Prison Building Programme: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on Tuesday, 27 May 2008.
That Dáil Éireann, noting:
that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, having considered the need for a new prison in the Dublin area, has decided to proceed with the development of a prison in the District Electoral Division of Kilsallaghan, in the County of Fingal;
that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has caused the documents specified in section 26(2) of the Prisons Act 2007 (No. 10 of 2007) relating to the development of a prison to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas together with a document containing the observations of that Minister on the environmental impact assessment and the report of the rapporteur;
that the proposed development relates to the construction of a prison:
(a) located in the District Electoral Division of Kilsallaghan in the County of Fingal;
(b) for the purpose of accommodating not more than 2,200 prisoners;
(c) which development will consist of buildings of a floor area of approximately 140,000 square metres within a site of approximately 57 hectares;
(d) the site of which development will be bounded by a perimeter wall approximately 7 metres in height constructed behind the existing landscaped perimeter screen planting; and
(e) which development will consist of buildings with a height of 2 storeys other than the control centre which will have a height of 3 storeys;
that the following alterations having been made by the Minister to the development in accordance with section 25 of the Prisons Act 2007 (No. 10 of 2007) in order to mitigate its visual and aural impact:
(i) the erection of a 3 metre high timber fence on the outer boundary of the car park areas on the west side of the site (marked B on the map placed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Oireachtas Library on 14 May 2008), the re-design and adjustment of the car park, the lowering of the level of the car park at the boundary by approximately 1.5 metres and the imposition of a height limit for lighting fixtures in such car parks so that all the lighting fixtures shall be less than 3 metres in height off the ground;
(ii) the widening of planting areas at the places marked A on the map placed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Oireachtas Library on the 14 May 2008 by not less than 4 metres, the planting, where appropriate, of larger, mature trees and the relocating of the wall further from the boundary by a similar distance not to exceed 10 metres to accommodate the widened planted area;
(iii) the use of concrete, which has been treated or conditioned in such a manner as to make it visually less obtrusive, on the exterior security walls on the West and North of the development; and
(iv) the development of a new access road;
that an environmental impact assessment was prepared with respect to the proposed development;
that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform invited submissions or observations relating to the development of the prison from members of the public:
(a) by means of advertisement placed:
(i) in the following national publications on 29 February 2008:
The Irish Times;
The Irish Independent; and
The Irish Examiner;
(ii) in the following local publication:
the Fingal Independent for the week commencing 3 March 2008;
(b) by the erection of site notices at 5 locations on the perimeter of the site;
(c) by issuing a newsletter (‘Thornton Hall Newsletter 2’) on 3 March 2008 which was delivered by An Post to more than 1,000 houses in the locality;
(d) by causing an announcement of the proposed development to be published:
(i) on the website of the Irish Prison Service; and
(ii) on the website of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform;
that the main measures taken to avoid, reduce or offset any possible significant adverse effects of the development on the environment are:
(i) the use of a design based primarily on two storey buildings (except for the control centre), centrally based away from the perimeter with a cordon sanitaire and extensive tree screening minimising the visual and environmental impact including the impact on the local ground waters;
(ii) the retention, as far as possible, of the mature hedgerows and trees on the perimeter of the site and the creation of new habitat by tree planting;
(iii) the mitigation of potential impact from traffic by the development of a new access road diverting construction and operational traffic away from the road classified by the Minister for Transport as a regional road and assigned the number R130 in the Roads Act 1993 (Classification of Regional Roads) Order 2006 (S.I. No. 188 of 2006), the town of Coolquay in the County of Fingal and the Francis Taylor National School at Kilcoskan in the County of Fingal and the provision of a regular dedicated bus service, related to demand, linking the city of Dublin to the site of the proposed prison;
(iv) the mitigation of noise, dust and other emissions by prioritising the construction of the perimeter wall that will aid the mitigation of noise, dust and other emissions and the adoption of a Construction Environmental Management Plan;
(v) the management of the surface water system in a manner which controls the quality and quantity of the surface water in a manner likely to avoid any adverse effect on local water drainage systems (which management includes the use of underground attenuation storage);
(vi) the implementation of an environmental management programme to ensure the correct handling and storage of potentially contaminating materials and waste disposal;
(vii) the use of solar water heating, rainwater harvesting, biomass boilers, natural ventilation and measures to minimise carbon emissions and water demand;
(viii) the minimisation of night light impact by the use of adjustable perimeter security lighting;
(ix) the preservation of the Thornton Hall building which will not form part of the prison site; and
(x) the investigation of the site to identify, record, resolve or protect potential archaeological heritage in the area of the development;
that visual representations of the exterior of the completed development appear at the end of this resolution;
that the conditions relating to the construction of the new prison to be complied with by the principal building contractor or developer engaged by the Minister are:
(a) that the development shall not vary in any material way from that outlined in the environmental impact assessment and the visual representations of the exterior of the completed development as laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas;
(b) that the construction schedule shall:
