I thank the Opposition for the opportunity to discuss the position in Mountjoy Jail and its replacement in another location. It was interesting to read the Minister, Deputy McDowell's, well deserved blistering attack on the ineptitude of the Opposition——
Prison Building Programme: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on Wednesday, 28 September 2005:
That Dáil Éireann,
—noting the decision of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to acquire a farm at Thornton Hall, in County Dublin, for the purpose of constructing a new prison thereon;
—concerned by reports as to:
—the exorbitant costs and fees in connection with the purchase of the lands in question;
—the undue haste and absence of considered examination of this particular location;
—the decision to relocate Mountjoy Prison to a site that is unsuitable in terms of its remoteness and inadequate infrastructure;
—the concerns of the local community and lack of consultation therewith; and
—resolves to request that the Comptroller and Auditor General make a report on all relevant aspects of the said transaction, pursuant to section 7(2) of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act 1923, as amended by section 21 of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Special Provisions) Act 1998, at the earliest possible date.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
"To delete all words after "Dail Éireann" and substitute the following:
"—welcomes the Government's commitment and performance to date in improving prison facilities and conditions and its decision to replace the Mountjoy complex with a new facility on a greenfield site;
—notes that the development of a greenfield site will provide both better long-term value for money and superior facilities than could ever be provided by the redevelopment of the already overcrowded Mount joy site;
—affirms the view that the Irish prison system should provide a secure and humane environment for all those detained there,
—endorses the programme of prison reform and development established by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ensure that the State has effective working arrangements and sufficient capacity of high standard prison accommodation to provide for its needs in the immediate future in a cost effective manner;
—notes that the Minister's programme will lead to higher standards and better facilities for prisoners including universal availability of in cell sanitation which will end the practice of slopping out; and
—commends the work done to date by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his Department in progressing these long overdue reforms and identifying and acquiring an excellent site at Thornton, County Dublin, for the development of new prison facilities to replace the Mountjoy prison complex."
—(Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform).
The Deputy means rubbish.
——and the hatchet job that was attempted by "Prime Time" in regard to the proposed new prison facilities at Thornton Hall.
It is a waste of public money.
The motion typifies the way the Opposition criticises everything the Government does and proposes no alternative. This is the approach the Opposition is currently adopting. The Opposition reminds me of a pack of jackals attacking a herd of mighty beasts. The jackals snipe and bite at loose prey until they get a good kick up the yard and they run away. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave the Opposition that good kick up the yard yesterday.
As Deputy Costello is aware, the inmates of Mountjoy are represented in great numbers by constituents of his own and constituents of mine. Their interests are very much in my heart in discussing this matter. I am sure they are also in the heart of Deputy Costello.
Deputy Costello and I visited Mountjoy in the not too distant past. We saw the facilities available in the men's prison whereby there is overcrowding, no toilet facilities and no facility for inmates to eat in a comfortable refectory and who must bring their food back to their cells. Young people are supposed to be rehabilitated in St. Patrick's Institution. They are supposed to have facilities to enable them to exercise, but there are none. Dóchas was a fantastic establishment when it was built, and it still is. However, it is too small. It is not sufficient for the numbers of female prisoners in Mountjoy. Even though the training unit is fairly new, it is not sufficient for modern-day use to train and rehabilitate prisoners who go there.
It must be ensured facilities are in place so people who do the crime also do the time. When the rainbow coalition Government was in power in the mid-1990s, the able and competent Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, tried to address this issue but the rug was pulled from under her by her colleagues in the Fine Gael and Labour parties.
The population is increasing and that will result in the need to accommodate more prisoners. Mountjoy Prison is not capable of accommodating that number of people. The job satisfaction of prison officers for the work they ably and completely do is an issue but their overtime bill must be reduced. Automatic gate opening and other modern practices must be embraced so that prison officers are not required to lock and unlock doors repeatedly. Procedures must be implemented, which will result in savings of €25 million per year in overtime. This would also allow prison officers to get more satisfaction from their work and would allow them to participate more in the rehabilitative process, which is needed in the prison system.
Drugs in prisons are also an issue. Unfortunately, drugs are prevalent in Mountjoy Prison. Given the prison campus is small access to drugs is too easy.
They will be able to——
Drugs are often thrown over the prison wall into the exercise yard but that should not be allowed to continue.
I refer to the use of the moneys that will be generated from the sale of Mountjoy Prison. We should get as much as money as possible from the sale of the 20 acre site.
The Minister wants to demolish the prison.
Every block of granite should not be designated as a listed building. Many buildings, which are no more than 100 years old, need to be demolished and replaced with exceptionally fine living accommodation for residents of Dublin, including Deputy Costello's constituents.
Does the Deputy want everything knocked down?
Undermining the amount that could be achieved following the sale of Mountjoy Prison by listing a building which is not worth listing in the first place, to harry and annoy the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a deplorable action on the part of the members of Dublin City Council who might try to do so.
Perish the thought.
The archaeological benefits of certain jails should be maintained. Kilmainham Jail, which is located in my constituency, has been maintained but it is much different from Mountjoy Prison. There is no reason to maintain Mountjoy Prison.
