Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1956

Vol. 45 No. 16

Prisons Bill, 1956—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett)

The object of this Bill is to provide for the temporary detention of prisoners in lock-ups provided in Garda stations or in other places being places designated for the purpose by the Minister for Justice.

There is accommodation for some 1,520 prisoners in the prisons situated in Dublin, Portlaoise, Limerick, Cork and Sligo. For several years past, the daily average number of prisoners in custody has been falling steadily. In 1946, the daily average was 683, last year it was only 396. There is, therefore, in the five prisons much more accommodation than is required and it is consequently proposed to close the prisons at Cork and Sligo.

The daily average number of prisoners in custody in Cork and Sligo prisons in 1955 was 15 and eight respectively. This was not exceptional, the daily averages have been very low for a number of years. Cork prison will be closed on 1st April and Sligo prison a little later. When these prisons are closed there will still be accommodation for over 1,200 prisoners.

It is proposed, when these establishments are closed, to have prisoners who are at present committed to Cork and Sligo prisons committed to either Limerick or Mountjoy prison. This will result, particularly in the case of Sligo, in long distances having to be travelled when prisoners are being brought to courts on remand, or following conviction or remand to prison, and it may no longer be feasible, in some cases, to convey all such prisoners to a prison or to court without spending a period somewhere en route.

Under the law as it stands, unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners can be temporarily detained in Garda Síochána stations when being produced in court, but a convicted prisoner must be taken straight to prison. When Sligo prison is closed it might be impossible, say, in a case being tried in Donegal, which was not disposed of until a late hour to bring a prisoner straight to Dublin. For this reason, there is provision in the Bill to authorise the detention of prisoners in lock-ups pending their removal to prison. It is also necessary to authorise detention not merely in Garda stations, but in such lock-ups elsewhere as may be designated by the Minister for Justice because requisite accommodation may not always be available in a Garda station. It is the intention in Sligo to convert two of the existing prison cottages into a suitable lock-up. This lock-up will be used mainly for the housing of remand prisoners and prisoners for trial who must be brought from Dublin the day before they are due to be produced at courts in centres situated in the Counties of Donegal, Sligo and Mayo.

I am sure the House will agree that the Bill is necessary and I commend it to them for favourable consideration.

Mr. Walsh

It is very satisfactory to note that this Bill is required in order to reduce the number of prisons needed in the country. It is satisfactory to realise that this steady reduction in prisons has been going on for a number of years and that the number of prisons now required is so small. I note that there is only an average of 400 prisoners detained at present and that the accommodation which will still remain will be four times that number.

The fact that there will be no prison now between Sligo and Dublin is indicative of the fact that crime, particularly in the northern areas, is extremely rare. The fact that there is only an average of eight prisoners in Sligo, which caters for a number of the northern counties, as against 400 for the whole country, shows that Donegal, for instance, is the most crimeless county in the whole State. That is not to be wondered at because the reputation we have in the North for being law-abiding citizens is very well known. I should like to ask the Minister in this connection will there not be a further imposition on the ratepayers in Donegal by reason of the fact that they are responsible for the cost of the transport of prisoners to the nearest prison. If prisoners have now to be removed from Donegal to Dublin, via Sligo, say, it will, in my opinion, be a rather severe imposition on the rates as formerly there was a prison in existence in Sligo Town.

Professor Hayes

Does the Senator mean the taxpayer?

Mr. Walsh

The ratepayer. There is provision each year in the estimates of the local authority for the transportation of prisoners. There will be quite a number of parts of Donegal which now will be over 200 miles distant from Dublin because I take it that prisoners will not be permitted to be transported through Northern Ireland. They will therefore have to go via Sligo.

The Bill also sets out that prisoners may be detained in places designated by the Minister, apart from Garda barracks. I wonder would it not have been more desirable if the Minister had actually set out in the Schedule to the Bill the places which he will designate as lock-up places, because otherwise the Minister can apparently designate any place at all, and this House will be giving him permission to decide where at any time prisoners may be detained.

Also in the Bill it is stated that, while a case is at hearing, the prisoner may be kept in a lock-up that is in a Garda barracks or in one of these places designated by the Minister. Would that mean that a prisoner may be detained for a long period, much longer than the 48 hours set out in the Bill, because a case may be at hearing for a week or two weeks on account of long depositions that may require to be taken? A case may be going on for a number of days, even in the Circuit Court, and do I take it from the Bill that, after 48 hours, the prisoner is required to be removed to a prison, or that he can be kept for a much longer period than 48 hours in one of the lock-up places set out in the Bill, because Section 1, sub-section (b) says: "While a case in which he is involved is at hearing"? I wonder does the further sub-section (c) govern that and, therefore, that the prisoner must be brought back, say, to Mountjoy after 48 hours?