(i) give priority to the construction of an access route from the road classified by the Minister for Transport as a regional road and assigned the number R135 in the Roads Act 1993 (Classification of Regional Roads) Order 2006 (S.I. No.188 of 2006) to the main site at Thornton Hall and that route will be used as the sole access route for all heavy construction traffic for the development; and
(ii) thereafter give priority to the construction of those sections of the perimeter wall that will minimise the impact of construction work within that perimeter on persons residing or working in the locality;
(c) that the road classified by the Minister for Transport as a regional road and assigned the number R130 in the Roads Act 1993 (Classification of Regional Roads) Order 2006 (S.I. No. 188 of 2006) shall not be used by heavy construction, delivery or removal vehicles other than:
(i) that portion of the road that must be crossed to gain access to the Thornton Hall part of the site from the new access route;
(ii) that portion of the road that must be accessed to construct the underpass from the new access route to the Thornton Hall part of the site; and
(iii) in emergencies where there is a threat to life or property and where the use of the new access route is not viable for that emergency;
(d) that the emergency exits at the north-west and south ends of the site shall not be used by service or delivery vehicles at any stage during construction or operation and shall only be used in the case of emergencies or emergency exercises;
(e) that construction shall not commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been drawn up by the primary contractor, approved of by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and implemented in keeping with best practice and in particular the construction phase mitigation and other measures specified in sections 7.5, 8.7.1, 9.6.1, 10.5.1, 11.5.1, 12.6, 13.5 and 15.5 of the Environmental Impact Assessment shall be adhered to by the body or bodies contractually responsible for the construction of the development including any subcontractors;
resolves to approve the development of the said prison at Kilsallaghan in the County of Fingal.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In the first paragraph after "in the County of Fingal" to insert the following:
"—that, to ensure the safety of prisoners and staff or the Irish Prison Service, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of certain prison accommodation in Ireland;
that, recognising the existence of a new women's prison, Dóchas, the need for women to be held in a completely separate facility from men and held within easy access of visiting families and children to ensure community and generational continuity and support, women shall not be held in the facility at Thornton Hall;
that the facility at Thornton Hall will never be used to house persons under 18 years of age;
that the facility at Thornton Hall will never be used to house persons seeking asylum or protection from persecution;
that no part of the facility at Thornton Hall shall constitute an 'approved centre' for involuntary admission of persons suffering from a disorder under the Mental Health Act 2001;
that the facility at Thornton Hall have visiting hours at weekends and in the evening of specified weekdays so as to allow maximum opportunity for visitation by families to persons detained at the facility at Thornton Hall;
that the facility at Thornton Hall shall be serviced by a frequent and low-cost public transport service at all visiting times which must service the transport hub of Busáras and Connolly Station;
that prison policy in Ireland be informed by a rehabilitative agenda which incorporates education, training, psychological assistance and drug detoxification as its core principles;
that every prisoner at the facility at Thornton Hall shall have an Integrated Sentence Management programme designed for him, with particular emphasis placed on reintegration into the community at the end of their sentence to include provision of short term accommodation;
that every prisoner at the facility at Thornton Hall have access to comprehensive education and vocational training, with particular emphasis on literacy development for any prisoner; and
that every prisoner at the facility at Thornton Hall who suffers from a drug addiction have access to a comprehensive drug detoxification programme.".
(Deputy Charles Flanagan).
The draft resolution to approve the development of a prison in the district electoral division of Kilsallaghan is an important step in the delivery of real and substantive improvements in our prison system. Mountjoy Prison, a Victorian prison built in 1850 for short-term convicts awaiting transportation to Tasmania, has to go. The accommodation provided at Mountjoy Prison is substandard — there is no in-cell sanitation and it is overcrowded. The constrained size of the site restricts the development of proper prison programmes.
A number of Deputies have drawn attention to the problems facing the prison system. We are addressing those problems. The construction of a new prison development at Thornton Hall is part of the solution and will be a major help in this regard. It will lead to the end of "slopping out" at Mountjoy Prison. It will replace the current substandard and overcrowded accommodation. It will provide state-of-the-art prison accommodation and facilities for education, training and rehabilitation. It is designed to gain the maximum rehabilitative benefit from having a collection of small institutions while maximising the operational benefits associated with larger prisons by having a single perimeter wall and a central stores and maintenance service. New prisoners will be assessed when they are committed to the prison. The risk they pose and the most appropriate regime to manage their future integration into society will be determined. The most dangerous and violent prisoners will be assigned to high security facilities. Those who pose less risk will benefit from a lower security regime. As they progress, they can move to step-down facilities in a domestic-type setting. The capacity of the new development will allow ringleaders and rival gang members to be easily segregated from one another, lowering the potential for inter-prisoner violence. The physical lay-out of the prison will ensure a much safer and more secure environment than exists in Mountjoy. Given 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 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 and a dedicated bus service will be provided. As I mentioned, there are a range of different facilities provided. Separate from the male adult prison and from one another will be a female facility and a dual purpose block reserved initially and on a contingency basis for 16 and 17 year old males. Along with a central administration centre and stores there will be work training facilities, a library, health care, a gym and playing fields.
