Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The confirmation Bill to confirm the resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas is a requirement of section 26 of the Prisons Act 2007. This Act provides that where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decides to proceed with the construction of a prison using the consent development process provided for in the 2007 Act, a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas approving that proposal is required. To proceed with the development, an Act of the Oireachtas confirming those resolutions is also required. This Act provides that confirmation and is the final stage in the process.

Deputies will be aware that the resolutions providing for the development of the prison were passed in the Dáil on 17 June and in the Seanad on 18 June. The resolution was debated in detail in Committee in both Houses before being passed by both Houses. These resolutions contain all the detail and were discussed in this House on 27 May and 17 June. They were also discussed in detail by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on 4 and 17 June.

The Bill is straightforward and contains only two sections. Section (1) confirms the dates that the resolutions were passed by the Dáil and Seanad. Section (2) provides the Short Title to the Act.

Turning to the development, the construction of this new prison is an essential development if we are to deliver real and substantive improvements in our prison system. Mountjoy Prison must be replaced. It is a Victorian prison built in 1850 for short-term convicts awaiting transportation to Tasmania. In simple terms, the accommodation is substandard; there is no in-cell sanitation. It is overcrowded and the constrained size of the site restricts the development of prisoner programmes.

A number of Deputies have drawn attention to particular problems facing the prison system. The building of a new prison development at Thornton Hall is an essential part of the solution. It will do away with slopping out in Mountjoy, substandard accommodation and overcrowding, and provide state of the art prison accommodation and facilities for education, training and rehabilitation. The design of the new prison will gain the maximum rehabilitative benefit from having a collection of small institutions but it will also maximise the operational benefits associated with having one perimeter wall and one central stores and maintenance service.

Each new prisoner will be assessed on their committal, to determine what risk they pose and what is the most appropriate regime to manage their future integration into society. The most dangerous and violent prisoners will be assigned to the high security facilities, while those who pose less risk will benefit from a lower security regime. As they progress, prisoners will move on to step down facilities in a more appropriate prison regime. The capacity of the new development will allow ringleaders and rival gang members to be easily segregated from one another. This is essential to lower the potential for inter prisoner violence.

The physical lay out of the prison also means we can provide a much safer and more secure environment than exists in Mountjoy. Because of 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 more 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 will be provided. A dedicated bus service will also be provided.

A range of different facilities will be provided. Separated from the male adult prison and from one another, there will be a female facility and a dual purpose block that is reserved on a contingency basis for 16 and 17 year old males. As well as a central administration centre and stores there will be work training facilities and a library, health care facilities, a gym and playing fields.

In the 1990s because of 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. In 1996, 20% of the prison population were out on temporary release. I am proud to say that this and previous Governments of which I have been a member took action and today this figure is down to a more reasonable 6%. If Thornton is not built, our prison system will simply not have the capacity to deal with future needs.

The capacity of Thornton is based on projected prisoner numbers for the period up to 2015. Even though the projections envisage an increase in numbers, they predict our prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants will reduce as our overall population increases faster than our prison population.

The development is designed for 1,400 prisoners in single cell occupancy. However, we must allow for the unforeseen and, after all, Mountjoy Prison has remained in use for more than 150 years. Therefore, 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 an environmental impact assessment it was necessary to take the most extreme scenario and, hence, the EIA cites a figure of 2,200 prisoners. However, I again emphasise that the intention for the foreseeable future is to operate the prison with no more than 1,400 prisoners.

I want to state clearly that 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 which ultimately decide on the numbers 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. The courts make liberal use of alternative sanctions to custody. These include fines, probation, compensation orders, supervision orders and community service orders. As a result, when one compares the prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants, Ireland has one of the lowest rates in Europe and only 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, a review of the community service scheme and the bringing forward of legislative proposals on fines.

The misleading impression is frequently given that our prisons are full of people imprisoned for non-payment of fines. It is simply not true. For example, on 23 May this year, out of over 3,500 prisoners only seven people were in prison solely for the non-payment of fines. We need to recognise that the numbers are so small they do not have any real effect on the overall prison population.

Similarly, it is simply not true to say that if we build more prison spaces, they will be automatically filled. When one examines the rate of committals to prison since the foundation of the State , one will see that there is no link between increases and decreases in committals and prison spaces. The rate of committals to prison is determined by the courts and they make their decisions without regard to prison capacity.

Specific concerns have been raised about the Dóchas Centre. It is a comparatively recent building and very well designed. Its success is proof of what the Irish Prison Service can achieve in a modern purpose built prison setting. However, we must recognise that since its opening in 1999 there has been a serious issue with overcrowding there. It has reached the stage that it is the most overcrowded prison in the State. On 1 May prisoner numbers exceeded bed capacity by 30%. That is not sustainable. It would be neither operationally nor economically effective to maintain the Dóchas Centre in Mountjoy and provide for a second women's prison at Thornton. The design of Thornton takes full advantage of all the best lessons we have learnt from the Dóchas Centre and applies them on a larger but still moderate scale. It will have single occupancy domestic style accommodation based around courtyards. It will comprise three separate sections so that women on remand will be kept separate from sentenced prisoners. I also point out that at Thornton women prisoners will be further away from male prisoners than they are at present in the Mountjoy complex and will be completely segregated from male prisoners. Women constitute a very small proportion of our total prisoner population, less than 4%, and I do not envisage any significant rise in that percentage.

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. At present, 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 separate from remand or sentenced prisoners in line with best international practice.

At present 16 and 17 year old male prisoners are held in St. Patrick's Institution, which is part of the Mountjoy complex. Like Mountjoy, this facility has outlived its useful life. The Government is committed to ensuring that persons under the age of 18 are not kept in the same institution as adult prisoners.

