JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2008

Thornton Hall Prison Development: Motion.

Chairman

We will now deal with the motion on the Thornton Hall prison development. At the committee meeting of 4 June members heard presentations by the Penal Reform Trust, the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, the Concerned Residents Group and the Rolestown and St. Margaret's Action Group. The purpose of this meeting is to debate the motion with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern. I advise members that we must complete our consideration of the motion by 4 p.m. in order that the clerk may send a message to the Dáil and Seanad.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister's short presentation will be followed by a question and answer session.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern)

I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment. I look forward to working with him and the other committee members.

It is accepted by all that Mountjoy Prison must be replaced. The accommodation there is substandard, with no in-cell sanitation and significant overcrowding. Given this consensus, I cannot understand why, when the Government devises a solution that will radically improve every facet of prisoners' lives, it is subject to nothing but criticism from some groups which purport to care about prisoners. However, nobody has offered any practical alternatives.

The Mountjoy Prison site is too small to provide a solution to our problems. The proposal to redevelop Mountjoy Prison envisaged a substantial reduction in prisoner capacity. Where are prisoners to be accommodated in the period when our largest prison is closed for refurbishment? The only viable solution involves building a facility on a new site. The Thornton Hall site offers excellent road access and is located less than ten miles from the city centre. Any public transport deficit will be made up by providing a dedicated bus service. The site provides enough space to cater for differing accommodation and rehabilitation needs in an uncrowded environment. Nobody has identified a more suitable site closer to the city and at a lower cost.

I understand why members of the local community have reservations about the development of a prison in their neighbourhood. However, if anybody knows of any community in the Dublin area which would welcome such a facility, I would be glad to hear of it. The committee has heard that locals wish to see the perimeter wall which is 7 m in height moved back by 60 m. This is simply unsustainable, as it would involve the loss of almost 40 acres and the need to build five or six-storey instead of two-storey buildings. This would have a far more dramatic effect on the area. The resolution proposes to address residents' concerns by screening the wall through enhanced planting. Mature trees will be planted which will provide instant height and foliage. We will have the existing hedgerow, a three-screened band, 10 m to 20 m in depth, then a fence, an internal road and, finally, the wall. In every case, the wall will be 15 m to 30 m from neighbouring boundaries.

There is an entire chapter in the environmental impact statement dealing with surface water and flooding. It states correctly that the Office of Public Works has no record of flooding at the development site. Our engineering consultants have said any local flooding has probably been caused by insufficient maintenance of existing land drains. The prison development is being specifically engineered to ensure that it will not pose any flooding risk to itself or neighbouring properties. This includes the use of attenuation tanks to reduce the volume of water run off.

Fingal County Council will have control over the water and sewerage services to the development site. The Irish Prison Service has been in discussions with council officials and has indicated that it is in favour of neighbouring properties benefitting from these new services. While I cannot speak on behalf of the council, I am aware it had to complete a number of procedural steps before the provision of the services was formally approved. Understandably, no commitment could be made until these steps had been completed, which has only happened in the past several weeks.

The environmental impact assessment modelled traffic for local minor roads but as access to the site is restricted to the dedicated route from the old N2, which is now designated as the R135, a very small number of vehicles are likely to use other minor roads in the area. A number of criticisms were made of the environmental impact assessment but I do not accept it contains any fundamental flaw. The assessment was prepared using a well established method and approach and it is professional and impartial. The question of a supplementary environmental impact assessment only arises if I propose to make a material alteration to the development.

Many questions have been raised about our prison policy generally. The proposed development is a concrete outcome of the Government's review of where the Irish prison system should be going. We have reviewed our current position, looked at existing trends, prepared projections, which are now available on the Irish Prison Service website, and have decided on our vision of the future. Incarceration will continue to be a sanction of last resort and determined by the courts. Our prison population per 100,000 inhabitants will remain among the lowest in Europe and our civilian population is increasing faster than our prison population. The incarceration rate will be considerably lower than across the water where the rate is double that of this jurisdiction. We need to build a considerable number of prison spaces to replace the substandard conditions in Mountjoy and Cork prisons and increase our capacity to avoid overcrowding and cope with increases that will arise naturally from the increase in the number of long-term prisoners. The new prison development will abolish the practice in Mountjoy of slopping out, allow single cell occupancy and enable the separation of high-risk prisoners from lower risk categories. The new development will be regime orientated, with extensive provision for education, work training and rehabilitation programmes. Every effort will be made to keep illicit drugs out of the prison and provide treatment for addicts. We will continue to strengthen the role of the probation and welfare service and the use of non-custodial sanctions.

The design at Thornton Hall is the result of an extensive consultative process involving psychologists, educationalists, medical personnel, chaplains, governors, prison officers, work training specialists and consultant engineers in this jurisdiction, as well as an examination by the Irish Prison Service of prison designs in the UK, several European countries and the USA. Input was also given by the bidders for the public private partnership contract. From the beginning, the design was focussed on the needs of prisoners rather than merely providing secure custody. I would like to put on record the determination of the Irish Prison Service to produce the best possible design from humanitarian, rehabilitative and management perspectives. The design will facilitate the roll-out of a fully co-ordinated, integrated sentence management system based on risk assessment and rehabilitative needs.

The development is designed for 1,400 prisoners in single cell occupancy. That number is projected to be sufficient until 2015. However, the cells are designed to be large enough for double occupancy and the services are designed to cope with up to 2,200 prisoners in an emergency. It is not the plan to have such a large number but for the purpose of the environmental impact assessment it was necessary to take the most extreme scenario. At present, nearly 1,000 prisoners are squeezed on to a 20 acre site in four institutions. I fail to see how 1,400 prisoners in eight institutions on a 120 acre site can be seen by anyone as a retrograde step.

I agree that the Irish Prison Service has achieved major success with the Dóchas centre. It is a fine building, but it is unfortunate that we will have got less than 15 years use out of 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, I have to point out that the courts decide who goes to prison and the Prison Service must accept every committal. Prisoner numbers in the Dóchas centre regularly exceeded bed capacity by 30% to 40%. The Dóchas centre is the most overcrowded prison in our system. When additional prisoners are committed they are put on mattresses on the floor of already occupied one-person rooms. It does not make operational or financial sense to leave the Dóchas centre in Mountjoy.

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 old prisoners. It is a much smaller project than Thornton and the aim is to have these new facilities built and in operation before Mountjoy and St. Patrick's Institution are closed. However planning is at a much earlier stage than at 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 in time. We can leave 16 and 17 year old prisoners in dilapidated and poorly serviced accommodation in St. Patrick's Institution run by the Prison Service, or we can, as a contingency measure, move them to new, temporary, purpose built accommodation in Thornton where they will be completely isolated from any adult prisoners in a manner that complies with our international obligations.

We all agree that Mountjoy has to go. We all agree that its overcrowded and substandard accommodation is not acceptable in the 21st century. Thornton is the solution to this problem. It is long overdue and urgently needed.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I seek the Chairman's guidance. Am I correct to assume this is a Committee Stage type interaction, the Minister has introduced the debate and we can make contributions that will form the basis of a debate? Will there be questions and will we have the opportunity to come in and out and make short contributions by way of questions until matters are completed?

