Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As no limits on speaking time during the Second Stage debate were made on the Order of Business this morning, I ask the Acting Leader to specify how long Senators will have to speak.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Spokespersons will have ten minutes and all other Senators will have five minutes.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A 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 if 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 the proposal is required. An Act of the Oireachtas confirming the resolutions is also required to proceed with the development. The legislation before the House provides that confirmation and represents the final stage in the process. Senators will be aware that resolutions providing for the development of the prison were passed in the Dáil on 17 June and in the Seanad on 18 June. The resolutions, which contain all the relevant detail, had first been discussed in this House on 29 May. They were discussed in detail by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on 4 and 17 June.

The Bill before the House is straightforward. It contains just two sections — section 1 confirms that the resolutions were passed by the Dáil and Seanad and section 2 sets out the Short Title. As I have said, we are dealing with the approval of a major prison development under special procedures set out in the Prisons Act 2007. In many respects, it is a more open, transparent and democratic procedure than the "normal" planning procedure for prison development. Before the 2007 Act was agreed, all prison developments were governed by Part 9 of the 2001 planning and development regulations, under which the Minister is the deciding authority. The new procedure that was introduced by the 2007 Act includes a requirement for an environmental impact assessment and public consultation. The procedure vests final approval in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I wish to speak about the prison development itself. The construction of a new prison is essential if we are to deliver real and substantive improvements in our prison system. Mountjoy Prison is a Victorian structure, built in 1850 for short-term convicts awaiting transportation to Tasmania. Its accommodation is substandard — there is no in-cell sanitation and it is overcrowded. The constrained size of the site restricts the development of prisoner programmes. In the past, Senators have drawn attention to some of the problems facing the prison system. The new development at Thornton Hall is an essential part of the solution to such problems, as it will eliminate the "slopping out" system that exists in Mountjoy, replace that prison's substandard and overcrowded accommodation, provide state-of-the-art prison accommodation and offer facilities for education, training and rehabilitation.

The design of the new prison will yield the maximum rehabilitative benefit, as it involves a collection of institutions. It will maximise the operational benefits associated with having one perimeter wall and a single central stores and maintenance service. Some people have described the prison as a "super-prison". This is simply not accurate. By international standards, it is no more than a medium-size prison. The scale of the individual modules is small. There will be no more than 48 prisoners on any landing in the prison. There will be an emphasis on keeping prisoners in small groups to ensure that the prison environment is safe and well managed at all times. New prisoners will be assessed on their committal to determine the level of risk they pose and the most appropriate regime for managing their future integration into society. The most dangerous and violent prisoners will be assigned to high security facilities, while those who pose less risk will benefit from a lower security regime. As they progress, prisoners will move to step-down facilities in a more appropriate prison regime. The modular design of the new development will allow ringleaders and rival gang members to be easily segregated. This is essential to lower the potential for inter-prisoner violence.

The physical layout of the new prison means we will be able to provide a much safer and more secure environment than exists at Mountjoy Prison. The structure of that prison has led to difficulties in introducing mobile phone blocking systems there. The location of Mountjoy Prison in an urban setting and on a crowded site makes it difficult to stop illicit materials entering the prison. The design of the new prison will make it much easier to restrict illicit materials entering the prison. The Irish Prison Service is rolling out a drugs policy and strategy. Initiatives under the strategy include the provision of detoxification, methadone maintenance, education programmes, addiction counselling and drug therapy programmes. Under the strategy, existing drug treatment programmes will be expanded and enhanced. Nurses, a psychologist, 24 dedicated addiction counsellors and other staff, including prison officers, will be recruited. In light of these enhanced supports, and the single cell occupancy in the new prison, the prison will provide a much more supportive environment for the rehabilitation of drug addicted prisoners. As all prisoners will have an individual cell, at least for the foreseeable future, there will be a huge increase in the levels of personal safety of individual prisoners.

Although the prison system is an essential part of our social and rehabilitation structures, the location of a new prison is seldom welcomed by local residents. We have listened carefully to the concerns of the local community. We are addressing the concerns in a broad variety of ways. Access to the new prison development will be via a dedicated road running from the old N2 main road. The construction of this access road will be prioritised. Extensive car parking and visitor facilities will be provided. A dedicated bus service will also be provided. The construction of the sections of the boundary wall nearest to local residents will be prioritised to minimise the impact of construction work on them. The use of the R130 road will be restricted. A construction environmental plan is being prepared for the development. Visually treated concrete will be used in the wall to make it less obtrusive. Timber fences of 3 m in height are being erected around the car parks on the west of the site, the car parks are being redesigned and light fixtures in the car parks are being reduced and modified. Planting areas are being widened and increased. There will be increased planting of larger and mature trees and relocation of the wall further back by up to ten metres along portions of the exterior.

