Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 133: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report for 2005 published on 27 September 2006 which concluded in respect of the purchase of the site at Thornton Hall by his Department that there were inconsistencies between the site selection committee's evaluations of various sites, that neither comprehensive site surveys nor comprehensive costings on the work that would be necessary to make the site suitable for a prison were conducted prior to the purchase offer being made; that well-positioned agricultural land with development potential could have been purchased for a fraction of the price; that the value of obtaining enlarged acreage was questionable; and that had a compulsory purchase order been used instead it would have allowed the State to purchase a site for a lesser amount. [30791/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of the acquisition of a prison site at Thornton Hall was included in the 2005 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General at the request of the Committee of Public Accounts and will be examined by it in October. The relevant officials from my Department will be present to account in detail to the Committee of Public Accounts on all the issues raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The Committee of Public Accounts is the proper forum to address these matters and I am reluctant to show any lack of respect to that committee by trying to anticipate or pre-empt its examination. However, I have to note that the Comptroller and Auditor General does not state that too much was paid for Thornton Hall. Rather, to quote his main conclusion, he states that "a well-managed, third party approach might have allowed the Prison Service to procure suitable land at a much lower price than was paid for the land at Thornton".

Let us be clear that in this context a "third party approach" means that a site would be acquired in secret. No one would be told that the State was involved or that land was being sought for the most significant penal development in the history of the State. There would have been no public advertisement, no information given in Dáil answers and a very restricted assessment process.

The Accounting Officer of my Department has already gone on record stating that in the light of the nature of this particular project and to ensure proper accountability, a deliberate and principled decision was taken not to use a third party, furtive, acquire by stealth approach. The strategic, moral and practical reasons for that decision are outlined in the report and have not been contradicted by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

While there is a passing reference to compulsory purchase order mechanisms in the report, the Comptroller and Auditor General is aware that there is no provision for the acquisition of a prison site like Thornton Hall by compulsory purchase order. I do not have the power to look at a map, say that site would suit and go to the present occupant of it and ask him or her to hand over his or her property to me.

The report does state that there are some "apparent" inconsistencies in the evaluations of the site. That issue and issues relating to surveys, costing and site size will be fully addressed by the relevant officials at the Committee of Public Accounts. However, I can say at this point that my Department's Accounting Officer is satisfied that it would not have been possible to obtain a site as suitable as Thornton Hall for any less than was paid. The information available to me is that no site of comparable quality and suitability closer to Dublin has changed hands in recent times for less per acre than was paid for the Thornton Hall site.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reject the suggestions that this was a dodgy deal and stinks in any way and that the committee, comprising senior public servants, acted improperly. It is unworthy to suggest that about them without knowing any of the basic facts.

This acquisition will be fully investigated by the Committee of Public Accounts. The Accounting Officer and Secretary General of my Department, the director general of the Prison Service and the Commissioner of Public Works, who was involved in the acquisition, will fully defend their actions and will not be found to have been wanting. At one stage, the valuers who advised the Comptroller and Auditor General in his study came up with a comparator of agricultural land, but there was a "minor" problem in that it was located in Ardee, County Louth. This was one of the comparators used in their analysis of the situation.

I stand by the material that I have put into the public domain and the integrity of the officials who purchased the property. If I had gone to auctions, pretended not to be the State purchasing land for a prison and operated by stealth, Deputies would have been the first to ask why I did not advertise for suitable spaces or ask the landowners of north County Dublin whether there were more suitable places than the land bought.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to a number of other properties considered by the committee, but he should know that some of them which were further from Dublin and had been zoned as agricultural have sold for more than €200,000 per acre. The closest adjacent property considered by the committee, which was adjacent to the motorway, would only have been available at a significantly higher price.

If anyone can point to a parcel of 150 acres that distance from O'Connell Street which has changed hands for less than €200,000 per acre in recent years, please do so. No one has come up with such an example.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A farm of 236 acres went at auction in March of last year.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is further from Dublin.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Snodaigh can ask a brief supplementary question.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister aware that his document quotes prices per acre of €50,000, €70,000 and €175,000, all of which were considered and all but one of which are within the distance stated?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the Minister's document. He should examine a map.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not within the distance.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At one point on the map is the property considered for €50,000. This is the Minister's propaganda, but it is a pity he does not read it.

Seán Power (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had a €26 million budget.