Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

The draft resolution to approve the development of a prison in the district electoral division of Kilsallaghan is an important step in the delivery of real and substantive improvements in our prison system. Mountjoy Prison, a Victorian prison built in 1850 for short-term convicts awaiting transportation to Tasmania, has to go. The accommodation provided at Mountjoy Prison is substandard — there is no in-cell sanitation and it is overcrowded. The constrained size of the site restricts the development of proper prison programmes.

A number of Deputies have drawn attention to the problems facing the prison system. We are addressing those problems. The construction of a new prison development at Thornton Hall is part of the solution and will be a major help in this regard. It will lead to the end of "slopping out" at Mountjoy Prison. It will replace the current substandard and overcrowded accommodation. It will provide state-of-the-art prison accommodation and facilities for education, training and rehabilitation. It is designed to gain the maximum rehabilitative benefit from having a collection of small institutions while maximising the operational benefits associated with larger prisons by having a single perimeter wall and a central stores and maintenance service. New prisoners will be assessed when they are committed to the prison. The risk they pose and the most appropriate regime to manage their future integration into society will be determined. The most dangerous and violent prisoners will be assigned to high security facilities. Those who pose less risk will benefit from a lower security regime. As they progress, they can move to step-down facilities in a domestic-type setting. The capacity of the new development will allow ringleaders and rival gang members to be easily segregated from one another, lowering the potential for inter-prisoner violence. The physical lay-out of the prison will ensure a much safer and more secure environment than exists in Mountjoy. Given its structure, there are difficulties in introducing mobile phone blocking in Mountjoy. Furthermore the location of Mountjoy in the middle of an urban setting and on a crowded site makes it difficult to stop illicit materials entering the prison.

Access to the new prison development will be through a dedicated road running from the old N2 main road. Extensive car parking and visitor facilities and a dedicated bus service will be provided. As I mentioned, there are a range of different facilities provided. Separate from the male adult prison and from one another will be a female facility and a dual purpose block reserved initially and on a contingency basis for 16 and 17 year old males. Along with a central administration centre and stores there will be work training facilities, a library, health care, a gym and playing fields.

In the 1990s, owing to pressure of numbers, the so-called revolving door mechanism was introduced with many prisoners being given temporary release simply to make room for new committals. By 1996, 20% of the prison population were out on temporary release. I am proud to say that as a result of action taken by Governments of which I have been a member this figure is down to a reasonable 6%. If Thornton Hall is not built, there is a possibility that once again there will be severe pressure on our prison capacity.

The capacity of Thornton is based on the outcome of a study on projected prisoner numbers for the period up to 2015. While the projections envisage an increase in numbers, they project that our prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants will reduce as our overall population increases faster than our prison population. The development is designed to cater for 1,400 prisoners in single cell occupancy. However, we must allow for the unforeseen. Mountjoy Prison has been in use for more than 150 years.

The cells in the new development are designed to be large enough for double occupancy and the services are designed to cope with up to 2,200 prisoners without any major structural change. For the purpose of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, it was necessary to take the most extreme scenario and hence the EIA cites a figure of 2,200 prisoners although, as I stated, the intention for the foreseeable future is to operate the prison with no more than 1,400 prisoners.

Obviously, today the focus is on prisons but let us be clear the new development at Thornton is not intended to be a signal that prison is viewed as the only, or even the most desirable, sanction to be imposed in respect of criminal behaviour. It is the courts that ultimately decide on the numbers of people committed to prison. The Executive has no direct say in the matter and the Irish Prison Service must accept and implement the decisions of the courts. The vast majority of persons convicted of criminal offences do not receive a custodial sentence. As I stated at the committee meeting earlier today, approximately 10% of persons convicted receive custodial sentences.

The courts make liberal use of alternative sanctions to custody. These include fines, probation, compensation orders, supervision orders and community service orders. When one compares the prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants, Ireland has one of the lowest rates in Europe and just half that of England and Wales. The Government's commitment to non-custodial sanctions is evidenced by a 30% increase in the size of the probation service, the establishment of the National Commission on Restorative Justice and the review of the community service scheme and by the bringing forward of legislative proposals on fines.

Turning to the amendment proposed by Fine Gael, I recognise that a constructive effort has been made to raise important issues about our prison system. While I will be opposing the amendment, that does not mean I disagree with the intent behind some or all of the particular proposals. I do not believe it is appropriate to try to tie down the management of a prison by means of what are in effect "planning conditions".

As far as the specific points raised in the amendment are concerned I agree there is an urgent need to improve the quality of certain prison accommodation. Indeed, this is the reason the Government is pushing for the prison development to proceed. I agree the Irish Prison Service has achieved major successes with the Dóchas centre. It is a fine building and it is unfortunate we will have obtained less than 15 years use from it when it is eventually closed. Women make up a very small proportion of the total prison population, less than 4%. While I do not anticipate any sudden upsurge in this regard, I again point out that it is the courts and not the Prison Service that decide who goes to prison. Furthermore, approximately 60% of women offenders committed to prison are so sentenced for crimes involving violence or drugs and, for this reason, a prison is needed.