In March of this year the Government approved plans to develop facilities at Oberstown, Lusk, County Dublin to provide detention facilities for 16 and 17 year olds. If the new facilities at Oberstown are not ready in time, rather than leaving 16 and 17 year old prisoners in dilapidated and poorly serviced accommodation in St. Patrick's Institution, we will, as a contingency measure, move them temporarily to brand new purpose built accommodation at Thornton. They will be completely isolated from adult prisoners in a manner which complies with our international obligations.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are dealing with the approval of a major prison development under special procedures set out in the Prisons Act 2007. This is, in many respects, a more open, transparent and democratic procedure than the normal planning procedure for prison development. Before the 2007 Act, all prison developments were governed by Part 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 under which the Minister is the deciding authority. The new procedure introduced by the 2007 Act includes the requirement for an environmental impact assessment and public consultation. The new procedure also vests final approval with the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The rapporteur received 130 submissions and his report identifies the main points raised in those submissions. All the relevant documentation has 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 and to the results of the public consultation, particularly as set out in the report of the rapporteur.

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, where appropriate, to address the concerns expressed by those who made submissions. After consideration and the review of expert advice, it was decided that the alterations were not material in the sense envisaged by section 24 of the Prisons Act 2007. The changes had little effect on the overall development but are of significant benefit to local residents.

The development conditions included in the resolution are partly in response to the submissions made to the rapporteur. They include prioritisation of the construction of the access road; prioritisation of the construction of those sections of the boundary wall near local residents to minimise the impact of construction work; restriction on the use of the R130; creation of a construction environmental plan for the development; use of visually treated concrete in the wall to make it less obtrusive; erection of timber fences, 3 m in height, around the car parks on the west of the site; redesign and adjustment of the car parks and a reduction in light fixtures therein; widening of planting areas; increased planting of larger and mature trees; and relocation of the wall further back by up to 10 m along portions of the exterior. These development conditions represent a balanced and considered response to the issues raised during the public consultation process and reported by the rapporteur.

The Thornton Hall development allows us to provide vastly improved facilities in small-scale institutions but with the better services and economies of scale associated with clustering those institutions on one site. The development at Thornton Hall will radically improve our prisons by doing away with prison overcrowding and substandard accommodation and significantly increasing prisoner safety. This development will make society safer.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity this legislation affords to revisit the specific matter of the Thornton Hall development and the general issue of prison policy. However, the introduction of the legislation at this time, only a week after we debated the resolution in committee and put several questions to the Minister on matters of concern to the Opposition, shows up the defects in our parliamentary system. In the intervening period between the passing of the resolution and the introduction of the legislation, we hoped the Minister might be in a position to report progress in dealing with the issues raised at meetings of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights by local interested parties and groups concerned with prison policy.

Instead, we are proceeding once again on the basis of Dáil numbers rather than with a view to meeting those concerns. It is regrettable that the Minister's approach has been characterised by intransigence and a refusal to engage meaningfully with the many stakeholders and concerned parties which have made representations at committee meetings and by way of submissions. In recent weeks, for example, the committee has heard the views of the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the Rolestown and St. Margaret's Action Group. Events and briefings have been organised by bodies such as the Irish Mental Health Coalition highlighting the flaws and dangers inherent in the Government's approach. Only yesterday, Professor Ian O'Donnell, respected director of UCD's institute of criminology, criticised the Government for the lack of knowledge and informed debate that is driving its policy on super-prisons such as Thornton Hall. He observed that the Government is clinging to the Thornton Hall project "despite substantial reservations about the scale, location and composition of the proposed cluster of institutions."

Despite the chorus of concern from experts in the areas of penal policy and mental health policy, the Minister refuses to budge from his entrenched position. He has not budged since we first had an opportunity to debate the motion in plenary session of this House before it went to committee. Aside from his party colleagues, the Minister would have trouble finding anyone to agree with a prison scheme that proposes to detain asylum seekers in contravention of international best practice and to take women prisoners from Dóchas, which is considered the only functional prison in the State and for which there has been a capital spend of more than €33 million, and relocate them to a super-prison. I am sure the Minister has few supporters outside his party for his proposal to remove the mentally ill from the existing special facility in Dundrum and to house them on the same campus as serious criminals. He will find little support for his proposal to incarcerate minors in a prison complex designed for adults, which is a breach of international law. I recently heard him reiterate his intention to construct the proposed buildings at Lusk. However, in these times of changed finances, the Minister saw fit to tell us there was not a red cent for a capital project in the HSE north-eastern area. Can he assure us that the necessary funding is secured and ring-fenced for the youth offenders project at Lusk? If he cannot, we are facing a considerable breach of international law and considered best practice.

However, despite the reservations raised, the Minister proceeds to steamroll this legislation through. Despite the absence of support from outside the Fianna Fáil Party, he insists on ploughing on. The Green Party's view is on record, as are the comments of some Fianna Fáil backbenchers. We know what Deputy Finian McGrath, who enjoys favoured status with Fianna Fáil, thinks of this issue. The Minister's combative approach is not the way to deliver good policies or good law. It is a pity he has not adopted a more open-minded and consensus driven approach. That would have resulted in a more acceptable proposal than the one before the House today.

