Minister is aware, is at a premium. We face a difficulty in terms of accommodation for sentenced prisoners, particularly in Dublin. People are released through the famous revolving door, with which every Minister for Justice must deal.

This proposal is part of the peace process and is important in that regard. I hope that in due course space will become available here as a result of that process. In any event, will the Minister give us an idea of the potential annual figures in so far as they can be estimated?

Ms O'Donnell

I would also like to know the figures. The figure of approximately 600 Irish prisoners abroad was given on Second Stage and there are 160 foreign nationals serving sentences here. I do not believe this Bill is Exchequer neutral; there will be considerable Exchequer implications for the State. I agree it is an essential part of the peace process. I am not being disingenuous when I say that because I know that the State is not ratifying this convention, which has been in existence for 12 years, on humanitarian grounds. We have been slow to introduce legislation to ratify the convention.

It is an essential and important part of the peace process, but the Government should be more upfront and say exactly what it is. If it is about commitments made to Sinn Féin, we should say so. With that in mind and with the possibility of one way traffic involving this State being liable to repatriate Irish citizens abroad, which is significant because of emigration patterns over the years, the Minister has an obligation in terms of public expenditure to demand from her Department some possible costings on the implications to the Exchequer over the next ten years.

The Minister also has an obligation to clarify on Committee Stage the reservations which she will build into ratification of the convention. I believe that not only in terms of the Exchequer implications, but also prison accommodation and the fact that they are chock-a-block with prisoners, we must, apart from the peace process, think about the long term implications of the obligations to which we are committing the State. This should be costed in some way and I would like the Minister to repond to that.

Mr. O'Donoghue

As other speakers said, this Bill is an essential part of the peace process. Fianna Fáil in Government gave a commitment to Sinn Féin that this Bill would be published prior to Christmas 1994. It is a crucial element in that process and despite what Deputy O'Donnell said, nobody denies that. There is a misconception that this Bill will lead to a rush of prisoners outside this jurisdiction to this country. That is the perception, but not the reality. Figures given the Dáil indicate that there are 600 prisoners — Irish citizens or of Irish extraction — in British jails. It cannot be assumed that all these people will want to transfer to this country. Many of those concerned have close family ties in the United Kingdom and have no intention of returning to this country.

The Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas has circulated a newsletter to prisoners abroad for over eight years, informing them this provision is desirable. It would appear from their surveys that the majority of the 20 political prisoners, or paramilitary prisoners, held in English prisons will want to return to Ireland as soon as possible but the figure could be as low as ten in any one year. There will not be any great exodus from foreign prisons into Irish ones. In the United States of America, for example, there are three paramilitary prisoners, one from Northern Ireland. A criticism of the Bill based on cost does not stand up. There is a perception that large numbers of paramilitary prisoners from this country and Northern Ireland are held in British prisons but this does not appear to be the case. I understand there are 20 prisoners from this country held there and that there are another 11 from Northern Ireland; a total of 31 prisoners from the island.

This Bill is an essential part of the peace process. It is an extremely important humanitarian gesture and it should not be assumed it will impose an enormous burden on the Exchequer. The intention is to consider, on a humanitarian basis, the plight of Irish citizens in foreign prisons — where their families cannot visit them without incurring huge costs — who are often isolated. Individuals who had nothing to do with the troubles in Northern Ireland may avail of the provisions of this Bill. As a matter of humanity we should welcome that.

On his recent trip to Britain, Deputy Ó Cuív visited a number of prisons. He described the loneliness of the people there, that they felt they had been forgotten and the terrible difficulties, financial and otherwise, their families experienced in travelling to Britain to see them. Many families could not afford to make the journey. Deputy Ó Cuív felt this Bill was of fundamental and crucial importance. I welcome the Bill and fully subscribe to it.