Chairman

Yes, but we will have to finish by 4 p.m.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

In the Dáil I tabled an amendment on behalf of Fine Gael and we have a rather unusual situation whereby the amendment became decoupled from the motion along the way and is not before us. It is regrettable that during the debate in the Dáil the Minister did not refer to the amendment. I take it there is no point in debating the amendment here because it is not lawfully before us. However I give the Minister notice of my intention to move the amendment this evening when the matter is back before the plenary session of the Dáil. The format of the debate is inadequate. One of the reasons may be that this debate appears to be rushed. Deadlines in terms of how this matter can be dealt with were imposed by both Houses and by the Minister in this committee. That is unfortunate but if we are dealing with matters that have already been accepted there is very little we can do about it. I register my dissatisfaction with that.

There are two issues. The Minister might elaborate on the legal position. My assumption that we were engaging in a planning-type investigative measure this afternoon to deal with the local planning issues may be incorrect. There is no other forum at local authority level or in any Chamber or arena where these planning measures can be dealt with. This is the fast-track approach that allows the Houses of the Oireachtas - particularly the justice committee - to take upon itself the role of a planning authority and from that point of view we must deal with the local planning issues. That is why I was somewhat surprised, if pleased, that we had an opportunity to hear local interested parties, some if not all of whom had made submissions to the specially appointed rapporteur, Mr. Jim Farrelly, on local planning issues and concerns. It was disappointing to learn from those representative parties that they did not find the process conducive to dealing with the concerns they had.

The groups spoke of a lack of consultation or any sort of rigorous scrutiny. They spoke of having the matter foisted upon them and if that is the case, it is very unfair. At the request of members of the committee, written submissions were made and I regret that the Minister has not referred to them. Perhaps he has not seen them; I do not know. I thought the matters would be discussed today and I would put the points made by the residents to the Minister and the Chairman. They do not appear to have been at all convinced by the response to the representations made to them by Department officials or ministerial personnel. The concerns have not been met at all.

The other area is the long-term strategy to fill what is an obvious policy vacuum. The Minister has presented us with a fait accompli. Perhaps he will tell us how much money has been spent - it is seemingly to the tune of €40 million - on land. There did not appear to be any detailed consideration of the issues with regard to the land, and we have heard of eight separate prisons in a design that is less than what might have been expected and which could have been subjected to a public debate.

I would have thought going to a greenfield site was some kind of folly as there would have been some brownfield sites available in serviced areas. That was not considered. I wonder why we are having all this prison development on the north side of Dublin. It has been put to me there was nowhere else but what about Shanganagh Castle, which was sold? How much was paid and who bought it? Why was it not considered?

I am concerned that prison policy does not appear to be one upon which there is any consultation by way of debate. How was it that the interested parties - dare I call them stakeholders - along with prisoners, families, teachers, trainers and others involved did not appear to be part of any discussions at all? That is somewhat inadequate.

We seem to be following the Wheatfield exercise, which does not appear to accord with best European practice. We have seen reports from Britain, France and the Council of Europe indicating that super-prisons do not appear to coincide with what could be described as international best practice.

What power does the Minister have to take on board some of the concerns we are voicing this afternoon, and what inclination does he have to do so? Are we operating in a vacuum? Later on this evening I will move an amendment as I have a problem with a prison being an asylum seeker detention centre. The women's prison was also mentioned. How much has been spent? A figure of €33 million was put to me as having been spent on Dóchas to date. I visited there recently. In so far as a prison can be described as a fine facility, it is and appears to be acceptable. To expend €33 million and then close it down or demolish it would seem to be an act of folly. Perhaps the same will be done with the St. Patrick's Institution in moving it out. I do not accept the Minister's statement that those young people in St. Patrick's must move to Thornton Hall.

We should deal with the local concerns. Why has no effort been made to address the series of concerns listed by Mr. Jim Farrelly? Mr. Farrelly has indicated that it is outside his remit. Within whose remit does this fall if there are concerns?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

On the planning issues, it is important to point out that the Prisons Act 2007 provided for a special procedure to be applied in this instance and allow this process to take place. If we had relied on the existing provisions in Part 1 of the planning and development regulations 2001, the Minister could, in effect, have become the deciding planning authority and, apart from receiving an environmental impact statement, EIS, could have designated the given site as the final site. The way this is being done provides more opportunities for the people concerned to make their views known to the committee and ourselves. Every effort has been made to try to deal with some of the issues involved. The reason I have posed the question is that no matter where one chooses to locate a prison, some will feel uneasy. We are trying to deal with some of the significant issues regarding the location. We have answered questions on screening and so on, an issue to which I have referred previously.

We sought a substantial site of around 100 acres and this location was considered to be the best. The cost of the site was €29.9 million. Some €1.35 million was spent on the road and buying additional lands that it was considered could help deal with some of the issues raised by residents. The cost of fees, including those of consulting engineers, came to €5 million. The facility at Shanganagh was sold for around €30 million. Therefore, the net cost to the Exchequer is, in effect, zero.

I am not sure about the overall cost relating to the Dóchas centre but I can get that information later. Most of the costs relating to the centre were incurred in 1996 and 1997 and it was opened in 1998. It will remain in operation until 2011, at least. As I told the Deputy previously, we accept it is a good prison but there is an over-occupancy rate of between 30% and 40%. From financial and operational points of view, in the context of the overall Mountjoy Prison site, it makes no sense to retain it when it is possible to create more modern facilities, given the knowledge of how prisons should be run nowadays.

I refer members to a report of December 2007 by Lord Carter with proposals for the efficient and sustainable use of custody in England and Wales. He recommends three major prisons in the United Kingdom, each of which would provide up to 2,500 places, comprising five units of approximately 500 offenders. He goes into best practice and how the prisons should be set up. He says they should be located as close as possible to regions where demand for prison places outweighs supply. The working assumption is that these prisons would house male and female prisoners in smaller units within each prison. The report was closely studied by my officials when planning the proposed prison at Thornton Hall. There are no plans to use Thornton for the detention of asylum seekers. I made that point clearly before.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I thank the Chairman and extend my good wishes to him for his period in the Chair.

I feel a little like Paul Galvin and the Kerry team in that I am frustrated by this experience.

Chairman

I will have to give the Deputy a red card.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I hope not, as I do not intend to kick anything around.

I find the provision of time to deal with this not very meaningful. This committee has a woefully heavy workload. Maybe we should talk in private session about providing for a better division of the work. The day we heard submissions from interested parties was pretty chaotic and the time provided to hear people who feel passionately about the project or about penal reform - and in some cases have devoted a good portion of their lives to it or have strong views on it - was entirely inadequate. I do not consider myself to be in a good position to judge the merits of some of the arguments but I felt we had inadequate time. We are now in this position again. We agreed this ourselves and I do not blame anyone for it. We are faced with a guillotine to send the motion back to the House and, in turn, there is a guillotine in the House in that it is to be dealt with by 10 o'clock tonight. This is wrong on a whole number of grounds. It is wrong that there should be such a major expenditure on prison provision if we do not have time to go into it in the kind of detail that is necessary.

