Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 May 2008

Vol. 189 No. 21

Prison Building Programme: Motion.

Senator Donie Cassidy

I move:

That Seanad 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 the 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.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. I have known him for a long time and he is a person of enormous and outstanding talents and abilities. He is committed to public life and, as Leader of the House, I wholeheartedly congratulate him on his re-appointment by the Taoiseach.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Conor Lenihan)

I thank Senator Cassidy for his kind remarks. He sometimes has marathon battles with an unmentionable relative of mine but I assure him I do not harbour similar thoughts to hers with regard to the Senator. I know the Senator from the life I led before entering politics, during which he was very helpful and positive to me, which was most welcome.

I wish to speak on the resolution placed on the Order Paper under section 26(1) of the Prisons Act 2007 approving the development of a prison in the district electoral division of Kilsallaghan in the county of Fingal. This development is a major step forward for prisoners in the Dublin area. It will do away with slopping out in Mountjoy Prison, sub-standard accommodation and overcrowding and it will provide state-of-the-art prison accommodation and facilities for education, training and, most importantly, rehabilitation of offenders. The details of the proposal for a new prison development at Thornton Hall in Kilsallaghan were made public on 29 February 2007 as part of a public consultation process. All the relevant papers were formally laid before the House on 14 May and the draft resolution was submitted on 15 May. It was originally proposed to debate the resolution last week but, to facilitate the Opposition, it was agreed by the Government to defer the debate in both Houses to this week. It was also agreed to refer the resolution to a joint committee for further consideration next week.

The Prisons Act 2007 sets out a special procedure that may be applied for the purpose of determining whether consent should be granted to larger prison developments. Prior to the Prisons Act 2007, the procedure for all prison developments was determined in accordance with Part 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. Under those regulations, the Minister of the day was effectively the deciding authority for planning matters for prisons and until the enactment of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 there was no statutory provision for an environmental impact assessment for a prison development. The purpose of the 2007 Act is to provide a more open and transparent mechanism for major prison developments under which an environmental impact assessment, EIA, meeting EC standards must be prepared and the Houses of the Oireachtas make the decision whether to grant development consent. This is done in the form of a resolution, which must be then confirmed by an Act. The confirming legislation can be presented to the House only after the appropriate resolution has been passed.

The initial stages of the process have been already progressed. On 29 May 2007, the provisions of Part 4 of the Prisons Act 2007 were applied to the proposed prison development in the district electoral division of Kilsallaghan. The main development is at the site of Thornton Hall in the townland of Thorntown although part of the development, mainly the access route, goes through adjoining townlands, all in the Kilsallaghan area. While the new development has not yet been given an official name, for the sake of convenience it is normally referred to as the development at Thornton Hall. On 29 February 2008, and in compliance with the Prisons Act 2007, public notice was given of the proposed prison development. Copies of the environmental impact assessment and visual representations of the proposed development were made available to the public and an invitation was extended to make observations and submissions on the matter to a rapporteur appointed by the previous Minister, former Deputy Michael McDowell, over a six week period which concluded at midnight on 11 April 2008.

The rapporteur received 130 submissions and has produced his report which has been recently published. The purpose of the report of the rapporteur is to identify those who have made submissions, to identify the main issues raised and to provide a summary of the submissions and observations received. Despite what some people have claimed, the rapporteur does not criticise the proposal in any way. Rather he summarises and reports what others have said and that is clear from the introduction to his report.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his predecessor have had regard to both the environmental impact assessment and the report of the rapporteur in proposing the resolution before the House. The environmental impact assessment had previously identified several measures to mitigate the impact of the development on the environment and further mitigation measures are now proposed in the context of the resolution to address concerns raised during the public consultation process. In addition to the report of the rapporteur, an electronic copy of all the submissions received has also been made available in the Library for the convenience of any Member who wishes to examine the original submissions.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform set down in a document on 14 May his observations, pursuant to section 26(3) of the Prisons Act 2007, on the environmental impact assessment and rapporteur's report. The document addresses each detailed point raised in the report and sets out the Minister's observations on it.

The proposed development comprises eight separate and distinct institutions designed to hold a total of 1,400 prisoners on a single site of approximately 120 acres enclosed within a single perimeter with centralised stores, work training, educational and library facilities and visitor facilities. All the buildings except the control centre will be two stories or less. The existing boundary hedgerows are being maintained. Inside this area there will be a planted area ten to 20 m in depth, then a fence, a patrol road and a wall approximately 7 m in height. Inside the wall is the cordon sanitaire which will be generally 40 m in depth before the internal fencing of the development is reached. Car parking for visitors and staff is outside the perimeter wall. A dedicated public transport service to the development from the city centre will be provided for visitors. The floor area of the prison is approximately 140,000 square metres.

The development of the prison at Thornton Hall will be the single biggest step in improving standards for prisoners since the foundation of the State. The development's main purpose is to replace existing sub-standard accommodation and to allow greater capacity to avoid overcrowding. Advantages of the development include ending the practice of slopping out, which is a feature of life in the Mountjoy male prison, proper educational and rehabilitation services will be available, and the problems of overcrowding will be addressed. Addressing overcrowding will not simply involve a short-term fix; the design of the prison will address this problem for the long term. Cells are designed to be larger than normal in order that if there is a significant increase in the prison population, they can be sub-divided to provide for a greater number of inmates. The development will also mean that instead of housing more than 990 prisoners on a 20 acre site, including 585 prisoners in one institution, we will have eight self-contained institutions with a total capacity of 1,400 prisoners on a 120 acre site. The largest institution will hold only 192 prisoners. The purpose of the design is to gain the maximum rehabilitative benefit from having a collection of small institutions, but to also maximise the operational benefits associated with larger prisons by having one perimeter wall and one central stores and maintenance service.