Mr. O'Dea

It has been stated that the commitment to publish this Bill was given as a result of the peace process. I welcome that commitment and the Bill which helped to consolidate that process. Anyone who welcomes the peace process — as everyone should — must welcome this Bill. We all agree that the peace process is one of the most important political developments in this State since its inception.

I also welcome the Bill on humanitarian grounds. A number of my constituents are serving prison sentences abroad, one in the UK and the other in another country which is party to the convention. In the latter case the sentence is very long for a relatively trivial offence. That sentence is being served in appalling conditions. The person's parents are elderly and in receipt of Social Welfare payments and cannot afford to visit their son. Legislation is necessary for such cases and also those mentioned by Deputy O'Donoghue and in Deputy Ó Cuív's report.

During Second Stage debate the Minister indicated that an informal quota system would apply and if the numbers were too large in any one year, she would reserve the right to refuse any other applications in that year. Will the Minister clarify whether she intends to apply an informal quota system and the numbers involved? Clarification is needed on this issue.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I welcome the Bill which is essential on a number of grounds. First, it is a necessary and significant part of the peace process. It is very important that we, as politicians in Dáil Éireann, send out a definite and unequivocal signal about the Bill. It is equally important on humanitarian grounds, that we let it be known that we are concerned about information received by the Minister on the conditions which prevail in prisons even in countries that would not adhere to the conventions. There are countries not members of convention where conditions are extremely unfavourable and inhumane. It is essential that our concerns are made clear. We want this Bill to be as wide as possible to take account of such circumstances. I endorse what has already been said. I urge the Minister to take account of the implications of some of the amendments put forward. I am delighted that she is positively disposed in that regard.

Mr. Kenneally

We have waited 12 years for this legislation to ratify the Council of Europe Convention. It is no credit to anyone that we waited so long. If not for the last Government, and Deputy Reynolds's efforts in the peace process we might not be discussing it. There is no doubt that his efforts have expedited this legislation. The Government, in the document A Government of Renewal published six to seven months ago, suggested it would expedite this legislation. It is now June and the legislation has finally come before the committee. I hope we get through Committee Stage as quickly as possible.

It is very important legislation. I am not suggesting it should be rushed. It must be given every possible consideration. However, if we do not finish today it should not take three to four weeks to return to the legislation. We should progress to Report Stage as quickly as possible. I am aware, from the experience of a family in my constituency, what must be endured by people with relatives in English prisons. The loneliness, etc., experienced by those prisoners has already been enunciated clearly. We owe it to those people to deal with this legislation as quickly as possible.

Chairman

The Minister has assured the committe she is also anxious that we deal with the amendments as expeditiously as possible and complete the Bill at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. E. Walsh

I have one important point on dealing with prisoners. When someone's liberty is taken away and he is imprisoned for crimes committed at home or abroad, quite a substantial number of people are affected. The families of many people sentenced and deprived of their liberty suffer a great deal of hardship, trauma and heart-break, having lost an important member of their family, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. In many ways the sentence given by courts affects a substantial number of people. One way we could redress some of the difficulties faced by such people is to enable prisoners to serve their sentences as near as possible to the people who will have to support them eventually when they are released and try to rehabilitate them in prison. The rehabilitation process will work much better with closer co-operation with family units and the extended family and having prisoners in an environment where they will be more inclined to accept the rule of law rather than in some foreign jurisdiction. This factor, with issues such the peace process and the other factors involved in being a prisoner abroad, is my main concern. I would like to have this speedily processed with the aid of this Bill.

Mrs. Owen

This Bill was published in early April. If people have criticisms of the delay in introducing it, they should look at the motes in their own eyes. The reality is that it has now been introduced despite the long delay in ratifying the convention. I recognise that at the start of a Committee Stage there is always a repeat of what has been said on Second Stage. This will allow us to make progress even if we have to resume Committee Stage or another day to continue discussing the amendments. People who have not spoken on Second Stage will avail of the opportunity now. I have done this while in Opposition to make a point.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that this convention is good in itself. At its embryonic stage it was considered on the basis that the Council of Europe's committee on crime problems was asked to consider the possibility of drawing up a model agreement providing for a simple procedure for the transfer of prisoners which would be used by member states in their relations with non-member states. It was not drawn up to deal with particular problems in Ireland or anywhere else. It was a humanitarian measure because many countries were posing the question of how to provide procedures for the transfer of prisoners, particularly those serving long sentences.