The manner in which successive Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have handled issues of prison policy in the past decade does not inspire confidence. This country has been embarrassed on more than one occasion when respected international monitors such as the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture have examined our prisons and found them to be dangerous and Dickensian. Next month, the United Nations will examine the State's progress in implementing an international covenant on civil and political rights. The findings are unlikely to reflect positively on Fianna Fáil's prison policies in the past decade. Just this week the failure of the Government's much vaunted "drug-free prison" policy was highlighted in a report published yesterday. According to the drug policy action group, Government policy in respect of drugs in prisons has been an abject failure. In fact, since this policy was introduced there has been an increase in drug abuse in prisons combined with a significant rise in drug-related violence and intimidation.

I recall, as I am sure all Members will, the statements of former Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, and the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, that the eradication of drugs within the prison regime was a priority of Government. In February last, The Irish Times reported that prisoners had tested positive for drugs 40,000 times over the past three years and detection rates were as high as 75% in some of our prisons.

In its most recent annual report, the prison chaplains state: "The misuse of drugs continues to be a major problem in most of our prisons. Many people will in fact have been introduced to drugs initially while they were in prison." It is a shocking indictment of our prison system that people who enter without a drug problem can actually acquire one and be dependent on drugs by the time they are released into the community.

The prison chaplains further point to the fact that drug offences are actually the reason many are incarcerated in the first place. What the Minister is proceeding with today, as he was proceeding with last week in the committee, is the bricks and mortar solution of building bigger prisons and providing more spaces. It is all concrete and bricks and mortar and nothing in terms of a change in policy from within and the manner in which those who are sentenced to terms of imprisonment are treated.

The limited and ad hoc availability of drug treatment programmes within prisons is a national disgrace. At present, only nine prisoners at a time can avail of a special six-week addiction treatment programme in Mountjoy. Prisoners seeking drug-free landings to help combat their addictions are denied the facility. It cannot be provided. Has the Minister indicated that in the new super prison the regime will be any different? What increase in services will be provided in the new super prison? What increased resources will be committed to ensure there will be education, training, rehabilitation, medical facilities and drugs detox? What is lacking is an enlightened approach.

A realistic and enlightened approach to dealing with the drug problem would have been an increase in security measures and rehabilitation places, but instead we have a few empty gestures in terms of security and drug rehabilitation places which are in a disgracefully short supply. The rates for habitual criminals are shocking as the Minister's officials will inform him. I hope they are the same officials who were spinning last week about legislation borrowed from other jurisdictions. I doubt if those people, respected senior officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, were spinning political lines on the Minister's behalf. We will return to that issue before the night is out.

Half of all prisoners re-offend within four years of release, while 27% are back in prison within one year of release. In effect, the taxpayer is footing a bill of just under €100,000 per prisoner per annum to maintain the current system and the Minister's response is bricks and mortar. Our current prisons are in breach of international human rights standards with particular reference to violence and over-crowding. Figures published last year indicate that more than 700 prisoners were under protective custody for their own safety in prisons out of a total prison population of less than 3,500. Yet, while the Minister is proceeding with the new Thornton Hall development, there is no indication that any of these issues will be addressed.

Mr. Justice Kinlen's report has been referred to here time and again. There has been no response on the part of the Government to his stated view that the prison system is dysfunctional and lacking in appropriate psychiatric, educational and rehabilitation services. The penal system over which the Minister is presiding is a total failure. That is not according to me but to national and international monitors, yet we are expected to trust the Minister's approach to Thornton Hall, with which few agree and one that is less than inspiring.

I cannot accept that we will build Thornton Hall to turn it into a super-sized crime academy where prisoners are locked away with no effort made to persuade them away from a life of crime. Thornton Hall must be part of a new approach to prisoners, characterised by a major focus on rehabilitating serious criminals. The new prison must not become a place where the current trends will continue but in a rural setting and behind the mature trees, of which the Minister speaks.

It is regretted that the Minister has, once again, failed to deal with the local concerns. He mentioned the Farrelly report, which we read having been furnished with a copy by the Department. The Farrelly report is merely a list of complaints; it does not offer any recommendations or solutions. It merely lists what we already know, that is, the submissions. To say that Mr. Farrelly acted objectively in all of this may have been the case, but his terms of reference were so narrow and deficient that all he did was summarise the observations as received.

The Minister said a small number of people are in prison for non-payment of fines, but the fact is that there are more people in prison for theft and shop-lifting than for violent crimes. While I do not disagree with the figures for civil matters, such as non-payment of fines, there is a serious issue with our prisons being populated by people for shop-lifting and theft and other offences that in the scale of things can be regarded as less than serious.

It is most regrettable that in the new process introduced a few years ago we did not engage in the type of debate that legislation should have facilitated and, perhaps, would have facilitated if there was a will on the part of the Government to engage. Rather than engage, the Minister stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the role of the stakeholders and the comments of the local people. I ask the Minister at this late stage to revise his approach which, in the circumstances, is less than helpful.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Charlie Flanagan referred to the conference of yesterday and today and to the remarks of Professor Ian O'Donnell who highlighted again why experts in penal policy and criminology do not think very much of the course we have taken. I would like to advert to a different speaker at yesterday's conference, a paragraph of whose contribution I wish to put on the record. That is the contribution made by an assistant secretary of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who said:

The first priority of the Department is to keep the existing criminal justice system operating. This is a major logistical exercise in itself involving the management of 20,000 people and €2 billion per year.

Up to 60% of the energy of the headquarters of the Department is spent accounting to Parliament and responding to media inquiries. A crisis often generates a need for an instant policy change. It is only in a very small number of circumstances that the Department has an opportunity to take a considered and measured approach to new policy formulation.