As I said at the outset, from the fact that the incidence of housebreaking and motor car offences is possibly on the up-grade, it must follow that crime, other than those, is steadily going down. Again, for that reason, I say how pleased I am, and, I am sure, the House is, at the fact that this Bill is regarded as necessary.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

We should all recognise that the situation with regard to crime and convicted prisoners and prisons, as outlined by the Minister, is eminently satisfactory and may well give us reason for pride. I notice that Senator Walsh took the opportunity of indulging in that pride to some extent on a local basis, and described Donegal as apparently, from these figures, "the most crimeless county in Ireland". I suggest to him, however, that there might be another explanation. It may be that the Donegal lawyers are the best in Ireland and consequently most likely to get their clients off.

Mr. Walsh

That was the case last night, but not to-day.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The request of the Minister based upon this situation is a reasonable one, but our acceptance of it ought to be conditioned by certain considerations. The Minister is asking, under Section 1, to have the right to have a prisoner detained temporarily in a lock-up in a Garda station or some other such place. The word "temporarily" is, as Senator Walsh has pointed out, fairly vague, and might again, as under paragraph (b), refer to a period considerably longer than 48 hours. That strengthens my main concern to-day, that is, that there should be a very careful examination by the House and by the Minister of the quality of the accommodation provided in those various lock-up centres situated in Garda barracks, or the new ones to which he referred. I realise that, as has been made clear by the Minister, this Bill will give power which will, in the main, be used in relation to country or non-Dublin barracks. Nevertheless, if we look at lock-ups in some of the country or Dublin barracks, we have certain misgivings as to whether they are quite what they might be.

I made it my business, knowing that this Bill was coming up to-day, to visit two suburban barracks and two city central barracks, Pearse Street and Store Street, for the purpose of examining personally the accommodation afforded there, and assessing whether it seemed to me reasonable that we should give the Minister the right to have people detained there for 48 hours or more, or, if not there, at any rate, in country barracks which might be comparable and to which similar standards might apply. I also visited the Bridewell, and I want to say something about that presently.

In the four barracks that I did visit, I found the cell accommodation, in my opinion, grossly inadequate for the accommodation of prisoners, even for a short period. I found the cells dismal, and sometimes airless, as in Pearse Street, for instance—the sleeping accommodation a wooden plank bed even with a mattress and blankets, and the lavatory accommodation being in the cell, quite unsurrounded by any cubicle and incapable of being flushed from inside the cell, which means that it might remain unflushed for several hours in fact. I was assured, and I believe truthfully, in all those barracks that these cells are never used overnight, and that the most they are used for is a few hours and that the prisoners are invariably sent, even in the middle of the night, to the Bridewell.

Nevertheless, I could not fail to have some doubts about the power given here which could be used in relation to all such barracks, and to feel that we ought as legislators not to be quite happy about any assurance that the powers asked for would not be used in fact in such circumstances. Furthermore, I could not help wondering whether the Minister could assure us that, in the country and provincial Garda barracks, the conditions are quite immeasurably better than they are in the four barracks I happen to have visited.

In neither of the suburban barracks that I visited, and in which I was assured again, and, I am sure, truthfully, that prisoners were never kept for more than four hours, were there two cells provided, so that men and women prisoners, if there were such, and if they were to be housed in cells, could be housed only in the same cell. Even if it is only a matter of a few hours, I cannot help feeling that such accommodation, tolerated at present, even though it may be deplored, is not satisfactory.

Furthermore, I noticed in each of those barrack lock-ups, that there is no theoretical official provision for the giving of food to prisoners. A prisoner may send out for food at his own expense, if he knows his rights and has money, but I think, though I speak subject to correction, that there is no money grant given to the barracks for the purpose of providing food or drink to a prisoner, while he is so detained. I know that, in practice, the way in which these prisoners are treated is humane, and I would even go so far as to suspect that not infrequently Civic Guards put their hands in their own pockets where they think that a prisoner deserves to be helped in that way.