While the announcement of this Bill followed the peace process, the Commission for Prisoners Overseas sought to have the convention implemented long before the debate about paramilitary prisoners. It sees the existence of this transfer mechanism as good in itself. For that reason I want to make it clear this Bill is not being introduced to satisfy only one segment of prisoners. Of course it is an element in the peace process but it has been introduced because it is right in itself to allow for the transfer of prisoners regardless of where they are.

It is difficult to have precise figures. There are people in prisons overseas who do not inform embassies and, therefore, we do not have figures for them, they do not even inform their parents. The figures for embassies provided last year to the Department of Foreign Affairs estimate that at any one time there would be about 600 Irish prisoners serving sentences abroad in general and not just in the UK.

Mr. O'Dea

Are they all Irish born?

Mrs. Owen

They are all Irish passport holders. We get these figures from embassies so it stands to reason they are passport holders. Not all these prisoners are held in countries which have ratified the convention and would not all be eligible under its terms. The statistical information in January 1994 was that there were 402 Irish prisoners in the UK. At the moment there are 35 Irish paramilitary prisoners in the UK but a far greater number do not belong to paramilitary organisations. There are four Irish prisoners in Belgium, 14 in France, four in Germany, two in Greece, one in Italy, seven in the Netherlands, one in Portugal, one in Spain, one in Canada and eight in the US.

It is clear from the soundings we get that paramilitary prisoners would probably be the first group of any size which would seek to be transferred. Each of them would have to be dealt with in the way I have proposed either in the Bill or by way of amendment. The country holding prisoners must also agree to transfers. I pay tribute, as I did on Second Stage, to the Commission for Prisoners Overseas for its approach to getting the convention ratified by this country. It thinks that in the first year of the implementation of this Bill, about 40 people might apply for transfer and this would level off at about ten a year after that.

Deputy O'Donnell is right that we cannot deal with this Bill as if it has no effect on our Exchequer costs and prison places because it does. We have a problem with prison places here, I have never denied this since I became Minister and I do not think any previous Minister denied it. For that reason I am proceeding with the building of 210 extra prison places, 150 for men and 60 for women. There are overcrowded conditions in Mountjoy. The way in which we are bringing in this Bill and ratifying the convention will have to take into account how capacity will be affected by taking back those prisoners. There is no point in pretending to people in prisons outside this country that they will be automatically transferred after applying. I must take into account the effect on prison numbers here at the possibility of having to release prisoners here to make space.

It is true the peace process has helped in allowing me to make decisions like this because some prisoners from Portlaoise have been released. There is a freeing of places which might become available. I believe the balance will be struck somewhere between the cases made by the spokespersons for the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil. We must make this as humanitarian as possible and give access to people to apply for transfers.

I must be allowed flexibility in deciding whether I can accept an application at the time it is received. I must take into account the kind of prisoner who has applied and the spaces available. If a woman applies for a transfer and the only place available is in a male prison, I cannot be asked to put her in this prison. If the only space available is in a woman's prison, I cannot put a male prisoner there. Members of the committee, some of whom have obviously carefully studied the convention and the Bill, must be conscious of the balance I have to achieve.

Deputy O'Dea asked about quota flexibility. When Ireland signed this convention in 1986, we added a codicil to say this would be subject to having prison places available. I indicated on Second Stage that I have not decided to do this but when a convention is being ratified a proviso can be added that availability will have to be taken into account. It stands to reason that any transfer will have to take this into account. I cannot take prisoners back to Ireland and release them into the community. They are coming back to finish their sentences here so it stands to reason I must take into account the availability of places and have the power to control the numbers to give credence to this convention.