These development conditions are a balanced and a considered response to the issues raised during the consultations with the local community and as reported by the rapporteur. My Department and the prison authorities will continue to liaise in a positive way with the local community as the building work progresses.

The rapporteur received 130 submissions, most of which came from the local community. His report identifies the main points raised in the 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, in particular as set out in the report of the rapporteur. 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 changes had very little effect on the overall development but nevertheless are of significant benefit to local residents.

As I have mentioned, there is a range of different facilities in the prison plan. 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 are work training, library, health care and gym facilities 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. By 1996, 20% of the prison population was on temporary release. I am proud to say that Governments of which I have been a member took action so that 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 the year 2015. Even though the projections envisage an increase in numbers, they propose that our prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants will reduce as our overall population increases faster than our prison population.

A final point on numbers, 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 the environmental impact assessment it was necessary to take the most extreme scenario and hence the environmental impact assessment cites a figure of 2,200 prisoners. However, I again emphasise the intention for the foreseeable future is to operate the prison with no more than 1,400 prisoners.

I also want to clearly state 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 that 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 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 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, the 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 being imprisoned for non-payment of fines. It is simply not true. For example on 23 May this year, out of more than 3,500 prisoners only seven people were in prison solely for the non payment of fines. We must 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 more prison spaces are built, they will be automatically filled. If one examines the rate of committals to prison since the foundation of the prison service it is clear there is no link between increases and decreases in committals and prison spaces. The rate of committals to prison is determined by the courts which make 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 and 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 the opening of Dóchas in 1999 there has been a serious issue with overcrowding and it is now the most overcrowded prison in the State. On 1 May prisoner numbers exceeded bed capacity by 30% which 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 at Thornton Hall 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 and will have three separate sections in order that women on remand will be kept separate from sentenced prisoners.

I would 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 whereby a person may be detained for immigration reasons is the case of persons refused permission to enter the State or pending deportation and 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 separately 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 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. If these facilities 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 in Thornton. They will be completely isolated from any adult prisoners in a manner which complies with our international obligations.

We are going to provide vastly improved facilities in small scale modules but with the better services and economies of scale associated with clustering a number of institutions on one site. The development at Thornton will radically improve our prisons by doing away with prison overcrowding and sub-standard accommodation. It will significantly increase prisoner safety and will make society safer.

Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his presentation and welcome him to the House. It is the first time I have had an opportunity to discuss a policy issue with him.

There is no question a new prison is needed and it must be of the highest standard. I appreciate that the process which has gone through the Oireachtas on Thornton Hall essentially has been a planning one. I have difficulties, however, with the manner in which the process has proceeded. Various submissions have been made by outside bodies regarding the prison and prison policy. There has been no meaningful response to these submissions, however, from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Thornton Hall proposals contain many good elements, for instance, the separation of prisoners, the individual cells, the self-contained accommodation and the space for work training education and rehabilitation programmes. The reality is that there are no commitments in respect of these matters. What we have is a prison that will detain asylum seekers, that will close down the Dóchas women's prison and that will imprison minors in a prison designed for adults. It will incarcerate the mentally ill because of the transfer of the Central Mental Hospital, which is against all representations and professional advice given to the Minister.

For these reasons, we have difficulties with this proposal. We support the construction of a modern prison complex but we believe that, before this Act is passed, the Minister should outline the prison policy to be pursued in this new prison. We need assurance that it will not be a repetition of the past or a continuation of existing prison policy which is a dismal failure. The reality is that there are drugs in our prisons. If a drug-free person comes into prison he will invariably leave prison a drug addict. That is the most obvious test of the failure of current prison policy.

A comprehensive programme of rehabilitation must be outlined. Not only do we need the space, we also need evidence that the programmes will be implemented and funded properly. There should be education and training, integrated sentence management and a comprehensive drug detoxification programme. These are the prerequisites for effective prison policy.

We have received no comfort from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform regarding these matters, nor any commitments or assurances. When dealing with this project, it is incumbent on the Minister to establish how prison policy will be administered in what is intended to be a modern complex with facilities of an international standard, as opposed to the appalling standard of accommodation in prisons such as Mountjoy, which poses a risk to prisoners and the administration of effective prison policy. It is for these reasons that Fine Gael has difficulty endorsing the proposal outlined by the Minister.

