Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I support both amendments. The amendment formulated by Deputy Ó Snodaigh encapsulates the issue more effectively. It reads, "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the terms and conditions of detention in the designated country would be compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights". This covers all the areas relating to torture, inhumane treatment, degrading treatment or punishment. The problem with the legislation is that there is no section which requires proofing for human rights in regard to designated countries. It is not provided for in section 9, even though safeguards are included. It should be stated that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be incorporated into the legislation.

We still do not know if countries have been designated for the purposes of the legislation. Perhaps the Minister will give us an idea whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs has compiled a list of countries that he has already designated or intends to designate, what criteria he uses or if he uses any criteria other than that specified in section 4. It simply states that he may designate a country that has ratified the additional protocol and that has ratified or acceded to the Schengen Agreement. Ireland has not acceded to that agreement, even though we can opt in or out of it.

What precisely is the status for designation? Are there criteria in regard to the incorporation of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or international conventions on human rights? Before a country is designated for the purpose of someone serving a sentence, the Human Rights Commission should be asked to proof that country in terms of the existence and operation of human rights and no person sentenced should receive treatment that could amount to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights or international conventions on human rights. This requirement should be incorporated into the legislation. It should not be left in some hazy situation where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minister for Foreign Affairs may or may not take on board in a discretionary fashion requirements of this nature. The requirement should be stated in the legislation.

There are huge variations in prison conditions. We are talking about Irish citizens being imprisoned and the sentence being executed in a designated country. We do not lead the field in respect of the conditions in some Irish prisons. We have been condemned in a number of international forums, including Amnesty International, for the slopping-out process. While the Minister promised a few super-prisons to deal with the issue in the distant future, nothing is being done about it now and, as a result, 1,200 prisoners are taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. How do we stand as a receiving country in terms of designated countries? Countries in Europe might well ask is Ireland a place in which they could allow their citizens to be imprisoned. There is gross overcrowding in Cork Prison where the imprisonment ratio is double what it should be.

There is no reference to unusual conditions. For example, there was hard labour in this country, which was abolished, but it is part of sentences in many other countries. There is nothing in the legislation that allows the High Court to specify that unusual conditions of this nature could not apply to someone serving a sentence if it is executed under the terms in this legislation for the transfer of execution of a sentence.

Many issues need to be examined. No one opposes the principle of the legislation because people cannot be allowed to flee justice. We cannot have fugitives from justice whereby people who have committed a crime are allowed to flee to another country and escape. These people must be either brought back or they must serve their sentence in the other country. The legislation includes a facility to enable the sentence to be served in another country. It behoves us to proof the legislation in terms of human rights, otherwise we will not do our citizens justice. We will do them an injustice instead.

I hope the Minister will give a commitment, even if it is not written into the legislation, that in so far as countries are being determined for designation, he will refer them to the Human Rights Commission which has a specific statutory role in proofing for human rights. He should refer any potential designate countries to the commission to determine whether they comply with the principles of amendments Nos. 12 and 14 relating to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, and whether Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is respected.

While the legislation is desirable, good and well intentioned, it could result in considerable infringement of civil liberties while the only intention is the infringement of one right, namely, the right to liberty. In other words, the individual would be arrested in the designated country and imprisoned. This should be the only infringement and those involved should otherwise serve their sentence in a normal and humane fashion.

The legislation does not provide sufficient safeguards or conditions to ensure this will happen unless we provide for human rights proofing either within the legislation directly or by specifying that any designated country would have to pass the test by being presented to the Human Rights Commission. It would then give the nod to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the country, to the best of its ability, is in accordance with international best practice on human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. This is something which would be extremely desirable on our part.

See this speech in context