The Minister's script is very interesting. It drips with weariness at the fact that various uninformed persons are, as he sees it, intruding in the way of a necessary project. He says he cannot understand that when the Government sets out to do something like this it is "subject to nothing but criticism from some groups which purport to care about prisoners". That is the kind of sentence that has left us where we are after last Thursday and it is an attitude that provokes a certain response in people. I do not know whether those people who made submissions are correct, but what I do know is that they do not "purport" to care. Some of them have devoted their lives to the issue, which is not a popular one in our society. I have great sympathy with the Prison Service because this House does not have a great track record of caring about the issues that confront it. However, it is not right to say that somebody like Fr. Tony O'Riordan, for example, who came at short notice to make a submission to the committee and who has spent so much of his life interacting with prisoners, purports to care. He may be wrong, but we cannot question the fact that he cares, or his motivation.

I understand that there must be massive frustration on the Government side to write such a script. There must be frustration about meddling by those of us who are elected by the people, and others, and the impeding of a project that is desperately needed. Yes, we are agreed that Mountjoy Prison is simply not fit for purpose and the Minister is correct in stating that we need prison facilities. That is true. However, we would be failing in our duty if we did not draw attention to the manner in which the project had come about and in which the site had been acquired, the gross expenditure of public money without supervision, the breach of normal procedures - these were identified in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General - and the unsuitability, in the minds of some, of a site so remote from Dublin. Procedures were breached and the details in this regard, if we want to go through them, have been provided. Perhaps people are wrong about the prison being located 15 miles from O'Connell Street. Perhaps it is the case that no alternate, suitable site could be found. However, a very poor job has been done in explaining matters. This is largest expenditure on prison provision in the history of the State and we ought to have involved, in a meaningful way, people with expertise in this area. I accept that the final decision rests with the Government.

The provision made in respect of consultation did not work. The prison will be located in a rural area 15 miles from the city. I am no expert but as I understand it, a great many of the support services - counselling, rehabilitation, etc. - are provided by voluntary groups. These are people who care, not those who purport to care. I have no great wish to go to Mountjoy Prison to care for people because I have something else to do. However, I am glad there are people who do wish to provide such care. They have indicated that the transfer of the prison will cause grave difficulties for them because it will no longer be within easy travelling distance by bus.

It has also been indicated that it is a great pity the Dóchas women's centre will be knocked down and that this prison model which is working extremely well will be interfered with. I do not know what will be done in the case of the centre. Will we awake one morning to discover that some developer has moved in and knocked it down? This does not appear to be an ideal situation. Many questions have been posed as to whether the centre should be accommodated on the main site at Kilsallaghan. In addition, issues have been raised, by people more expert than I, with regard to the imprisonment of women and the appropriate response in this regard. Great praise has been lavished on the Dóchas centre at Mountjoy Prison.

The Minister failed to address certain issues. People who are closer to the prison service than members have raised many questions with regard to cell design, the provision of services, stimulation, etc., in prisons, the rehabilitation of prisoners and their release back into society. On the latter, it has been asked whether we should just encourage them to commit further crimes when they are released. Issues such as these have been raised in the submissions made to us but the time constraints prevent us from discussing them in detail. They are profound issues relating to the direction of penal policy and the necessity for penal reform. The Minister did not deal with these matters. He stated there would be an end to slopping out and that individual cells would be provided. These are major, positive and welcome developments. I will not make an issue of the fact that there will be double cell capacity and that we might return to a position of overcrowding.

A fundamental question has been raised in respect of the direction of prison policy. Are we going down the road of the Americans and those on the neighbouring island of incarcerating people who cause serious problems in our society to get them out of our way so that the rest of us do not need to look at them? Is keeping them out of society the best way to go? Profound arguments have been made as to why we ought to distinguish between the kind of people who commit crimes of violence against the person and so on, whose freedom we must restrict by incarcerating them in prisons, and a great many people who should not be in that kind of prison setting at all.

In addition, the point is raised about the confinement of young people and whether our practices up to now have not simply created a university of crime for young fellows taken from disadvantaged backgrounds and put into an environment where they learn to become serious criminals, following which we release them. The Minister says it is not his intention to incarcerate them at Kilsallaghan. A great many people who doubt that have made their arguments to the committee.

I have been advised that 75% of those in prison have a drug or alcohol problem or both. That is salutary and we should focus on it. A great deal of serious crime in our society is caused by people making enormous profits from the drugs trade. It appears that there is relatively easy access in our prisons for people who want to take drugs into prisons. Notwithstanding the statements that all Ministers must make, that is the fact of the matter as people can see for themselves. We would need to talk seriously about the precise changes we are making in the provision of drugs treatment in the new prison. That seems to be a major issue.

Nobody has raised the possible impact of the public private partnership for the design and management, including the micro-management, of this super new prison. How much decision making is being handed over to the private sector? From the experience on the neighbouring island and elsewhere we know that when prison provision and management have been handed over to the private sector, it has not exactly been a splendid example of something that works well.

I ask the Minister to avoid being shy. Has Bernard McNamara been selected to do the job? If he has been, why the hell will the Minister not tell us that he has been? If he has been selected we need to be reassured that we will not end up like Dublin City Council. Do we know the current position? I do not know the position of Dublin City Council. I read that Bernard McNamara has withdrawn from five PPP projects. However, I then heard an interview in which he stated he had not withdrawn. I then heard a representative of the city council state he had. Then I heard that he is seeking €20 million in compensation. What is the truth? What will happen if we give this contract to Bernard McNamara? I have nothing bad to say about him and do not criticise him. I wish he would contribute to my party as much as he contributes to Fianna Fáil. I have no adverse comment about his work. However, if we are to spend €40 million of taxpayers' money I am entitled to know whether he is capable of delivering on the project. While I have tried to find out, I do not know what the issue with Dublin City Council is. We need to be reassured on that matter.

We have not dealt with the submissions we have had from the people on whom the proposal impacts, namely, the neighbours of the proposed prison and the people who live close by, those who enjoyed a certain amenity and who presumably deliberately went out there specifically to enjoy an amenity one cannot enjoy elsewhere in County Dublin these days who now find this enormous prison being erected as their immediate neighbour. They set out in very detailed submissions all the implications that the proposed prison had for them. I presume the Minister and his able civil servants have those submissions. We have not heard any response other than the pushing back of the wall and the denial of flooding, which is contrary to what the committee was told by the people who have directly experienced it as things stand, never mind when the prison is built.

I hope there will be time for us to tease out some of those issues and if there is not, that time will be provided in the House to deal with them. I do not know and the Minister should explain to members why a guillotine must be applied tonight. It is extraordinary to embark on a project like this on which many members would wish to contribute but which opportunity to do so they will not have.

It is a great pity that we have not had a Green Paper on the provision of prisons. In the region of 1,000 prison places have been provided in recent years and now we have a capacity in the proposed prison for 2,200 places. That causes alarm bells to ring in the minds of people who are close to it about our approach to this area of policy and the disregard we have for non-custodial alternatives for the future. It is a pity that the advocates of reform think they have been shut out.

Chairman

I ask the Deputy to conclude as a number of members want to contribute and time is limited.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I appreciate that colleagues wish to contribute. I would like to say a great deal more. I appeal to the Minister to explain in his reply why the guillotine has to come down tonight at 10 p.m. and why we cannot have an opportunity to achieve progress towards a consensus by some of the people who have definite concerns about the road on which we have embarked.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

The public consultation on the prison began at the end of February. This has been the most extensive consultation on any prison project in the history of the State. The issue has been before the Oireachtas since the middle of May. There has been an extensive debate and people have had an opportunity to contribute to it.