In the 1990s, owing to 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 were out on temporary release. I am proud to say that as a result of action taken by Governments of which I have been a member this figure is down to a reasonable 6%. If Thornton Hall is not built, there is a possibility that once again there will be severe pressure on our prison capacity.
The capacity of Thornton is based on the outcome of a study on projected prisoner numbers for the period up to 2015. While the projections envisage an increase in numbers, they project that our prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants will reduce as our overall population increases faster than our prison population. The development is designed to cater for 1,400 prisoners in single cell occupancy. However, we must allow for the unforeseen. Mountjoy Prison has been in use for more than 150 years.
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, EIA, it was necessary to take the most extreme scenario and hence the EIA cites a figure of 2,200 prisoners although, as I stated, the intention for the foreseeable future is to operate the prison with no more than 1,400 prisoners.
Obviously, today the focus is on prisons but let us be clear 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 of people 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. As I stated at the committee meeting earlier today, approximately 10% of persons convicted receive custodial sentences.
The courts make liberal use of alternative sanctions to custody. These include fines, probation, compensation orders, supervision orders and community service orders. 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 and the review of the community service scheme and by the bringing forward of legislative proposals on fines.
Turning to the amendment proposed by Fine Gael, I recognise that a constructive effort has been made to raise important issues about our prison system. While I will be opposing the amendment, that does not mean I disagree with the intent behind some or all of the particular proposals. I do not believe it is appropriate to try to tie down the management of a prison by means of what are in effect "planning conditions".
As far as the specific points raised in the amendment are concerned I agree there is an urgent need to improve the quality of certain prison accommodation. Indeed, this is the reason the Government is pushing for the prison development to proceed. I agree the Irish Prison Service has achieved major successes with the Dóchas centre. It is a fine building and it is unfortunate we will have obtained less than 15 years use from it when it is eventually closed. Women make up a very small proportion of the total prison population, less than 4%. While I do not anticipate any sudden upsurge in this regard, I again point out that it is the courts and not the Prison Service that decide who goes to prison. Furthermore, approximately 60% of women offenders committed to prison are so sentenced for crimes involving violence or drugs and, for this reason, a prison is needed.
The Dóchas centre is already the most overcrowded prison in the State. On 1 May prisoner numbers exceeded bed capacity by 30% — women prisoners deserve better than this. As I stated at the committee meeting, the Dóchas centre sticks out as a sore thumb in regard to bed occupancy. We need more space and it does not make operational or financial sense to have two women prisons in Dublin. The design at Thornton Hall takes full advantage of the best lessons we have learned from the Dóchas centre and applies them on a larger but still moderate scale. It will provide single occupancy domestic style accommodation based around courtyards. It will also include three separate sections which will ensure that, for example, women on remand remain separate from sentenced prisoners. I also point out that at Thornton, women prisoners will be completely segregated from male prisoners and will be further away from them than they are at present in the Mountjoy complex. The Irish Prison Service is committed to facilitating visits by family and children to both male and female prisoners.
Currently, 16 and 17 year old male prisoners are held in St. Patrick's Institution which is part of the Mountjoy complex. Conditions there are not good. The Government is committed to ensuring that persons under the age of 18 are not detained in the same institution as adult prisoners. In March of 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. It is a much smaller project than Thornton and the aim is to have these new facilities built and in operation before Mountjoy Prison and St. Patrick's Institution are closed. However, planning is at a much earlier stage than Thornton and it is not possible to guarantee how the timing will work out in practice.
The Government has a choice if the new facilities at Oberstown are not ready on time. We can leave 16 and 17 year old prisoners in dilapidated and poorly serviced accommodation in St. Patrick's Institution or we can as a contingency measure move them to new purpose built accommodation in Thornton where they will be completely isolated from any adult prisoners in a manner which complies with our international obligations.
There are no plans to use Thornton to systematically detain asylum seekers. Under the Refugee Act, asylum seekers may be detained in very specific circumstances, for example if a notorious war criminal seeks asylum, while their claim is being processed. Furthermore, asylum seekers are not exempt from the criminal law and as with any individual they may be imprisoned if they commit an offence while in this jurisdiction. 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. Currently, 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.
