Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy effectively stated that there would be no difficulty if the Government had done everything it did in respect of Thornton Hall and then built a hospital on the site. She is actually saying that the residents have no objections to the entire procedure to date and that they just do not want a prison built near their area. They have no difficulty with sick children but they do not want prisoners. The Deputy has shown up the residents' objections to this development as being shallow. I am stunned that she stated that they would have no problem with the Government locating a large institution at Thornton Hall as long as it is not a prison.

I incurred the wrath of residents from the area in question by being forthright in my statements about this matter at the Committee of Public Accounts. I speak with some authority on this matter because I come from Portlaoise town, in which two prisons are situated. The Deputy indicated that Portlaoise would be a suitable site for another prison. We already have two prisons and have no difficulty in that regard. The residents' fears regarding the prison at Thornton Hall are unfounded. It now transpires that they have no real objections to the procedure, the price, etc., they just do not want prisoners in their area.

I am amazed that the Deputy has blown the cover of the objectors. I have always said that it is simply a case of "not in my back yard" but down in your back yard in Portlaoise would be all right. We do not mind that. I would respect the objectors far more if they came to us, made their submissions and stated, in an honest manner, that they do not want a prison at Thornton Hall. They have not done so and instead have come up with convoluted arguments regarding the process, the price, etc. We now know that they have no objections in respect of the latter and that their only real objection is to the use of the facility as a prison. The Deputy has blown the objectors' cover, undermined and damaged their case and weakened any argument they might have had in respect of this issue.

On planning matters, the Deputy referred to the right of members of the public to object. There are far more rights contained in this legislation in respect of public participation than there are under the existing planning legislation relating to prisons. I am familiar with what happened in Portlaoise in recent years. One can go to the local Garda station and look at a little sketch to see what the outer wall of the prison looks like. That is about as much as one can do under the existing arrangements. We are now putting in place a plethora of procedures such that the system will comply with the highest EU standards. I am sure that the environmental impact statements, etc., will comply fully with what is required under such standards, which is not the case at present.

Deputy Burton also stated that the legislation is unconstitutional because people will not have the right to take their concerns to An Bord Pleanála. She is again talking nonsense. The Deputy was a member of a local authority that on many occasions, under what is now Part 8, approved projects and housing and other local authority developments. Our colleagues on local authorities throughout the country continue to grant such approvals and there is no right of appeal on the part of members of the public to An Bord Pleanála in respect of planning decisions made under that process.

It is a normal feature of local planning matters that once a local authority makes a decision on a project it is sponsoring, there is no right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála. I agree with the Deputy that this is not right but it is not correct to state that it is a new development being introduced in the legislation before us. The fact that it is being discussed in the national Parliament will make the planning process far more rigid than would be the case if it if was being done through a local authority.

Prisons are not matters for local authorities because there are bigger issues involved. The new prison under discussion will serve the greater Dublin area and, in that context, the decision in respect of it should not be left to a local planning officer. I am pleased that responsibility in this regard is being bestowed upon the House. They are just a few observations regarding some of the comments made in recent minutes.

I am happy to discuss certain aspects of the Bill. I have reservations in respect of some of them, however, especially the contracting out by the Minister of the prisoner escort service. I have a fundamental problem with that. The section dealing with financial implications states that in the light of the Prison Officers Association's acceptance of the proposal for changes in work practices last year, it is not intended to outsource prison escort services in the foreseeable future. It further states that, nevertheless, the provision is being made in the event that it is done. It states that the financial implications cannot be quantified at this stage because there are so many variables that may arise when the time comes.

The only variable I want to see when the time comes is the actual cost of providing this service versus the cost of a well-managed prisoner escort service run by the Prison Service. I have no doubt that if the Prison Service ran the prison escort service in an efficient manner, there is no reason it cannot be as cost effective as a contracted out service. If a Minister wants to go down that road, which I hope will not happen, I and other Deputies, if we are still Members, will hold the Minister to account to prove the financial case for outsourcing that service.

Outsourcing may appear cheaper but will it be better? There may be more escapes and more risk to the public. The cash in transit industry has shown itself not to be capable of dealing with these issues. The number of raids recently involving the transport of cash appears to indicate that that industry is less than capable of dealing with the transport of prisoners. If, for argument's sake, we had a bloody-minded Minister who only wanted the cheapest possible option regardless of the outcome, I would say we should examine what it would cost the Prison Service to determine if proper management changes could produce a more efficient service internally.