The construction of the new prison will also improve matters for the existing prisons in the Dublin area in that it will give greater flexibility to developing the other prisons. For example, it will allow younger male offenders to be located at Wheatfield Prison, which has the proper facilities for that age group. It may allow Wheatfield Prison to house only young male offenders and not mix categories of prisoner. The detention of persons under 18 years of age is no longer the responsibility of the Prison Service and the intention is to house all offenders under 18 in Oberstown. I expect new facilities at Oberstown to be available before the closure of Mountjoy Prison, but if for any reason they are not, there are contingency plans to keep the young males in question in a separate facility at Thornton Hall where they will have no interaction with adult prisoners pending completion of the necessary works at Oberstown. I emphasise this is a contingency plan and not a permanent arrangement.

The resolution is the consent required for the prison development at Thornton Hall to proceed. It represents the planning permission for the prison. The format of the resolution complies with section 26 of the Prisons Act 2007, including addressing the requirement to list the main measures taken to avoid, reduce or offset any possible significant adverse effects of the development on the environment. It also details some small, but for the people concerned potentially significant, alterations to the original proposals, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made in response to concerns expressed during the public consultation process. It also sets out the conditions that are to be complied with in the construction of the prison. Although the resolution represents the planning permission, it must still be confirmed by legislation before it takes effect. If the necessary resolution is passed, the Minister will introduce a two section Bill to confirm the resolution and to give it statutory effect.

Prisons, by and large, do not have significant adverse impacts on the general environment. Nevertheless, the Prisons Act, 2007 takes a very proactive approach and requires an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in the case of every prison development that falls within its scope. Any large-scale development, whether it be a prison or housing estate will affect those living in the immediate proximity of the site and, therefore, some impact is likely. It is clear from the environmental impact assessment that the overall impact is not significant from a national or regional perspective. However, it is also true that a number of residents, particularly those adjoining the main site, will be affected. Considerable efforts have been made to minimise and mitigate the impact of the development. For example, there is extensive use of tree screening and as previously stated, all the buildings are of two stories in height or less except for the control centre which will be three stories in height. The environmental impact assessment goes into considerable detail on the mitigation measures proposed to minimise impact both during the construction and operational phase. Notwithstanding this, the public consultation process and the rapporteur's report identified specific concerns and further measures are being taken to address these issues which I will outline. From the outset, the major concern of the local residents has related to the possible use of the R130 road, a secondary route, as the main access route to the new development. The relevant section of the R130 is a straight stretch of road, approximately 1.5 km in length and it passes by a local national school. While the R130 could support the traffic required for the development, there were concerns expressed about the implications for the safety of local school children and its impact on the local community, particularly during the construction phase.

Recognising that these concerns were strongly held and in an effort to minimise the impact of the development on the local community, the Department arranged that additional lands should be purchased to construct a dedicated access road running from the former N2 main road, now the R135, direct to the main facility. Once the new access route has been constructed, complete with underpass, all traffic to the development will use it, thereby removing the necessity to avail of the R130 road. It had been intended to use the R130 in the initial phase of the development to allow the new access route to be completed as quickly as possible. However, in the light of submissions received by the rapporteur and in recognition of the fact that there were genuine concerns locally, it is now proposed that the construction of this new access route should be prioritised. No heavy construction vehicles will be allowed use the R130 road through Coolquay even during the construction of the access route itself. I hope this reassures local people and especially locals present in the House.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I am sure it will.

Deputy Conor Lenihan

There was also some concerns expressed about certain emergency exits being used by service and delivery vehicles and this is also addressed in the draft resolution by ensuring that the emergency exits will never be used for deliveries or service vehicles. Several people living in the immediate proximity of the prison are personally affected and alterations are also proposed in the resolution to alleviate their concerns. In particular, the depth of the existing planting area which runs around the outer boundary and which currently stands at 10 m, will be increased in key areas by a further 4 m to 10 m.

The planting of a number of mature trees will also greatly assist in screening the perimeter wall from residences in close proximity. This will require the main security wall to be moved further back from the boundary in some areas. Furthermore, a 3 m high timber fence will be installed around the car parks on the west side of the site. The parking level will be lowered and light fixtures will be kept below the height of the fence to ensure that the noise and light impact on adjoining residences is minimised. Visually conditioned concrete will also be used on the sections of the wall most visible to the public.

The resolution includes a number of conditions, the first of which is a statement that the development to be constructed must be as described in the environmental impact assessment and planning notice. As I have already noted, major concerns arose in regard to the use of roads, so the resolution imposes conditions requiring the new access route to be constructed first and makes it clear that heavy construction, delivery or removal vehicles must use the new access route rather than the existing R130 past the local national school. The perimeter wall is itself an important measure in mitigating the effect of noise and dust on those living in the area. Therefore, when general construction work begins, it is intended that the construction of the perimeter wall will be one of the first priorities. The resolution also requires that a construction environmental management plan must be drawn up by the primary contractor before construction work begins and it must address the mitigation measures already identified in the environmental impact assessment.

While not directly relevant to the issue of development consent for the prison complex at Thornton Hall, I wish to address the questions of a new Garda station for the area and the Central Mental Hospital. The Garda Commissioner has agreed that construction of a new Garda station for the area will be given priority. The station will serve the local community and will be accessible to the public from the existing R130 road rather than through the prison site. In addition to providing added local security, it will deal with any criminal offences committed within the prison complex. The construction of the Garda station is not covered by this development consent procedure and will be subject to the normal process as set out in part 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

Members will note from the maps and drawing before them that approximately 20 acres of the original Thornton Hall site has been excluded from the proposed prison development and reserved as a possible site for the construction of a new building to house the Central Mental Hospital. That project is a matter for the Health Service Executive and the Department of Health and Children. The resolution before us has no effect on the future of the Central Mental Hospital.

Today we are in a position to make significant progress on improving the Irish prison system. This project will not only improve the lives of prisoners and prison staff but will also ensure an adequate level of secure and safe accommodation for the future, along with a tangible hope for improved rehabilitation work with prisoners.