Lisa McDonald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill. When discussing the motion on the prison, I said a modern stand-alone prison is badly needed in the State. It should be provided on a secure site where prisoners can feel safe. This may sound like an oxymoron but it should be considered given the Dickensian conditions in Mountjoy Prison, from which prisoners sometimes emerge worse than they were before going in. District Court judges and other members of the Judiciary throughout the country are reluctant to impose custodial sentences because of the conditions in Mountjoy, despite the fact that they are needed in many cases. Therefore, the new prison needs to be constructed and put into operation as soon as possible. Thus, we can concentrate on the issues the Irish Prison Service will be dealing with, including education, training and rehabilitation.

We must not forget the need to rehabilitate prisoners so they can re-enter society because they are sometimes homeless on leaving prison and thus end up being put back in. This cycle needs to be broken. With new modern facilities such as those proposed for Thornton Hall, we will be in a position to deliver in this regard and bring our penal code into line with international best practice.

When discussing the motion on the prison, Senator O'Toole referred to its name. Have there been any developments in this regard? We should name the prison as soon as possible so it will not be referred to as "Thornton Hall Prison" by the media.

I welcome the fact that the prison will have a library, health care room and gymnasium. These will give prisoners something to do, improve their health and assist in readmitting them to society. I hope it will prevent them from getting involved in further crime.

That prisoners will be housed in separate rooms is very important. As we know from Mountjoy Prison, communication and overcrowding among prisoners can lead to trouble. The Irish Prison Service deserves our support in implementing the penal code. To date, we have not been able to operate according to best practice. The facilities and physical layout of the proposed prison, with its eight blocks, mean it will be easier to prevent the use of illegal mobile phones and drugs. The practices that obtain at present must not be allowed in the new purpose-built prison.

I was very interested to hear Mountjoy Prison was built to facilitate the short-term housing of convicts being sent to Tasmania. I did not realise this. It explains part of the problem we have been having with the prison.

Our current system is ineffectual and the new prison is badly needed. I welcome the fact that the Department is to consider immediately the Oberstown project for minors in Lusk. Minors will be housed temporarily in Thornton Hall, which I do not support, but, when the new project is completed, as outlined in the speech of the Minister of State, it will address people's concerns.

At present, many of those who argue not to have a larger prison claim we are failing to consider other aspects of penal policy, including rehabilitation, community sentencing and the paying of fines. However, we live in a society in which people can and do commit serious crimes. The number of serious crimes is rising and we therefore need more prison spaces.

Our sentencing policy cannot be implemented fully at present and we consequently need more prison spaces so prisoners can be incarcerated for the full terms to which they are sentenced. Our next task should be to consider sentencing and the new facility will assist us in doing so, such that society will be safer and citizens will have more respect for the Judiciary and not commit crimes.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have already congratulated the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, on his appointment and wish him well. I wish he had different business on hand today than that with which we are dealing. I declare an interest in that the proposed prison will effectively be in my back garden. My views are coloured as a consequence.

I have often been asked about my view on the prison. It is very simple; I have always said the prison is to be located in the wrong place. However, I never opposed it for a number of reasons, first because it was my brother in law who sold the site. This was his right and I do not object at all to his doing so. Second, the prison is to be in my own back garden and I do not like the idea of NIMBY politicians. Although I dislike the location of the site, the decision thereon was taken democratically by the Government. I will have to accept this if this Bill is passed. My neighbours are very upset over the proposed prison, as much because of the impact on their community as anything else.

Our vote on this Bill will not be a vote for or against the prison but a vote on the confirmation of the planning process. The process is quite flawed because the needs outlined in the Bill have not been met. The Minister of State said he listened to the views of local community representatives. In this regard, Senator McDonald referred to the name of the prison, and I thank her for that. I raised this issue four times and made the point that the community is very small. I do not know if Members understand there is no pub, shop or business community in Kilsallaghan. There is a riding centre, the Thornton Park Equestrian Centre, which tells me it is losing business. Residents' addresses include the names "Thornton" or "Kilsallaghan" and there are only 23 to 30 houses.

The Minister of State's colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Conor Lenihan, agreed with me that it is not unreasonable to change the name, as did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern. I ask again today that the name be changed. I do not understand why the prison cannot be called "the new Mountjoy" until another name is chosen. That is the obvious thing to do and it would make sense because Thornton Hall is being preserved. One of the better aspects of this planning process is that Thornton Hall is being preserved and will be outside, rather than on, the prison site. Consequently, it makes no sense to use that name. In addition, this matter is important to local residents. However, although the Minister of State said that people are listening to residents, this constitutes an example in which they are listening but are doing nothing.

