Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am grateful to the Senator for tabling the amendments. However, I believe they contravene the terms of the parent convention. The six month threshold is set out in Article 3.1.c of the 1993 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which is the parent convention.

The additional protocol and the Schengen provisions are to be read in conjunction with the convention, so the six-month threshold in the 1983 convention applies in this Bill as well.

In practical terms, I have to question the value of operating this legislation at such a low level as is proposed by the amendment. For instance, if somebody had a remaining sentence of six or seven weeks, is the State supposed to engage in an elaborate procedure in the courts to seek the person's incarceration for a short period, as in those circumstances? We must have regard to the realities of life, one of which is the fact that this matter is time consuming because it involves legal, court and prison administrative time to put it into operation. The six-month threshold is provided for in the convention to show an element of seriousness. Although in general terms I agree with the Senator's motivation in saying we should not leave titbits of sentences lying about, nonetheless, given all the circumstances, we must be mindful that this is not a simple process to put into operation because it takes a lot of time. If court officials and others are dedicating their time to proceedings under this legislation, they will not be doing other things. Should we have a threshold of seriousness which is to be different from that provided for in the parent convention? My instinct is to say "No" and to leave the threshold, as envisaged as a matter of international law, in operation, rather than to unilaterally impose on ourselves potential obligations and resource issues that are not necessary under the legislation.