In response to Deputy Walsh's point, which is well made, the reasoning behind this convention is not only to assist prisoners to serve their sentences in the country where they were born and want to be, but also to ensure that when a person is imprisoned, his or her family is not also sentenced. The family has not committed any crime. Allowing people to transfer back here gives access to their families.

I cannot be precise about the figures but somewhere between the comments made by the two Opposition party speakers is the right balance.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I have some difficulty with this. Some years ago two constituents of mine who were touring in Germany attended the Munich Beer Festival. They were caught in a riot, thrown into prison with hundreds of others and were imprisoned on remand for a considerable time. I sought the help of my colleague Deputy Lenihan to get them out. Eventually they were released and their innocence was established.

Can this Bill address such a situation? Countries have different laws for people on remand. Perhaps the Department is familiar with this example, where two individuals were innocently caught in a riot locked up and forgotten for months and eventually, due to representations from Deputy Lenihan and I they were freed. Credit is due to the consul who handled this matter excellently at our request.

Mrs. Owen

The circumstances the Deputy describes are outside the terms of this Bill; it is not concerned with sorting out problems when young or old Irish people get into trouble with the law in another country. The Bill enacts a mechanism to allow the transfer of sentenced persons. Cases like that, which I have dealt with both as an Opposition TD and in more recent times, are dealt with through the embassy. If a person is sentenced he can be informed and make an application before he has served much time, but the Bill is not to bring back people in that way. One could argue that when English prisoners were caught during the football riot, there would have been much annoyance if they had been shipped straight back without facing charges here.

Mr. D. McDowell

They had access to bail.

Mrs. Owen

Yes, people do not have as much access elsewhere. This Bill is not the mechanism to deal with the matter raised by the Deputy; it is concerned with the transfer of sentenced persons. People will mention stories about people in prison, or those arrested or waiting for trial but this Bill does not deal with them. We can discuss those issues under other legislation in other debates. I cannot give the Deputy a commitment to put that in the Bill.

Dr. Woods

I thank the Minister for the figures she gave. I was aware a figure of 600 had been mentioned but she has given a much better explanation, which is the normal function of a Committee Stage debate.

We received a lecture earlier about asking questions. There will be more questions because we receive more answers by asking questions. The Minister should be aware that with the new committee system, people are here who would not have attended Second Stage, although they may read her contribution later.

I thank the Minister for the extra figures and agree with what my colleagues said about the urgency of implementing the Bill once it has been passed, ensuring the convention is signed and brought into practice. On that basis, when is the expected starting date?

Chairman

With respect to the Committee, we are dealing with section 1.

Dr. Woods

We are, but I am worried about what is not in the section. It says the Bill enables the State to ratify the convention as supplemented by the agreement but it does not say when that will start. That is important so approximately when is it hoped to bring it into operation?

Mrs. Owen

Article 18 (3) of the convention states that in respect of any signatory State which subsequently expresses its consent to be bound by it, the convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval. That means as soon as the Bill has been passed it will be sent to the Council of Europe and after the period mentioned it will become law. The Deputy can be assured that as soon as the Bill is signed into law I will send the Act, as our ratification instrument, to be deposited so the three month period is finished as quickly as possible. That is how the convention is worded.

Dr. Woods

The question has uncovered the three month delay built into the convention. That is unfortunate because in many circumstances the Minister may want to act expeditiously or on the basis that it will be sooner. Once it is signed, will it still be possible for the UK, for instance, to make arrangements within the three months or is it necessary to wait until the end of that period?

Mrs. Owen

We cannot be bound by it until the three months have passed. I said that on Second Stage; I am not picking a fight with the Deputy but I made that clear and the convention spells out how it comes into law. I do not want to be contentious on how the Deputy's questions are being denied answers.

