Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I thank the Senators for their contributions to this debate. Many thoughtful contributions have been made and it has been a pleasure, rather than a chore, to be here and listen to the views expressed. I will deal with a number of points in this brief reply to Second Stage.

I want to thank in particular Senator Ó Murchú for his kind words. When he was not speaking kindly of me he was speaking broadly on subjects related to prisons, and I did not disagree with one word he said. I was impressed by the terms and humanity in which he spoke.

In regard to Senator Cummins's question on the construction and extension of prisons, I want to make a few points clear because some Members of the other House, although not Senator Cummins, are a little confused about this. Under Part IX of planning Acts I am currently entitled to build a prison anywhere in Ireland without reference to the planning system in any shape or form. I am entitled to buy a piece of land anywhere in Ireland and build a prison, a police station or anything else on it. That is the existing position. In this respect, there is nothing about me being arrogant or giving myself new powers in Part 4 of this Bill. The position is quite the reverse. I am introducing a new element of accountability and transparency into the decision-making process for new prison projects.

What is proposed in this legislation is that this and the other House, for the first time, will have two roles in regard to any new prison project. This will include Thornton Hall and the Munster prison in case any Member is under any illusion about that. The two roles are as follows. If the Minister of the day proposes to develop a new prison or a significant extension of an old prison, he or she will have to give public notice of his or her intention to do so, carry out an environmental impact assessment and move resolutions in each House of the Oireachtas separately to approve his or her proposal. Having received the approval of the Houses and having laid all the documents, including the environmental impact assessment and the report of the rapporteur on the public reaction to the proposals, before the Houses, presumably the Minister will have a debate in each House on the proposal. If each House approves the proposal, the Minister then has to push through the Oireachtas a confirmatory Act.

That is a rare model only to be found in the old restrictive practices legislation, which predated the Competition Act. It provided that the examiner of restrictive practices would examine a profession or a trade and come forward with a report. The Minister responsible would then make an order to prohibit anti-competitive behaviour or whatever it might be and that would have the force of law only if a confirmatory Act of the Minister's order were made. That was the way the groceries order, to which we often refer, came into existence.

What we are doing in this legislation is vesting in the two Houses of the Oireachtas, first, an examining function for a proposal from the Minister based on all the documents being laid before both Houses, second, the right to veto the proposal and, third, a function in confirming and making it the law of the land that the proposal in question should proceed. I do not believe anybody could describe that as an arrogant political change, bearing in mind the current legal position is that I could, in theory, buy a few hundred acres, build a prison and say I do not propose to talk to anybody about it or discuss it and that it is nobody's business. What is proposed has been misinterpreted not in this House but elsewhere as some kind of effort to increase the power of the Minister. It is not, rather it is to give back to the Oireachtas and to each House of it the power to have a say in what any Minister in the future does.

I also wish to make the point in regard to Part 4 that it does not do what some people suggested it might do, which is to give the Minister the right of compulsory purchase. I was criticised by some people for not having a power of compulsory purchase to buy land at agricultural prices, build a prison wherever I wanted using Part IX powers and then confer on the State a huge benefit of being able to buy land at agricultural prices and develop it for a non-agricultural purpose. I was criticised for that, but I believe the right way to proceed in this respect is either to use land that is in the possession of the State or to buy land on the open market.