Once development consent has been granted we will be in a position to finalise and sign the contract. A tender competition has already been held for a public private partnership to design, finance, build and maintain the prison complex at Thornton Hall. A number of consortia were formed and a preferred bidder has been selected. Negotiations are at advanced stage and the intention is to finalise matters after the decision on development consent has been made. While the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no reason to believe that negotiations will not be successfully concluded, he has emphasised that he is determined to get the best value for money and that other options are available if the preferred bidder does not meet the necessary requirements.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I welcome the Minister of State and thank my Fine Gael colleagues, and Senator Regan in particular, for allowing me to speak first. I declare a strong and abiding personal interest in this matter in that my house will adjoin the prison wall and my brother-in-law sold the land for the prison site. I also want to make it clear that living beside a prison is not an issue for me. If I was given a straight choice between living next door to 1,000 houses, a landfill, an incinerator or a prison, I would choose the prison. I want the Prison Service, the Minister of State and the Department to understand that I have no difficulty with this aspect of the matter. However, I believe it is the wrong location for an urban prison. For some of the reasons I have outlined, I have not been involved in any agitation against the prison. Despite my reservations over its location, I accept the decision was made democratically and I do not want to be seen to have NIMBY syndrome.

I ask the Minister of State to take a personal interest in the issues that I raise because I am speaking on behalf of local residents. I would like to hear back from him, either on a one-to-one basis or in a meeting with some of the people concerned.

The Minister of State has stated: "While the new development has not yet been given any official name, for the sake of convenience it is normally referred to as the development at Thornton Hall". I ask him to consider naming the prison at the earliest opportunity because the name "Thornton Hall" refers to a preserved building on the site which is not part of the prison complex. The new name for the prison should not include "Thornton" because those of us whose addresses include that word do not want to be confused with the inmates, regardless of how good or bad they may be. I am presenting this in a soft way but it is a serious point and I ask the Minister of State to have regard for it. Perhaps he will revert to me on the issue. A previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that it was his intention to use "New Mountjoy" as the working title for the project. I ask this to be reflected in whatever legislation is introduced.

Deputy Conor Lenihan

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator's flow but if he has any good suggestions from local residents on a name, we would be delighted to hear them.

Senator Joe O’Toole

I will revert to the Minister of State on that.

Even though it is less than 16 miles from this House, Kilsallaghan is a completely rural area. It does not have a pub or a shop and its community comprises a couple of hundred people. It is not a village or a hamlet; it is merely a spread of houses. I ask Members to consider what this huge development will mean for the area. As the Minister of State noted, we are acting as planning authority for this project. Certain Members on the opposite side of the House regularly speak about the importance of planning. This should be considered as a planning issue as well as a prison issue. Today I am dealing with the local impact.

Thus far, the project has brought no return to the local community. Residents believe that they did not ask for a lot and that more should be offered to them. I acknowledge that the access road, which allows entry to the site directly from the N2, will reduce direct pressure on local roads, although there will clearly be a considerable increase in local traffic. The local community appreciates that provision. In regard to the new Garda station, I have been burgled at least ten times in the 35 years I have lived in Kilsallaghan, so local security is important. In recognising that the environment of the area will be irreversibly changed, I ask the Minister of State to address certain issues. Local people are concerned and a decision should be taken by the Minister of State to the effect that their home security will be upgraded. There is no reason this could not be done.

Cycle paths and footpaths must be put in place. Many people in the area like to go for walks. If there are 1,000 inmates in the prison — questions have arisen as to what will be the final number — and 2,000 staff, this new facility will have a population larger than those of many towns. Some locals asked that a perimeter footpath be put in place in order that people might walk in a safe environment. There is also a need for a bridle path to be installed because there are some horse-riding facilities in the area. People will not be able to ride their horses on the roads in the future and this will put some of the facilities to which I refer out of business.

There is a reference to wind farms in the Minister's observations. It is stated that the prison wall would not affect the operation of wind farms. I do not know from where that observation came but I suspect it arose on foot of a point I made in my personal submission in respect of this matter to the effect that I had intended — and gone some substantial way towards — installing a 6 kilowatt wind generator adjacent to our home. The man from County Cork who was installing the generator informed me — I want the Department to check the technical position in this regard — that I would need a clean sweep of 100 m around the generator and that a 7 m wall would create turbulence which would not allow for the proper generation of wind energy. I am not an expert in this area but that is why I called a halt to the project.

I was not being a smart alec when I made my submission and I did not refer therein to wind farms. I made a point in respect of the installation of one wind generator. Members will be aware that I am interested in this matter. There are solar panels installed at our home and we are particularly interested in green initiatives.

The Minister of State referred to the local authority. A complex relationship exists among local authority planning, the county development plan and what is happening in this instance. It is not sufficient to say various things are being made available and that people should deal with the local authority. The Irish Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should discuss matters with the local authority. For example, the local authority should be informed that all houses in the area should be connected up to the sewerage system, that any homes requiring three-phase electricity should be connected to the relevant system and that broadband should be rolled out in the area. Even though it is located only 17 miles from the House, the area does not have access to broadband.

I am trying to raise simple, straightforward issues. I could speak at length — my colleague, Senator Bacik will do so — about the philosophy behind imprisonment. However, I do not have the luxury of doing so at this stage.

It is not sufficient to consult local people in respect of this matter. The community in the area will be changed forever. It is not about consulting, it is about negotiating. The Department and the Irish Prison Service must negotiate with local people and not merely listen to what they have to say and then make a decision. An offer must be put to the locals, who must be allowed to indicate what they want and then an agreed position can be reached. The same process must be followed in respect of the local authority. The community in the area feels hard done by. The prison authorities now have a good opportunity to put something back into that community.

