Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Feb 2005

Vol. 596 No. 3

Leaders’ Questions.

Last week the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced the decision of the Government to site a new prison complex on a site at Thorntown, County Dublin, and also to transfer the Central Mental Hospital to this site. There are many aspects of the way this was done which warrant discussion and I will return to them at a later date. However, I would like the Tánaiste to focus on what this decision says about modern society's view of mental illness.

A recent report from the mental health commission stated that people suffering from mental health difficulties experience considerable stigmatisation and suggested that priority should be given to changing public attitudes towards people living with a diagnosis of mental illness. There will be no argument from this side of the House about the need to replace the current appalling and Dickensian conditions which exist at the Central Mental Hospital. Is it necessary, however, to locate an alternative facility next to a major prison? A number of groups working with the mentally ill, including Schizophrenia Ireland and Aware, have stated that this decision will only add to the stigma and discrimination they have been fighting to end.

Does the Tánaiste agree that this decision will only further stigmatise those suffering from mental illness? Is the decision based more on economics and administrative ease than on meeting the needs of the patients of the Central Mental Hospital and tackling the stigmatisation of mental illness? Will the Tánaiste indicate when negotiations to acquire the site began and whether other stand-alone greenfield sites were considered in respect of the Central Mental Hospital?

I agree with Deputy Kenny that we must do everything possible to remove the stigma attached to mental illness. Much of what the Government has done in recent years in terms of the establishment of the mental health commission, increased investment in the area etc., was aimed at doing precisely that. The movement of people away from institutional care and into the community is part of that approach.

There will be no link between the proposed new prison and the Central Mental Hospital. I agree there should be no link. A group was established under the auspices of Indecon some time ago which included among its members the director of nursing, the manager and the medical director of the Central Mental Hospital. It unanimously recommended that a new stand-alone facility should be acquired for the hospital. Other than the fact they will share the same 150-acre site, the two facilities will have nothing in common.

It is not easy to get the type of land that is required for the facilities, close to the centre of Dublin. Everybody recognises that. We do not have enormous amounts of land at our disposal. There will be separate entrances and addresses and no link whatever. Although from time to time some people are moved from prison to the Central Mental Hospital, there is no other link in terms of either the management or operation of the two facilities.

The OPW acquired the site. I understand that other sites were examined and a number of parties expressed interest in their land being acquired. The OPW, I believe, made its selection on the basis of value. I do not have the details for Deputy Kenny as regards the precise negotiations, but I know that a number of other sites were examined. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, informed the Cabinet of that some time ago.

We have a peculiar view in Ireland of what "adjacent" is. In the recent past there has been some public consternation over postal addresses. This appears to fly in the face of the legal responsibility of local authorities to draft county development plans, which are subject to full public discussion and negotiation. This seems to have been done in secret. On five separate occasions last October and November the Tánaiste told the House in reply to questions: "I fully agree with the families and carers who feel that it would not be desirable that the hospital be perceived as, or closely identified with, a prison complex." I agree with that statement and nothing could be clearer, yet when it comes to this decision, the Government flies in the face of the Tánaiste's own instinct and statement in this regard.

On 10 March last year, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, let the cat out of the bag in the Irish Examiner, when he said the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform “thinks a Central Mental Hospital should be adjacent to a jail”. It is now clear that this decision was driven by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Is this to be his equivalent of the “Bertie bowl” and his legacy for the future? It is clear that this flies in the face of the report from the Human Rights Commission and the Mental Health Commission which both stated that the Central Mental Hospital should not be adjacent to a prison and that the rights of those suffering from mental illness would be undermined. Does the Tánaiste accept that the interests of the mentally ill have been let down? In view of all the reports on the stigmatisation of those suffering from mental illness, will she undertake to have the Government reconsider this decision?

I agree it should not be part of the prison complex and neither will it be. However, the worst case scenario for the residents of the Central Mental Hospital would be to leave them where they are. I understand the conditions there are very unsatisfactory for 2005. The Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, has given a commitment to meet the interested parties on this matter, and he will do that. However, the Government made the decision based on what we believed to be an appropriate facility that could be located on one large parcel of land.

Some 150 acres is a considerable parcel of land to be able to acquire so close to the capital. We decided it would be better to acquire the 150 acres, if we could get them, to provide two separate and distinct facilities in that area. There are many examples of public hospitals located close to existing prisons and no one ever suggests there is a link between them. We must be reasonable, given all the circumstances. Land in the greater Dublin area is not easy to come by. It is not just a question of economics, it is a question of trying to find an enormous parcel of land so that the Central Mental Hospital can have its own stand-alone modern state-of-the-art facility while on a different location, albeit close by, there is a modern prison. It should be possible to do that within the confines of 150 acres, with separate entrances and complexes. I cannot believe that it is impossible, given the modern engineering and architectural designs at our disposal.