Deputy Rabbitte said the proposed location is very remote from Dublin but it is only ten miles from O'Connell Bridge. In spite of the slowdown in the property market, it is clear that the cost of getting a site closer to Dublin would have been prohibitive. Equally, the closer to Dublin, the greater the likelihood of racking and stacking the buildings. The age of building in urban centres is long gone. International best practice points to greenfield sites, especially in the context of what we know from our experience in recent years about the way Mountjoy has been abused in terms of drugs being thrown over the wall.

The Dóchas centre is a very good building but the bed occupancy there has been exceeded by 30% to 40%.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

Is that true? My understanding is that the Minister is talking about overcrowding of 90 to 91, given a capacity of 85. He might reassure us on the question of overcrowding by 30%. There are an extra 40 places for women in Kilworth also.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

There is an 85 person capacity and on 26 May there were 107 people in custody. The figure of 85 is the bed capacity. The design capacity was 80 so on that date it was at 126% of capacity. Whatever the percentage, it was substantially over-occupied. It has been the case that the authorities have had to resort to putting mattresses in cells.

With regard to Deputy Rabbitte's question as to what would happen to bulldozers on the site, the OPW is considering how the entire site would be used and has engaged a firm of international architects to advise it. Ultimately, it will consult Dublin City Council. Cell design will follow best international practice. A cell will have a toilet, a hand basin, a shower, a bed, a table, a chair, shelves, a television and a kettle.

On overall prison policy, at any given time approximately 10% of the people convicted of criminal offences find themselves in prison, which is one of the lowest percentages in Europe. It is not up to the Government or the Department to determine who goes to prison but, by and large, our courts have adopted an attitude which has led to a situation where approximately 10% of those convicted of offences end up with custodial sentences at any given time. There has been an effort over the years, which will continue, with regard to finding other alternatives to custody. I was very pleased to launch the first report of the National Commission on Restorative Justice, the final report of which the Oireachtas should consider closely when it is published.

I do not know the figure for the percentage of people who are on drugs or alcohol in a prison like Mountjoy but the whole aspect of Mountjoy has led to a situation where drugs have been available, which is a result of the type of design there. Mountjoy Prison was a greenfield site when it was built but, unfortunately, it is today very much part of the urban landscape.

I want to make clear that the private sector will not manage this prison; it will be managed by the Irish Prison Service. With regard to PPP influence on the design, obviously it will have some input but this prison will be built to the requirements as laid down by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Prison Service.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Is the OPW involved in the design?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

Yes, the OPW is involved.

With regard to the submissions, I published a response to each submission which was lodged with the Oireachtas on 14 May - I told the committee this when I was here to discuss the issue previously. Most of the submissions concerned the road access to the site and have been dealt with. Some proportion of them concerned the visual aspect and, again, aspects of this have been dealt with.

To come back to the issue of non-custodial sanctions, there has been a 30% increase in the size of the probation and welfare service. We have established the National Commission on Restorative Justice. We are also considering a review of the community service scheme and the Department is currently dealing with a fines Bill to change the way fines are dealt with.

In regard to rehabilitation and drug treatment services, the design of the prison is geared towards dealing with the problems experienced by prisoners through the provision of rehabilitative, educational, psychological and drug treatment services.

In regard to the preferred bidder, it has never been my practice, in any Department, to become involved in the tendering process for contracts. A tendering competition was launched for the contract to design, finance, build and maintain the prison. Several consortia were formed and a preferred bidder was selected in strict accordance with European Union procurement rules. The preferred bidder is a consortium which includes McNamara, Barclays and GSL. Part of the assessment process included an evaluation of the consortium's financial and operational capability to carry out the project. Negotiations are at an advanced stage and the aim is to finalise matters once a decision has been made in regard to the development consent.

I have no reason not to expect that the negotiations will be successfully concluded. I am determined to secure the best value for money. If the preferred bidder does not meet the necessary requirements, other options will be pursued. This public private partnership differs substantially from the arrangements involved in Dublin City Council's urban regeneration project.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Does the Minister have any concerns as a consequence of recent developments in regard to the Dublin City Council projects?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I wish to make a correction. The Office of Public Works is not involved in the design of the project at Thornton Hall. It is involved in the Mountjoy Prison site.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

That is an important point. We spoke to people whose main concern was the design of the facility at Kilsallaghan. Now we have confirmation that the OPW is not involved.

Does the Minister have any concern, in view of developments relating to the city council project, regarding the capacity of the preferred bidder to deliver on the Thornton Hall project? Has this been examined by the Government?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I do not get involved personally in bidding processes. I rely on the officials within my Department and the Department of Finance and the expertise of the National Development Finance Agency which is part of the process of examining the bids. My job as Minister is to ensure we obtain value for money and that the project is delivered on time. Otherwise, the Opposition and others would rightly criticise us. As I said, I do not involve myself personally in any of the discussions and negotiations. Instead, I rely on the expertise of those charged with involvement in the process.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I am not asking the Minister to involve himself in the negotiations. I am asking whether he can tell the committee and the Dáil that he is satisfied that, whatever the unknown difficulties that have arisen with the same preferred bidder in the case of Dublin City Council's regeneration projects, those issues are unlikely to have any negative impact on this project, which he is asking us to approve. It seems he cannot answer that question, on the basis that it is a matter not for him but for his officials and the Prison Service. I contend that it is a matter for the Minister and that he must assume his responsibilities in this regard. What examination has been undertaken since the controversy blew up?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

As I said, there is nothing to suggest there will be any difficulties. Ultimately, however, it is up to the National Development Finance Agency to seek assurances on this point. I understand there is an ongoing process of dealings with the preferred bidder. If the National Development Finance Agency concludes that the preferred bidder is unable to proceed with the project, there will be other choices to consider.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Has the Minister or anyone in his Department asked the National Development Finance Agency whether it is satisfied that what happened with the Dublin City Council regeneration projects has no implications for this project?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

Yes, on the basis that I understand the two cases are totally different. In this case, there is no question of any of the people involved in the bid being required to sell or deal with any other property. I do not know what the terms of the Dublin City Council urban regeneration project are but I am strongly advised that the two cases are not the same. Two completely different types of project are being compared.

Chairman

We must move on. I have given a certain amount of latitude to Deputies Flanagan and Rabbitte as the spokespersons for their respective parties. I ask other contributors to confine themselves to questions because a number of members have asked to speak.

Deputy Darragh O’Brien

I thank the Minister for his presentation. In recent months, I have met several groups, including in particular Concerned Residents of Thornton, whose members live adjacent to the site and will be directly affected. This area adjoins my constituency of Dublin North and I am very familiar with it. The submission made by White Young Green on behalf of Concerned Residents of Thornton raised a number of points. The residents realise the prison will be built on the site but they want to know what can be done to improve their lives and ensure their present standard of living is not adversely affected. I am not here to discuss the merits or otherwise of prison reform but wish to address specific issues that will affect the people living adjacent to the site.

I am aware the Department and the Prison Service have contacted the residents. I would like to see that interaction established on a formal basis, perhaps by means of a liaison group between Fingal County Council, as the local authority, and the Prison Service. This group could deal with such matters as road infrastructure surrounding the area and the connection of adjacent houses to the sewerage and water mains. It is crucial that planning gains are achieved for the residents. I do not want the situation to arise whereby the residents have to be proactive in dealing with the council and the Prison Service separately. Would the Department be agreeable to the establishment of a formal liaison group which would address the issues that the concerned residents have raised regarding sewerage, water, drainage and road infrastructure?