Amenities are another reason for concern. Were a planning authority to do what Members are doing at present, it would ask what benefits were coming back to the community. In previous speeches during recent years Ministers have stated that amenities would be made available in the locality. However, they were not. Ministers spoke of facilities such as playing fields, access to libraries, etc. However, nothing has been given back to a community that will be overwhelmed by this development.

The Minister of State should understand this area lacks footpaths. There are no footpaths in Kilsallaghan and people go for walks along the road. Although it is close to the city, this is a rural community. Will footpaths be provided? As local residents have asked for them, would it not have been possible to build a footpath or walk along the planted hedgerow area? Does that sound like an unreasonable demand from local people to the Minister of State? However, given they asked for something that has not come to pass, how can the Minister of State assert they are being listened to?

The question of the height of the wall has been raised. I have asked this simple question four times, namely, why is the wall 7.2 m high? That is as high as or slightly higher than, the wall in the Chamber. It will be located close to houses which have a surrounding landscape of fields at present. This will be a complete change. The view was the wall either should be lowered or moved back. I do not know the reason for the height except the Department decided on it. One of the flaws in this process is that the Department can decide without giving reasons. I guarantee the Minister of State that whatever responses his advisers are preparing for him at present, they will not provide him with an answer to this question. They will state that this is how matters always have been done, as though one should still be using quills. As I noted, the wall will be higher than the Berlin Wall.

I have to hand the planning specifications for a recently constructed prison in the United Kingdom, Ashford Prison. Unlike what has been done here, every aspect has been outlined in it, from drainage to everything else, including the size of the attenuation tanks to hold the water. On the proposed site, there will be 100 acres on which there no longer will be drainage. We already have floods every year in our area. The water no longer will drain through the land but will be collected. The Minister of State is good at maths and should work out 100 acres, or 4,840 slat cearnach an acra. He should work out how many cubic metres or gallons of water are involved, what size the tanks should be and where they should go. He will be informed that attenuation tanks will be used, which will let it off lightly. However, Senator de Búrca will understand from an environmental point of view that one still will not get that volume of water through the 20 in. pipes used in the locality at present. No one has explained such practical simple matters to the residents. Were one dealing with a local authority, one would not get away with it. That is what is wrong with this process.

As an aside, the overall wall height in the aforementioned Ashford Prison is 5.6 m. I am sure Senator de Búrca will be interested to learn that the prison's specifications stated it would be constructed with an exposed aggregate finish, for which a locally-won gravel was likely to be used and the final appearance would be agreed on, etc. The requisite detail is present. However, I cannot get answers to these simple questions, which simply is wrong. I considered other prison projects in what one might call less educated or civilised parts of the world. In Burma, the outside wall of Insein Prison is 20 ft. in height. In East Timor, the last prison built by the United Nations development programme has a perimeter fence that is 5.2 m high and so on. If I had sufficient time, I could cite other places in which the technology available to people nowadays makes such heights unnecessary.

Members should remember that inside this wall there will be a cordon sanitaire of approximately 30 m or 40 m. Consequently, it will not be a question simply of throwing drugs over the wall. One would be obliged to throw them over the 7.2 m wall and across a distance of a further 40 m. Thereafter, one would be obliged to hop up over another wall before someone could deal with them.

It is very difficult for local people to understand how this can be achieved. Of course there is local recognition and appreciation of the fact that the dedicated road mentioned by the Minister of State has been included. This constitutes a significant improvement. However, another issue in respect of the planning becomes clear if one looks at a map. The site is off the N2 and it has been stated that the R130 and other local minor roads, which are tiny, will not experience additional traffic. I asked the Minister, the next time he travelled from Dundalk, to try to drive to the new prison site without using some of these minor roads from Balbriggan, Malahide, Swords, Portmarnock or Portrane, where a certain number of prison officers probably will live. It cannot be done unless one travels down to the M50 and back out again. I make this point to the Minister of State as an example of how local people believe they are not being given full information.

On the prison planning map, little red dots, of which there are only 24 or 25, signify residences. I asked that each house should receive a visit from the prison authorities to explain what was happening. I asked that they would explain the height of the wall and whether there would be noise pollution or light pollution at night. I refer to the question of a Garda presence. I note the Minister of State did not mention the welcome proposal to build a new Garda station. I hope I am not to take from his failure to mention it in his speech that it has been dropped.

I refer to type of vegetation or shrubs. While there is no point in having screening for three months of the year, it is not necessary to have evergreens either. One could use evergreen oak, holm oak, blackthorn or beech, that is, trees that do not lose their leaves during the year. Moreover, they also are Irish planted trees and broadleafs, etc. Such issues must be discussed and implemented in order that screening is present throughout the year. These are simple matters.