That is one of the most remarkable statements I have ever heard from a senior official of a Department. I do not know whether to thank him for his frankness or whether it is a blatant comment that he is spending too much time responding to Parliament. Taking him and his remarks at face value, it is not often that a senior official of the Department makes such a blunt and frank assessment of the state of the Department in terms of policy. Let me remind the Acting Chairman of what he said. He referred to the huge logistical task of managing 20,000 people. I do not know what he means by that. Is he talking about the prisoners or the staff? He must be talking about the prisoners. He also referred to the spend of €2 billion per year. He indicated that up to 60% of the time of headquarters is spent accounting to Parliament or responding to the media. I am flummoxed. If the Minister cannot organise the Department in such a fashion that it can respond to Parliament and the media without expending 60% of its energy we are in a very serious place. The official went on to say that a crisis often generates an instant change of policy. That sentence also requires more forensic time than we can give it here. He then stated it is only in a very small number of circumstances that the Department has an opportunity to take a considered and measured approach to new policy formulation. What does the Minister have to say about that? It is unprecedented for somebody as senior as an assistant secretary to say it is only in a very small number of circumstances that the Department has the opportunity to reflect on policy formulation. That is exactly what Professor Ian O'Donnell and other critics have been saying; that the Department has not been engaging, that it does not want to engage, and now this man is saying that the Department does not have the time to engage. The Minister has decided on this juggernaut and he is driving it on no matter what obstacles he meets on the road irrespective of what arguments are advanced. He is driving full speed ahead.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The assistant secretary had time to go to the conference.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is good that he went to the conference. I wish there was more of that and that the Minister would take on board some of the conclusions from such conferences.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is little evidence of it in this particular regard. I am reminded of the remark by the late Mr. Justice Kinlen when he said that rather than an Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention what we need is an inspector of the Department. It seems to me that there is probably some merit in what he said.

To return to where we started, namely, the question of the Houses of the Oireachtas being entrusted with approval of the measure, I am concerned about whether the Houses of the Oireachtas have discharged their responsibilities in that regard. The manner in which we structured our affairs did not permit us to engage in the kind of detail that was envisaged. Let us take, for example, the Jimmy Farrelly report. I hope nobody on either side of the House would suggest that we took that report, which was a synthesis of the objections raised, and went through it in any kind of systematic fashion. We did not. When the Minister went to the Seanad he did not allow the overworked Senators to make contributions on it at all and some of them were rearing to go. One House was entirely excluded from commentary on the matter. The motion was merely put to the House. It seems to me that if somebody is so-minded, that probably invites judicial review.

As I indicated on a previous occasion, the Minister then excluded advocates of reform who did not think the same way as the Department. They were shut out. I learned that the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice were invited in today for a presentation on Thornton Hall. That seems to me to be the ultimate in cynicism, that after the decision was made and as we are about to affirm it in this one-paragraph Bill today, we invite in the troublemakers and ask them what they think and tell them what the story is.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were responding to what was said at the committee.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. McDowell bought the land many years ago——

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was raised at the committee.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——and the Minister is responding to what was said.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked my officials to meet with these people in response to what came up at the committee.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If that is what happened it is a very positive step. I am delighted to see the Minister is more responsive than the two people who held the office prior to him. If we are dealing in logic does he not accept in turn that it is hardly a big deal to involve them now that the decision has been made? I am sure they found the presentation very informative but all we are doing today is reaffirming in a one-paragraph Bill the motion that has already been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Depending on where one is coming from, I find that a bit late in the day, if not cynical in the extreme. If it was an initiative of the new Minister then I accept it at face value.

I am less critical than my colleague, Deputy Charlie Flanagan. I should say I would express it differently from him when he said we asked several questions of the Minister but we did not get any answers. That is not quite true. In his speech the Minister sought to deal with some of the issues we raised, for example, Dóchas, the issue of 16 year olds and 17 year olds and asylum seekers among others. Where I agree with Deputy Charlie Flanagan is that the answers are not very meaningful. I should give the Minister credit for the fact that he is new to the job. As the matter has progressed I have been struck by how little the Minister bothered to inform himself about it. It is only as we have gone along that we have extracted answers from him to central issues that we have raised but in fairness to the Minister, he has attempted to answer some of the questions in his speech. I presume the reference in his script to the fact that at present 16 and 17 male prisoners are held in St. Patrick's should read that 16 year old and 17 year old prisoners are held in St. Patrick's. The Minister's answers are not very convincing. We never recommended that Dóchas should be retained at Mountjoy and that there should be a new Dóchas centre in Thornton Hall. Nobody ever argued that point, which is the one addressed in the script. It seems to us that the reason Dóchas is being knocked down is two-fold; one, that the Department bought so much land at Kilsallaghan that the Minister needs to put something on it, and second, that the development potential of the site at Mountjoy would be impacted on if Dóchas was not knocked down.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a shame. If an assistant secretary in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are not noted for their frankness, were to make a statement like the one made by the assistant secretary in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, one can imagine what the IFA response would be. If an assistant secretary in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment made that kind of comment one can imagine what the response of IBEC and the others would be. I take it at face value. It seems to confirm that it is very difficult to engage the senior policy-making people in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with any views that are not born in St. Stephen's Green, which is regrettable.