Fingal County Council has stated it has no difficulty with local residents connecting to the sewerage mains but, like all local authorities, it requires them to pay for the connection. Can we make any concession in regard to these costs?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

The consultation process with locals has lasted almost three years, beginning in 2005. The design of the prison entailed consultations with prison governors and directors, operational staff, work-in-training staff, teachers, chaplains, administrators, psychologists, medical staff and technical experts. The expertise within the Irish Prison Service and my Department was also made available. I understand local residents comprise three main groups, namely, the Rolestown and Kilsallaghan residents' group, the board of management of the local primary school and Concerned Residents of Thornton. These groups would agree that they have already been consulted extensively but, as the project proceeds, I am prepared to consider establishing a group comprising officials from Fingal County Council and the Irish Prison Service to liaise on ongoing issues. I can give no commitment on contributions towards the cost of sewerage connection but those issues could be dealt with at this committee.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment and wish him every success in his new role. I will be looking at him for quite a while before the summer recess.

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I want to ask about the legal format with which we are dealing. I presume much of this documentation has been laid before the House via the library. However, some members of this committee have not received maps other than the black and white map in the Order Paper. It is very difficult to try to figure out exactly what has been planned. The House has approximately a month in which to make the decision on this. A local authority would have at least two months to consider it and the officials who would consider it would receive the documentation. Our contributions today are limited and I ask the Minister if we are leaving ourselves open to a potential court challenge at some future date. Members of this committee who will make recommendations to the Dáil have not had all the documentation put in front of them, while it may have been laid before the House.

Why is the OPW not involved in the design of this facility? The OPW was very much involved in the last greenfield development, which was Castlerea prison in my constituency. Surely it has a certain amount of expertise in that area and significant expertise in the design and construction of the perimeter boundary of the prison. Could the Minister comment on that?

In response to Deputy Charles Flanagan the Minister said there are no plans to accommodate asylum seekers. Are there plans to accommodate any detainees under the immigration laws?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

As I said before on asylum seekers, there are no plans to use Thornton systematically to detain them. There may be specific circumstances in which they would be detained while their claims are being processed.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I ask because I am confused. On 1 May in this room the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said:

The Irish Prison Service is integrating into its design of the proposed new prison at Thornton Hall a separate purpose-built facility for immigration detainees at the new complex that conforms to best international standards.

I quote that from the record of this committee. It seems that between 1 May and when this was laid before the House, that change was made. Could the Minister comment it? I question the logic, as Deputy Charles Flanagan has, of a purpose-built facility being made available because during that contribution by the former Minister, he made the point that there would be no significant savings. We are still talking about a cost of approximately €60,000 to €90,000 per annum to detain a person in those circumstances or the place being maintained at Thornton Hall. During that discussion I understood accommodation was to be provided for 45 persons, and the Minister did not contradict me on that. That would be just over 16,000 bed nights and it seems, as of 1 May, a large capacity was being provided for detainees under immigration law. Not only are there 16,000-odd bed nights being provided for at Thornton Hall but there is also provision being made at many regional locations such as Portlaoise, Castlerea, Limerick and Cork, etc., where persons are being detained under existing immigration laws. It is very confusing because on 1 May the then Minister stated provision was being made but today the Minister tells us there is no provision for such facilities. It is important there is clarity.

The costs involved in the provision of 45 places are astronomical compared to the throughput of persons being detained. The provisions under the new legislation will not require the level of detention required up to now. In addition, the numbers of applicants who will be deported, based on numbers coming into the country, are significantly lower. As a result, there will not be the same need for such a facility.

Will the Minister elaborate on the reason the Department's design changed from 1 May?

I wish to ask a final question.

Chairman

The Deputy should be brief.

Deputy Denis Naughten

It relates to the Minister's initial contribution. With regard to the boundary screening, he stated mature trees would be planted, providing instant height and foliage, and that there would be a screening band of trees 10 m or 20 m in depth. That is a substantial boundary encircling a 120 acre site. Mature trees are not cheap. If we are talking about a width of between 10 m and 20 m, it will involve a substantial number of trees. I doubt there is even the capacity in this country to provide that number of mature trees. Does the Minister have any idea of the costs involved, either in sourcing the trees required here or importing them? It appears an astronomical sum will be required to provide for such extensive screening along the boundary of these premises. The distance appears to be approximately two miles but it is very hard to know from the map in front of us.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

The documentation was lodged as required. Documents were lodged on 14 May in the Oireachtas Library. The EIA was laid before the House on 29 February, while the report of the rapporteur and my response were laid before it on 14 May.

On the asylum seeker issue, people are being detained and accommodated at Cloverhill and the Dóchas centre which has led to some issues of overcrowding. The previous Minister indicated there would be provision made for the possible detention, for a very short period as laid down in legislation, of deportees at Thornton Hall. There would be a separate and specially designed facility for them.

Deputy Denis Naughten

That is not the case now.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

It will be.

Deputy Denis Naughten

There will be a specific facility for them at Thornton Hall.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

It will be a facility capable of accommodating a certain number of deportees at any one time. It is being built into the overall design of the prison. Asylum seekers would not be kept systematically and it would only happen on the rare occasion when a person is being deported.

At the request of householders, mature trees will be located where houses are close to the proposed prison facilities.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Will they be around the entire external boundary?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

No.

Deputy Denis Naughten

The Minister stated on two occasions earlier that provision was not being made--

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I said there are no plans to use the Thornton Hall facility systematically for the detention of asylum seekers. When occasions arise relating to deportees--

Deputy Denis Naughten

I specifically asked about deportees because words have been played with in this regard.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I answered the Deputy.

Deputy Denis Naughten

In that context, is provision being made for men and women to be dealt with separately in the separate unit? What type of capacity will there be for such people?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

The capacity is for up to 100 but it could be compartmentalised. It would be separate from existing prisoners and male and female detainees will be segregated.

Deputy Denis Naughten

There will be provision for up to 100 places for deportees.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

All of these blocks are designed for 100, I understand.

Chairman

We will return to this matter if we have a chance. I must move on.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I asked the Minister a straight question.

Chairman

The Deputy got a straight answer.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I eventually got an answer but I had specific questions on the subject. When the Minister said there were no provisions for deportees I did not dwell on it because I thought it would be pointless to do so. However, in his final response the Minister said there are provisions for deportees.

Chairman

He spelled that out clearly.

Deputy Denis Naughten

He has not spelled it out clearly.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I have said nothing different to what my predecessor said. The Deputy is incorrectly trying to juxtaposition the two statements.

Deputy Denis Naughten

The Minister gave an answer to Deputy Flanagan on asylum seekers but my question related specifically to deportees. Regarding segregation--

Chairman

We will come back to this if we get a chance. The Minister has said--

Deputy Denis Naughten

These are specific issues that require answers.

Chairman

There will be a debate in the Dáil later where these matters can be raised. If we get an opportunity we will come back to the Deputy's questions later.

Deputy Denis Naughten

This is totally unacceptable.