Dr. Woods

This is the difficulty of mixing the committees——

Mrs. Owen

I realise that.

Dr. Woods

——but I want to be clear on the starting date because the Explanatory Memorandum says nothing about it, which is a deficiency.

Mrs. Owen

I made clear on Second Stage that this is an enabling Bill allow the convention to come into force. One needs to read the convention side by side with the Bill to see all the terms.

Chairman

In this regard, this is the normal procedure for ratification of conventions. We ratified a considerable number over the last 15 to 20 years and the normal procedure is being adopted with this Bill.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Prisoners in Britain, in particular paramilitary prisoners experienced little or no peace dividend since the ceasefire. Because of the peace process considerable resources must be made available to the Minister's Department, far more than were made available in the last 25 years.

In implementing the provisions of this Bill, some resources should be used to build the necessary detention places which will be required in implementing the provisions of the Bill. I welcome the Minister's statement that she will build 210 additional detention places. She has greater resources available to her than any Minister for Justice had in the past 25 years.

Mrs. Owen

A sum of £1.3 million is being spent at present preparing the location in Castlerea. A wall is being built around the prison. Plans for the women's prison are well advanced and I hope to get both projects started later this year. It is true that some places have been freed up, but Deputy O'Donoghue knows more than anyone that I need spaces in prisons. It is not just a matter of having extra money; I need extra prison spaces. That is why I want to get more prison spaces and to balance the use of existing ones. Some 210 extra prison places are being built at present and they will be invaluable in implementing this convention and in making space available which we need for our own criminal network. We badly need the extra spaces.

Chairman

The Minister will be aware that there are some places in Portlaoise, in my constituency, and there is room for further expansion and development if required.

We have had a comprehensive debate on section 1 and Members will agree that they have overstepped demarcation lines it it.

Mrs. Owen

I said I might consider some amendments on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.

Ms O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—In every case in which a sentence which involves deprivation of liberty for a period greater than six months is imposed upon a person who is a national of a Convention state, the Minister shall, within two weeks of the imposition of such sentence, inform such person of his or her entitlement to apply to the Minister pursuant to section 2 of this Act to be transferred out of the State to serve the sentence or the balance of the sentence in such Convention state.".

The purpose of this amendment is to insert in the Bill an obligation to inform potential applicants of their rights. The convention states that a person should be informed after they make or at the timing of making their application about their rights. The 160 foreign nationals who are serving sentences in Ireland are not a monocultural group of people, but are of diverse nationalities, unlike our nationals abroad who speak English. This diverse group come from different backgrounds and speak different languages. It is important, given the racial isolation they suffer in our jails, that the State gives them all the information they require about their rights under this convention as soon as their sentence is imposed so that they can apply to return to their countries.

We do not have an honourable record as regards refugees and asylum seekers, in particular and, therefore, we need to include this in the Bill. It would add to the Bill if we placed an obligation on the State to make available information leaflets in different languages or whatever information is required to alert people to their rights. The fact there are few non-nationals in our jails is no reason for us not to put in place adequate and humane procedures to make them aware of their rights. There has always been a low number of asylum seekers here and that is why we did not put in place good standards of international practice. This Minister is aware that we are still doing that.

The Minister outlined the number of paramilitary prisoners who might form part of a group of people who would apply to be returned to this country. Why does she anticipate that they will be the first group to apply? The convention makes no distinction between different categories of prisoners. It is important that information is given to all classes of prisoners and that the State does not make political prisoners the first category. It is important that nonparamilitary offenders should be given parity of esteem as regards their right to know that they can return. Non-nationals imprisoned here should be given full information about their rights. As Deputies are aware, information is power and it should not be withheld from vulnerable people who are alienated, do not know the language and are suffering the trauma of being in prison. A provision, such as this amendment, should be included in the Bill. It will put an onus on the State, once the sentence is imposed, to give prisoners full information about their rights.