I can assure Members that in no circumstances can I contemplate any facility within the proposed development being an approved centre under the Mental Health Act 2001. The proposal regarding the possible siting of the Central Mental Hospital, a designated centre under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, falls outside the scope of the Prisons Act 2007 and nothing in this resolution can affect that proposal one way or the other. There is agreement on all sides that the existing Central Mental Hospital needs to be replaced. I understand a project team established by the Department of Health recommended in 2004 that the Central Mental Hospital be relocated to a new site with ready access to the M50 motorway. The Thornton site meets the specified criteria. It is immediately available at no extra cost to the Exchequer and would free considerable sums of money from Dundrum for investment in the new Central Mental Hospital and other capital developments for mental health services. It is for this reason the Government directed that 20 acres with its own entrance be set aside as a possible site for the relocated Central Mental Hospital. I use the term "possible site" because the project has to go through a number of hurdles, including a cost benefit analysis, before a final decision is made.
Maintaining links with family and friends can be important for maintaining and rehabilitating prisoners. For this reason visits and phone calls are facilitated. Local management needs discretion to reconcile visiting with other needs, and arrangements vary. In closed prisons visiting sessions are normally in the morning and afternoon on six days of the week. In the training centre and open institutions, however, visits are often centred on Saturday and Sunday to avoid clashes with work and training commitments. For these reasons I do not think it appropriate to impose specific requirements about visiting hours as part of a development consent condition.
I agree entirely that visitors dependent on public transport should have available to them a low cost transport service that ties in with visiting hours at the new prison. However, I would not be willing to designate specific transport hubs at this stage. We must consult with the people concerned and find out what their needs are before making this kind of decision.
The first priority for any prison service is to provide a safe, secure and humane custody. I can confirm that our prison policy is and will continue to be informed by a rehabilitative agenda including education, training, psychological assistance and drug treatment. The development at Thornton will enhance our ability to implement these policies.
The Irish Prison Service is committed to developing and rolling out a fully coordinated integrated sentence management system based on risk assessment and rehabilitative needs. Education and literacy, in particular, will continue to be a priority.
The Irish Prison Service drugs policy and strategy provides for a comprehensive range of treatment options. As I mentioned at the outset, we are dealing with approval of a major prison under the special procedure under the Prisons Act 2007. This is a more open, transparent and democratic procedure than the normal planning procedure for prison development. The rapporteur received 130 submissions and his report identifies the main points raised in the submissions. All the relevant documents have 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, EIA, and to the results of the public consultation. 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 to address the concerns expressed by those who made submissions where appropriate. 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 development conditions regarding the resolution are partly in response to the submissions made to the rapporteur. I will not go into the details of that but it is safe to say we have endeavoured to meet as many as possible of the submissions people made.
We will provide vastly improved facilities in existing small-scale institutions but with the better services and economies of scale associated with larger prisons. The development at Thornton will not be a magic bullet but it will radically improve our prisons.
The resolution to approve this is worthy of support from all sides of the House.
I shall read the text of our amendment which I moved last month.
1. In the first paragraph after "in the County of Fingal" to insert the following:
"—that, to ensure the safety of prisoners and staff of the Irish Prison Service, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of certain prison accommodation in Ireland;
that, recognising the existence of a new women's prison, Dóchas, the need for women to be held in a completely separate facility from men and held within easy access of visiting families and children to ensure community and generational continuity and support, women shall not be held in the facility at Thornton Hall;
that the facility at Thornton Hall will never be used to house persons under 18 years of age;
that the facility at Thornton Hall will never be used to house persons seeking asylum or protection from persecution;
that no part of the facility at Thornton Hall shall constitute an approved centre for involuntary admission of persons suffering from a disorder under the Mental Health Act 2001;
that the facility at Thornton Hall have visiting hours at weekends and in the evening of specified weekdays so as to allow maximum opportunity for visitation by families to persons detained at the facility at Thornton Hall;
that the facility at Thornton Hall shall be serviced by a frequent and low-cost public transport service at all visiting times which must service the transport hub of Busáras and Connolly Station;
that prison policy in Ireland be informed by a rehabilitative agenda which incorporates education, training, psychological assistance and drug detoxification as its core principles;
that every prisoner at the facility at Thornton Hall shall have an integrated sentence management programme designed for him, with particular emphasis placed on reintegration into the community at the end of their sentence to include provision of short term accommodation;
that every prisoner at the facility at Thornton Hall have access to comprehensive education and vocational training, with particular emphasis on literacy development for any prisoner; and
that every prisoner at the facility at Thornton Hall who suffers from a drug addiction have access to a comprehensive drug detoxification programme."
We are back about two hours from the meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The situation regarding this debate is less than satisfactory because issues arose on Committee Stage and must be dealt with now although the House will break soon for Private Members' Business. It is a pity that this important issue is being rushed in such a fashion.
I thank the Minister for his reference to the amendment and to the points he made in favour of some of it. I regret he did not see fit to go further.
With regard to the need to improve the quality of prison accommodation, that point is accepted. We obviously support the relocation of Mountjoy and the need to invest on the capital side in our prisons.
Regarding persons seeking asylum or protection from persecution, I note what the Minister said and I shall return to the matter.