The Dóchas centre is already the most overcrowded prison in the State. On 1 May prisoner numbers exceeded bed capacity by 30% — women prisoners deserve better than this. As I stated at the committee meeting, the Dóchas centre sticks out as a sore thumb in regard to bed occupancy. We need more space and it does not make operational or financial sense to have two women prisons in Dublin. The design at Thornton Hall takes full advantage of the best lessons we have learned from the Dóchas centre and applies them on a larger but still moderate scale. It will provide single occupancy domestic style accommodation based around courtyards. It will also include three separate sections which will ensure that, for example, women on remand remain separate from sentenced prisoners. I also point out that at Thornton, women prisoners will be completely segregated from male prisoners and will be further away from them than they are at present in the Mountjoy complex. The Irish Prison Service is committed to facilitating visits by family and children to both male and female prisoners.

Currently, 16 and 17 year old male prisoners are held in St. Patrick's Institution which is part of the Mountjoy complex. Conditions there are not good. The Government is committed to ensuring that persons under the age of 18 are not detained in the same institution as adult prisoners. In March of this year the Government approved plans to develop new facilities at Oberstown, Lusk, County Dublin to provide detention facilities for 16 and 17 year olds. It is a much smaller project than Thornton and the aim is to have these new facilities built and in operation before Mountjoy Prison and St. Patrick's Institution are closed. However, planning is at a much earlier stage than Thornton and it is not possible to guarantee how the timing will work out in practice.

The Government has a choice if the new facilities at Oberstown are not ready on time. We can leave 16 and 17 year old prisoners in dilapidated and poorly serviced accommodation in St. Patrick's Institution or we can as a contingency measure move them to new purpose built accommodation in Thornton where they will be completely isolated from any adult prisoners in a manner which complies with our international obligations.

There are no plans to use Thornton to systematically detain asylum seekers. Under the Refugee Act, asylum seekers may be detained in very specific circumstances, for example if a notorious war criminal seeks asylum, while their claim is being processed. Furthermore, asylum seekers are not exempt from the criminal law and as with any individual they may be imprisoned if they commit an offence while in this jurisdiction. The most common situation where a person may be detained for immigration reasons is the case of persons refused permission to enter the State or pending deportation. There is a strict limit on the period for which they may be detained. Currently, such persons are detained in a prison, normally Cloverhill, along with other prisoners. The facilities at Thornton will be such that people detained for immigration control reasons will be accommodated completely separately from remand or sentenced prisoners in line with best international practice.

I can assure Members that in no circumstances can I contemplate any facility within the proposed development being an approved centre under the Mental Health Act 2001. The proposal regarding the possible siting of the Central Mental Hospital, a designated centre under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, falls outside the scope of the Prisons Act 2007 and nothing in this resolution can affect that proposal one way or the other. There is agreement on all sides that the existing Central Mental Hospital needs to be replaced. I understand a project team established by the Department of Health recommended in 2004 that the Central Mental Hospital be relocated to a new site with ready access to the M50 motorway. The Thornton site meets the specified criteria. It is immediately available at no extra cost to the Exchequer and would free considerable sums of money from Dundrum for investment in the new Central Mental Hospital and other capital developments for mental health services. It is for this reason the Government directed that 20 acres with its own entrance be set aside as a possible site for the relocated Central Mental Hospital. I use the term "possible site" because the project has to go through a number of hurdles, including a cost benefit analysis, before a final decision is made.

Maintaining links with family and friends can be important for maintaining and rehabilitating prisoners. For this reason visits and phone calls are facilitated. Local management needs discretion to reconcile visiting with other needs, and arrangements vary. In closed prisons visiting sessions are normally in the morning and afternoon on six days of the week. In the training centre and open institutions, however, visits are often centred on Saturday and Sunday to avoid clashes with work and training commitments. For these reasons I do not think it appropriate to impose specific requirements about visiting hours as part of a development consent condition.

I agree entirely that visitors dependent on public transport should have available to them a low cost transport service that ties in with visiting hours at the new prison. However, I would not be willing to designate specific transport hubs at this stage. We must consult with the people concerned and find out what their needs are before making this kind of decision.

The first priority for any prison service is to provide a safe, secure and humane custody. I can confirm that our prison policy is and will continue to be informed by a rehabilitative agenda including education, training, psychological assistance and drug treatment. The development at Thornton will enhance our ability to implement these policies.

The Irish Prison Service is committed to developing and rolling out a fully coordinated integrated sentence management system based on risk assessment and rehabilitative needs. Education and literacy, in particular, will continue to be a priority.

The Irish Prison Service drugs policy and strategy provides for a comprehensive range of treatment options. As I mentioned at the outset, we are dealing with approval of a major prison under the special procedure under the Prisons Act 2007. This is a more open, transparent and democratic procedure than the normal planning procedure for prison development. The rapporteur received 130 submissions and his report identifies the main points raised in the submissions. All the relevant documents have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Great care has been taken to ensure all the correct procedures have been followed and that due regard has been had to the environmental impact assessment, EIA, and to the results of the public consultation. Although the prison system is an essential part of our social and rehabilitation structures the siting of a new prison is seldom welcomed by local residents. Alterations were made to address the concerns expressed by those who made submissions where appropriate. After consideration and the review of expert advice, it was decided the alterations were not material in the sense envisaged by section 24 of the Prisons Act 2007. The development conditions regarding the resolution are partly in response to the submissions made to the rapporteur. I will not go into the details of that but it is safe to say we have endeavoured to meet as many as possible of the submissions people made.

We will provide vastly improved facilities in existing small-scale institutions but with the better services and economies of scale associated with larger prisons. The development at Thornton will not be a magic bullet but it will radically improve our prisons.

The resolution to approve this is worthy of support from all sides of the House.

See this speech in context