I suggest that the Minister ought to be able to assure us that, with these extended powers, he will see to it that there will be provision for the giving of food to detainee prisoners not in a position to send out for it. I would remind the Seanad that these men and women concerned, whether detained in the Bridewell or in Garda lock-ups, are detained for crimes of which they are presumed to be innocent until they are tried and convicted. They are people who are being detained temporarily, and who are as yet, in the eyes of the law, presumed to be innocent. In this connection, I also took the liberty of looking at some of the accommodation offered to the Gardaí and in particular I noticed the type of accommodation which they have in Store Street Station. It seems to me that the conditions obtaining there are materially so extremely bad as to make one wonder if the Gardaí are presumed guilty——

An Cathaoirleach

This Bill is dealing merely with temporary accommodation for prisoners and not with Garda barracks. The Senator may discuss this Bill only in so far as it relates to the accommodation for the temporary detention of prisoners.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I merely wanted to suggest that if the Gardaí have not got reasonable accommodation, it can hardly be expected that the prisoners will have much chance of better treatment. I should like to urge on the Minister that he devote his attention to that matter of Garda accommodation.

I should like to turn to the question of the Bridewell, which is the main place of detention for remand prisoners in this country. Some years ago, the Irish Association for Civil Liberties set up a committee to visit the Bridewell, and, with the permission of the Minister and the Department, they visited it in 1952. They made certain recommendations on that occasion and a similar committee visited the Bridewell in 1953 and again made certain recommendations. All these recommendations were related to the conditions obtaining there for the prisoners. I should like to mention what struck the committee as being necessary to improve the accommodation for presumed innocent prisoners on remand in such a detention place. The first thing that seemed to us to be necessary was a recognition that such prisoners, however obstinate or aggressive, or however guilty or ignorant they might be, had certain fundamental rights as prisoners, and while it was felt that it would not be possible to provide them with a long list of rules and regulations, it was suggested to the Minister and the Department at the time that perhaps a very brief leaflet might be handed to them, indicating their rights, to see a solicitor, to have food sent in to them, and so on.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator now dealing with temporary accommodation for prisoners, or does he desire to widen the scope of the debate to deal with prisoners generally?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am dealing with Section 1, which relates to the detention of prisoners in Garda stations and their temporary detention in places like the Bridewell. I submit that, in considering the temporary detention of prisoners in a remand prison, I am in order in dealing with the conditions under which these people might be detained. I think it is essential that we should consider what these conditions are. I may say that a very large number of these conditions in the Bridewell have been most satisfactorily altered, but I should like to mention that we submitted suggestions to the Minister about a number of things which seemed to us to be basic essentials in regard to the detention of prisoners.

The second point mentioned by the committee in its report was that of heating these places of detention, and a third was the question of sanitation. There seemed to be two things necessary in regard to the latter, the first being that there must be some privacy in a place where sometimes as many as six or a dozen persons were being detained in one cell, and the second that the lavatories should be capable of being flushed from inside the cells. Another thing which seemed to be necessary and desirable was that ordinary whitewashing of the premises, and painting, should be carried out regularly, no matter what ill use might be made of it by some prisoners. We found that some portions of the inside of the Bridewell had never been whitewashed, but remained the same crude concrete as when they were put up. It was also felt that there should be provided some facilities for the prisoners to wash themselves and to see themselves. In other words, it was essential that there should be a mirror as an essential part of the accommodation provided. It seemed to us that a person who was being detained for 48 hours, if he had not facilities to wash and a mirror in which to see himself, would almost, of necessity, present the appearance of a most disreputable person when he came before the court.

Finally, it was considered that the ordinary prison visitors should go to these places from time to time. I may say I have, since those reports were made, visited the Bridewell and I have been extremely favourably struck by the way in which the whole conditions there have been altered since this second Civil Liberty Report of 1953. I may add that it becomes apparent that the Department and the Minister and his predecessor were concerned about the things on which we reported and did their very best to have the recommendations carried out.

I mention the Bridewell here, as the largest place of detention in the country, but the same facilities for prisoners should be provided in regard to other Garda lock-ups. I should like to state then that there has been a very considerable improvement in the Bridewell. The lavatory accommodation is partly partitioned off and is now capable of being flushed from inside the cells. The whole place has been repainted and the concrete floors have been properly surfaced. There is more washing accommodation, and the whole atmosphere of the accommodation for the Gardaí has also been radically altered to bring it more into keeping with the work which has to be done there.