It would have been very helpful to have had a cost-benefit analysis of this super-prison as compared with a configuration of smaller prisons and an investment in non-custodial alternatives. We have yet to get from the Minister a statement of his philosophy on non-custodial alternatives. The Minister refuses to engage with us on penal policy. He will talk to us about the prison, the access road, how many prisoners we have and all the rest, but he will not engage with us on penal policy. I refer Members to the last paragraph of his script in which he promises to provide "vastly improved facilities in small-scale institutions." I have long marvelled at and complimented the Civil Service on its capacity to master language. We are no longer dealing with a super-prison.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We never said it was a super-prison. It is a prison on a super site.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are dealing with facilities in small-scale institutions. What is in Kilsallaghan now is a combination of small-scale institutions. I would have welcomed engagement with the Minister at an earlier stage of this process to talk more about these small-scale institutions and how they will be configured on the new Kilsallaghan site. However, we did not get that. We have not got a statement from the Minister on his approach to penal reform, philosophy on imprisonment etc., or his contention that building more prison places does not mean that they will automatically be filled. I believe that in 1887 it was decided that there should be one person to one cell. However, by adverting to the fact that we could double up here, the Minister can subsequently say that he has the approval of Parliament for doubling up on the new site in Kilsallaghan if necessary.

I hope we will get the opportunity to raise some other issues I wanted to deal with. We did not mention the difficulties raised by the residents' association, which as recently as today has again sent in a submission listing the areas not addressed as this debate has proceeded from discussion in the joint committee to here. It raised a number of issues about the imperfections of the EIA and of matters it felt were not taken on board. I would like to hear the Minister give a more detailed response to the Rolestown and St. Margaret's Action Group before we conclude this debate.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This prison was originally the brainchild of the predecessor to the Minister's predecessor, when it was announced gloriously some years ago as the centre of excellence in terms of prison accommodation. We have become accustomed to centres of excellence in other contexts in recent times. When one repeats the same mantra again and again, one begins to worry about it. The Minister said in his speech that it would "provide state of the art prison accommodation and facilities for education, training and rehabilitation". That is very laudable, but as Deputy Rabbitte said there was not a great deal of consultation about the matter in the first instance. There is a considerable amount of opposition to the project in its location. There is a major debate as to whether this is the ideal location for a combined prison and mental health facility. I cannot understand how modern thinking could come up with that proposal.

The Minister went on to say: "The design of the new prison will gain the maximum rehabilitative benefit from having a collection of small institutions but it will also maximise the operational benefits associated with having one perimeter wall and one central stores and maintenance service." That is a profound statement. That is the answer we have been awaiting all these years. He continued: "Each new prisoner will be assessed on their committal, to determine what risk they pose and what is the most appropriate regime to manage their future integration into society." I listened to a debate last night arising from another report which appears to indicate the system as it stands is not working and that drugs are rife within our prisons. I do not know why that is happening and why the problem has not been tackled because the Minister's predecessor's predecessor also made much about that subject when he was in this House to the effect that drugs would be completely excluded from prisons.

The Minister mentioned that by comparison with other jurisdictions Ireland has a very low prison population. I am not surprised because many of them are out on bail, in many cases after they have committed serious crimes. Recently I received information on foot of parliamentary questions inquiring into the number of serious crimes committed by people while on bail — perhaps this was what the assistant secretary was concerned about. Many people do not believe that is serious. I believe it is a very serious issue that is fundamental to the protection and safety of our society, yet nobody seems to care. Over a five-year period approximately 97,000 offences were committed by people on bail, which is an extraordinary number. While that may not be the exact number, it is in that region. In those circumstances I am not surprised. Half of those who are awaiting trial and are on bail are outside the system, walking around, committing other crimes and seemingly free to do so. It is extraordinary. I do not know what it does for our prison population. It certainly does not do much for law and order.

The considered opinion seems to be that rather than one big location, having a number of locations is the way to control the prison system to the best of our ability. This would be the reverse of that. Based on the Minister's speech there is very serious disorder within our prisons, where serious criminal gangs attack, intimidate and extort from each other. They are on a continual spree of atonement and attrition within the service. What are they doing there in the first place? If they are free to do all these things, serious questions are to be asked about how effective our prison service is. In addition, it is well known that the really serious criminals are now organising their businesses from within prisons with impunity. There seems to be no break in that whatever. They make international contact and set up contracts with each other on a worldwide basis. This is a very serious matter.

In recent times some commentators have been prone to suggest that Ireland has a very low crime rate in comparison with other countries. We may have a low crime rate — I do not know whether we do — but recent television footage showed a certain part of the country had whole blocks of houses vacated where their occupiers had been burnt out or intimidated. The whole place was left like a scene from a film set in the Second World War. That is an appalling indictment of our society and it is crazy to think that is acceptable. In no part of this country, city or province, or any other province, can we tolerate a situation whereby ordinary families are intimidated out of their homes and have to either leave or indulge in a gang war to compete with those who carry out extortion and intimidation.

The Minister's predecessor's predecessor closed down two prisons, Spike Island and the Curragh. Maybe they are still closed. We are short of space but I recall the Minister at that time saying we had too many prison places and that there was plenty of space for everybody. What has happened in the meantime? Why are our prisons overcrowded? Why is there overcrowding in various cells? Will this stop when we move to Thornton Hall? I do not think so. The regime that operates this service will have to operate the new service, and how much better will it be?

Wheatfield is a relatively new prison and those who have visited it will know that it seems to be very secure. I cannot understand how drugs get in there. It is not excusable that somebody who comes out on a visit to hospital or the courts should return with pockets full of drugs. I cannot understand why that is happening. There must be some reason for it. Why has it not been tackled? In Wheatfield the visiting facilities are such that is impossible to bring drugs into the prison. I do not know how much longer society will tolerate what is happening in this country. A Minister says we have too many prison spaces and we must close some of our prisons and move to one big centre of excellence into which we will pour everything despite the fact that considered opinion has repeatedly said we need a number of smaller places where the really serious criminals can be isolated from other inmates.