Chairman

I must give other members an opportunity to speak.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Fair enough.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I was going to ask the same question as Deputy Naughten so perhaps I will ask it again. The issue of whether persons can be detained with regard to immigration matters is unclear in the context of Thornton Hall. Is there provision for the detention of people in a particular block under immigration legislation? If so, will women and men be separated in that block?

Is there agreement that Mountjoy must go? We all welcome the Minister's commitment to improve on the dreadful, appalling and substandard accommodation currently in Mountjoy. However, under the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John O'Donoghue, the Office of Public Works, OPW, had developed an extensive set of plans, including an architect's scale model, for the redevelopment of the Mountjoy site. Why has this been abandoned and what was the cost? As the OPW was behind these plans for redeveloping Mountjoy along the lines of Dóchas, why is it not involved in the design of Thornton Hall? We have already heard, in response to Deputy Rabbitte's question, that the OPW will not be involved and this is a real concern.

There are real concerns about the size of the prison. The role of the courts is to sentence but the Legislature and Executive have a role in prison policy and building prison places. We know from international experience that when places are built they will be filled through sentencing. Given comments by members of the Government on the courts not being harsh enough in sentencing in the past, there are valid concerns that building a super prison of this size will lead to an increase in the number of people imprisoned. My question relates to the maximum number of 2,200 places. In the Minister's speech he stated it was envisaged that only 1,400 places would be filled but that for emergency purposes there would be an overall capacity of 2,200. What will trigger this doubling up within cells, given that best practice is to have single occupancy cells?

On the matter of the women's prison at the Dóchas centre, which has already been raised by my colleagues, the Minister will be aware that Deputy O'Rourke and I chaired a seminar at the Oireachtas with Baroness Jean Corston, author of a major report in Britain last year on the sentencing of women. Baroness Corston established that women should not be imprisoned unless for crimes of violence. We know that only 8% of women committed under sentence in 2006 in Ireland - that is, 35 women - were committed for offences against the person. In that year there were 289 committals of women under immigration legislation. Most of the women who are currently in prison at the centre are on short-term sentences or on remand for immigration-related offences and not, in the majority of cases, for violent offences. Given that we know from previous studies that these women have an average of two to three children each, that makes 2,000 to 3,000 children in Ireland who are left motherless for a number of days, nights, weeks or months. I remind the Minister that best practice is to reduce significantly the imprisonment of women. Unfortunately, with this plan the imprisonment of women will increase significantly.

I dispute some of the Minister's figures on overcrowding in the Dóchas centre. The figure of 105 or 106 women which is usually given tends to include 20 women in prison in Limerick. I do not dispute that there are sometimes more than 100 women in the centre, but my point is that they should not be there in the first place.

With regard to planning issues, the residents have raised some serious concerns. One issue, which was mentioned in Senator O'Toole's submission, is the height of the wall at 7 m. The height of the wall is of real concern to those of us with an interest in prison policy, quite apart from the local residents, who clearly have an issue with it. There appears to be no reason a wall of this height needs to be built given that, as Senator O'Toole said, the Berlin Wall was only 4 m in height. As the wall is planned to be approximately 7 m in height, it could actually be higher than that. Can this wall not be reduced in height?

Road access has been a major issue, as has the lack of public transport. Those involved in the provision of services to prisoners and their families at present have a real concern that the designated bus described by the Minister, which will be supplied to enable people to travel from the city centre to the prison, will inevitably stigmatise those, especially children, who will have to travel on it to visit family members imprisoned in Thornton Hall. Can there be a way of ensuring better public access to the prison without this stigmatising bus? With colleagues in Trinity College I conducted a survey in 1998 on crime in Ireland which established that the majority of people sent to Mountjoy Prison after being sentenced in Dublin courts come from a number of streets in the Dublin inner city area. These are largely the people who will be housed in Thornton Hall. It may only be ten miles out of the city centre, but that is a very difficult ten miles to travel without access to private transport. Thus, I ask about plans for access to the prison.

I am grateful for the Minister's comments on restorative justice and rehabilitation. It is important that there be a commitment to rehabilitation and to increasing the use of non-custodial sanctions.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

With regard to asylum seekers, I thought I made it quite clear when I replied to Deputy Naughten that in any prison system there must be some facilities to detain people who are being deported. Provision will be made and it will be segregated. Males will be separated from females and these prisoners will be separated from the existing prisoners. This is in order to facilitate a quick turnaround in deportations. This is in contrast to the position that pertains currently, in which deportees are potentially mixing with the existing prison population in Cloverhill and the Dóchas centre.

On the Mountjoy proposal, it was not viable to proceed with a redevelopment for many reasons, including the fact that it was not a greenfield site on which one could build a prison in the middle of Dublin which, with all the best technology and design, would not get around the problem, which we have had for decades, of the prison being used in such a way that people can circumvent the law and the regulations in regard to getting banned substances in and out.

When Wheatfield prison was built it was in effect in the middle of nowhere on the periphery of the city. I understand that today there is plenty of public transport to that area. Obviously we would hope there would be a public bus service to the new prison. I assure the Senator that every effort will be made to ensure this will not be stigmatised in any way. The wall size is standard and is used in all the prisons in the State. We would not be favourably disposed to reducing the height of the wall.

I have made my point in regard to the Dóchas centre. The analysis of prison population which I gave previously for 26 May shows a 128% bed occupancy rate. The Dóchas centre sticks out like a sore thumb as it does not include the female population in Limerick; it is simply Dóchas in Mountjoy. It sticks out like a sore thumb in comparison with the other prisons which are all under pressure but nothing like the pressure on the Dóchas centre. Having looked at it high and low, people hold the view, given that it became operational in 1998 and will continue in operation until 2011, that we are able to design and provide, particularly in the context of any report by Baroness Corston or anyone else, the most up-to-date facilities for female and male prisoners. Our bona fides in what we are trying to do should be accepted. The reality is that the Irish Prison Service has been, to a certain extent, the Cinderella of the justice system. We are trying to provide the best and most up-to-date facilities and the type of services that prisons should provide to prisoners to allow for their rehabilitation into society.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him before the committee. I wish to declare an interest as I am one of the local residents in the area, as I have said previously.

There are approximately 23 houses on the periphery. To give people an idea of the area, it is a place where there are no public buildings. There is no pub, or shop; it is just a rural area. More than half of those houses were built by the local authority. We built our house there in 1971. So far as I know, it was the first private house built in that area but I stand to be corrected. There is a welcome for the decision to build the new road from the old N2. There is also a welcome for the fact that there is to be a Garda station in the area. Over the years, we have had regular difficulties with burglaries.

Having said that, I ask the committee to recognise that it is disappointing the Minister did not speak to the local people. Perhaps his function was to speak to the committee. The committee has heard about the various groups the Minister met. Certain divisions have arisen in the local area over this issue. Some people in the area are not members of any of these groups. I spoke to a family last month who live in one of the 23 houses affected. They have not had discussions at any time with any official from the Irish Prison Service or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or from anywhere else and they knew nothing about these plans. I am not saying this for the Minister to argue the point with me. He knows me long enough; I am simply stating this fact. Something needs to be done about this and the point I am making is no more than that.

In terms of the issue--

Deputy Dermot Ahern

May I answer that point? I gave a commitment in this regard.

