Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I am still of the belief that this deal stinks to high heaven. I asked questions at the time and I will continue to ask them. It is strange that we will deal with the issue at the Committee of Public Accounts, but that is after the fact, and that when these questions first arose the deal had not been completed.

Is the Minister aware that the propaganda document which his Department issued entitled, New Dublin Prison Complex, The Right Decision?, states that each site was assessed on the basis of a marking matrix addressing all the essential criteria and on the basis of this objective marking system, the least expensive, most suitable site was selected? Is the Minister further aware that the Comptroller and Auditor's General's report stated that the committee did not record the basis on which the scores were awarded to individual sites under the various criteria and the marks awarded by the site selection committee appeared to be inconsistent?

Does the Minister agree that the Comptroller and Auditor General's report stated that the site selection committee dropped the criteria after receiving a letter from the director general of the Prison Service in September 2004 and that from then on the matter of cost was not a consideration? How does the Minister reconcile the assertion contained in his document with the facts established by the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Is the Minister aware that his document states that at less than €200,000 per acre the site at Thornton Hall represents good value while the Comptroller and Auditor General found that the purchase did not represent good value? We have already gone through those points. The Comptroller and Auditor General stated that the price paid for the site at Thornton was likely to have been at least twice the market value at the time for well positioned agricultural land with development potential in the target area. Is the Minister aware of a trawl of similar sites in the near vicinity, one of which was sold in March of last year for €26,000 per acre but a number of those other sites which were being considered by the committee had a lesser price tag? How does all of this square up other than to give rise to major questions about the purchase of this site and the dodgy deal that appears to have been done in the last days of that committee despite the fact that this site was not part of the original tendering process, appeared out of nowhere and then was given the significant amounts mentioned by the Minister?

See this speech in context