The decision to send a former Government Minister to jail has been greeted by many commentators as signalling a shift in the attitude of the authorities to the question of tax evasion. Will the Tánaiste agree that the tax evasion involved in the case of the former Minister concerned is probably minor compared to that engaged in by Ansbacher depositors? In respect of the report published in July 2002 and the inquiries and investigations ordered by the Tánaiste, why did she direct the authorised officer in her Department to cease investigation and write up his report? What were the reasons for issuing such a directive? What stage had the work reached by the time she issued that directive? Was the Tánaiste in agreement with the authorised officer that work should cease? If they were in agreement, why was it necessary to issue a directive? If the authorised officer had completed his investigation would his work, depending on what he found, not have become the basis for the appointment of a High Court inspector who might have followed up on these issues? After all the money spent on the Ansbacher inquiry is it not the case that very little has been done and that even the question of costs has been settled on the basis of the State paying its share of them? What statutory power did the Tánaiste have for issuing a directive to the authorised officer to cease investigation?

As regards the Ansbacher report, that was submitted by me to the Revenue Commissioners, the Director of Public Prosecutions and other authorities. The authorised officer's role continued in existence after the establishment of the independent Office of Corporate Enforcement. He was in the middle of various investigations and I felt it desirable that the officer who was carrying out those should complete them. However, I felt that it was time to bring those investigations to a conclusion seven years on. I was under the impression they would have concluded much earlier. I was being constantly asked in this House by Deputy Rabbitte's party, Fine Gael and others about when the various inquiries would be brought to a conclusion.

Much of the work that the authorised officer was uncovering was also in the remit of the various tribunals. I directed the authorised officer to send much of the material he acquired to the relevant tribunals because I judged it was more relevant to their work than to a company law inquiry.

I did not have the power to seek the appointment of a High Court inspector. Those powers went to the new independent office when it was established. Any work completed by the authorised officer would have had to go to that office. I could not petition the High Court because those powers were no longer vested in the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. They had moved to the office headed by Mr. Paul Appleby. I took legal advice as well as the advice of the Secretary General of the Department on this matter, and any instructions I issued on it were as a result of the advice I received.

That last point is not material. It did not matter whether it was the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr. Appleby, or the Tánaiste, who had the power to seek the appointment of the High Court inspector. The issue is that if there were sufficient grounds, a High Court inspector would have been appointed. He or she cannot be appointed if the Tánaiste has terminated the investigation and she has not explained why she did this, apart from saying she thought seven years was a long time. I asked whether the authorised officer was in agreement with her as to whether his investigation ought to have been terminated. I now ask her whether this matter ever came to Government and whether representations were ever made from inside or outside the Cabinet that it ought to be terminated. The Tánaiste appears to be saying that when the powers under section 19 of the Companies Act were transferred to the Office of Corporate Enforcement she retained powers under this section in so far as they related to this inquiry.

That seems to be the explanation. Why did the Tánaiste issue a directive to this authorised officer a couple of weeks before she left office to cease his investigative duties? Why did she make that decision? She had been there for the previous seven years and she could have made the decision at any time. It was done just before she left office. Did he agree with the decision? Was a timescale worked out with him for completion of the report? Where is the report now? Will it go to Mr. Appleby? Does the present Minister want to re-open the inquiry? Having built her reputation on the investigation into Ansbacher, why would the Tánaiste want to terminate the inquiry? It relates to three of the companies where some of the most powerful in our society were engaged in tax evasion that makes Ray Burke's involvement look like that of a corner shop. Why would she want to cut off the investigation of those guys?

The Standing Order allows the Deputy one minute for his final supplementary question. He has gone over two minutes and I ask him to give way to the Tánaiste.

It lays itself open to the belief that the investigation was not terminated because it had come to fruition, but rather because it might do so.

Deputy Rabbitte is making very serious allegations about my integrity and I would like him to withdraw them.

I am not making any allegations.

I do not know what he is suggesting. He suggests that I closed down the inquiry because it would reveal some information that I did not like. Deputy Rabbitte had better withdraw that. I have acted properly throughout my career in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the issue of bringing that inquiry to an end arose at the start of last year, not a couple of weeks before I left office.

