Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I make no allegation. I merely state the Minister must explain his role. It is clear from the minutes he was appointed as an adviser to the committee of experts. He did not have a role as a negotiator. The Minister must take responsibility for his role in the matter. He was the Minister's man and the Minister must clarify that. It is all in the context the Minister accepting the exorbitant price. The Minister did not examine the site before doing so and no independent valuation or survey was carried out on the land. It is clear he did not get any independent valuation or survey of the value of the farm. He was or should have been aware — this is the last time I will refer to Mr. Webster although I say this in a neutral way — that Mr. Webster had declared a conflict of interest regarding this purchase. Was that not a sufficient signal to the Minister that the normal process of getting an independent valuation or survey should have been gone through? It is clear that this deal reflects gross mismanagement of taxpayers' money by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The stunted negotiation process and the sudden nature of the announcement are clear evidence that the public interest and value for money were very low on the Minister's priorities.

On the question of the preferred site of the committee of experts, the one at Coolquay, it is now clear that this was available at the time the deal on Thornton Hall was finalised. The Minister has some explaining to do as to the reason he did not tell us that. When I raised this issue at Question Time in the Dáil he expressly said that no other site was available. He also must clarify the extreme haste with which the purchase of the Thornton Hall site was completed. That raises a litany of unanswered questions. Can the Minister explain the reason for the rush? Why was the ultimate purchase of Thornton Hall lands completed in a period of just eight days during which, it now transpires, the original vendor of Coolquay was clarifying certain tax matters? To be blunt about it, he was checking how much capital gains tax or other tax he might have to pay on the purchase, having confirmed that he was so doing. We want to know the reason this site was chosen as suitable when it is clear it did not comply with the necessary criteria originally devised by the committee of experts. If the criteria had changed, why were the other sites originally excluded not included again? How could a site which was so clearly deficient in many obvious ways be presented to a committee and be so popular that it should be chosen on the same day, 18 January 2005? Two members of the committee had seen this farm but the others had not. The proposal was presented and whizzed through on to the Minister's desk. It was similarly whizzed through by him to the Cabinet and announced the following day, all within a period of eight days. Why did the committee, when it knew that the site at Coolquay was once again available, ignore that fact and instead plough ahead with a clearly unsuitable site? Did the Minister simply panic or will we need to delve deeper to find the answers? The process by which the committee came to recommend the site at Thornton Hall was irregular in the extreme. In one day, the site was introduced to the committee, considered and selected. What could possibly have caused the committee to act in such haste? Was it pressure from the Minister who wanted to be shut of the matter regardless rather than making a prudent sensible deal in the interest of the taxpayer? His conduct and that of his committee at best failed to follow proper procurement procedures.

So far, the Minister has railroaded over the legitimate concerns of the residents of the area. There was no consultation and there has not been any discussion regarding those concerns. Arranged meetings have been postponed, allegedly at the request of the residents. We are talking about a proposed development in an idyllic rural community of some hundreds of families who are naturally shattered by the Minister's decision, which will devastate their valuable community. On another level the plan defies practicality. The families of Mountjoy inmates will be hugely discommoded, forced to travel great distances and incur large expense. The cost of transferring prisoners to hospital, court or elsewhere will markedly increase. At the very minimum, ready access to a motorway would seem to be an absolute necessity. Are we to wait until the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is available this time next year before the Government is called to account for its appalling disregard for taxpayers' money? Does this Government have any respect for the public and the taxpayer? If it does, it will approve immediately the independent examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

We have focused in our motion on what we believe, with our colleagues in Labour, to be a most reasonable approach. We have not condemned the Government in the motion, as we might have done. We have not jumped to conclusions. We have raised reasonable questions. On that basis, the Government stands indicted if it does not accept our motion. Surely it understands the public concern about this purchase. Surely it understands that there is a huge amount of taxpayers' money at issue. Surely it understands that the public concern relates to the exorbitant cost of this farm, for which there is no justification. It cost €30 million instead of €6 million. Surely the Minister understands the concern about the fees that were paid in connection with it, including €156,000 to the adviser. Surely the Government understands the concerns about the undue haste and absence of considered examination of this location.

Is the Minister concerned at all about the decision to relocate to a site that appears to be totally unsuitable in terms of its remoteness and inadequate infrastructure? Is he aware that on the adjoining farm a proposal to build a hotel and golf links was rejected by An Bord Pleanála because of that inadequate infrastructure? Is the Minister aware that down the road from his proposed prison site a local resident applied for planning permission to build a play-school to cater for 12 children but that application was turned down because of inadequate infrastructure? There was inadequate infrastructure to cater for 12 children attending a play-school yet the Minister assures those of us in this House and the public that there is adequate infrastructure on this site to build a prison catering for 1,000 inmates, those who will look after them and prison officers. In addition, he proposes to put another major structure on the same site in lieu of Dundrum. Did the Minister consider any of that before he made this hasty decision?

It is clear to everybody other than the Minister, who is blinded by his efforts to justify a crazy decision, that this purchase makes no economic sense. The Minister has purchased a pig in a poke. He tries to explain it by comparing prices for other development sites around the county of Dublin. With all due respect to the Minister, that is ridiculous. He must compare like with like. He cannot compare chalk with cheese. What the Minister has tried to do is justify the purchase of a farm, zoned for agricultural use, at a price which is at least five if not six times greater than current market value but that does not stand up. If the Minister believes it stands up, why not allow the purchase to be subjected to independent examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General? The Comptroller and Auditor General is the watchdog of the public funds yet the Minister takes it upon himself. He is the only one who believes this is a good deal.

If it is a good deal let it be examined objectively. The Minister should not take my word for it, nor should he accept the advice of estate agents and consultants. Let it be independently examined. If the Minister fails or is not willing to do this he must explain why. I do not see how there can be a reasonable or logical explanation for not doing so.

See this speech in context