Notwithstanding the tongue-in-cheek remark by my colleague Deputy Rabbitte, all those involved, including the Garda, prison officers, courts and public representatives, know it causes some concern for various assistant secretaries in all Departments when the pretentious members of Parliament ask questions. Is that not just awful? How dare the Members of the Dáil and Seanad ask questions? I remind these assistant secretaries that it is our job, and it is tough, but that is how it has to be. The Minister's Department generally answers our questions. Not all Departments suffer from that same affliction and we note it. Sooner or later the time will come when all Departments and Ministers will have to answer all the questions they are asked regardless of whether they belong, as the Minister might see it, to some subdivision or quango created to deflect attention from himself or herself. Then they will be totally accountable. I have serious concerns about any embedded thinking in Departments to suggest it might be wrong to ask questions of Ministers. If that culture exists I advise the Minister to examine it carefully. That is not in the interests of the Minister any more than it is in the interests of the Opposition or Parliament. It is essential that everybody involved in this Administration, in all Departments, recognises that we should all be accountable. We in the Opposition must be accountable. As we are in opposition the public demands us to respond, to be proactive and reactive.

I saw the Acting Chairman looking at me with that oblique, sidelong look and I wondered what was in his mind. I was afraid he was going to tell me my time is up. I would love to have more time to discuss this issue. We do not spend enough time discussing such issues in the House. We spend a long time promising it, we spend a great deal of time with it on the Order Paper before anything happens, and when it finally gets to the House the Government spends a long time suggesting to the Opposition that sufficient time and consideration has not gone into it since its inception and that it could leave us with difficulties in the future.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I oppose this Bill because of its intention to co-locate the Central Mental Hospital, currently based in Dundrum, with the prison. We had a debate last week when I outlined very clearly and strongly why I disagree with this, and it might seem like I am repeating myself. However, when a group of people cannot speak for themselves it is important that those who can speak do so loudly and strongly. I have already outlined that many working in the area are opposed to this. An article by Dr. Harry Kennedy in Irish Medical News this week again states clearly his discomfiture at this move. It is wrong and will stigmatise people with mental illness. It is bad enough that mental health has been the Cinderella of our health services for so long. It is bad enough that, as I have mentioned before, we have Dickensian conditions in St. Ita's Hospital in Portrane where 23 men in one ward and 23 women in another ward have one bank of three toilets, one shower and one bathroom for each ward. Acutely ill men and women going into hospital face this in 2008. This is what they see as their first contact with our health service. It is a disgrace. We will further damage them by stigmatising them as criminal when this is clearly not the case. It is wrong. There is no need to do it. This is about trying to get better value from a site. We have already discussed in this House the money paid for that site. Let us get value from it some other way, but not at the cost of the mental well-being of those who suffer mental health problems.

It has come to my attention today, and not for the first time, that many who go into prison on soft drugs end up on hard drugs. They seem to be more freely available. There is hard information that indicates that more people come out of prison on drugs than went in. How will the new prison address this issue? Will it have a detox unit? Will it have rehabilitation as part of its mission statement? Will it aim to reduce the number of people who come out of prison on drugs rather than increase the number? I refer specifically to men going into prison who may have smoked cannabis in the past but come out having smoked heroin and other drugs. Drugs seem to be the currency in prison. It is difficult to understand that within a controlled environment we are not able to monitor people more closely. As I mentioned earlier, I know of one case of a young man who went into prison having smoked marijuana in the past now lying in hospital virtually paralysed down one side with his right arm and leg swollen and without the use of either after smoking heroin, or what was supposed to be heroin, in prison. I want to alert people again that what people buy on the street cannot be stood over. This has nothing to do with prisons. People think they are buying an ecstasy tablet, heroin or cocaine but they are buying God knows what, with all sorts of dreadful consequences. I mentioned before an idea suggested by a journalist that the Garda should take samples of drugs available on the streets on a weekly or fortnightly basis and let the public know what they find in them. We must keep in the front of the public mind that taking drugs in a recreational fashion, as some people describe it, is a very dangerous pastime which can have lifelong and disastrous consequences. People need to be made aware of this at every available opportunity. While one could say much action has been taken by drugs task forces and so on, the reality is that this area needs to be revisited time and again. Several people died last year as a consequence of taking drugs containing all sorts of impurities. We need to remind people of this, particularly the young.

To come back to the issue of the hospital move, I believe it is a retrograde step and I have explained my reasons to the Minister on a number of occasions. It will impede rehabilitation, increase stigmatisation and the location is totally unsuitable. It is out in the countryside where there is no natural community to be rehabilitated into. Dundrum grew up around the hospital and there is no issue with community acceptance of it but the situation at Thornton Hall is entirely different. It will also result in terrible inconvenience to patients, families, relatives and friends.

I referred last week to the issue of the skills set being lost. Many staff living on the southside of the city close to Dundrum or further south and perhaps even in Wicklow have their lives planned out. They will now be asked to travel to Thornton Hall. We will suffer the loss of key skills sets if this move goes head.

The main issue, however, is the isolation of patients from their families. This flies in the face of Government policy and contradicts the principles and recommendations of A Vision for Change, the Government's agreed policy on future mental health services. It specifically contradicts the following principle: "Priority should be given to the care of individuals with severe and enduring [mental] illness, in the least restrictive environment possible." How can it be claimed that an institution in the middle of the countryside could possibly meet those requirements? It will be very restrictive and will hugely limit the amount of freedom patients can have and the opportunity to let them out for weekends or half-days.

