I refer the Taoiseach to the legislation being put through the House of Commons today by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of what are known as on-the-runs. A decision seems to have arisen from a side deal between the British Government and Sinn Féin to greatly broaden the ambit of this issue. This now seems to suggest that those responsible for over 2,000 murders can, if the law ever catches up with them, no matter where they have been or where they now live, avail of the amnesty and be released on licence. While the institutions are in suspension, is it not the case that in matters such as this the Government is free and is expected to make an input? Has such an input been made into the Hain Bill? Did the Taoiseach use the British-Irish Council to offer an Irish position in terms of the Hain legislation? Will he inform the House of the Government position?

There are obviously major differences between the Irish and British approaches to this issue. For example, in this jurisdiction there is no legislative overpinning of these arrangements. The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Irish numbers appeared to be approximately half a dozen and that these relate to people outside this jurisdiction. The British releases will be on licence, whereas the proposed Irish pardons will be absolute and irrevocable. Has the difference in approach between the two Governments resulted from the exclusion of the Irish Government from the negotiations on the recent concessions to the republican movement? Is that the explanation for the differences?

I accept we must draw a line in the sand on this issue, but it is critical, given the number of people who lost their lives and the numbers maimed and injured, that the process is open and transparent. What is proposed in the Hain legislation means that what goes on will go on behind closed doors and there will be no victim impact statement, as requested by the SDLP. The impression is being left that the British Government, if not with the collusion of the Irish Government, is doing more for the perpetrators of violence than for the victims.

The legislation being discussed in Westminster today arises from a commitment given as part of the Weston Park talks in the summer of 2001. The reason the commitment was given then was that there was an anomaly, arising from the 1998 decision on the Good Friday Agreement to allow prisoners who had committed offences before that date to be released. The anomaly was that people who were not arrested or who had never been charged were still being followed and pursued even though others who had been charged were being released. The issue was examined in 2001 and the proposals were included in the joint declaration of May 2003. This was part of the discussions that led to what was known as the acts of completion document.

Deputy Rabbitte is correct with regard to the proposals. The way the matter is being dealt with in Westminster is very different from our system. Their numbers are far more extensive than ours. I cannot be precise on our figure or whether it is half a dozen, but we believe the number is very small. The arrangement here is that an examination eligibility body will be set up to decide whether an individual is eligible for pardon. The eligibility body will have to be satisfied of the circumstances of each case. It will have to be satisfied that the person in question is not associated or affiliated in any way with an organisation that continues to engage in crime, or to threaten to engage in such activity. The eligibility body's findings in each case will be forwarded to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who will have to be satisfied of all the circumstances before referring the matter to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet is satisfied, the case will be presented to the President so that a pardon can be issued. That is the process that will be followed. A different system is being put in place in Britain.

The Government has asked the British authorities some questions about a number of aspects of the Hain Bill, mainly to get clarification on what they are doing. They have made some changes to the Bill. The Government will examine those changes to see how they will operate.

The British and Irish Governments have agreed that the process will not commence in this jurisdiction until the British legislation has been passed. I think the British system will take some time to complete its consideration of the Bill. Some of the reasons for the delay were mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte and some of them were not. The arrangements will not apply here until some time next year.

I gather from what the Taoiseach has said that he raised with the British authorities some points of clarification relating to the Hain legislation. It seems this is a matter of such gravity that it requires more than simply seeking clarification. I would like to give the Taoiseach another opportunity to say whether the Government has a position on the proposals in the British legislation. He is well aware of the concerns of the SDLP, for example? Did he make the Government's position known in the normal way — directly to the Secretary of State, Mr. Hain, or the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair — or did he simply ask some questions to seek clarification?

I would also like to ask about the different approach, which involves a presidential pardon, being taken in this jurisdiction. Can the Taoiseach cite any precedent of such a pardon being offered in a case in which there has not been a trial or conviction? Can he outline circumstances in which such a pardon should be exercised, other than as a remedy for a perceived miscarriage of justice? Is there any precedent of people being exculpated even though they have admitted they are guilty? Is it not the case that the Government has proposed this method of dealing with this matter in the hope that it will fireproof its approach from judicial review on the basis of Article 13.6 of the Constitution, which relates to the President's discharge of her functions? The President is subject to judicial review in respect of other decisions, such as judicial appointments.

I put it to the Taoiseach that the Government has pursued this approach because it is not possible to introduce legislation to deal with this matter in this jurisdiction that would exclude those who are wanted and are still on the run for the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. The Government has adopted the presidential pardon approach for that reason. There is a necessity to be open and honest with people about this major decision. For example, is there a commitment in any of the side deals which have been done that those intimidated and caused to flee Northern Ireland will be permitted to re-enter that jurisdiction? Such a commitment is necessary if we are to draw a line in the sand.

Deputy Rabbitte has made a number of points. There are a number of extensions to the Hain Bill. I am not sure of the point being made by the Deputy in that regard. He is probably referring to the extension of the legislation to cover the British army. Such extensions, which have been included in the British legislation, were not discussed with the Government. They are of concern to Nationalists. The SDLP's proposals are well known to the Government, which has made them well known to the British authorities. The Bill has been extended beyond the areas about which the Government had been informed. The British authorities have to deal with a wider situation as they see fit. It is obvious that they believed they had to deal with certain matters by including the extended provisions relating to the British Army. We will see how that works as the debate progresses.

The agreements which have been reached in respect of those known as on-the-runs are far from side deals. I am not sure if that was the point being made by Deputy Rabbitte when he referred to side deals. When the 1998 agreement was reached, it was clear to the world that prisoners on all sides who had been sentenced for major crimes — murder in many cases — would be released. That agreement created an anomaly, however, in that people who were on the run because they had not been caught were not cleared and could still be charged. It was agreed at Weston Park, in a blaze of publicity that the anomaly in question had to be dealt with. The matter was also mentioned in the joint declaration and the acts of completion document.

The arrangement that will be used in this jurisdiction, which involves a constitutional pardon, is as transparent as possible. The President, who will issue the pardon, will be able to do so only after the eligibility body has received and examined a request for a pardon and passed it on to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department will have to be satisfied that it is appropriate to pass such a request on to the Minister, who will bring it to the Cabinet, which will decide whether to refer it to the President. The various decisions which will have to be made as part of the process will not be taken lightly. Deputy Rabbitte has rightly stated that it is believed that the process I have outlined is the best and most proper way for the Government to proceed legally. Difficulties could arise if the matter were to be dealt with in some other manner — that is a fact. The details of the proposals contained in the Hain Bill will become clearer as the debate continues. I will be glad to answer questions about such details at a later stage.