Senator Lisa McDonald

I am happy to support the Government's proposal in respect of this project. We must face reality. Mountjoy Prison, which was built in 1850, is a Victorian institution which lacks adequate basic facilities such as in-cell sanitation. While the Irish Prison Service has made improvements at Mountjoy Prison, the reality is that conditions there still fall far short of what one would expect of a modern prison system. There is little space in which to facilitate education, work, training programmes and the provision of rehabilitative support.

We cannot expect the staff and others who work in our prisons to deliver a 21st century model of correctional excellence in a physical environment which dates from the 19th century. In addition, the location of the prison has clear security implications, with the necessity for constant vigilance on the part of staff and An Garda Síochána to ensure that contraband items, such as weapons and drugs, are not thrown over the perimeter walls and retrieved by prisoners.

We must be honest enough to accept the criticism of conditions in Mountjoy Prison that have come from independent commentators and prison experts. The Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment criticised the facilities and conditions at the Mountjoy complex following each of its visits in 1993, 1998, 2002 and 2006. Similarly, the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention has made frequent and strident criticisms in his reports of the facilities at Mountjoy.

The Irish Prison Service has examined various options over the years to improve conditions at Mountjoy, ranging from basic refurbishment to the complete demolition and redevelopment of the site. I am advised that these options did not prove feasible for a number of reasons, including the constraints imposed by the size of the Mountjoy site and its city centre location, with major housing developments located outside the perimeter wall. For any serious attempt at redevelopment to proceed, it would have been necessary to close or severely reduce the capacity of the prison during the project at a time when prisons are operating at very close to full capacity nationally. From any objective point of view, a move to a greenfield site presented the best option if the Irish Prison Service is to be allowed deliver the type of rehabilitation programmes for prisoners that one would expect in a 21st century prison, as well as a good work environment for staff and other support personnel.

It is clear the decision by Government to acquire 150 acres at Thornton Hall was not taken lightly. The recommendation in this regard followed the evaluation of approximately 31 sites that were offered to the Office of Public Works. It was decided that Thornton Hall was the most satisfactory site on which to build a new prison to replace those on the Mountjoy campus. In recommending the Thornton Hall site, I endorse the decision of site selection committee decision, which had the benefit of technical reports prepared by expert consultants.

The principal advantages of the Thornton Hall site are clear and include its size, the fact that it is located within ten miles of O'Connell Street, that it is some considerable distance from any significant population centre and that there is easy access to the national motorway network. The proposed new prison at Thornton Hall will comprise eight individual facilities which will be practically self-contained. Each facility will have its own unique and discrete regime and this will give members of the prison population housed within it access to the work, training, education and rehabilitative programmes and recreation areas and activities appropriate to them.

Contrary to what has been said by some commentators, Thornton Hall will not be a super-prison. The main accommodation blocks will comprise four wings, with two landings per wing. There will be a range of other types of accommodation facilities. Under this arrangement, there will be no more than ten rooms in each house in some of the accommodation units. All of these facilities will be located within the secure perimeter.

The Irish Prison Service will employ the latest technology, including CCTV systems and electronic alarms systems, to ensure the security and safety of the facility. The design will also make it more difficult for contraband to enter the prison over the perimeter walls. This will be achieved by means of locating recreation yards away from perimeter walls and thus ensuring a cordon sanitaire.

I commend the efforts taken by the Irish Prison Service to engage with and listen to the views of the local community. Many concessions have been made to local people. The process that has been followed is an excellent example of meaningful consultation. However, I support Senator O'Toole's excellent suggestion that the name "Thornton Hall" should not be used in respect of the prison. The Minister of State indicated that he would take on board the Senator's request that the name be changed.

I also support Senator O'Toole's suggestion to ensure proper development of the surrounding area, particularly because I come from a rural area. The Senator's contribution was similar to one I made recently in respect of the decline of rural Ireland in which I sought the provision of footpaths, cycle lanes, etc. These matters must be addressed in respect of all isolated areas. The residents of the Thornton Hall area are at an advantage now because they can request that money be diverted from the financial contributions that will be made to the local council in order to develop the area.

When the Thornton Hall site was purchased in 2005, the Irish Prison Service engaged a landscape architect to develop a boundary planting scheme. As a result, a 10 m boundary planting scheme has been undertaken inside the existing hedgerow to minimise the visual impact of the proposed prison development.

Following further discussions with the local community, it was decided that the prison accommodation or cell blocks would comprise two-storey buildings, thus minimising the visual impact on the landscape. In addition, a separate dedicated access road to the prison is being provided, which the Minister of State has outlined in his speech.

As a further assurance to the local residents that their quality of life will not be unfavourably affected by this development, it has been decided that a Garda station will be built at the perimeter of the development. It is an excellent concession that will be greeted favourably. Senator O'Toole has outlined that.

The key objective of this project is to accept the limitations of current prisons as highlighted by international experts and tackle them by raising the standards of prison accommodation to increase the chances of rehabilitation of offenders. I congratulate the Irish Prison Service on undertaking such a lengthy and meaningful consultation process. It is clear that many of the community's opinions have been taken on board. The reality is that some opposition would be met no matter where the new site would be located but, on balance, we have got it right and I am happy to support this vital long-term investment in our prison facilities which are central to the proper administration of justice in this country.

Senator Eugene Regan

This is a project into which, in many respects, the Oireachtas was bounced. It was a rushed job at the time and it was ill-thought through. It is symptomatic of the waste of this Government and the expense incurred has been the subject of adverse comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The site secured was 50% bigger than originally intended and there was a lack of competition in the process. While it is acknowledged that the facilities in Mountjoy and other prisons are below standard, to put it mildly, the Government cannot take a slap on the back for the project it put together at Thornton Hall.

Having said that, we are dealing today with what is essentially a planning matter, as the Minister of State indicated. It is not dissimilar to the Part VIII process with local authorities where a local authority is a planning authority. The Prisons Act 2000 gives that authority to the Minister and Oireachtas.