Mr. O'Donoghue

My amendment is similar to Deputy O'Donnell's. To use the Minister for Health's words, I have "no difficulty holding hands with her" on this amendment.

Mrs. Owen

He said something else.

Mr. O'Donoghue

This amendment is important because the displacement of prisoners who are foreign nationals or their transfer to their own jurisdictions will benefit the State and the Minister in providing places for Irish prisoners. This provision places an obligation on the State to inform foreign nationals of the existence of this Bill and that transfers are available. While some may not wish to avail of this information, others will. There are approximately 160 foreign nationals in Irish prisons. Some of them will avail of the provisions in this Bill, thereby creating places for prisoners travelling here. When people are sentenced in Irish courts in future the provisions and advantages of this Bill and the convention should be explained to them. There is no additional cost involved. The Minister should accept either of these amendments.

Mr. D. McDowell

There is much merit in the amendments. However, it is also important that balanced information should be given to prisoners because it is not difficult to imagine circumstances where a prisoner might not want to go back to their native country and where it might be in our interests to get rid of them. It is important, therefore, for the prisoners to understand fully that they are entitled to take advantage of the convention, but that they are also entitled to stay put if they wish.

Mrs. Owen

These amendments are not quite ad idem but I have no problem with the spirit of each. This is an enabling Bill and, therefore, every part of the convention has not been transposed into the legislation. Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the convention, which will be obligatory on us, provides that any sentenced person to whom this Convention may apply shall be informed by the sentencing State of the substance of this Convention.

This places an obligation on us, the UK, the USA and anybody else who is party to the convention. Deputies would like to be enshrined in the legislation and I have no problem with this. It was originally not inserted because I am implementing the convention, with all its obligations. When the Bill is enacted I intend to prepare an information leaflet which will be given by the prison authorities to prisoners to whom the convention may apply. This is what Deputy O'Donnell's amendment seeks. Indeed, Deputy O'Donoghue's goes further, he wants it to apply to every prisoner, even somebody for whom it has no applications. I would like to be able to combine the intent of both amendments under a suitable wording because I cannot accept both of them as they conflict with each other. However, I accept what the Deputies are seeking to do and will introduce a distillation of the two amendments on Report Stage.

With regard to Deputy O'Donnell's question, there is no need to necessarily advise every prisoner, but if a booklet is being prepared it is not a problem for the prison officers to hand it to every prisoner. It merely means that more copies would have to be available at the checking in office of the prisons, but this would not be difficult. If prisoners to whom the convention does not apply wish to avail of the information they are entitled to do so.

The obligation in the legislation should be on the governors of the prisons to ensure that they and their staff pass on the information, because I wish to ensure that the system works. There is a danger that somebody may suggest that it is for the Minister to write to every prisoner enclosing the booklet. As Minister, if I did it could get me into difficulty if somebody alleged that I was attempting to canvass these people by sending them literature. When introducing the revised amendment on Report Stage, I may, on reflection, put the onus on the governor of the institution, as well as the Minister if necessary, to ensure that the information is passed on. However, when we ratify the convention it is obligatory on us to inform prisoners. I, therefore, request that amendments Nos. 4 and 8 are withdrawn on the basis that they conflict with each other and that I will move a revised amendment on Report Stage.

Deputy O'Donnell asked why I considered it likely that the first group of prisoners might apply. These prisoners are very well informed because they are part of an organisation and have access to a network of knowledge. By contrast, individual prisoners scattered in prisons around the world may not yet be aware of the existence of this, so I made a guess that the likelihood is that they may also apply. The former will not be treated any differently from individual prisoners. They will each have to make their own application as I will not be processing a group set of transfers. I must go through the same mechanisms for each individual prisoner, regardless of whether he is part of an organisation or an individual prisoner serving a sentence for robbery, murder, rape or other crimes.