Senator Joe O’Toole

Yes, and I welcome that.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I mentioned three groups. Perhaps the family the Senator mentioned is not part of any of those groups. I would have no problem with that family liaising with the officials from the Prison Service and Fingal County Council on how this development rolls out. However, such liaison would have to be restricted to those people who are directly affected.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I completely agree with the Minister. Their house is on the map; there is dot on all the houses affected.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I have no problem with such liaison.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I suggest that officials of the Irish Prison Service should offer to visit the people in each of those homes to discuss the proposed agenda in terms of hedging, drainage and other issues. These are simple issues concerning traffic calming measures and sewage treatment works. My first point is that the officials should discuss those issues with those people.

My second point is that something the Minister said is inaccurate. It may well be the case that the Office of Public Works knows nothing about flooding that has occurred in this area, but the Minister has photographs of an area that was flooded three weeks after the impact statement was published. Houses were built in this area almost 40 years ago and every winter flooding occurs in three places. My only issue in this respect is what can we do about it. It is true that officials are checking this out, as the Minister said.

I met by accident some of the people checking the drainage on behalf of the Minister's Department or the Irish Prison Service last weekend. This is local detail. I asked them the diameter of the pipes that were taking the water away. They did not know. The diameter of the largest pipe for drainage of which I know is 18 in. There is not the slightest possibility that size of pipe will take away the water in this area. The people of this area need to hear from the Minister that this issue will be dealt with. I am not arguing about this issue. Flooding has occurred in this area and more flooding will occur there. With this development, 100 acres of land will no longer soak up water in this area. It is a simple sum to multiply the diameter of the pipe by the square footage of 120 acres. I did that sum at lunchtime and calculated the figure to be 67 or 68 million gallons a year.

I have examined plans for other prisons in the UK. I stated in my submission that they gave a clear indication of the size of attenuation tanks. Regardless of the size of the tanks that will be located there, the excess water will have to be run off. I do not know what the impact of that will be on the foundations of the prison wall. I am not an expert in these areas but local people are concerned about this issue. They need to know about what is proposed in this respect and to be reassured about it. Somebody needs to talk to them about it.

I will advise the Minister of another matter that is incorrect and I defy any of his advisers to say otherwise. They know the area well, given that they have all been there. I ask the Minister on his way to work tomorrow to drive to the prison from Balbriggan, Swords or Malahide and if he can get there without using some of those minor roads, I ask him to show me a map of how he did that. It cannot be done. There is no way of getting to the prison except by using the minor roads. These are roads alongside which there is no footpath. Local people walk these roads. They have asked if it would be possible to put walkways in place.

Another issue is the name of the prison, which is causing a problem for people. The Minister will note from one of the submissions that Thornton Park Equestrian Centre is being confused with the prison. All the houses in this area have the name "Thornton" or "Kilsallaghan" in their address. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the name of the prison will not be Thornton Hall simply because the Thornton Hall building is being retained. I have raised this issue with the Minister previously. I do not know what name should be chosen but it is an important matter for the local people.

There are other similar issues. The Minister spoke about moving the wall back. The local residents did not ask for the wall to be moved back 60 metres. I certainly recommended that it should be a certain distance away from the nearest residences, which is a different matter. There is no question of using 40 acres to move it back. That is unfair. That speech does not read like a fair response to what people are saying. What is the width of the cordon sanitaire inside the wall? It is the grey portion in the map. Is it not possible in some areas to move the prison wall back?

This development has the effect of building a new town in the area, given the ancillary staffing and so forth. Will the Minister give a commitment that local people will be given preference for employment opportunities in the area? Nobody asked me to seek this but they should at least be seen to have some opportunities. I also need information about noise, traffic calming, drainage needs and sewage. The details of these matters are not being dealt with. Under section 26(4) of the Act, the Members of the Oireachtas must be seen to exercise proper judgment and discretion. There is a proposal that this matter be taken in the Seanad without debate. The Minister should indicate that this would be inappropriate. If it is at the discretion of the Oireachtas, Members of the Oireachtas should be able to exercise discretion, not just the people who appear before the committee. It is no skin off the Minister's nose but it would be important for the Houses to acknowledge that they have been asked to do something they have never done before and to ask how they should do it.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

In respect of any affected person out of the 23, it is accepted that it should be possible for them to be part of the liaison group that will be set up between Fingal County Council and--

Senator Joe O’Toole

I do not know the exact number but the Minister has indicated them with dots on the map.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

Yes, we estimate it is 23. If the Senator gives us details of anybody who has not been able to bring forward views, we will ensure that they are facilitated. The impact assessment deals with the flooding issue in a substantial way. I accept that when one puts hard surfaces anywhere, it can potentially change the water course. However, we have engaged in significant engineering studies of this. There is an underground holding reservoir within the prison confines to ensure that the run-off--

Senator Joe O’Toole

What capacity has it?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I do not know. It is probably in the environmental impact assessment.

Senator Joe O’Toole

It is not.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

We can forward the details to the Senator. That is probably something for the liaison group. Much of the water run-off within the prison will be recycled. The prison has been designed that way.

I accept that there will always be some traffic but, as the Senator acknowledged, significant efforts have been made to try to address the difficulties people had. It is envisaged that the vast majority of the traffic will travel up the main road and enter on the specially designated road.

I have no problem with the Senator's suggestion regarding the name. Perhaps the people in the 23 affected houses could make suggestions. I am open to hearing them.

Senator Joe O’Toole

The Minister's predecessor called it the "new Mountjoy".

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I am assured that there has been some narrowing or moving of the wall at locations where there are houses to mitigate the impact on those houses. The finer details relating to this matter can be hammered out with the relevant officials.

Senator Joe O’Toole

What is the position in respect of traffic calming? I estimate that only 75% of traffic will use the new road. Effectively, the level of traffic into and out of the prison will be the same as that relating to a town. A significant issue arises in this regard.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

Traffic calming measures on the existing minor roads in the area are a matter for the local authority. Again, this matter might be dealt with in conjunction with the relevant officials. There will be a Garda station in the vicinity - it is not in place at present - and this might also have some effect.

Chairman

I am about to call Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I ask him to confine himself to asking questions because Deputy Burton is indicating. I will allow her to make a brief contribution before returning to Deputy Charles Flanagan. We will then bring our proceedings to a conclusion.

Senator Joe O’Toole

There was one further question in respect of which I did not receive a reply from the Minister. Is it not inappropriate for this matter to go before the Upper House without debate, particularly when one considers that we are required, under the legislation, to use our discretion? I will speak to the Leader of the Seanad about this matter and I presume he will listen to me. I was not aware of what was occurring until today. If we are to be seen to exercise our discretion, surely the Minister would welcome the fact that the matter might be debated in the Upper House.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

This is not a matter for me to determine. It is the responsibility of the Seanad to decide what should happen.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Perhaps the Minister will agree that the position is farcical at this stage. I will have a maximum of nine minutes in which to deal with a range of issues--

Chairman

The Deputy is not even a member of the committee. However, we are allowing him to make a contribution. I am obliged to limit the length of his contribution because of the time constraints involved.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I will ask as many questions as I can about this matter during the time allocated to me. We are being asked to deal with something in respect of which limited information has been made available to us.