On the planning process, the remarks of Senator O'Toole on payback, quid pro quo or at least consideration for the local community in terms of its concerns on planning aspects should be taken on board. It is a major project and any planning process, whether approved by a local authority or An Bord Pleanála, would normally attach conditions dealing with the type of concerns raised by Senator O’Toole. I ask the Minister of State to bear that in mind.

There is no question but that there is a need for increased capacity in our prison system and to improve the standard of accommodation and facilities for prisoners. In particular, there is a need to end the sub-human and degrading practice of slopping out and the problems that arise from overcrowding in individual cells. The fact prisoners will have individual cells is to be welcomed. The proposal to have eight individual and self-contained accommodation blocks with different security levels also represents good practice. There is no question this facility, as we understand it and as it has been outlined, will certainly provide the space for work training, education and rehabilitation programmes.

It appears to be a facility which is too big for the purpose. The Government is attempting to justify the choice of the site and the scale of the lands purchased by a number of measures. It is ending the Dóchas Centre in Mountjoy and transferring the female prisoners from there. That is a ten-year-old modern facility so that move requires some explanation. The suggestion of accommodating young offenders at Thornton Hall seems to be in breach of international practice. There is also a move essentially to criminalise the mentally ill by moving the Central Mental Hospital to Thornton Hall. There is also the issue of detaining asylum seekers at the new complex. All of these moves represent bad policy and are not supported by Fine Gael.

While we are dealing with the planning process, given the scale of this project, we should outline the Government's prison policy. That is what is disappointing in the justification of or rationalisation for this project. We know from the reports of the prison inspectorate, prison chaplains and the European Council Committee for the Prevention of Torture that we have, to say the least, an inadequate current prison system. Violence is rife and there is a continuity of criminal activity within the prison facilitated by the availability of mobile phones. Illegal drugs are also available within the prison. Almost 25% of the prison population is under protective custody and an average of one prisoner per month in 2007 died in custody.

What we really have is a warehousing prison policy where there are entirely inadequate rehabilitation programmes and where education programmes have been discontinued, notwithstanding the hard evidence that education programmes play a fundamental role in reducing reoffending by prisoners. There is also the case of those entering prison because of crimes relating to drug addiction but they are given no opportunity to live in a drug-free environment in prison or avail of adequate drug treatment programmes. This creates a system which makes hard criminals harder, more alienated and angry when they finish their sentences.

I appreciate the Oireachtas will return to this matter as a Bill must be passed by the Oireachtas in approving this project. There should be a statutory obligation in the new Bill to make prison complexes drug-free. There is reference to a perimeter, or cordon sanitaire, some 40 m deep around the prison to prevent drugs getting in. There is also a need for screening of visitors, although I do not know if the Minister of State can address that.

There is an ad hoc system of drug treatment. In Mountjoy, only nine prisoners at a time can avail of the drug treatment programme. There is also an obligation on the Government not only to provide facilities for rehabilitation but for programmes as well. There is no evidence that exists at present. Taking the cost of housing a prisoner for one year as almost €100,000, that not only makes good policy but economic sense.

There is a role for education in prisons in encouraging prisoners to enter society again without reoffending. Some 50% of young offenders are illiterate and the figure for the adult prison population is 65%. The problem will not be solved by bricks and mortar alone. The extent of reoffending — 50% within four years and 27% re-entering prison within a year — underlines the problem that exists. Society must have an effective legal system that penalises criminals for their offences. However, without drug-free prisons and proper drug treatment facilities, as well as a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, the warehousing system we have will continue.

I wish to ask the Minister of State one or two questions on a number of points he has made. With regard to the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated yesterday no concrete plans have, as yet, been drawn up for a new central mental hospital on this site. The Minister said today that this is a matter for the Health Service Executive and the Department of Health and Children but it appears we are passing the buck and not being forthright. It is clear there is an intention, and it is for administrative reasons rather than any medical or good prison policy reasons, to relocate this hospital.

On the economic aspect, we have good medical advice on that as well as the advice of economists such as Jim Power that this decision does not make economic sense. Will the Minister provide greater clarity on the Government's intention on this matter?

The preferred bidder in this project is the McNamara group, which has withdrawn from a number of public private partnership projects with Dublin City Council. Is there a plan B regarding this project? The Minister stated that if the project does not go ahead with this developer, other options can be pursued. What are those other options?

Is it envisaged that there will be court facilities at Thornton Hall to avoid trekking to and forth from the prison to court, tying up many human resources, including the police, and affecting the smooth running of the prison?

I ask the Minister to comment on those three points.

Senator Dan Boyle

It is an open secret that the Green Party had qualms about locating a new prison at Thornton Hall, and it formed some of the negotiations for the programme for Government. However, it has been accepted as a policy that is in train and will be seen through to conclusion.

There is no disagreement about the need for a new prison. The existing prison infrastructure in this country is unacceptable and inhumane. In many of the prisons the conditions areDickensian. There is no doubt about the need to transfer much of the current prison population to a new facility; the need exists in other parts of the country also. The most overcrowded prison in the Prison Service currently is Cork Prison and I would like some progress regarding a new prison in the Cork area.

Senator Jim Walsh

Spike Island.

Senator Dan Boyle

Spike Island has been taken off the agenda. There had been talk of a new prison in the Kilworth area which, as a parallel, has many of the disadvantages highlighted in the debate on Thornton Hall vis-à-vis Mountjoy in that it is 30 miles outside Cork city, does not have a dedicated public transport network and is compromised in terms of offering family support by way of visitation, which should be an essential part of a rehabilitation process in any prison sentence. The Minister of State might indicate whether progress is possible in that area.

