Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, I thank Senator Barrett for bringing forward this amendment. It arose from an interesting point he made on Second Stage regarding the appropriateness of attaching the name "St. Patrick's" to a place where young persons are detained in view of the circumstances under which St. Patrick was reputedly brought to Ireland and subjected to forced labour.

Senators will appreciate this Government is fully committed to and will very shortly achieve, finally, the closing of St. Patrick's Institution. Accordingly, it is now a matter of when, rather than if, St. Patrick's will be closed. Subsequently, there will be an end to the practice of detaining children in adult prison facilities.

While recommending in 2013 that St. Patrick's Institution be closed, the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention also recommended that the name St. Patrick's be consigned to history. The Bill will do this by providing not only for the complete closing of St. Patrick's Institution but also through the general removal of references to St. Patrick's from the Statute Book. In particular, the Bill will repeal all the legislative provisions that specifically enable the courts to order the detention of young persons in St. Patrick's.

The term "place of detention" has a specific meaning in our prisons legislation. Section 2 of the Prisons Act 1970 provides that the Minister for justice may, for the purposes of promoting the rehabilitation of offenders, provide places other than prisons for the detention of sentenced persons. These places are known and referred to as "places of detention". Wheatfield Place of Detention, as it is now called, is one such place. Therefore, the Senator's amendment would not prevent a children's detention school or prison from being given the name St. Patrick's. More generally, I imagine Senators understand that the attachment of the name St. Patrick's Institution to the premises which is the subject of this Bill was of its time and would not happen today. In the circumstances, while she fully appreciates the sentiments behind the proposed amendment, the Minister does not believe it is necessary or that it should be included in the Bill.