Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The message of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights states the committee has completed its consideration of this matter. I am bound to say this is a parliamentary device designed not to mislead the House but to reassure it that a large number of committee members were gathered in silent scrutiny of this proposal for a very long period. However, that is not what happened at all. The truth is that it cannot be said the committee had completed its consideration because it was really only getting to the heart of the important issues when its work had to be abridged and a report made to the House, purely because, for some reason I still do not understand, the use of the guillotine is promised in the House at 10 p.m. Although this project has been hanging around for a long time, members only received some information in this regard in the middle of May. Due to the legislative load on the committee and the Lisbon treaty referendum, the committee has not had an adequate opportunity to consider the issues involved in the biggest prison building programme since the foundation of the State. It is important to indicate that it has not had the time necessary to do justice to a project such as this.

The unusual provisions of the Prisons Act effectively require the Houses to function as the planning authority; otherwise it constitutes exempt development. While there has been much criticism of those elected brethren of members who function in planning authorities, were they to function as committee members have in this case, they would be charged with being in dereliction of their duty. Members did not have time to hear from those who have an input to make into this project in the fashion they would have liked. People were ready to make considered statements to the committee and its members were not in a position to accommodate them. The committee was obliged to shorten the time available to those it did hear and it is fair to state they raised points that appeared to be at direct variance with assurances the Minister had given to Members.

The committee did not, for example, have the opportunity to hear from any established criminologist and did not hear any academic submission in this regard. Although major statements of policy are predicated on this major building programme, the committee was unable to hear from them. It had inadequate time to examine the compatibility of what was planned with modern thinking on penal reform. The committee did not have adequate time to tease through the considered submissions received from residents' associations and people on whose lives this prison project would have a direct impact.

Moreover, the committee did not have adequate time to assess the implications of the great expenditure for prison provision. For example, does it mean that members are acquiescing in the inevitability that the prison population will continue to grow and that they merely are providing for better facilities in which to bang them up? Many would have liked members to tease through this issue. I accept the Minister has moderated his language in his latest contribution in the House. The remarks he made at the committee were intolerant of the submissions made by those whom he described as purporting to care for prisoners. His statement in the Chamber was a softer version and I welcome some of his comments. However, on a project as big as this one, the level of scrutiny remains inadequate.

I accept that to protect citizens and enforce the rule of law, some must be detained in prison for their safety and that of society. This is inevitable. I also accept that Mountjoy Prison is unsuitable and that the Victorian conditions applicable there are not good enough in the 21st century. However, I am not satisfied that Members have had an opportunity to discuss what non-custodial measures are available in our approach to prison provision and those who should be in prison. I am not satisfied that members have had sufficient time to consider whether there are people in prison who should not be there in the first place. I am not satisfied that they have had time to consider whether there are pathways for the reintegration into society of those who come out of prison. I am not satisfied that the prisons are functioning. They seem to be a kind of giant FÁS scheme for the training of more professional criminals.

I am worried that the massive public expenditure on the provision of prison places will be at the expense of other matters. For example, will the budget for the probation and welfare service be affected as a result of such massive expenditure? I am at a complete loss to understand the mindset that stated there was an obligation to conceive this project and purchase the site in secrecy. I made some remarks in this regard on a previous occasion and do not wish to return to the issue. However, it is remarkable that members found themselves with a fait accompli regarding the purchase of a site at what would be considered a remote location and at a cost that, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General, was twice the market value in the area. Moreover, the cost was much more than twice the market value, according to experts in the land business and some of those familiar with the area. Nevertheless, apparently, the belief is that because this is a prison and because that is the nature of the business to be done, one could not let the public know.

It is more important that it was considered necessary to shut out the advocates of reform when furthering the proposal. I cannot discern the reason the only people who are allowed to make an input are those who are on the inside. I refer to advocates of reform, however much of a pain in the backside they might be regarded by some in the Prison Service who have an unpleasant job to do and no doubt do so to the best of their ability. Why do these pains in the neck not receive a platform to make their input into the configuration of the new prison? I refer to the design of cells, the nature of the activities for rehabilitation and education and training and similar issues. Why must it be the conception of insiders only? Why can those well known advocates of reform who interface with the prison population, have devoted much of their lives to working with prisoners and know about prisons not be heard?

Speaking of experts, I would like to hear from the Green Party as its members were experts. While I do not suggest the Prison Service or the Minister would regard them to be part of the pain in the neck category to which I referred, they are experts. The new leader ridiculed the idea and thought the former Minister, Mr. McDowell, was not the kind of fellow one could let out alone to buy a piece of land. He has waxed eloquent in this regard. The former leader, Deputy Sargent, pledged to oppose it in the House. He met the affected residents and told them he would oppose it in the House. In fairness to democracy, the opportunity ought to be afforded to him tonight to express such opposition so as to be able to keep faith with the residents to whom he gave that undertaking.

The experts — the people at the coalface who interface with prisoners — are unhappy about the direction that has been taken. The residents in the area are unhappy about the manner in which their fears have been taken into account. The voluntary organisations which provide many of the services such as counselling, rehabilitation programmes and so on are unhappy about the implications of the decision for their continued involvement. For example, people involved with the Dóchas project are unhappy and do not know why it has to be relocated out of the city to Kilsallaghan, with all of the implications for them.

We met the residents, although we were not able to give them adequate time. They have made voluminous considered submissions to us about things like water, sewerage, light intrusion, the height and width of the wall and so on. We were not able to probe these submissions because we did not have the time. The Minister has not responded to that. In fairness, he could not have done so with the time available to him. I would like him to confirm that he is willing to meet representatives of the residents to deal with some of the issues that concern them.

Speaking of secrecy, I would also like to hear him discuss the state of Government policy on the Central Mental Hospital. Until now we have proceeded in this debate on the basis that it involves a different Department, whereas people working with the Central Mental Hospital are absolutely persuaded that the Government has resolved that because it is stuck with 150 acres — the former Minister, Michael McDowell, was only asked to buy 80 acres, but he came back with 150 — it must find a use for that land. It seems clear that phase two will be the relocation of the Central Mental Hospital. It is not good enough for the current Minister to state we will have to put down a parliamentary question to the relevant Minister of State. He will not tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to relocate the Central Mental Hospital. It is like asking the Minister questions about the preferred bidder, as we did at the joint committee. The Minister has always been very touchy about this, and one would not need to mention anything about a developer to him. I do not question the fact he would never say hello to a developer. He stated that if I wanted to find that out——

See this speech in context