One point which remains, and which the Minister might consider, is that of the issue of some sort of leaflet to the prisoners describing for them in simple terms just what are the rights of the detainees in such lock-ups. It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to provide this, and it would be something that would be very helpful to ignorant prisoners. The other point in relation to this matter is whether the Minister will consider asking the prison visitors to make regular visits to these lock-ups and places of detention.

Senator Walsh raised a point about what is meant in Section 1 by the word "temporarily". I think one might rather have had something more definite like 48 hours, but this might well mean something considerably longer.

It might be a question of one or two weeks. I should like clarification on that. I would be tempted almost to ask the Minister to qualify that word "temporarily" by some such phrase as "but in no case for more than..." so as to give a time limit to it. If there is no stated time limit, that greatly strengthens what I say about general conditions.

Secondly, I would ask the Minister to give an undertaking, as I am sure he will, in relation to the old and the new lock-ups, which I was interested to hear him mention here to-day, that provision will be made for conditions for prisoners and for Gardaí which will allow him in all conscience to permit such detention without grave hardship —to ensure and to promise us that, in such detention prisons, there will be civilised conditions, both for those people who are detained and for those who are detaining them, civilised conditions in relation to food, sleep, sanitation, heat and knowledge of their simple rights.

We are asked in Section 2 to repeal Section 23 of the General Prisons Act, 1877, which laid it down that the Commissioners of Public Works should "provide and maintain" such "proper accommodation for the temporary detention of prisoners as the Lord Lieutenant shall direct". I think most of us will recognise that the "direction" of the Lord Lieutenant in that matter left a great deal to be desired.

I conclude, therefore, with the hope that the Minister and his Department will "direct" far more comprehensively, and more understandingly and sympathetically, in relation to these matters, than the Lord Lieutenant did in his day. I believe that the Minister can and will give us such an assurance.

Éamon Ó Cíosáin

Bille an-bheag iseadh í seo agus dá bhrí sin ní dóigh liom gur ceart go mbéadh aon díospóireacht leathan uirthi.

I take it that we are not permitted to have a general discussion on the prison system operating in this country on this rather restricted measure and that we are just making provision to meet the situation that will arise as a result of the closing of two prisons— one at Sligo and the other at Cork.

Of course, like Senator Walsh, I would express satisfaction that the number of prisoners is declining in this country. However, before one gives expression to total satisfaction in that regard, one would have to find out exactly what the reason for it is. Is it due to a falling-off in the incidence of crime in this country, or is it due to what has been stated here, that is that certain able lawyers can secure the acquittal of people charged with certain crimes in certain parts of the country? There could be a third reason and probably it is a more realistic one. It is that in some cases it appears that there is excessive leniency in dealing with people who are brought before the courts. It would appear also, to me, at any rate, that there is not that uniformity that is desirable in dealing with people of that kind. I will refer to one incident, without giving the full particulars. A person was brought before the District Court and was to be given a sentence of six months, but, at his own request, he was allowed to travel to Dublin and was given £3 out of the poor box to enable him to travel to Dublin. On his way to Dublin he committed two further robberies of the kind for which he had been brought before the District Court.

Mr. Hickey

There was a lot of gratitude in that.

Mr. Kissane

I am just mentioning that case to show that this decline in the incidence of crime, or this supposed decline, could be due to the leniency that is being indulged in in certain quarters.

Mr. Hickey

I do not think you would look on that as a basis for discovering whether or not we have an increase in crime.

Mr. Kissane

It is just as much a basis as the other things we have heard. I agree with the Senator, however. I am just mentioning it as another possible reason. I do not want to widen the discussion on this measure. I just want to say that I do not share the concern of the previous speaker about the conditions that obtain in the Garda barracks in the country, and so forth, for the temporary detention of prisoners. Hitherto, unconvicted and unsentenced people could be detained for a certain length of time in these places. If the conditions obtaining in these places have been good enough for unsentenced and unconvicted people, why should they not be good enough for convicted and sentenced people?

I do not know if the Minister has given us an indication of the use that will be made of the vacated buildings in Cork and in Sligo when this measure passes. I think that is a legitimate question to ask. I suppose these buildings can be regarded as county council property.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not referred to in the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins

Like the other speakers, I am very pleased to hear the Minister announce that it is no longer necessary to maintain the number of prisons we have had in the country. We got rid of one in my own county a considerable time ago. I think the people in Cork and in Sligo can make just as good use of the building and site as the Galway County Council propose to do with theirs. The point that brings me to my feet is that we have heard, particularly last night, concern expressed for the ratepayers of the country. As Senator Walsh has already pointed out, the ratepayers are charged with the travelling expenses of prisoners until such time as they are sentenced. Now, under the new proposals, while the closing down of those prisons will amount to a considerable sum in saving to the Central Fund, it will, on the other hand, place on the ratepayers in each of the counties where there is no prison being maintained an additional expense, and that expense will occur from their being compelled under legislation to meet the charges of the transfer of untried prisoners.