The issue of public transport arose on Committee Stage and I urge the Minister to be generous in his reply because it is important. This was raised not only by me but by Deputy Burton and others in whose constituencies the proposed facility will be constructed.
I welcome what the Minister said in regard to prisoners' reintegration into the community at the end of sentence. Perhaps before the end of the debate he might clarify that every prisoner will be part of that system.
I also welcome what the Minister said with regard to the programme for literacy. In the matter of drug addiction, it is regrettable that therapy is not provided in most of our prisons. This gives rise to serious issues.
The current prison system is failing society due to the absence of comprehensive programmes of rehabilitation and the corresponding high levels of recidivism. These rates are quite shocking. Research suggests that half the prisoners re-offend within four years of release while 27% are back in prison within 12 months of release. The taxpayer is footing a bill of between €95,000 and €100,000 per prisoner per year, maintaining what is in effect a revolving door system. I accept, given the Dáil figures, that there will be a new facility, and given the intent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the fact that almost €40 million has already been expended that we can expect a prison at Thornton Hall in some form will go ahead. That is the reality. It must be underpinned, however, by appropriate facilities within the prison.
Our current prisons are in breach of international human rights standards, with particular reference to overcrowding and violence. On occasion there are 990 prisoners in Mountjoy in a structure with maximum capacity for 930. Dóchas currently houses 90 inmates on some nights, as the Minister remarked, and on some days up to 100 women, despite its maximum capacity being for 85. If Mountjoy and St. Patrick's are coming to the end of their tenure and moving out why not extend Dóchas? Why can we not expand and develop that site instead of moving people to Thornton Hall?
Ireland's shameful record on human rights has been emphasised repeatedly by the Prison Chaplains' Association, the Council of Europe's Anti-torture Committee and by the prison inspectorate itself. The Council of Europe's report into Irish prisons, published last October, described a scenario where inter-prisoner violence was rife, fuelled by the widespread availability of illegal drugs and the existence in our prisons of a gang culture. Three prisons were singled out as being particularly dangerous in this context: Limerick, Mountjoy and St. Patrick's Institution. The fact the latter is a facility for young people makes the findings of the Council of Europe report all the more stark and shocking.
Figures published towards the end of last year indicate that more than 770 prisoners were under protective custody for their own safety in prisons nationwide, out of a total prison population of about 3,000 people. In the meantime, last year an average of one prisoner per month died while in custody as a result of a drug overdose, murder or natural causes. This is totally unacceptable.
In their most recent report the prison chaplains state the misuse of drugs continues to be a major problem in most of our prisons. Many people have been introduced to drugs initially while in prison. Surely the Minister will agree this is a shocking state of affairs. I recall comments in this regard by one of the Minister's predecessors, Mr. Michael McDowell, who indicated that drugs in prisons were becoming a thing of the past during his reign, which was not too long ago. It is a shocking indictment of the prison system that those who enter it without a drugs problem can actually acquire one by the time of their release. Prison chaplains point to the fact that drug offences are actually the reason many are incarcerated in the first instance. In this context, the limited and ad hoc availability of drug treatment programmes within prisons is a national disgrace. Only nine prisoners at a time can avail of a special six-week addiction treatment programme in Mountjoy Prison. Prisoners seeking drug-free landings to help combat their addiction are denied the facility due to chronic overcrowding. I hope this will be addressed in whatever new facility is constructed.
The last report published by the late Mr. Justice Kinlen before his death stated the prison system was dysfunctional and lacking in educational, psychiatric and rehabilitation services. It is unacceptable to proceed to build Thornton Hall as a super prison with 2,200 places in addition to the 3,300 or 3,400 currently available. We have the highest prison population in the history of the State. Are we to turn to the new facility into a super sized crime academy in which prisoners are locked away without any effort being made to lure them away from a life of crime? The prison at Thornton Hall must be part of a new approach to prisoners, characterised by a focus on rehabilitating every one of them, including serious criminals. The new prison must not become a centre where current dysfunctional trends are permitted to magnify.
Fine Gael supports the construction of a modern prison complex subject to the following important conditions, some of which I accept the Minister has addressed. There should be a comprehensive programme of rehabilitation with the aim of offering a rehabilitation service to every prisoner so as to cut recidivism rates substantially. There should be clear targets that can be revisited regularly. Education and training should be available to all prisoners in the State, irrespective of whether they are in the prison at Thornton Hall or Portlaoise, with particular emphasis on literacy programmes. The latest research suggests 65% of prisoners nationally are illiterate, while 50% of young offenders in St. Patrick's Institution are illiterate. We need an integrated sentence management programme for every prisoner. The Minister has indicated this will happen and I welcome it. The existing drug detoxification programmes should be readily available to all and the programme should benefit from ring-fenced funding.
We are facing substantial financial cutbacks, as the good days are over. The Celtic tiger is dead, as the Minister admitted during the interregnum between the change of holders of high office. We want to ensure there will be no cutbacks in prison education services.