I refer to local walks, footpaths and bridle paths. When I arrived there 30 years ago, ours was the first new house to be built in the sense that all the other houses were either farmhouses or had been built by the local authorities. Of the 23 houses, lest people think this is a rich and well-off community, more than half were built by local authorities. Three generations of the same families have lived in these houses. My family shared college apartments with people whose grandfather worked for my daughter's grandfather on a farm. This is an established local community. Any new houses have only been constructed in the past 20 years. There is no estate or anything like that.

Will traffic calming measures be put in place? The drainage needs should be explained to local people. I do not expect the Minister of State to have the answer in this regard. Will the authorities, as was promised previously, visit each house? People are worried about security. Will these houses receive a security upgrade? These are simple matters. As for local walks, footpaths and bridle paths, the only industry there is horse training. Arkle came from Kilsallaghan. Horses used to be broken in along the roads, including racehorses that finally finished up at Cheltenham and elsewhere. This no longer can be done.

I refer to another question to which I did not receive an answer. An enormous town is being built. My neighbours should be given special consideration and priority and there should be positive discrimination in their favour in respect of jobs or employment in the area. It is not too much to ask and it could be done easily to show a commitment to the local area.

I again ask that the Irish Prison Service should visit each local house. There are three local groups, namely, the concerned residents, the Rolestown-St. Margaret's Action Group and a third group who live where the new waste water treatment scheme is to be located and who have particular needs. All three groups should be kept in the loop. Moreover, some people are not part of such groups and should therefore have the same authority.

In his response, the Minister of State should tell me whether I sound unreasonable in anything I have sought. Do I sound unreasonable in respect of any issue that I have put before the Minister of State on behalf of local residents? How can the Irish Prison Service be a good neighbour if it is unable to deal with such simple things? People will be unable to go for walks because of the excessive traffic volume on the road. I will not go into the other issues. These are not major issues and they should be conceded to people generously and easily. I did not even mention sewage, with which the local authority must deal. There is no sewage treatment in Kilsallaghan and the local houses must be connected. I believe they also will receive a commitment in this regard.

Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill. Senator Boyle has already spoken about the prison at Thornton Hall in the Seanad several weeks ago. He made it clear that the Green Party has qualms about the location of this prison. We accept a decision has been made and we are prepared to live with it. We agree there is a need for a new prison and we are very aware of the Victorian conditions in Mountjoy, the unacceptable practices of slopping out, the substandard accommodation and so on. We recognise there is a need for a new prison and we welcome that this prison will have state-of-the-art facilities. It will accommodate 1,400 prisoners and an especially welcome feature of the prison is single cell occupancy, which will be a major improvement. The Minister of State also mentioned that if necessary, the cells could take double occupancy and the numbers accommodated by the prison could rise to 2,200. However, it is envisaged that single cell occupancy would be maintained and the numbers kept below 1,400.

I welcome other planning decisions, such as the provision of a dedicated bus service to the prison. I also welcome the provision of work training facilities, a library, health care facilities, a gym and a playing field. All of these definitely should form part of any modern, state-of-the-art prison.

I am glad to hear that Ireland remains one of the EU member states with the lowest rates of imprisonment. I hope that situation is maintained and that the emphasis in our criminal justice system will be to look for alternatives to incarceration. We are all very aware of the problems that arise regarding incarceration and recidivism. We should always be looking constructively at policies that avoid these problems.

The Minister of State spoke about the detention of non-nationals, which is a very important issue. He said that the facilities at Thornton Hall will be such that people detained for immigration control reasons would be accommodated separately from remand or sentenced prisoners, in line with best international practice. I must say that best international practice would dictate that it is not a good idea to locate asylum seekers in the same location as those who are incarcerated for serious crimes. The Green Party is very concerned about the proposed location of the reception centre for people seeking asylum status at the Thornton Hall site.

Ireland has a long history of emigration. If Ellis Island had been a detention centre in its day, we would be very disturbed that some of our ancestors were held in close proximity to criminals. They were only trying to escape very difficult circumstances in this country and looking for opportunities elsewhere, just like the immigrants who come to Ireland today. I have no difficulty with the idea of detention centres and of processing the claims of these people, but locating them on the same campus as a major new prison is something we should reconsider.