I think this whole question will have to be reconsidered. In former times, when this provision was first made, it probably was introduced somewhat on the lines of the Malicious Injuries Act —something as a deterrent, in the hope that local authorities, rural district councils and boards of guardians, might take a deeper interest, because they would have to meet the charge of the cost of the transport of prisoners. Now, when we are changing that whole system and, despite all the talk about decentralisation, when we are about to centralise our prison system, we should reconsider the position and relieve the ratepayers of the charges they are compelled to pay as a result of this Bill.

I would go part of the way—and only part—with Senator Sheehy Skeffington in requesting, if it is necessary, that the Minister and his Department should seriously consider and ensure that the facilities provided in the new cases of detention and in the local Garda barracks will be of a type suitable for the reception and detention of the persons concerned. We are not dealing in this Bill entirely with persons who are being convicted of any particular crime. The Bill is one dealing, in the main, with untried prisoners and persons who are only arrested on suspicion or are awaiting trial, and, as the Senator pointed out, after all, we must accept that they are innocent until they are found guilty. That being the case, we should ensure that they are treated as such persons. I do not hold out that there should be any more severe treatment meted out to persons when they are sentenced, except that which the law and which our present system provides for.

I think it very undesirable, both from the point of view of the Garda authorities and from the point of view of the prisoners themselves, that prisoners should be detained for any considerable time, and I would consider, while we may say that we cannot avoid having the period of 48 hours, no person should be detained in a Garda station any longer than 48 hours. It places a strain on the Garda themselves. It is a thing they do not like. I have never met a Garda or sergeant of the Guards who is in any way anxious to have prisoners under his charge. It is not that they are not anxious to treat them as reasonably as they possibly can and give them the best facilities that are available, but sometimes these facilities are not all that we desire.

We are giving the Minister power to create new places of detention. The Minister has not given us any indication of where these places of detention will be located, or as to how they are going to be run, or whether they will come under the inspection that is carried out under our present prison system by the prison visiting committee. There is also the question of the length of time. "Temporary", as other speakers have pointed out, can mean any length of time. I think the Minister should qualify this word "temporary", so that the prisoner himself, or whoever may be acting on his behalf, may be better aware of what we in this House intend the Act to be. We cannot consider it in this Bill, but the Minister can bring the matter before his colleagues in the Cabinet and have this question of the new burden that is going to be placed on the local authority as a result of this Bill considered and some steps taken to relieve the local authorities of the charges now about to be placed on them.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I should like briefly to associate myself with remarks that have been made by different Senators as to the conditions in the country that have led to the opportunity for the State to close down several prisons. I would not like, however, to feel that the decrease in crime is due to any of the reasons given by Senator Kissane. I do not think that leniency to criminals has ever been responsible, in so far as crime is concerned, for checking it. Rather does it encourage crime, because certain people, if they feel that they can get off lightly, certainly do not cease from giving trouble to the authorities whose business it is to see that they keep the peace. I would rather think that the cessation in crime is due to a highly developed civic sense on the part of the people of this country who now recognise that they have their own police force with whom they can associate and co-operate, since they are not in the same position as they were when we were under alien rule.

In so far as the remarks which referred to the extent that this desirable change would be a burden on the rates are concerned, I am in thorough agreement with Senator Hawkins and Senator Walsh. Now that the people in Mayo, Galway and Donegal, and other counties far removed from the prisons that will be maintained, have to make provision for the transport of prisoners to the prisons that will be kept in commission, such will put a severe tax on the ratepayers, who at the present time have many other responsibilities to shoulder.

I really think that, as the cost of prisons and the cost of the police force is met out of the Central Fund, the cost of the transport of prisoners should also be a charge on the same source and not on the ratepayers of the country. That is all I have to say on the matter, but I think that the Minister should not find it difficult to bring about the change, which would be very welcome to the people of the country at the present time, who certainly are saddled with a burden in the matter of rates that many of them can only shoulder with the greatest difficulty.