I did not say that. The Deputy should check what I said.
What is the position on the Fines Bill which, according to the Order Paper, is before the Houses? However, it is not actually before this House or the Seanad. I do not know where it is but it must be resurrected and passed to address anomalies associated with the prisoner population. The latest official figures, those for 2008, show there are more inmates in prison for theft and shoplifting than there are for violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter and sexual offences. There are 647 people in jail for non-violent offences relating to property. This compares with 226 for murder, 82 for manslaughter and 230 for sexual offences.
Adequate staff must be provided to ensure safety and build bridges between prisoners and staff. The Government must ensure the provision of a frequent public transport service from Dublin city centre to the prison and also its visitor centre, which should be a modern building with refreshment facilities for those visiting their family or friends in prison.
We need a commitment to increase dramatically the funding for the probation and welfare service and ring-fenced funding for projects such as Linkage, an important and positive development. I welcome the Minister's commitment to develop the restorative justice programme, on which I look forward to receiving the final report which I understand may be forthcoming this year. I hope we can debate it in the House.
I heard what the Minister said on asylum seeker detention. He used the word "systematic" in a systematic way and is attempting to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Will there be on the Thornton Hall site a holding centre, detention centre or unit for asylum seekers? The use of the word "systematic" is direct and deliberate on the part of the Minister. It is against international best practice to use a prison building or jail campus as a holding centre or detention unit.
I have many questions for the Minister. Is there a facility, whereby my questions can be allowed later, as they give rise to certain issues? For example, there is a reference to the Central Mental Hospital not being "within the site" of the prison. This is a clever statement but we must ask whether the hospital will be adjacent to the site. With others, I would have a difficulty with this. Local concerns were not dealt with adequately at meetings of the committee but need to be.
We discussed the issue of designing, building and maintaining the facility at a meeting of the committee. What private sector involvement will there be, if any, in the management, running and maintenance of the prison? The State should retain total control of whatever building is constructed. This is a most important issue that we did not have time to discuss at the meeting of the committee. I beg the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence such that we might revert to the matter between now and the close of business.
I ask the Minister to take on board my concerns and ensure there will be a prisons policy, separate from the current ad hoc arrangements, that will allow us to adhere not only to national best practice but also to international standards.
As Standing Order 47 does not apply to this debate, Members who have made a contribution can intervene again.
That is appreciated. I thank the Taoiseach for his remarks in that regard.
The message of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights states the committee has completed its consideration of this matter. I am bound to say this is a parliamentary device designed not to mislead the House but to reassure it that a large number of committee members were gathered in silent scrutiny of this proposal for a very long period. However, that is not what happened at all. The truth is that it cannot be said the committee had completed its consideration because it was really only getting to the heart of the important issues when its work had to be abridged and a report made to the House, purely because, for some reason I still do not understand, the use of the guillotine is promised in the House at 10 p.m. Although this project has been hanging around for a long time, members only received some information in this regard in the middle of May. Due to the legislative load on the committee and the Lisbon treaty referendum, the committee has not had an adequate opportunity to consider the issues involved in the biggest prison building programme since the foundation of the State. It is important to indicate that it has not had the time necessary to do justice to a project such as this.
The unusual provisions of the Prisons Act effectively require the Houses to function as the planning authority; otherwise it constitutes exempt development. While there has been much criticism of those elected brethren of members who function in planning authorities, were they to function as committee members have in this case, they would be charged with being in dereliction of their duty. Members did not have time to hear from those who have an input to make into this project in the fashion they would have liked. People were ready to make considered statements to the committee and its members were not in a position to accommodate them. The committee was obliged to shorten the time available to those it did hear and it is fair to state they raised points that appeared to be at direct variance with assurances the Minister had given to Members.
The committee did not, for example, have the opportunity to hear from any established criminologist and did not hear any academic submission in this regard. Although major statements of policy are predicated on this major building programme, the committee was unable to hear from them. It had inadequate time to examine the compatibility of what was planned with modern thinking on penal reform. The committee did not have adequate time to tease through the considered submissions received from residents' associations and people on whose lives this prison project would have a direct impact.
Moreover, the committee did not have adequate time to assess the implications of the great expenditure for prison provision. For example, does it mean that members are acquiescing in the inevitability that the prison population will continue to grow and that they merely are providing for better facilities in which to bang them up? Many would have liked members to tease through this issue. I accept the Minister has moderated his language in his latest contribution in the House. The remarks he made at the committee were intolerant of the submissions made by those whom he described as purporting to care for prisoners. His statement in the Chamber was a softer version and I welcome some of his comments. However, on a project as big as this one, the level of scrutiny remains inadequate.