There is no good reason this service should be outsourced. It is not a matter of principle. It should be a straightforward matter of pragmatism. I spoke earlier on the National Development Finance Agency (Amendment) Bill, the public private partnership Bill, and I see Thornton Hall may come under that process as well. It is not a question of ideology; it is pragmatism. I have no problem with the public or the private sector doing something or a combination of both. Whatever delivers the best service for what is required in the circumstances in an efficient and effective manner to the taxpayer should be the guiding principle.

Other aspects of the Bill concern the establishment of an office of the inspector of prisons, prisoners to participate in certain television links between prisons and courts, disciplinary procedures and the issue of planning provision for the construction of new prisons and extensions to existing prisons. I do not have a problem with that section in the legislation.

Prison officers have a tough job and I would like to make a case on behalf of retired prison officers. I am chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service which has been dealing with the case of retired prison officers who are requesting pensionability of their rent allowance. They have put their case to the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and our committee. They will put a submission before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service again tomorrow on that issue.

The case they make is that their rent allowance was more akin to their salary; it was not an allowance. The Department of Finance deliberately muddied the water and did not deal with the specific case in any correspondence between the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and the Department. It broadened the issue to the generality of allowances in the public service, which is not the issue. We have asked the Department to deal with the specific issue of rent allowance. Retired prison officers have made the case to our committee that the rent allowance paid to them was more akin to their basic salary in that it was paid regardless of whether they turned up for work, worked away from or near to home, did or did not pay rent, worked overtime or weekends, or were on sick leave, suspension or whatever. They got the rent allowance once they got their basic pay.

That separates that issue from the broad range of allowances we know were not pensionable prior to allowances generally being made pensionable in the public service. One had to work special hours to achieve all the other allowances. This particular allowance came as of right with one's salary. That is a specific case and it should be examined on that basis.

Regarding the Thornton Hall issue, I ask the officials to check in detail the matter I am about to raise when reviewing the legislation. I have mentioned it already to senior officials in the Department. I have not checked the detail but the officials can check them, and once the Minister is fully aware of it, I would like it to be dealt with because I would not like a loophole in the legislation.

I presume the planning process we are talking about will cover all services necessary for the provision of the development, for example, water, sewerage, electricity and communications by the local authority. I understand from discussions with Fingal County Council to date that the council has established the size of the pipes needed to service the prison, which will be laid on public roadways. I understand they will not have to cross many private lands but Fingal County Council has indicated that for the overall development of the area, it would wish larger pipes and a larger infrastructure to be installed at this stage to encompass the specific services to the prison and other services in the area.

It is important to ensure other services required by the local authority but not strictly necessary for this development are not caught up in a planning dispute. It is also important to avoid a situation where one is unable to make the case that some of the water pipes to the prison, while not necessary for the provision of the prison services, are being provided for the upgrade of water facilities in the region. It may be necessary to lay a separate dedicated pipe specifically to serve the prison rather than have it incorporated in the local authority's piping network because I do not know how it will be separated otherwise.

If this project is to be done under a public private partnership, as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts I ask that everything outside the perimeter of the site be excluded from the PPP contract because there are risks attached to that when dealing with a public road. The PPP people will have a vested interest and financial rights over the prison for the number of years it is leased out. The private company or international bank that finances this should not have any rights over the services in the Fingal area or north Dublin region in terms of water and sewerage or the provision of those services generally in the area. I ask that a separate contract, as is the case in the normal tendering process, be agreed to deal with services outside the site.

We had a PPP process in Portlaoise recently for schools and the Department of Education and Science rightly said that the contractors who tendered were only responsible for matters within the boundary of the site and any other services required would be provided by the Department and the local authority in the normal manner. I ask that to be done in this case as well.

I welcome the establishment of the office of the inspector of prisons but that should not undermine the excellent work being carried out by the excellent visiting committees in all prisons. Most of the members of those committees are close to the prisons. They have a good understanding, background and competence and have increased their experience. The visiting committees do much work and I would like to see the inspector's reports being made available for discussion in a proper manner by the visiting committees. I am aware these reports will be provided to the Minister who will be required to lay them before the Dáil.

See this speech in context