Mr. Hickey

It is a very desirable development in the country to see the prisons being closed down. I think we should leave it to the Minister, and particularly to the humanity of the Guards, to see to it that those prisoners while they are detained, even for 48 hours, will be treated in the way that we would expect the Guards to treat them. I can assure Senator Kissane that, so far as the Cork prison is concerned, very great use can be made of such a big institution, and it is desirable to have it in Cork for the many other things we are anxious to find accommodation for. I think that we are raising too many hares about the cost of transferring prisoners from one area to another. Surely it is a bigger burden on the people to maintain the prisons than it is to transfer prisoners from one prison to another. This is a development we can all welcome and I feel that everyone will welcome it.

Mr. O'Reilly

The Minister in introducing this short Bill made a very short statement. In that statement, he mentioned that, while it was not stated in the Bill, the intention was to close down the prisons in Sligo and Cork and provide alternative accommodation for prisoners on remand. So much has been said about decentralisation and the removal of services from Dublin that I wonder it did not occur to the Minister to close down Portlaoise and Mountjoy, instead of Cork and Sligo, and have the services provided in Cork and Sligo. That is what should be done if Ministers gave any serious thought at all to this question of decentralisation.

I agree that there are services which the people of Sligo would value more than a prison service and I am sure the same applies to Cork. Yet in areas, particularly in the West of Ireland, where you have a falling population, a service such as that would be valuable because it would tend to maintain an increased population by reason of the fact that the people who would provide the service would have to live, say, in Sligo.

Under the Bill, the Minister proposes to establish lock-ups but the Minister did not tell us in his rather short statement who will be the janitor in the case of those lock-ups. At the moment, in the case of Sligo—I am sure the same applies to Cork—the warders in the prison are responsible for the conduct in the prison and the maintenance of the prison. The Minister mentioned that, in the case of Sligo, some of the adjacent buildings will be used for temporary detention for people on remand.

Who is to be responsible in those buildings? Is it proposed to hand them over to the Guards and, if so, who is to be responsible for their maintenance, in view of the fact that Senator Skeffington stated—he knew what he was talking about; I take it he does until he is contradicted—that there is no provision for the feeding of prisoners in our Garda barracks, except at the goodwill and charity of the Garda. In view of that fact, I should like to know who is to be the janitor in the case of buildings which the Minister proposes to use in Sligo. Will some of the existing staff of Sligo prison be maintained there for that purpose or will they be handed over to the Gardaí? I am sure the Minister will answer that question and give the necessary information to which the House is entitled.

It may be argued by the Minister that detention will only be for a short period, 48 hours in some cases, but it ought to be remembered that prisoners on remand can be detained during a particular case which might last for weeks, or even longer in cases where long depositions would have to be taken in the District Court. That would involve fairly substantial expenses which have to be paid by the local authority. I hope it will not, but, whether it does or not, I join with Senators Ruane, Walsh and Hawkins in expressing the view that that cost should be borne by the Department of Justice out of the Exchequer and that it should not be saddled on the county councils, particularly since some county councils have no say as to where those prisoners will be detained or, where they will be committed to prison. These expenses should not be a charge upon the local authority.

As things are, every local authority has to provide in their estimates for that contingency. I think it is time the Department of Justice took responsibility for that. Might I suggest, without going too far out of order, that there is the same question as regards juries?

An Cathaoirleach

I am glad the Senator knows he is out of order, since there is nothing about the matter he now speaks of in the Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

I have not gone too far out of order, Sir. I hope the Chair does not think that I try to make his position very difficult.

An Cathaoirleach

Oh, no.

Mr. O'Reilly

As I say, I have often heard the same thing said in regard to juries. However, I will not refer to that matter further as I realise I would be going outside the bounds.

Professor Hayes

Out of jail, so to speak.

Mr. O'Reilly

I should be very anxious to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to the proposal to equip some of the adjacent buildings in the case of Sligo and how they are to be manned.

Mr. O'Gorman

This is a matter in respect of which one needs to be brief. It is a source of great gratification to every one of us to be informed by the Minister this afternoon that there is very little crime throughout the country and that there is no need for the retention of Cork and Sligo prisons. That is a matter that every one of us, as Irishmen, should be extremely proud of, in view of the fact that, throughout the past, the prisons in Sligo, Cork, Tralee, Limerick, Mountjoy and Portlaoise were crowded to the doors, whereas now, in the 20th century, two of the main prisons, Sligo prison in the West and Cork prison in the South, are about to be closed down. That is something for which every one of us has reason to be grateful.