I accept that to protect citizens and enforce the rule of law, some must be detained in prison for their safety and that of society. This is inevitable. I also accept that Mountjoy Prison is unsuitable and that the Victorian conditions applicable there are not good enough in the 21st century. However, I am not satisfied that Members have had an opportunity to discuss what non-custodial measures are available in our approach to prison provision and those who should be in prison. I am not satisfied that members have had sufficient time to consider whether there are people in prison who should not be there in the first place. I am not satisfied that they have had time to consider whether there are pathways for the reintegration into society of those who come out of prison. I am not satisfied that the prisons are functioning. They seem to be a kind of giant FÁS scheme for the training of more professional criminals.
I am worried that the massive public expenditure on the provision of prison places will be at the expense of other matters. For example, will the budget for the probation and welfare service be affected as a result of such massive expenditure? I am at a complete loss to understand the mindset that stated there was an obligation to conceive this project and purchase the site in secrecy. I made some remarks in this regard on a previous occasion and do not wish to return to the issue. However, it is remarkable that members found themselves with a fait accompli regarding the purchase of a site at what would be considered a remote location and at a cost that, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General, was twice the market value in the area. Moreover, the cost was much more than twice the market value, according to experts in the land business and some of those familiar with the area. Nevertheless, apparently, the belief is that because this is a prison and because that is the nature of the business to be done, one could not let the public know.
It is more important that it was considered necessary to shut out the advocates of reform when furthering the proposal. I cannot discern the reason the only people who are allowed to make an input are those who are on the inside. I refer to advocates of reform, however much of a pain in the backside they might be regarded by some in the Prison Service who have an unpleasant job to do and no doubt do so to the best of their ability. Why do these pains in the neck not receive a platform to make their input into the configuration of the new prison? I refer to the design of cells, the nature of the activities for rehabilitation and education and training and similar issues. Why must it be the conception of insiders only? Why can those well known advocates of reform who interface with the prison population, have devoted much of their lives to working with prisoners and know about prisons not be heard?
Speaking of experts, I would like to hear from the Green Party as its members were experts. While I do not suggest the Prison Service or the Minister would regard them to be part of the pain in the neck category to which I referred, they are experts. The new leader ridiculed the idea and thought the former Minister, Mr. McDowell, was not the kind of fellow one could let out alone to buy a piece of land. He has waxed eloquent in this regard. The former leader, Deputy Sargent, pledged to oppose it in the House. He met the affected residents and told them he would oppose it in the House. In fairness to democracy, the opportunity ought to be afforded to him tonight to express such opposition so as to be able to keep faith with the residents to whom he gave that undertaking.
The experts — the people at the coalface who interface with prisoners — are unhappy about the direction that has been taken. The residents in the area are unhappy about the manner in which their fears have been taken into account. The voluntary organisations which provide many of the services such as counselling, rehabilitation programmes and so on are unhappy about the implications of the decision for their continued involvement. For example, people involved with the Dóchas project are unhappy and do not know why it has to be relocated out of the city to Kilsallaghan, with all of the implications for them.
We met the residents, although we were not able to give them adequate time. They have made voluminous considered submissions to us about things like water, sewerage, light intrusion, the height and width of the wall and so on. We were not able to probe these submissions because we did not have the time. The Minister has not responded to that. In fairness, he could not have done so with the time available to him. I would like him to confirm that he is willing to meet representatives of the residents to deal with some of the issues that concern them.
Speaking of secrecy, I would also like to hear him discuss the state of Government policy on the Central Mental Hospital. Until now we have proceeded in this debate on the basis that it involves a different Department, whereas people working with the Central Mental Hospital are absolutely persuaded that the Government has resolved that because it is stuck with 150 acres — the former Minister, Michael McDowell, was only asked to buy 80 acres, but he came back with 150 — it must find a use for that land. It seems clear that phase two will be the relocation of the Central Mental Hospital. It is not good enough for the current Minister to state we will have to put down a parliamentary question to the relevant Minister of State. He will not tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to relocate the Central Mental Hospital. It is like asking the Minister questions about the preferred bidder, as we did at the joint committee. The Minister has always been very touchy about this, and one would not need to mention anything about a developer to him. I do not question the fact he would never say hello to a developer. He stated that if I wanted to find that out——
Or even promoters for developers. Am I right?
Or even promoters for developers out of his own stable. He stated that if we wanted to find that out, we should go to the National Treasury Management Agency. I think the Government should tell us about its position. Is it the case that Bernard McNamara has been selected? Is it the case, given the controversy that has unfolded with Dublin City Council, that he does not have the capacity to deliver this project and that we will be picking up the pieces later in the year? The Minister has avoided questions on this issue and he has avoided questions on the Central Mental Hospital. There have also been many questions from the residents.
Senator Joe O'Toole stated that when the residents came into the committee meeting, the Minister's party colleagues were careful to put on the record that they opposed the prison. Deputy Darragh O'Brien told us of his record of opposing it on Fingal County Council and why he was so worried for the residents. Senator O'Toole pointed out that no Members from the Government parties were in support of this project. We were left wondering who actually is promoting the project. It seems that it was left to the unfortunate civil servants to carry the can, because Fianna Fáil and Green Party backbenchers are not supporting it. Nobody supports it, according to Senator O'Toole.