The question of the nature of prisons is not proper for this debate. It is a technical motion and as Senator Regan said, there will be a debate on the Bill itself but we need a debate in this House. The issue of whether some prisoners should be serving sentences and the accommodation problem, which is causing difficulties at both ends in that prisoners who should get longer custodial sentences are not getting them because there is not enough space in our prisons, has been raised on the Order of Business on many occasions. When we have that debate it will be informed by an appropriate contribution from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Even though my party is supportive of the construction of Thornton Hall, given the progress that has been made on the development of the site, I am concerned about some aspects of the way the development is to proceed. This technical motion refers only to the prison development. We do not know the position regarding the reception centre for people seeking asylum and immigration status, which is open to debate and causes concern in wider society.

The question of the Central Mental Hospital is also left open. As a third area I am glad that is the case because the economics that inform the idea of selling the entire Dundrum site for the Central Mental Hospital and moving it to Thornton Hall no longer necessarily applies. We should use the change in the economic circumstances and the uncertainty of the property market to question whether the move — which has questionable moral justification — from Dundrum to Thornton Hall can now best be considered by redevelopment of the Dundrum site.

The Patients not Prisoners report published on Tuesday by the Irish Mental Health Coalition shows the way regarding a partial sale of the Dundrum site that would allow the full redevelopment of the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum. Given that the Taoiseach in particular has said he is prepared to examine areas of public expenditure and certain policy areas, this is a good opportunity to do so in regard to an unnecessary linkage that exists between a health issue and a justice and prisons issue. I hope he will take that opportunity.

I share the concern articulated by Senator Regan about the preferred bidder in this site. I have no questions about the tendering process, which has been done with as much efficacy as possible, but the fact that it has delivered a company that is currently under a critical eye raises questions about that very tendering process and the contracting that follows therefrom. It should be an element of any contract with companies providing services to the State, particularly regarding capital infrastructure, that there is consistency in their dealings with the State. If a company provides a large piece of infrastructure in the form of a prison and chooses not to provide other forms of infrastructure in the form of social housing, that raises serious questions about the nature of that contracting system. I ask that the tendering process and contracts be examined in that regard.

Regarding public private partnerships, I helped author a report on the need to tighten up many contracts in this area. I am not talking about PPPs specifically but the principles are the same in that the State enters into a contractual relationship and too often the nature of those contracts are stand alone and they do not take into account the history of the company concerned in terms of working with the State and the ability to see through any contract agreed.

I have expressed my reservations about the wider aspects of the Thornton Hall development while acknowledging my party's support for the motion before the House and envisaging the development of the prison.

In response to points raised by Senator O'Toole, we need to improve the planning process but also recognise that when we propose projects of this nature, where at the very least there is a social inconvenience, we should promote the idea of community contracting. It is not just a matter of the nuts and bolts of the planning process, walls of various heights and buildings at certain distances from each other. There should be a parallel process of contracting services in the community and ensuring the community gets access to them — the point Senator O'Toole made — as a result of living with what is a social inconvenience. I hope the wider legislation that will come before us will deal with those points because it would help towards the long-term acceptance of a project where the local community is uncomfortable with what has been done to date and what is proposed.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

Can the Leas-Chathaoirleach confirm I have ten minutes?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has ten minutes, yes.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I welcome the Minister of State to the House.I am pleased to speak on this motion, because the prison is just outside Ashbourne, County Meath, and I have been aware of the problems and complexities of this issue for some time. Three years ago I was attending meetings of 400 and 500 people voicing their concerns. Many questions still need to be answered and it is to be hoped that having the Minister of State present will mean some of them will be addressed today. This will probably be the most expensive prison facility ever built on this island so it is important we get it right.

I am still perplexed as to why the Government had to pay so much for the land. It was a mistake and the Government has tried to put as many buildings on to the land as possible to try to recoup its investment. That is a mistake. It is not a suitable site for a women's prison and neither should the Central Mental Hospital be relocated there.

However, we need to move away from the issue of how much it cost and how great a mistake was made and focus on other matters. I shall shortly come to the issue of the size of the main prison, but first I shall talk briefly about proposals to relocate the women's prison and the Central Mental Hospital to Thornton Hall. I cannot see what benefits will be achieved by relocating the female prison to an overwhelmingly male dominated environment. Instead, we should be re-examining the question of refurbishing the Dóchas centre at Mountjoy. It is a safer and more preferable option and ultimately more cost beneficial.

I am concerned about the proposal to move the Central Mental Hospital from its current home at Dundrum and organisations close to this issue, such as Schizophrenia Ireland, have seriously questioned whether this is a good idea. We will all have seen the report by Mr. Jim Power, chief economist with Friends First, who suggests that the sale of just 14 acres of the land at Dundrum would raise about €140 million. That figure might be somewhat lower in the current market, but his point is that we could sell some of the site and build a completely new hospital at Dundrum. It would mean that users would have access to the best facilities possible. His report, Patients Not Prisoners, makes that point, as does The Irish Times. Interestingly, the point was made in The Irish Times yesterday that 100 years ago when the Central Mental Hospital was being built at Dundrum, it was decided not to build it adjoining a prison institution as this would not be the right message because of the potential stigma. I ask the Minister of State to look again at this issue, and I am glad that some Members on the Government side of the House are admitting that perhaps this is not the thing to do.

Neither do I believe that the case has sufficiently been made for a prison of this size. My Dáil colleague, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has made the point that at the moment Mountjoy holds about 900 prisoners. This proposal is for a prison that would cater for up to 2,200. I shall quote from a couple of pieces of research as regards prison size and I hope Members bear with me as I read these findings into the record. A recent report by the Scottish prison service says:

The effective management of a large prison population requires that prisoner groupings continually need to be broken up and dispersed as the most viable antidote for dealing with order problems. A small number of very large prisons creates difficulties in splitting up prisoner groupings, such that there are no points of contact . . . Effective separation requires a reasonable number of moderately sized prisons to achieve this — again, this would be achievable with establishments at or around 700.