Ms O'Donnell

I take the point that the paramilitary prisoners would be very knowledgeable. They know their rights and are watching this legislation. Will the Minister agree that, in fairness, it is desirable that all the Irish prisoners in the UK should be made aware of the terms of the convention rather than that a focus or priority should be given to a political class of prisoner?

Mrs. Owen

Yes. The terms of the convention and both amendments put an obligation on me or the prison system to inform prisoners in this jurisdiction. There is an obligation on the UK, Spanish, Greek authorities or whoever to inform their Irish prisoners which will be operative when we sign. I will not, therefore, be writing to every prisoner outside the country telling them of the convention.

Ms O'Donnell

However, in terms of reciprocal arrangements, does the Minister not anticipate that the British authorities should be in a position to inform all prisoners, not just political prisoners?

Mrs. Owen

Paragraph 1 of Article 4 does not refer to any sentenced person or only sentenced persons on paramilitary offences. It is any sentenced person, and this will place an obligation on the UK authorities to inform every prisoner the length and breadth of their jurisdiction, in the same way as it obliges the Greek Government, the Turkish Government or whatever other relevant Government to do so. I will look after my responsibilities and it is for the UK authorities to look after theirs. I am merely guessing that because the paramilitary prisoners tend to be well informed they are likely to have the most immediate knowledge about this. This is not to say that their applications will be considered differently from any other.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Will the Minister advise if any survey has been undertaken, or does her Department have any idea as to how many foreign nationals in Irish prisons will seek to avail of this?

Mrs. Owen

At present there are approximately 180 non-national prisoners in our prisons. No survey has been undertaken because there is not any mechanism to do so. We have not ascertained from those prisoners whether they will transfer and it is probable that a number will not seek one. As soon as the Bill comes into force those prisoners will be informed of their rights to make such an application. Their own national country must also agree to take them back. In agreeing to allow them to transfer, I must also be conscious of other implications, such as humanitarian factors, human rights and so on.

Mr. Kenneally

Do we have any information from other states which have already ratified this convention over a period of time? They would have had a number of foreign national prisoners. How many of those have transferred to other jurisdictions? Such information might give us some idea of what we can expect in the future.

Mrs. Owen

We do not, but over the next couple of months while this process is under way we will try to obtain as much information as possible. We are all learning from this. This is the first convention to allow for the transfer of prisoners from one jurisdiction to another and is, therefore, a new area for most other countries. As neither the UK nor ourselves have ratified. I do not have figures.

Mr. Kenneally

What about information on prisoners transferring to Italy, France or whatever and vice versa?

Mrs. Owen

I do not have any such figures and I will try to obtain them.

Chairman

I must remind Deputies that Deputy O'Donnell's amendment is in respect of a new section and, therefore there is no reason we cannot proceed to the next amendment.

Mr. E. Walsh

When prisoners are informed of their rights under this transfer arrangement what is the length of time between their being informed and their departure? A certain sensitivity would be required regarding the period of time that would elapse from the time a person is sentenced and the time he departs from this jurisdiction when one considers the victim's attitude and the crime committed. A rapid departure from this jurisdiction might cause a victim to feel he or she did not get proper justice in the law being applied. The Bill mentions that the person must be informed immediately or as soon as possible.

Chairman

That matter arises in the Bill under section 6. We will have an opportunity to discuss that at a later point. Perhaps the Minister would respond briefly.

Mrs. Owen

It is difficult to say. When a person makes an application a process will commence. The country to which they want to go will have to be contacted to find out if it will allow them to come back. Reports will have to be prepared by them and by us. I do not know how long it will take. Amendment No. 25 will allow us to review how the mechanisms of this Bill will work at that stage. That was not in the Bill originally. There will have to be an annual report to see whether there are log-jams along the way. We will work with other jurisdictions and we will be bound by any delays. We will do what we can to prevent delays on our side but there may be delays on the other side.

Chairman

It would be more appropriate to discuss the Deputy's question in the context of the amendment at a later point. Deputy O'Donnell is happy with the assurance of the Minister to come back on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.