A further principle states: "Forensic mental health units need to be clearly identified as being intervention and rehabilitation facilities that operate in particular conditions of security rather than facilities offering mainly containment." I cannot see what other message the Government is giving to people other than containment by co-locating this hospital with a prison, which is primarily about containment. It is also stated that forensic mental health services should have a strong community focus but there is only a very small and disparate community in the area. We know this goes against best international practice. The consultation with users and their families has still not been completed. This is probably all very boring for the Minister but it is a matter of grave concern to the families concerned and their loved ones.

The lack of cost-benefit analysis is a further issue. A study was carried out which suggests there is an opportunity to redevelop the hospital on its own grounds. This would meet all the requirements I have outlined and would still yield money for the Government because valuable property would remain to be sold. The group to which I referred, the Central Mental Hospital carers' group, asked that redevelopment of the existing site at Dundrum would be considered. It referred to selling off 14 acres of the current site, reinvesting the capital raised from that sale to redevelop the remaining 20 acres and providing a modern Central Mental Hospital, all of which would be revenue neutral.

This is an opportunity to show leadership. It is bad enough that the co-located hospital in Beaumont is now to be planted on the site for which planning permission was granted for the psychiatric unit for Dublin North, which was supposed to replace the temporary building built in the 1960s. It is bad enough that the Government gives that signal but to also do this gives a powerful signal to those who suffer with mental illness and those who care for them. That signal is simply this — money matters more than patients, nowhere moreso than when it comes to mental health.

I ask that the Minister conduct a cost-benefit analysis on all the options before he takes this decision. We are at a time of economic downturn, as we all realise. We need to get value for money but we need to get it in a way that delivers value to the patient, not just euros to the Exchequer. I ask that the Minister reconsider this matter. I ask him not to co-locate this hospital at this site. I ask him to consider those with mental illness and to try, for once, to give them a signal that this Government does care, will do more than talk and will take action that shows real compassion for real people with real problems.

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

Tá áthas orm an deis labhartha seo a bheith agam. The Minister stated in his opening contribution that "the resolution was debated in detail in committee in both Houses". It was not debated in detail because there is very little detail. When I have raised this point, the Minister has said that the Prisons Act precludes details being disclosed. It does not. It only prevents disclosure of details which would prejudice security. I guarantee the Minister that within a few hours of prisoners being put on that new prison site, they will have more details about the layout of the prison than the architect who built it.

My point about details is that we do not at this stage have exact sizes, for example, the sizes of the kitchens or the rooms where prison staff will congregate, hold meetings and enjoy their time off. We do not have the ratio of accommodation to rehabilitation facilities and we do not know the size of the hospital, the health care wing of the prison, the washing facilities or the recreational facilities. None of this is available to us.

I am not looking for information on the thickness of the wall or the foundations. If others wish, they can seek that information. I want to make sure that what is being planned is the best prison possible, if it is to go ahead, but I am opposed to this type of prison going ahead. Given the way this legislation is structured, Deputies have a duty to act as a planning authority and also to act on behalf of the public to ensure we get value for money. If this planning application, which is what it is, were sent to a local authority, it would be rejected outright and declared invalid for containing no detail, or perhaps it would be referred back to the applicant for more information. An Bord Pleanála would have a field day if this came in front of it, and it would reject it. We in this House, however, are asked to debate and decide on something of which we only have a very brief outline sketch.

We needed and, even at this stage, we need more specifics with regard to the development as listed in the notice provided by the Minister. It is not good enough that we will not be given those specifics due to security considerations. Part of the concern of the local residents related to the height of the wall and the fact it was so close to their houses, yet an internal wall is the same height as the walls of new prisons being built in Britain. Also, there is a cordon sanitaire which is quite wide for this day and age considering the vast array of electronic surveillance which would cover that area, meaning it does not need to be as wide as it is. We know there will be eight blocks or separate prisons within a single prison, each with its own security, surrounding walls and so forth.

More details could have been given, not only to Members of this House but to the local community. Some of those details concern issues not covered by the development proposal but which should have been tied to it, such as the Garda station, for example, which requires planning permission. The planning application should have been submitted at this stage if the station is to appear at all. A new court house is required for a prison facility of this scale. The Minister has argued in the past that a new court house is not required, but if there is an incident in the prison and inmates are charged, they should be brought to court within the prison complex. However, that facility will not be available. The bus service is another issue of concern, as is the relocation of the Central Mental Hospital. There is no detail about the community building, which is nicely drawn in the development sketches.

What are the proposed standards for the visitor centre? Again, we have no detail on that but it is an important issue, especially considering the state of visitor facilities in various prisons in the country and the disgraceful way in which people were expected to sit in squalor while visiting their relatives. We deserve to know what standards will be applied to the visitor centre. I hope it will of a high standard, considering the extra journey the Minister will impose on families trying to support their relatives in prison and trying to encourage them to use the facilities of the prison to rehabilitate themselves. We do not know what training, rehabilitation and recreation facilities will be available to prisoners. How many high-dependency units will there be for prisoners who are at risk?

We do not know the answer to these questions, which illustrates the disgraceful and farcical nature of the approach taken by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to this project, from start to finish. One needs only to look at the purchase of the site, all the skullduggery involved and the questions about which have never been answered. Now we have the secrecy around the actual plans. Why is there a plan to allow this prison to substantially increase the prison population? At the moment, the capacity of Mountjoy and its associated prisons is approximately 1,000 but the new prison at Thornton will be able to facilitate 2,200 prisoners. That in itself has consequences.

