Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

With regard to amendment No. 24, I prefer to retain the word "may" because it allows flexibility with regard to matters which might or might not be appropriate procedures and how I establish them and lay them down. While the section does not necessarily require rules, it makes possible the introduction of rules to address these issues.

I am favourably disposed towards amendment No. 25 and, on the assumption that it is properly phrased, I would be happy to accept it on Report Stage.

With regard to amendment No. 26, the United Nations Committee against Torture does not visit prisons in the sense that the Council of Europe committee does. I do not, therefore propose to accept the amendment.

I appreciate that Senator Cummins considers the present draft to be deficient but his amendment No. 27 is also somewhat complex. I will examine both versions to determine whether the wording can be improved on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 28 removes language that is repetitive and superfluous. When the Bill was being drafted, the intention was that any forfeiture of money by a prisoner imposed as a sanction under section 13 would be limited to the forfeiture of the money the prisoner would have earned or received while in prison. The wording of paragraph (e) was intended to be particularly clear on this point, in that the prisoner's own personal funds could not be forfeited. On consideration, however, the present wording is somewhat long winded. Removal of the phrase "but not exceeding an amount of such money that would, but for such forfeiture, be given to him or her while in prison" would not change the meaning, as the phrase "from public funds" already ensures any moneys to be forfeited cannot be removed from the prisoner's personal funds or funds that he or she may have earned before entering prison. Therefore, as money earned from outside sources would not be forfeited under this section, I will reconsider the matter.

Amendment No. 29 proposes that gratuities payable to prisoners under prison rules should be denied, but not confiscated, for a period of 60 days. In my view, the addition of the words "but not confiscated" is not strictly necessary because it is clear the gratuity is being denied rather than confiscated. I assume Senator Cummins is referring to the crude entitlement in the past to a gratuity but it is one matter if it has been paid and another if it has not. I will reconsider the provision in light of the Senator's proposal.

Amendment No. 30 proposes the addition of a comma. I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that such an amendment is not necessary and would be grammatically incorrect.

With regard to amendment No. 31, section 13(5)(b) provides that the governor can restore all or any part of a remission of a portion of a sentence forfeited by a prisoner under section 13 if, among other matters, the prisoner has performed an exceptionally meritorious act. I can accept the proposed amendment, which provides for the addition of a reference to a prisoner who, in the opinion of the governor, has performed a meritorious act.