Mr. Jimmy Farrelly did a useful exercise, but it is only an exercise in explication. He was brought in to go through the countless filing cabinets of submissions that were made and to synthesise them into an accessible document. He did that, but he has not expressed any view. Some of the views he interprets for us are very supportive of the views that we have advanced from this side of the House. The Minister was less than sure-footed.
I must interrupt the Deputy, as his time has expired. He will have an opportunity at the end of the debate to come back.
If I may say so, Deputy Rabbitte had his tongue in his cheek when he quoted the eminent Senator, but he still did it in his usual dry fashion so one is not quite clear what exactly he meant by it.
In a general sense, I would welcome a purpose built prison to replace the prison built in 1850. We have read many articles over the years about slopping out and other poor conditions in Mountjoy. The conditions are wrong and have given rise to great rebukes in the hallowed halls where these things are discussed, especially the UN, about the way our prison service functions. However, given that such a large prison is to be built, there is an opportunity to infuse it with passion and commitment. It should not be just a prison into which people are put and out of which they will come, no whit better in their manner or disposition towards civil society, or in any way improved in their character. It is also a chance to improve the way in which the whole prison service is managed and to look at the area of restorative justice, as well as the community service scheme.
I recently put down a question in the House about the community service scheme, and the Minister told me a report on its review was due shortly. When is that report due and will we be debating it in this House? It is important we should do so. I always felt that the scheme should be used much more frequently and much more creatively. I have never yet met a person who has been on a community service scheme, but such an idea is a good one. If it is reviewed properly, we will know what role it has played in the lives of those fined in the courts. Of course judges hand down sentences they think are correct, and I agree with that.
The Minister stated that women occupy 4% of prison space, which is small. He stated they are generally imprisoned for crimes involving violence and drugs, so a prison sentence is needed. A few years ago, the then Minister showed female Members of the House around the Dóchas centre in Mountjoy. I was taken by the open aspect of it and I felt that women would feel safe in that prison. I do not see why that centre has to go to Thornton Hall and I feel it could remain in its current location. I know the Minister has given assurances about the separation of males from females, which is welcome. However, the Dóchas centre in its inner-city location is near to many of the women prisoners' families. Many of them have young children. Its close proximity was suitable for families, for constant visits from young children, enabling them to meet their mother. The Minister might look again at the Dóchas initiative for women prisoners. The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice recently brought over Baroness Corston — author of the Corston report — to give a lecture, to which the Minister was invited. She spoke about the review she had carried out on women prisoners in the UK and the findings. There may well be a case for retaining Dóchas where it is, rather than shipping everybody out to Thornton Hall, making that into a giant complex.
The Minister has said the transport services will be frequent and reasonably priced. They would need to be. It is very easy to get to Mountjoy. Despite all its material disadvantages, there is easy access for visitors. The relative inaccessibility of Thornton Hall will be a major stumbling block, if it is not attended to. I suggest an official should give attention to visiting services and accessibility. The Minister talks of a low cost transport service that will tie in with the visiting hours, but he is not willing to designate specific transport hubs at this stage. That is fair enough, but an official should be dedicated to investigating the required transport arrangements to ensure that people are able cheaply to visit those of their family and friends who are in custody.
The Minister gives the main points that the rapporteur has come back with from his consultation with the local residents. I have not met the local residents at any time; I have just read what they are saying and doing about the whole matter. I expect they have made submissions to the committee. Deputy Rabbitte has said they did not have enough time to go through them in a comprehensive fashion, as they would have wished. Nonetheless, I trust in the wisdom of the Minister and his Department to ensure that, in the main, the physical design of the building as it progresses will best tie in with the needs of the local residents. We have all, in a small way, dealt with planning regulations for houses etc. and in general those physical matters can be attended to without too much difficulty. I hope that will be the case.
I reiterate that I wish to see the publication of a full review of the committee services scheme, to see what it says as regards the efficacy of such a scheme and how it can be sharpened and made more suitable to the location and those going into it. I am quite sure the National Commission on Restorative Justice will issue a report. I do not recall when it was set up, but it is not that long ago.
The existing women's prison at Mountjoy is a lovely building which has been only 15 years in existence. I wonder whether any report has been done on the operation of Dóchas and what effect it has had on women prisoners, how they have fared coming from it, and whether restorative justice has been prevalent within its confines. I ask the Minister and his officials to look again at the possibility of keeping Dóchas in its present form and at the non-implementation of the proposed women's prison at Thornton Hall. For reasons of ease of access for families and for the prisoners themselves, and as a better custodial method, it ranks very high and it would be wrong to lose it to the Prison Service.
Before calling on Deputy Reilly, I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, to propose a procedural motion.