Like many other Senators, I have been lobbied about local issues at Thornton Hall. Local residents need roads and footpaths in the area upgraded. They also want to ensure the visual impact of the prison perimeter would be minimised, that construction activity would only occur between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and would not occur on Sundays. They are concerned about the existing proposals for the emergency exit, which is located in a densely populated area. The name of the prison is also an issue, as residents would rather a more neutral name than that of the local area.

A local liaison group will be established immediately prior to the commencement of construction. It will involve residents, the Irish Prison Service, building contractors and Fingal County Council and will hold monthly meetings. It is good practice that the State is involved in any new development so I ask the Minister of State to consider it.

Dominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. We debated this issue about two weeks ago with one of his colleagues. I raised four key issues that day, namely, the proposal to relocate the Central Mental Hospital there, the proposal to relocate the women's prison there, the size of the prison and detailed design issues regarding the site. I will not go over old ground but I received a response from the Minister which does not fill me with any confidence about the assessment that was undertaken on the decision to locate the women's prison and the Central Mental Hospital there.

The Minister of State does not accept that this will be a super-prison, as it is only designed for 1,200 and can almost double its capacity to 2,200. The likelihood is that before we know it, 2,200 people will be put there. I am very concerned that this is effectively a super-prison. In his report into the Strangeways riot in Manchester, Lord Woolf stated that a maximum prison size should be 400. The chief inspector of prisons in the UK, Ms Anne Owens, refers to anything with a capacity of more than 2,000 as a super-prison. Therefore, we need to call a spade a spade. This is a super-prison. The debate should be about whether we need a super-prison and whether it is the right way to rehabilitate people by putting them in such large prisons. Perhaps it is the way forward; I do not know. However, we are not doing anyone any good by ducking the debate. I would prefer to see an explanation on why we need to see a prison built with a capacity for more than 2,000 people.

I also want to talk about some detailed issues, many of which have been covered before. I live close to the area, and some people from the area are in the Visitors Gallery. It is impossible to find one's way around the local roads. There are no footpaths and there is very little signage. We need to spend money on the local road network to ensure people can find their way to it, but local residents should not be inconvenienced. The perimeter must be in place before the prison site is constructed. The residents are also asking for a planning condition that work on the construction site would take place only between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. We need to ensure trucks do not wait outside before 7 a.m., as that happens all over the north east at the moment, disturbing the sleep of local residents. Construction routes should avoid local schools such as those in Bellewstown and Lismullen, which are right next to the proposed site. These schools suffer from heavy construction traffic, so we must take account of this.

I support Senator O'Toole's call for a change in name. Calling the prison Thornton Hall does not do anyone any good. A working title could be the new Mountjoy, or perhaps the Charles J. Haughey correctional institute. I do not mind.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the Proinsias de Rossa centre?

Dominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to get away from calling it the Thornton Hall prison. Let us have a debate on the name.

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should have respect for those who made an immense contribution to the country.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Hannigan, without interruption.

Dominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have two final points to make. I do not accept it is impossible to keep drugs out of prison. We have a fantastic opportunity, with a new prison, to design it so that we can limit access to drugs. I ask that particular attention be concentrated on that. There is sufficient space for rehabilitation. I am glad to see some proposals for the use of playing fields and the like. There is a large site, so let us use it for rehabilitation purposes.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Bill. As Senator Hannigan has said, I regret there has not been more time to debate the proposed construction of the new Mountjoy Prison, or if we are in the business of naming it after individuals, perhaps we should call it the Michael McDowell Prison since he was the Minister who seems to have come up with the idea for it.

I want to speak against the adoption of this Bill for a number of reasons. The first, and perhaps the most significant, is in relation to the size of the prison. The Minister of State has addressed the issue of whether it is a super-prison, and clearly, when one looks at prison policy in Ireland in the context of Irish imprisonment, to date, this constitutes a super-prison. It is certainly on a much larger scale than we have ever seen constructed in this country before and will concentrate a number of different carceral institutions on one site.

I also want to take issue with something said by the Minister of State in terms of imprisonment rates. It is a matter of some pride that we have a low imprisonment rate, by international standards, per 100,000 of the population in jail on any given day. The figure is approximately 3,000 on any one day. However, our committal rate is somewhat higher. That is the absolute number of persons committed to prison in any one year. There we see a very different figure, equivalent to 10,000 persons committed to prison in any one year. On women prisoners the figures are in stark contrast. The Minister of State has pointed out that there are, on average, 106 women in prison in any given day in Ireland, representing less than 4% of the overall prison population. However, in 2006, some 960 women were committed to prison, representing almost 10% of the overall committals figure for that year. Again, the absolute figures perhaps give a truer picture of the scale of imprisonment.