Security concerns were raised about prison size by Lord Woolf's report into the Strangeways riots in 1990 which many of us will remember. That report recommended a maximum size of just 400, significantly lower than the Thornton Hall proposal. The UK's chief inspector of prisons, Ms Anne Owers, has also commented on the issue of prison size. She warns in her most recent annual report against the UK Government proposals for a vast expansion in so-called Titan prisons containing about 2,500 prisoners. Such establishments fly in the face of experience to the effect that smaller prisons work better, Ms Owers says. The larger prisons may be more efficient, she argues, but at the cost of being less effective. These are two cases from across the water which cast serious doubt on these so-called super-prisons.

At the same time I am aware that super-prisons exist elsewhere. The Rikers Island prison complex in New York, for example, has 17,000 inmates. It consists of ten penal institutions for young offenders, male and female, all split up separately and contained in different parts of the complex. It has been operating successfully since 1985. Singapore, too, has started to implement its Changi prison complex which could eventually house more than 20,000 prisoners in 20 different penal institutions on the one site. The operators in Singapore say the infrastructure, design and technology would enable economies of scale and allow enhanced security and better rehabilitation for prisoners. I am fully prepared to accept, therefore, that there is a debate about what the optimal size of a prison should be. I do not know the answer but I want to hear a clear rationale for why 2,200 is the right size for us. People deserve to know this and I also want to know how the prison will be segmented, clustered and operated.

I have further detailed issues with the operation of the prison that need to be sorted out, probably before the design stage. For instance, it must be accessible to visitors, staff and gardaí. The Minister of State's colleague in Government, Deputy Trevor Sargent will be very aware of the road system in that part of the world. He would concede that an essential road system is needed before this prison opens, as is a bus service, which does not exist around Thornton Hall at the moment. Deputy Sargent might cycle there but the majority of visitors will come by public transport or car, so we need to put these facilities in place before the prison opens.

Senator O'Toole asked me to raise the issue of boundary treatment and landscaping. We are proposing a 7 m high wall. Given the space available, this could be moved back to create a larger boundary between the prison and the adjoining residential population. These are detailed issues that I fully accept can be worked out. We need to allocate the space on the site appropriately and it is to be hoped that if the Minister of State takes on board the points about the Central Mental Hospital and the women's prison, there will be more space available. This space should be used for rehabilitative purposes. I would like to see more sports grounds on the site, more study areas, classrooms and decent sized accommodation for inmates. Those matters can be looked at and I hope the Minister of State can take them on board.

I do not believe the proposal as it stands is the answer to the problems of the Irish Prisons Service. I do not believe that locating the Central Mental Hospital or the women's prison there is a good idea. The debate is over as to whether the Government was right to buy such a large amount of land there. Let us use it for rehabilitative purposes to ensure prisoners have as much land as they need.

Senator Larry Butler

I shall be sharing time with my colleague, Senator Ned O'Sullivan, with the agreement of the House. I want to deal with work, training and education within prison. As the Government spokesman in the Seanad on the issue of drugs, I want to emphasise that it is important we have drug-free prisons. Up to now there have been major problems in establishments such as Mountjoy, so there is now a great opportunity to install suitable screening arrangements. This will ensure visitors are properly screened for drugs, mobile phones and all manner of material that can cause great problems and undermine the running of a prison.

I am glad that the Minister has no plans to locate young offenders at Thornton Hall. There is only a contingency plan in that regard and he assures me that in the event, there will be no mixing between older and younger inmates. I welcome the Minister's Dáil comments to the effect that he is closing St. Patrick's Institution and a new Lusk offenders' facility will be completed before the Thornton Hall development. That is a very welcome initiative.

On drug rehabilitation, we have an opportunity to establish a model detoxification unit. The treatment and education of prisoners are very important and if we do not get them right, we will not have a proper rehabilitation system. It is vital that we include rehabilitation services associated with treatment, drug supply reduction, prevention, research and detoxification when designing the new prison. This will pay dividends because when the prisoners are released on their having served their time, they should have an education and a trade. This should be facilitated.

I thank the Minister of State for his very informative speech, in which he outlined what he is doing and how open he is to consultation with the residents living beside the site of the proposed prison. We will require their good will. The prison will result in financial gain for the area in question. The prison in Roscommon is an example of where this occurred. I visited it and noted it is a model of how we should treat and educate prisoners. Such a system will work well.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan

I thank the Minster of State for outlining the current position so lucidly. I welcome in particular the flexibility he has indicated will apply. It is very important.

Kilsallaghan is one of the very few parts of the greater Dublin with which I am familiar. It is in a most beautiful rural setting and is well known to those who follow the horse races, including the Cathaoirleach. It was for many years the home of the great Arkle when he was in training.

Having been involved in planning for 25 years with Kerry County Council, I realise that if the proposed massive development were to be lobbed into any part of counties Kerry, Cork of Clare, the hullabaloo that would ensue would be out of this world. The rigours of the planning process in the counties with which I am familiar are such that such a development would not be allowed to proceed. However, it is proceeding at the proposed site and we welcome it because it is important.

I know many of the residents in the area in question and they have legitimate concerns. Senator O'Toole stated there will be over 1,000 inmates and I suppose there will be as many staff. In effect, the prison will be the size of a small provincial town, all to be located in a tranquil area. There is a fear of the unknown in that the development will not be like a factory or housing development. No-one knows what will happen and there are occasionally bad stories and experiences associated with prisons.

Any reasonable request the residents are making should be met by way of negotiation. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State agrees with this. It is proposed to erect a perimeter wall 7 m in height, which is fairly forbidding. Most of houses in the region have an average height of 3 m or 4 m. It is proposed to push back the perimeter by 10 m but 50 m would be far more realistic. There is sufficient space to allow for this and it can be done if there is sufficient will.