The Tánaiste should answer the question.

He had better have his facts right.

The Tánaiste answered a question on 7 October to my colleague, Deputy Wall.

Allow the Tánaiste without interruption.

She should not get up on her high horse. Just because she is surrounded by——

(Interruptions).

I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow the Tánaiste without interruption.

I am no more of a saint than Deputy Rabbitte. No one made representations to me, either inside or outside the Cabinet. Any information that came——

Why did the Tánaiste stop the investigation from continuing?

Please allow the Tánaiste without interruption.

I asked the authorised officer on a number of occasions to bring the inquiry to an end.

Is the Tánaiste happy with that?

I never envisaged that the inquiries would have gone on for so long. Any information I received that had any relevance to any tribunal of inquiry was given to those tribunals of inquiry at that time.

Which tribunals?

It was given to both the Moriarty tribunal and to the Flood tribunal.

What has this got to do with anything? Did the Tánaiste transfer documents——

Some of the information related to individuals that were being investigated by those tribunals or fell within the remit and the terms of reference of those tribunals. In regard to where the report is now, the Deputy will have to ask the current Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I do not know where it is now. It was not concluded when I left the Department at the end of September.

Did the authorised officer agree with the Tánaiste?

No, he did not agree with me. He wanted to continue.

I request Members to obey the Standing Order on leader's questions.

Has the Tánaiste taken the time to inform herself of the details in the major report published on Monday of last week? It states that almost one in four of our population, or 23%, either live with or are at risk of poverty. It also states that nearly one in ten are living in consistent poverty. Does the Tánaiste agree that this report is a damning indictment of Irish society and of successive Governments in that we have such a persistent level of poverty and inequality? Can the Tánaiste explain to us, after all the years of the so-called Celtic tiger, why children constitute the greater number of people so described? The report shows that 15% of children are living in consistent poverty. Does the Tánaiste agree that the publication of this report is more of a damning indictment of the failure of successive Governments than even the jailing of Ray Burke? How does the Cabinet propose to respond to this report? The Tánaiste's colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, referred to a new second tier welfare payment for children. Can the Tánaiste tell us when that payment will come into effect? Why has the Government failed to reach its target of €149 per month in child benefit by this year? Legislation that has yet to be introduced will see a shortfall of €7.40 for the basic child benefit payment to first and second children.

The Community Workers Co-operative works with community groups in marginalised areas throughout the country. The Minister of State at——

I ask the Deputy to give way to the Tánaiste.

I am finishing on this.

The Standing Orders were agreed by this House and we cannot have a situation where questions go beyond every other facility in the House.

I would like the Ceann Comhairle to allow me to finish the sentence. The Minister of State, Deputy Ahern, has cut off critical funding. What is the Tánaiste's position on this? Will she help to see that funding restored?

I am aware of the report. The methodology of that report has been questioned. Given that the report takes the baseline of 60% of the median earnings, it is inevitable that we would see statistics of that kind. I acknowledge that there are too many people in Ireland living in poverty, if the Deputy wants to use that phrase, but there are much fewer people living in poverty now than there were in the recent past. Social welfare spending over the past seven years has gone up from €7 billion to €12 billion. We have particularly targeted areas like child benefit. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs remains committed in targeting welfare spending to those in greatest need. Thanks to our economic success, more and more people are participating in employment. With better education and more job opportunities, we can continue to reduce the incidence of those that live in poverty in our society.

Does the Tánaiste agree that we have the resources to ensure that no child has to live with deprivation? Would she use her office to impress upon her colleagues the importance of ensuring that child benefit is raised to the level her Government had set as a target for this current year? That target is €149 per month for the first and second child. Will she also address the issue of child dependant allowance? This has effectively decreased by 25% since it was frozen in 1994 and there is again no increase in the current year.

The Tánaiste must be aware that the Community Workers Co-operative described cutting of its funding by the Government as nothing less than a sinister move designed to silence an effective voice against poverty and inequality. What is the rationale for cutting this important funding to this group, which is working with the marginalised? I appeal to the Tánaiste to employ her influence to have this funding restored.

The Government has taken the view for some time that targeting resources through child benefit to families with children is more effective than child dependant allowances which, as the Deputy is aware, mitigate against those in employment. The Government is committed to continuing to invest heavily in welfare and, in particular, to ensuring that welfare payments are focused on those in greatest need, particularly families with children. With regard to the workers co-operative, the Deputy should put down a question to the relevant Minister.

I am asking the Tánaiste.

Top
Share