Clearly, what we are seeing are large numbers of people imprisoned for short sentences. Ideally, these are people who should not be in prison at all. If we have a true commitment to rehabilitation in Irish sentencing policy, and I am pleased the Minister of State said we do, then we need to put our money where our mouth is and invest more heavily in the Probation and Welfare Service and alternative sanctions, not imprisonment.

What we is enormous sums of money being devoted to the building of a new carceral institution as opposed to resources being spent on the probation and welfare service and non-custodial sanctions. This Bill is a wasted opportunity to carve out a new direction in sentencing and prison policy. It is true the Executive cannot have a direct role in how many people are sent to prison, but it is also a fact that in making legislation and putting policy into practice, the Executive and the Legislature have a very strong indirect effect in terms of the numbers of people incarcerated through, for example, mandatory minimum sentences, the building of prisons and so on which ensure more people will be sent to prison. It is unfortunate, therefore, that we are seeing the building of this new institution with up to 2,200 places being provided.

I raised this matter at the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and I am concerned to know what will trigger the double occupancy cells of which the Minister of State speaks. I know he said it is not envisaged that the 2,200 maximum will be filled in the foreseeable future, but again we must be concerned that if we build a prison on this immense scale, it will be filled, with more people being imprisoned as a result.

There is one issue of which we need to be aware, even if the Bill is passed, and it is something of which I hope to continue lobbying on a cross-party basis. I know there are party colleagues of the Minister of State who feel strongly about this. I shall continue to lobby to prevent the new women's prison going ahead on this site. It is important we look again at the principle of the imprisonment of women. We had a seminar very recently in Leinster House, hosted by Deputy Mary O'Rourke and I, where we heard from Baroness Jean Corston, author of a very influential UK report on the imprisonment of women. She suggests prison should only be a last resort for women, and only for those who commit crimes of violence.

Again, I do not believe we need a larger prison to be built. Women prisoners do not suffer from the same appalling conditions men do in Mountjoy. The Dóchas Centre is less than ten years old and there is a strong case to be made for retaining it on its present site. I raised this before and was told the reason we needed to build a new women's prison was because of overcrowding in Dóchas. I am reliably informed that a large number of the women in prison in Dóchas are there because of immigration related matters. Certainly, very many of them are there for short periods and more than half are not there under sentence. We need to look again at the profile of the women being sent to Dóchas and provide alternatives to prison for women.

The new prison envisaged for women on the new Mountjoy site will, once again, be a closed institution. There is no facility in this country for open prisons for women and no facility for smaller custodial units — the type Baroness Corston recommends — for those few women offenders who commit crimes of violence.

I have no choice but to oppose this Bill because it sets out the wrong direction for our penal and prison policy. It is unfortunate we are missing an opportunity. Instead of developing a whole new super-prison on a greenfield site, we should use the very detailed plans developed by the Office of Public Works some years ago under the predecessor of the former Minister, Michael McDowell, to redevelop that site on true rehabilitative principles. We should look at an overall prison policy that aims to reduce the numbers in prison and in particular to reduce the use of imprisonment for those who commit crimes that are not violent. I urge the Minister of State to take on board my remarks about the women's prison, even if the Bill is passed.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad. When I was elected to this House 16 years ago, one of the very first Bills I had to consider was a prisons Bill. I recall that I did not know what to do, since I had no experience in this area, having been involved in a different way of life before that. I decided to look for the customer in every Bill. For a health Bill, I would look to the well-being of the patient. In the case of an education Bill, I would look to the well-being of the student. When I came to the prison Bill, I had to reflect on what was best for society as a whole. I came to the conclusion very early on in this regard that the best interest of the prisoner was rehabilitation and this should be one of our objectives. A second objective should be to frame legislation that acts as a deterrent to others. If we are going to send someone to jail, its function is not just to rehabilitate but also to act as a deterrent. A third one, of course, is punishment, to ensure the prisoner thinks twice about what he or she has done.

I was very impressed to read in The Guardian yesterday about the Hassela reform centre in Sweden, which I had not heard of before. If I may, I would like to quote from the article, "Island of last resort", by Irish journalist, Maggie O'Kane. It states:

The most striking thing about the Hassela reform centre, apart from the apple blossom, the thick white candles burning on the breakfast tables and the smell of old wood from the ancient eaves of the dining room, is the silence. Sixty teenagers with criminal records, drug problems or a history of antisocial behaviour live here in Gotland, Sweden, in and around a beautiful wooden house with a conservatory stretching back into the garden. A trampoline sits on the lawn and a barbecue still charred from a recent feast is by the back door.