If people, especially the elderly and long-term residents, feel unhappy and stressed over the prison, perhaps the Minister of State should enter buy-out negotiations with them, if they so desire.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome the Minister of State and the opportunity to speak on this issue. I have had a long-standing interest in prison reform and have long been a member of the Irish Penal Reform Trust. I am very familiar with the inside of many of the State's prisons, happily not as a prisoner but as a defence lawyer and criminologist. I spent time touring the inside of Mountjoy Prison, the Dóchas Centre and other prisons. I have been in the cells in Mountjoy Prison and the room in the Dóchas Centre. I have some familiarity with the system as a consequence.

We must all welcome that there will be a significant improvement in conditions for male prisoners when they move from Mountjoy Prison to the new prison. Nobody can stand over the appalling conditions male prisoners are currently subjected to in Mountjoy Prison, where they are still, in 2008, slopping out. This involves urinating and defecating into buckets. Allowing this is an appalling practice. The Government should be very ashamed that, after 11 years in power, there is still no in-cell sanitation for the majority of prisoners in Mountjoy.

I hope there will be enhanced rehabilitation facilities in the new prison. It is welcome to hear the Minister of State speak in favour of greater rehabilitation facilities, but this does not ring true when one considers the quiet winding down of the CONNECT project, an innovative rehabilitation programme to which money had been allocated. However, it is apparent that it has not been spent and the project is no longer up and running. What is the Minister of State's proposal in regard to the project?

While it is to be hoped that conditions will improve when the new prison is built, it is regrettable that there will be an increase in both the size and capacity of the prison by comparison with Mountjoy Prison. It is to be regretted that what should be an urban or city-centre prison is moving to a greenfield site. We have debated this but I must reiterate my concerns in this regard.

I am particularly concerned about the capacity of the prison. The Minister of State said there will be a total of 1,400 prisoners on the site but the motion refers to 2,200. We therefore require clarification.

Deputy Conor Lenihan

I can clarify that now. There are to be 1,400 prisoners but we are providing for additional capacity to accommodate up to 2,200, which would be achieved by dividing rooms in half. We have over-provided regarding the size of individual cells. It is only for an unforecasted increase in prisoner numbers that the additional capacity would be utilised. It is not axiomatic that there will be 2,200 on the site in year one, year four or year six. The specifications are such that 1,400 can be accommodated comfortably, but the number can potentially be increased to 2,200.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I am very much obliged to the Minister of State for clarifying that. I believed that might be the case. I am particularly concerned, therefore, that we are allowing for a potentially enormous increase in prisoner numbers to 2,200. The unfortunate truism is that if prison places are built, they will be filled. We should all be concerned about the direction this would take our penal policy. It would be a question of simply warehousing prisoners in large numbers, as other Senators have stated.

The location of the prison could lead to stigmatisation, particularly of children of prisoners, who are to be taken to Thornton Hall on a special prison bus. This is of real concern and we must consider other ways of ensuring access links for people travelling from the inner city. The reality is that many visitors will be travelling from there.

I was fortunate enough to see plans for the redevelopment of Mountjoy Prison, which were at a very advanced stage under Deputy John O'Donoghue, a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. They were so advanced that there was even a scale model provided of what the redeveloped prison would look like. It was along the lines of the Dóchas Centre. I understand these plans were abandoned and that a greenfield site was proposed. What was the rationale behind the abandonment of those plans?

That debate is over and it now appears that the prison at Thornton Hall is to be built, although some have raised concerns about whether the public private partnership will go ahead. If it is to go ahead, I would like to see two aspects in particular changed. The proposal that the Central Mental Hospital be located at the site should be abandoned. It is not in the body of the motion before the House but the "Patients not Prisoners" report, launched earlier this week, raised very serious concerns over moving psychiatric patients to a penal site designed for a prison. This is of real concern.

Senator David Norris

Hear, hear.

Senator Ivana Bacik

In respect of my second concern, I have been working with a colleague from the other House who is not unknown to the Minister of State, namely, Deputy Mary O'Rourke. She and I hosted a meeting last week with Baroness Jean Corston from the House of Lords, who has produced a comprehensive and thought-provoking report, "The Corston Report", on female prisoners in the United Kingdom, the recommendations of which have largely been taken up by the British Government.

The Corston report recommends that prison is not appropriate for the majority of women offenders and I expect the report would have the same application in Ireland. Research here has shown the majority of our female offenders are non-violent. They are committed for minor offences and for short terms of imprisonment. At present, approximately 100 women are in prison in Ireland on any given day. The Thornton Hall development effectively proposes to double this with its provision of 170 places and apparently a further 40 places are to be provided in Cork Prison. This is a most regressive step, which will ensure not the rehabilitation, but the warehousing of women. Such women are among the most vulnerable of our prison population and include those who have severe mental health problems and many who have addiction problems. I again stress the majority of them pose no risk to society because they are non-violent.

Research has shown that at present, women in our prisons have an average of two to three children each. Although as I noted earlier, 100 are in prison on any given day, the numbers for committal in any year are striking. A total of 960 women were committed to prison in 2006. This represents 2,000 to 3,000 children who were left motherless in 2006. Even if this was for a brief time, Baroness Corston has observed it can lead to the women losing their homes and the placing of their children into care. There is an enormous cost to those children, their mothers and to society when one considers the cost of the alternative care, the emotional and social cost and so forth.

As I noted, prison places that are built are filled. If 170 places for women are built on this proposed site, they will be filled and increasing numbers of women will go to prison for minor offences that should require punishment in the community. Instead, we should see a development of community service orders. Ireland should go down the road British penal policy is taking on foot of the Corston report and should consider alternatives for this vulnerable group of offenders.

I emphasise that although plans for Thornton Hall are advanced and the prison development is proceeding, there still is room for manoeuvre regarding the groups that are to be moved there, as well as the site's composition. The Government should give serious consideration to not moving the Dóchas centre there. The Dóchas centre is less than ten years old. It was built on rehabilitative lines and provides all the prison places required. These women are damaged and not damaging and do not deserve to be expanded in number. I apologise to the Cathaoirleach for exceeding my allotted time.

Debate adjourned.