Does the prison have the capacity to deal with 2,200 prisoners, in terms of kitchens, recreation facilities, health care units, washing facilities and so forth? Will the Minister ensure that prison staffing levels are increased to deal with the contingency of having 2,200 inmates? Given the history of prisons, the very fact of being able to increase to that size means that the prison at Thornton will be filled to capacity and we will be back in this House in the future, seeking the development of more prisons. Instead, we should concentrate our efforts and the taxpayer's money on ensuring that those who can be rehabilitated within the community are, while those who need to be locked up are imprisoned in secure accommodation.

Will the Minister outline whether the Irish Prison Service and the Department examined the possibility of extending the Dóchas centre, given the excellence of that facility and the praise it has received, rather than moving it out into the beyonds, away from families and those who give support to its inmates? Most people dealing with prison policy would argue that smaller, self-contained prison units are more conducive to the good management of offenders and of the service itself but one of the Minister's predecessors closed a number of small prisons. Another aspect of concern regarding this development is the threat to imprison young people there if the facility at Lusk is not built. I ask that the Minister, even at this late stage, give a commitment that no prisoners under 18 years of age will be imprisoned at Thornton Hall and that until such time as the Lusk centre is completed, such prisoners will be housed in other appropriate accommodation and not in an adult prison.

There are other issues of concern we have not managed to tease out because at every stage in this process, the debate has been guillotined. We have not even dealt with prison policy but have only been able to deal with this specific application. The Minister has not addressed the concerns of local residents and the issues they raised. Their concerns are not even adequately reflected in the report of the rapporteur, in terms of the volume of submissions made and the enormous amount of work put into them. Not only does the rapporteur deal with two filing cabinets of submissions in a couple of hundred words, the Minister ignores them completely. That says it all regarding this process. It is a steamrolling exercise with the pretence of democratic accountability, of which there is none. It is a living disgrace that we have not been able to properly debate this matter, which is solely the fault of the Minister, who did not allow adequate time for debate nor supply the necessary details.

Another major concern, on which I do not have time to elaborate fully, is the privatisation of public services through the public private partnership process. That, in itself raises major questions about value for money. It has been proven in the area of education that public private partnership projects are 8% to 13% more expensive than the traditional funding methods for schools. The same will be true of this prison development.

I oppose this Bill and hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will withdraw it and allow for proper investigation and scrutiny of the proposals.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to something Deputy Rabbitte said regarding a civil servant from my Department. I understood there is a convention in this House that people are not to be referred to who do not have the opportunity to respond. Deputy Rabbitte may say he did not attack a civil servant but on reflection, he may wish to consider what he said or what inferences he was making about the person in question. I have experience in several Departments and this Department is as good as the best I have been in, from what I have seen to date. I understand the civil servant was at a conference but Deputies referring to assistant secretaries being at conferences and what they may have said could very well constrain them from further participating in open conferences. I believe it is something that, on reflection, Deputy Rabbitte should consider. The reality is that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is very policy driven and is an excellent Department.

Thornton Hall is more than bricks and mortar. It is a regime-driven design and all prisoners will have access to work training, education, medical services, recreation and in-reach services. It is referred to as a super prison but it is not a super prison. The reality is that it is a prison on a super site.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At super cost.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has eight separate blocks within the campus using shared services. Economies of scale indicate that it is better to do that than have separate prisons all over the place. The maximum numbers in a block will be fewer than 200. There will be about 48 in any one wing and there would be approximately 24 on a landing.

The design, as I said at the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality Defence and Women's Rights, has been driven by contributions from governors, prison staff, teachers, health care staff, work training staff, chaplains, the probation service and users right across the Prison Service. I assure Deputies that the design will conform with best international practice.

The cost-benefit analysis was requested. At the committee, I referred to the situation where under the Department of Finance guidelines, a detailed business case and a budget — the public sector benchmark, as it is called — were prepared. The NDFA will advise and has advised the Department in respect of value for money matters. This project can only proceed on the confirmation from the NDFA that it is value for money. These are the Department of Finance procedures that will be followed.

In respect of local residents' concerns, I asked departmental officials to meet a number of people who were referred to at the committee. I also gave a commitment in respect of the liaison committee which will be set up between members of the Prison Service, Fingal County Council, the local residents' association and people directly affected.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has it happened?

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In response to the request from the Rolestown and St. Margaret's action group, we received this document yesterday. I assure the group that I hope to establish the liaison group as quickly as possible. The Prison Service has a good neighbour mission statement which supports active liaison with local residents. It covers the issue of communications, protection, security, safety and a number of other matters. I hope the liaison committee will respond to that.

In respect of the Central Mental Hospital, when the Thornton site was purchased the Government decided to set aside 20 acres for the development of the new Central Mental Hospital. Obviously, that is a matter for the Department of Health and Children. If it is to be built there, it will have its own separate entrance and will be distinct from the Thornton Hall prison.

In respect of the Dóchas centre, I cannot stand over a situation where, on occasions, the figures for occupancy in recent times have gone over 130%. I gave the figures for some other occasions. It makes no sense to leave a prison in effect on an island in Mountjoy in the middle of the city when these prisoners could be facilitated out in Thornton Hall. It would be better to move everyone out to Thornton Hall where they can share the services.

At any one time, there are between 3,500 and 3,600 people in the prisons. Obviously, we must provide the space for them. It is not us who decide how many people will be in prisons. We just react to what the Judiciary and courts determine in respect of who goes to prison and who does not. However, there are a myriad other possibilities which — to be fair to them — the Judiciary has used. We have a very low percentage rate of prisoners in respect of our population in comparison with similar types of societies, which is as it should be. I assure the House that we will make every effort, particularly in respect of restorative justice. We have already received the first report from the committee dealing with restorative justice. I told my Department that this is something I would like to push.