Prisoners on remand in Cork were transferred to Limerick awaiting trial in the Circuit Court and it is far cheaper in the case of a prison like Cork, to close it down altogether rather than have the public or the State carrying the financial burden of transferring prisoners. I think it is much cheaper for the country to have institutions like Sligo and Cork shut down rather than be faced with the financial burden of keeping them going.

It is a source of extreme pleasure to every one of us to hear the present position. Our prisons are very historical in that some of the finest Irishmen of this generation were confined in them. Such is the case in regard to Cork prison and I would like to see a prison such as Cork kept as a museum and as a reminder to future generations of the men who gave their lives in the fight for Irish freedom 35 or 36 years ago. It would be a pity to see such monuments of the past let out to anything else. One thing that is really wrong with Ireland is that buildings like that, where many of our dearest and best passed away in far more unhappy days than now, are not preserved for the nation and turned into something in the nature of museums. I would not like to see Cork, in view of the many sacred memories for Ireland it holds, done away with or perhaps turned into an industrial concern.

We are all very glad of the need for the Bill. It is a great tribute to Ireland and Irishmen that, in the year 1956, due to the high standard set by every Irishman, there is no further necessity for the retention of Sligo and Cork prisons. The Minister should be commended on the fact that there is nothing to do but close them down.

Dr. McHugh

I am sure that there is no further need for rhetoric on the subject of prisons, but I would like to ask one question of the Minister, if he would kindly answer it now or on the Committee Stage: whether there is any provision for the inspection of such places as are intended to be used for the temporary accommodation of prisoners? It is possible that there is some such provision in the Prisons (Ireland) Acts, 1826 to 1933.

Mr. Douglas

I should like very briefly to join with the other Senators who have complimented the Minister on the introduction of this Bill. On every occasion when the Minister for Justice has come before the Seanad, I have found him a most reasonable person who has satisfied us beyond any doubt on any amendment to a Bill that he has examined the position closely and asks for no more powers than he thinks absolutely necessary to carry out his duties. I should particularly like to compliment the Minister. Unfortunately there seems to be a tendency for other Ministers to take another position. I hope later on, on another Bill, to say more about that.

Section 1, which deals with the right of the Minister to detain temporarily in a lock-up provided in a Garda station or any other place, is long overdue, because I have heard complaints and read complaints in the newspapers on many occasions that district justices have been loath to detain particularly young people because there is no suitable place in which they can be kept for two or three days while awaiting trial. I do not agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that if the Garda barracks were not suitable, we should have to provide accommodation in what would almost be grade A hotels. We have an excellent police force, and I am satisfied that they do their work conscientiously and honestly, and that no member of the Garda is going to bring a person to court and have him detained, unless he is reasonably certain that that person is guilty. I agree in principle that we should assume that a prisoner is innocent, until he is proved guilty, but that does not extend to saying that the Garda should not have power to detain those people while awaiting trial. I should like to compliment the Minister on the Bill and hope that he will get all stages of it to-day.

Mr. Everett

It would be a very rare occurrence to have prisoners detained for longer than a few hours. The 48 hours was put in to provide an opportunity to consult a solicitor or counsel, or to cover an emergency taking place, whether it was a car breaking down or something like that. The maximum would be 48 hours. Senator Skeffington asked a question about the lock-ups. The only lock-up we have in mind is in Sligo, where we are converting two warders' houses, and that will be similar to if not better than Sligo prison. I can assure Senator McHugh that the inspection of lock-ups will be just the same as the inspection of prisons carried out at the present time by the inspector of the prisons service. As regards the 48 hours, that provision was inserted to protect ourselves in the event of an emergency, so that there could be detention in any place other than a Garda station. Our intention is to confine it to the larger stations, but if a breakdown should take place before we were near a Garda station, we took the power to have some other place for detention for the time being.

I can assure Senators and the people in general that prisoners on remand will be supplied with food the same as an ordinary prisoner at the present time, the same as in the Bridewell, where they are supplied, even if they are on remand only for a week-end, with food and clothes. We can assure Senators that we will have no ill-treatment in any way. They will not be in charge of the Guards, but of the prison officials when on remand. I can also assure the Seanad that the conditions of the lock-ups will meet the requirements of anybody in the year we live in, with proper accommodation and proper sanitation and warders who will see that they will get proper food.