Is there any reason we did not receive more specific details in respect of the development within the perimeter wall? The provision of such information would have provided answers to some of the questions that have been raised. The legislation states "Nothing in this Part requires disclosure of details on any matters relating to the design and construction of a new and extended prison that may prejudice its security". Quite an amount of detail could have been provided. For example, reference was made to the perimeter fence. What will be the height of the internal wall which is illustrated throughout the document? Will it be the same height as the perimeter fence or will it be higher? Details are not provided in this regard. How wide will be the cordon sanitaire - the sterile zone - between both walls? What level of electronic surveillance will be provided in respect of this zone? Is the Minister is aware that in other jurisdictions the cordon sanitaire between the inner and outer walls is less wide as a result of both the use of new technology and the carrying out of visual surveillance from watchtowers?

What is the Minister's response to the concerns of local residents to the effect that quite a number of buildings were not covered by the environmental impact assessment? In fact, two sides of the prison were not covered by this study.

The issue of flooding has already been dealt with. Why is reference not made to a local well which services the equestrian centre? If the well was not noticed by the planners, there is potential for it to be interfered with or polluted by the works that will be carried out at the site in the next three years.

Is the Minister aware that it will take 20 to 30 years for the trees being planted along the perimeter of the prison to have a full screening effect? It has been stated that there will be no risk in respect of local water quality. However, up to now the Minister has not accepted that flooding occurs. In his earlier statement he blamed it on insufficient maintenance of existing land drains. How can he guarantee that the local water quality will not be at risk?

I seek information on the space available within the prison. What proportion of the available space is allocated for educational or health care facilities in comparison with that for prisoners? What space has been allocated for visitor facilities? In the past visitor facilities in many prisons were totally inadequate. How much outdoor recreational space will be provided? Has a pause been considered to review alternatives, including providing a number of smaller facilities rather than the development of such a large complex?

On the promise of a dedicated bus service or Garda station, is the Minister aware that work on pathways on the road to Cloverhill and Wheatfield is only starting now? Even though the prison has been built for more than 20 years, work is only starting now on the provision of paths and there is no ready access to a quality bus service. Is the Minister aware that the local Garda station was downgraded? What hope or guarantee do the people of north County Dublin have regarding a Garda station? Given that its development is subject to the planning process, has a planning application been made for a Garda station or court in the vicinity?

Although I have a number of other issues to raise, I will finish to allow other Deputies to contribute.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy for his co-operation. I call Deputy Burton. The Minister may then answer all the questions posed.

Deputy Joan Burton

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute.

As the proposed site is located in my constituency, I represent a number of constituents who are very alarmed by the proposals. Will the Minister lift the veil of secrecy from the commercial PPP arrangements made for the prison? I understand that, because the National Treasury Management Agency and its agency, the National Development Finance Agency, will be overseeing the commercial considerations relating to the PPP, the Minister is suggesting that, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not possible to disclose the full details of the costs involved. We are now in a very different economic climate compared with when the prison project was first mooted by the former Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell. The cost of private equity finance for such a PPP is now significantly higher than it would be for a project involving the State alone. While that was always the case, with the credit crunch, it is even more so.

Given that PPPs are normally used to transfer risk to the private sector - that is why the State pays the premium involved in a PPP project - at this time of very straitened economic circumstances, can the Minister give us the economic case in some detail, particularly given that the State is not transferring any of the risk to the PPP provider and that instead the State is guaranteeing the PPP provider that it will rent the asset that the PPP provider will design, build and manage? This is a very cosy arrangement involving the State. It must be noted that one of the parties in the consortium involved in the PPP has recently walked away from three to five PPP projects at various contractual stages in the Dublin area.

Chairman

We dealt with this earlier.

Deputy Joan Burton

Will the Minister disclose the detailed economic case at this stage given that in our current economic position there is not much money for many things? The particular proposition arose in a different time when there seemed to be a lot of money available for everything and given that the finance cost has risen so dramatically, the cost of a public private partnership such as this is now likely to be much better.

The second issue I wish to raise--

Chairman

Briefly, Deputy.

Deputy Joan Burton

--very briefly, is the Whitaker report. Ken Whitaker made the case more than 20 years ago that the economic case for large prisons was just not economically sensible from the point of view of the State. Dr. Whitaker was probably the most prominent economist and economic planner that the State ever produced. Has the Minister considered the economics of the proposition, especially in the context of our current situation?

I know the area well and I believe the issue of flooding has not been properly addressed. A serious and detailed report must be done, taking into account local knowledge about flooding. I agree with Senator O'Toole that were the Minister to drive around and look at the depth of all the drains in the area, he would realise the difficulty there is with flooding. The area is essentially a flood plain just outside of Dublin.

Even at this late hour I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision to close the Dóchas Centre, which was probably the most radical penal reform project in the Irish prison system.

Chairman

With respect to the Deputy, we dealt with that matter earlier as well.

Deputy Joan Burton

I asked for the opportunity to come to the committee as I represent the area. We were told by other members of Government parties in the run-up to the general election that the prison would not go ahead. They are reasonable questions to ask the Minister.

Chairman

I do not dispute that but the questions were asked earlier. Perhaps the Minister would deal with the questions from Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Burton.

Deputy Dermot Ahern

I accept that Deputy Burton represents the area and has an entitlement to ask the questions. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will appreciate that from a security point of view we can only give so much of the detail that is available. The fence that is to be erected will be at a height of 5.2 m, the wall will be 7.2 m and the distance between the prison and the perimeter will be 40 m.

Deputy Burton and others referred to aquifers. The highest building will be two storeys. The advice is that because the buildings are only two storeys, they will not significantly impact on underground aquifers. Mature trees will be provided for the areas around all the houses that are affected. Generally, the water services in the region will be improved and upgraded because the prison is being located there.

It is clear from the map that the outdoor facilities in the prison are far in excess of anything that has been provided to date for prisons, especially Mountjoy. Significant open spaces are available for recreational facilities. The planning aspect of the Garda station comes under Part 9 of the 2001 regulations. It is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in that respect. I said previously to the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, that it has never been my practice as Minister to intervene in tendering processes or bidding for contracts. That matter has been dealt with by the National Treasury Management Agency, which deals with PPPs. I understand the public sector benchmark has been set and that cannot be exceeded. If it were exceeded, this project would not go ahead. The benchmark is that this project has to come in cheaper than building the prison in the conventional way. While there is a tightening economic situation, I would hazard a guess that as this is a very substantial project there is significant interest in ensuring that the bidder, whoever it is, will continue with this business.

With regard to the Whitaker report, it was published in 1985 and this is 2008. While Deputy Burton was not present, I refer her to Lord Carter's report on prisons in the UK which came out in December 2007. Virtually everything he recommended in his report for prison building in the UK is manifest in the proposal we put forward for Thornton Hall or whatever it will eventually be called.

Deputy Joan Burton

His report is widely contested. I am sure the Minister knows that internationally the trend is towards smaller prisons.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

On the question of the guillotine coming down tonight, does the Minister have any fear that this project might get caught up in the cuts that are coming?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

No, I do not. While I would not call it a guillotine, there is an urgency in having this completed before the summer recess. To be fair, we would be criticised if the costs mounted over the coming period because of delays due to perhaps leaving it until next September.

Chairman

I thank the Minister for attending and thank the members for their co-operation. Under Dáil Standing Order 86(2) and Seanad Standing Order 74(2) the message I propose to send to the Dáil and the Seanad is deemed to be the report of the committee.