The "students", as they are called, are part of one of the world's most striking youth detention centres. They live in the main house or in smaller houses scattered throughout the village. Occasionally, there are "challenges" — the Irish boy, for example, who tried to hold up the post office with a knife, then went back to apologise — but for the most part, this small Swedish community accepts the 60 or so students who live in its midst as kids who need help to straighten themselves out.

I gather when I read further that we might even use this model in Ireland for the rehabilitation of young people. I mentioned this because I had been looking for the customer in every particular Bill and on reflection discovered that there were a number of different objectives to aim at.

One we missed out on at that stage, or at least I did not think of it until later, was the protection of our citizens. There are prisoners from whom the rest of society has to be protected. It is not enough to talk about prison as rehabilitation, a deterrent or punishment. It must also protect society from such prisoners and there is a danger that we only think of the soft rather than the hard options. We must ensure society is protected because there are prisoners in incarceration who are a danger to society. I do not know the answer to this.

I have listened carefully in the debate to arguments about the need for such a large prison versus the need to consider all the options as regards whether prisoners can have visitors when they live so far away from the jail. Will there be a bus service for prisoners' families to visit them? Is there a danger this could encourage the smuggling of drugs and mobile telephones into prisons? We have seen some of the real dangers in prisons where we have not had control in this area.

This is a challenge and one we cannot take lightly. There is a balance between rehabilitation — resolving the problems of those citizens who have decided to be criminals or fell into bad ways — and protecting members of society from those who are violent. There is no easy answer to this. This is a worthy debate to ensure we do not rush into decisions without giving proper attention to and recognising the various options in this area.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senators for their contributions. I know they have been through this matter before and are probably tired debating it. There are two elements to this debate — the physical infrastructure of the prison and how it will affect locals and our general prisons policy.

Senator Quinn referred to the issues influencing sentencing. He did not refer to the restorative element of sentencing, that is putting the victim of crime back into the position they were before the crime occurred. That was central to points made by other Senators. They were concerned there was no focus on the restorative and rehabilitation elements of sentencing policy. A commission on restorative justice has been established. The Government's policy is to seek other types of sentences, in particular non-custodial types.

As Senator Bacik rightly pointed out, the majority of sentences are short-term ones. There is a reasonably good base upon which to build a strong rehabilitation structure.

Senator Regan referred to integrated sentence management, which is part of the national development plan for dealing with prisoners. In the next session, I hope to introduce the spent convictions Bill to encourage rehabilitation and encourage prisoners to move out of recidivism. Recidivism rates are high. The organisation, Business in the Community, does much work in helping ex-prisoners to find employment, re-integrate into society and avoid a cycle of re-offending.

The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Conor Lenihan, believes it would be a good idea for the local residents to consider the name for the prison. Senator O'Toole asked if he sounded reasonable; he always does to me. It would be reasonable to allow the local residents to determine the name of the prison.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the meantime, every document on the prison from the Government needs to have a name.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator will note I have deliberately not mentioned TH in my contribution. It should be a name with which local people will be comfortable. All politicians are accused of the NIMBY syndrome but Senator O'Toole's electorate is far beyond Kilsallaghan so it is difficult to accuse him of it. He just wants to walk the bridle paths there in peace for the next several years.

The majority of traffic going to the prison will be from Dublin and the M50. My impression is that the prison will not have an adverse impact on local residents. Liaison with the local community was raised by Senator de Búrca which is a sensible suggestion. In my experience with major developments, local people tend to run scared from developers. In this case, the State is the developer and there should be some way of ensuring constant communication with local residents on the development. Development levies usually assist in developing footpaths, etc. In this case, there should be some way of improving other infrastructural standards in the area.

The perimeter wall will consist of an existing hedgerow, a tree screening band of 20 m in depth, a fence and an internal road and then the wall itself. In any case, the wall will be 15 m to 30 m from the boundary of neighbouring properties. This should provide some solace for local residents. While I appreciate Kilsallaghan is a rural setting, people live quite happily in the lee of the Central Mental Hospital and Mountjoy Prison.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the height of the perimeter wall? The Minister of State said he would tell me why it will be 7.2 m.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not say I would tell the Senator why it will 7.2 m.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State tell me he does not know?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is being unreasonable now. If Members are concerned about the prison accommodating up to 2,200 prisoners, it would be short-sighted for the Government not to anticipate possible changes in prison population. Mountjoy Prison has lasted for 150 years. Some Members are concerned about meeting international standards. By any measure, the proposed prison will exceed them.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Now.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

De Máirt seo chugainn ag 2.30 p.m.