Senator Walsh raised a very major point in connection with the ratepayers. There are eight prisoners in Sligo at the present time. The county council would not be liable after the first order. Any time they are brought back on remand, the expenses would be borne, as Senator O'Reilly pointed out, out of the Prisons Vote. It would not be a charge on the ratepayers. I believe myself that all the expenses in connection with it will be out of the Garda Vote, other than the first order to be made on the transfer of the prisoner. That should relieve his mind.

The temporary detention provision has been explained. We are only holding people over in case of an emergency, or where they want to consult their lawyers, or where they are waiting in other cases for an order.

On the question of remand prisoners, they will be under the control of the warders here from Dublin or elsewhere. Sligo is the only place where there will be a lock-up. It will meet the requirements of the Board of Works.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington raised the question of the Bridewell. I have a report which I could show the Senator, and I am sure he would be very pleased about it, from members of the visiting committee of Mountjoy who visited the Bridewell. There were no complaints whatsoever, the heating arrangements were up to 180 degrees, and the prisoners there, men on remand, told the members of the visiting committee that other than the ordinary complaints a prisoner will make to anyone, they had no complaints to make as regards the food, the treatment they got, or the heating of the place. They were quite satisfied and had no objection. It is an old building, but there are improvements being carried out. I could show the report of the inspector not alone of the prisons but of the Board of Works and it would allay any feelings the Senator may have in connection with the matter.

With regard to the question of what is to become of the prisons to be closed down, the Department and myself have not made up our minds yet in connection with it. Many demands are being made, but we have power under the Act with regard to the use to be made of closed prisons. When a closing order does not order the handing over of a prison or portion of it to the local authority, the Minister shall retain the premises; the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, use the prison, in whole or in part, for such purpose as the Minister thinks proper, which would include use by another public Department; the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, let the premises for a period of not more than 99 years; the Minister may direct that the premises be handed over to the local authority. The expression "local authority" means the council of the county or county borough in which the prison is situated.

Those are the matters to be considered by the Department, and we will try to meet the wishes of the people and of the local authority as far as possible. I thank Senators for the assistance they have given me in connection with this Bill, and I hope the explanations I have given have satisfied them. If there is any other point I have omitted, I am only too anxious to assure Senators that anything in my power or that of the Department will be done to meet the wishes of Senators that prisoners or persons on remand will be treated in a humane and Christian way.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I want to ask the Minister whether it is his intention that the same standard of accommodation as there is now in the Bridewell will be made available in other places of detention such as Garda barracks and lock-ups.

Mr. Everett

I can assure the Senator that there will be no change, so far as I and the Department are concerned.

Mr. Burke

The Minister in his statement said that certain premises would be handed over to the local authority, being the county or county borough authority.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not determining that matter in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION 1.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move the following amendment:—

In line 8 after the word "temporarily" insert the words "in any case for not more than five days."

The section as it reads at present merely provides for temporary detention, and the amendment is designed to clarify that position and to ensure that the period of detention will not be more than five days. I understood the Minister to say, in effect, that a prisoner would not be detained for more than 48 hours, and I would hope the Minister will accept the amendment which is simply a clarification of this word "temporarily"

Professor Hayes

Would that amendment be unnecessary, because the word "temporarily" is in fact defined in paragraphs (b) and (c)? In paragraph (c), it is stated that a person may be detained for not more than 48 hours, which is less than five days, and paragraph (b) provides for detention only for as long as the hearing is taking place. I take it that it would be a rather rare case that would take five days. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment is unnecessary. To add the words "five days" would not carry it any further.

Mr. O'Reilly

Apart from the amendment being unnecessary, I can see very serious objection to it. Provision is being made here to maintain a prisoner in a lock-up. Suppose a person is being tried in the District Court in Sligo. The taking of depositions could last six or seven days, and perhaps even eight. In that case, if you were to accept the maximum period of detention as five days, it would mean that the prisoner would have to be taken each night to Mountjoy and brought back to Sligo the following morning. In addition to the extra cost, that would involve a great hardship on the prisoner. I think, therefore, it would be better to leave the section as it is.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In answer to both Senators, I understood the Minister to say that he did not foresee any circumstances in which a prisoner might be kept for more than 48 hours. It is obvious, however, that if an unconvicted person is to be kept longer, it would inflict great hardship, because, if he were alone in the lock-up, it could really amount to solitary confinement. I think it would be very useful to define to some extent the force of the adverb "temporarily". What I proposed to achieve was to have a limit of five days put on the period of detention. That, I think, is a generous allowance for all contingencies in the light of what the Minister told us.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator pressing his amendment?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2, 3 and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.