Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

I thank my colleague, Senator Feeney, for sharing time. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. It is a while since we sat shoulder to shoulder on Dublin City Council. He is the living example of what hard work and commitment does for a person. If I ask a question which the Minister of State may have already addressed in his contribution, I apologise. I was at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and could not get here in time to hear him.

In recent weeks, this House has gone through a raft of legislation with the Minister of State and other Ministers. The common thread running through all the legislation on which we have embarked is that it deals primarily with looking after the welfare of our citizens, whether in terms of drugs, alcohol, public order or otherwise. This Bill adds to that in its own way, and I welcome it.

There has been a considerable influx of people into this country in recent years. They have probably come from countries outside the remit of the legislation with which we are dealing. Senator Bradford alluded to the fact we have been looking at this type of scenario since 1985 when the Schengen agreement was introduced. The borders were abolished in 1995 when the convention itself was adopted. I may be wrong but I believe there are 13 signatories to the Schengen agreement but that Ireland and the United Kingdom are not. I am not sure of the reason but maybe I will find out during this debate. We are part of the European Union and must present our passports when we go to other EU countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom with which we have a common travel area.

There has been an influx of people into this country in recent years and while the attraction initially might have been the generous welfare system, people are now beginning to show themselves in court primarily because they have settled into a new environment, have found their feet and know the run of the place. Whether one likes to admit it or not, we are now seeing a type of crime which may be new to us — for example, the fraudulent use of ATM cards and so on. I am not sure whether the Bill can cater for that, but I hope it can. There are scams taking place with which, I hope, we can deal. If this legislation helps in that regard, it is good.

As others outlined, this Bill deals with a person sentenced in this country who perhaps flees to the country of his or he origin without serving a day or having served some of his or her sentence. It gives the Minister the power to request his or her return and to encourage the state to which her or she has gone to take up the sentence the Irish court has imposed. Where an Irish citizen commits a crime in another country and flees to Ireland, that country may seek the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to issue an arrest warrant and to return the person, or to seek that the person serves the sentence in this country. Senator Bradford alluded to the fact there are certain circumstances in which the Minister may not send someone back. He asked what those circumstance might be.

Is there a financial implication? Someone may commit a crime here and flee to Belgium and we may ask the Belgian authorities to incarcerate him or her there. The Belgian Government might possibly say he or she could not have committed that crime in Belgium because it has laws or a system in place whereby it could not happen but that the Irish authorities are asking it to incarcerate someone who has committed a crime in another country at a cost to it. Is there a financial implication for whatever country is involved? The legislation also states that in certain circumstances, the Minister can withhold consent. Would that be in circumstances where he or she might disagree with the severity of the sentence handed down or where he or she has a problem with human rights issues in a particular country? While I welcome the safeguards, I wonder if we could be guilty of interfering with the judicial system of another country if we tell it whether a sentence is right or wrong.

The Bill applies to countries which have ratified the Schengen Convention. It also states that the Minister for Foreign Affairs can designate countries in which he or she is satisfied the criminal justice is all right. Does that mean countries which have signed up or can he designate countries outside the European Union or those stated in the legislation? The Minister also has discretion to reject a request from a designated state.

Where a foreign sentence exceeds the maximum available under Irish law, I believe the Minister can consider what the sentence would be in Ireland and reduce it accordingly. I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. If a sentence is less than that which would be given in Ireland, would the Minister have the ability to increase it?

If he has the ability to change the sentence in the first instance, can he do so in either direction? If a country hands down a sentence to an individual, should we interfere with that? Should we not take the sentence at face value and ensure it is served, irrespective of whether it coincides with sentences given here?

I welcome the Bill. It is another cog in the wheel which will help us to move forward.