Mr. Noel Waters:

I have already submitted an opening statement and I am happy to place it on the record rather than read it out, if that is satisfactory to the committee. If it would be helpful to the committee, in terms of using time as best we can and answering any issues that members wish to raise, I propose to give a synopsis of the statement, especially in respect of Chapter 9 relating to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report dealing with prison accommodation in Dublin.

First, I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff for their comprehensive report. It is a valuable document for those of us in the Department in terms of managing this issue. The stark reality is that substantial millions were spent with the aim of building a prison at Thornton Hall and this has not happened. Clearly, there are important questions to answer relating to why this is the case. I realise that ten years ago the committee covered questions relating to the acquisition of the site. Moreover, I know that the Comptroller and Auditor General's predecessor had a report on that matter. The people involved at the time were before this committee and the matter was discussed extensively. I do not intend to go over all of that again, but from my examination of the papers and from conversations with colleagues relating to what happened at the time and since then, a number of points strike me. I believe it might be useful to share them with the committee today.

Based on my experience of working in various areas of the Department over a lengthy career, I reckon the biggest problem for the entire criminal justice system over the decades has been the operation of what became known as the revolving door system in our prisons. Early release in any civilised prison system, when it is intended to incentivise, is a good thing and it has its place. However, what we had was a scenario where people were being released in large numbers on an unplanned basis. The revolving door acts to negate the efforts of everyone in the criminal justice system to keep our community safe. It meant that the work being done by the Garda in tackling crime, the work in bringing people to court and the work of the courts in sentencing people and dealing with them was all being set to nought when people turned up at the prison door and were then released because there simply was no space for them.

Thankfully, in more recent times we have moved away from that situation. However, I have no doubt that in proposing the new prison at Thornton Hall between 2003 and 2004, the need to avoid a revolving door scenario was at the forefront of everyone's mind. Of course, that is as it should have been.

While substantial works have been undertaken in Mountjoy, as the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out, we would be deluding ourselves to believe that a prison first built in 1850 could now match the standards which would apply in a purpose-built prison constructed now. It is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide where money is allocated at a time of scarce resources and many pressing demands and the decision might be taken not to proceed with the construction of a new prison. However, it does not mean building a new prison would not be desirable. This brings me to the fundamental point on why we are here today and why we are addressing the issue.

While people may have points to make about the detail of what happened, the stark reality is that the construction of the prison at Thornton Hall did not proceed because of the crisis that arose in the economy. In fairness to all those involved in the project, their thinking, understandably, was not informed by the impending economic collapse. That is where we are. In order to take it forward from here, I see two challenges that face us now. Clearly, we have to learn what lessons can be learned from what has happened. I am being frank with the committee by saying that learning those lessons is going to be complicated by the fact that we had a set of circumstances whereby the economy did what it did and that could not have been foreseen by people who were planning the project.

I emphasise that this was not a solo run on the part of the Department or the Irish Prison Service. The Governments of the day were consulted extensively about the project because of its scale. By my calculations, the Government was consulted and made decisions in respect of this project at least ten times, or perhaps a little more when we take other issues into account. Indeed, the plans for the project, as Deputies will be aware, were subject to legislation brought before the Oireachtas.

It seems to me that if we are to go down this road again, we need to have a clearer picture of what we are trying to achieve. Are we going to build a prison on the basis that it should last another 150 or 170 years? Are there compromises we may make around that in terms of the cost? A report was published by the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention earlier this week, as committee members may be aware. The report raises some interesting points about the type of prison which has been found to work in other jurisdictions in combating recidivism. We are examining whether there is some way of approaching these projects in a way that would minimise exposure to the taxpayer if circumstances arise involving another funding crisis.

The second challenge is for us to arrange the use the site at Thornton Hall in a way that maximises its value to the taxpayer and, in that respect, the question of a new prison being required cannot be ruled out. There has been no Government decision not to build a prison on the Thornton Hall site.

Members of the committee will be aware that by and large, communities do not welcome prisons being sited in their midst and it would be a fraught and difficult exercise for us to have to embark on finding a new site or sites some years down the road. On the other hand, the reality is that in the short term a prison will not be built on that site. The recently published capital programme for the justice area does not contain funding for it. We have a group examining the best use which may be made of the asset of that site in the short to medium term to see if it is possible to do so in a way that might leave open its eventual use for what it had been intended for in the first place. I will be happy to discuss that and to report on future developments in that regard to the committee. I hope that these remarks have been helpful in setting the context for today's discussion.