De Valera proposed to demolish Kilmainham jail. The Deputy and the Minister would like to demolish Mountjoy Prison and do nothing to save our heritage.
Deputy Ardagh, without interruption.
We are living in the 21st century and prisoners who will inhabit the new building at Thornton Hall deserve the facilities that will be built. They should not be forced to live in the 19th century unsanitary and dilapidated conditions pertaining in Mountjoy Prison.
That is not the issue in the debate. Well spoken otherwise.
I thank the Minister for the extensive contribution he made in the House last evening. Rather than restating the points he made, although there are points that require repeating to nail the lie of impropriety in the purchase of the site, I will address three issues raised in the Opposition motion: the so-called haste and lack of examination of the deal; the so-called exorbitant cost; and the so-called unsuitability of the location.
I refer first to the claim that the process that led to the selection and purchase of the site at Thornton Hall was too hasty. The announcement that the Mountjoy Prison complex would be replaced was made at the beginning of 2004. Advertisements were placed nationally for interested parties to come forward with potentially suitable sites. A special committee was then established to review all submitted sites and make its recommendations thereon. This committee comprised representatives of the Office of Public Works, the Irish Prison Service and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. To provide added property expertise, the committee availed of the advice of the prestigious and highly respected firm of CB Richard Ellis Gunne, where, when necessary, professional planning and engineering advice was available and utilised. Details of the process followed by the committee are in the public domain and readily available on the Department's website. A contract to purchase the site was entered into in January 2005. That could not be described as "unseemly haste".
The Deputy did not read the file.
The second issue is cost. The expert group considered a great number of locations in Dublin and adjoining counties, before it made its final recommendation. Let us closely evaluate the cost. An open, transparent and objective public procurement procedure was utilised. More than 30 sites were put forward and assessed. The average asking price was €200,000 per acre but as much as €500,000 per acre was sought. A great deal has been said about the alternative site, Coolquay, and how "this site should have been selected and purchased". Because of a problem with capital gains tax, the vendor of the Coolquay site wrote to the property adviser in the Department and stated, "to advise that he is not proceeding further with the sale of the lands and has asked that all arrangements with the Department of Justice now terminate". What does the Opposition not understand about this terminology? The vendor decided he did not wish to proceed with the sale. This meant the committee and the Department had no site.
During the period of selection within the Dublin area, an offer of a site in County Meath was made by Dillon Auctioneers on 14 September 2004. This was rejected on 16 September as unsuitable. However, on 20 December, one day before the letter of withdrawal on Coolquay was received by the property adviser, the same auctioneer again wrote to the Irish Prison Service offering Thornton Hall, which is 2,500 yards from the Coolquay site. The Coolquay vendor withdrew the following day. The vendor made the decision to withdraw, not the auctioneer, and nobody else was responsible for the decision.
With no other suitable site on the horizon, the IPS and the expert adviser spoke to the Dunshaughlin auctioneer with a view to the purchase of the Thornton Hall site. The same criteria used in the selection process and original applications were applied to this land. The committee recommended the purchase of Thornton Hall. It was the least expensive suitable site considered by the selection committee.
I refer to a case in my county. The NRA and local authority sought tenders for a reasonably lucrative contract. Only one application was received and it was decided to proceed with it with a view to awarding the contract. When the individual discovered he was the sole applicant, he attempted to double the tendered amount. The sale of the Coolquay site was similar. When vendors are dealing with the State, they think they can demand any amount. The owner of Coolquay got caught. I despise Opposition Members for working on behalf of vested interests, something which they accuse the Government of doing constantly. It is reprehensible that they should conduct business in this manner.
The Progressive Democrats do not like any Opposition voice.
The Minister has made a bold and brave decision to go ahead and purchase this site. One cannot argue the price is excessive given that a landowner in west Cork recently offered a 12 acre site to the Department of Education and Science for a school, at €1 million per acre. By contrast, Thornton Hall is a valuable site on the outskirts of Dublin.
It is not the Jury's Hotel site in Ballsbridge.
Wherever one seeks to re-site a prison there will be a "not in my back yard" outcry. No community will welcome a prison in its area. The Minister had to grasp this nettle as soon as possible. He should be complimented on his efforts to reform the prisons, for example, he has dealt quite well with the overtime situation.
On entering the Seanad in 1989 I became spokesman on justice for several years. I had the opportunity to visit Mountjoy Prison twice, once as a member of the legal profession, and on an official visit. The appalling conditions in which prisoners are held in Mountjoy Prison were condemned in the 1970s but nothing was done about it. There has been a great deal of rhetoric in this House and elsewhere about improving the prison. Now there is an opportunity to relocate the prison to a site that will provide adequate space for exercise and accommodation and will be to some extent humane.
We all talk about the rights of prisoners and their need for proper accommodation. This is a major issue. The Minister is trying to tackle many issues in Mountjoy and in other prisons. Unfortunately, it seems to be as easy to get drugs inside of prison as outside. In a new prison environment with proper procedures and scanning of visitors there is a chance to change this. It is easy for a prisoner to bring a supply of drugs into prison with him. Any person starting a prison sentence should be isolated for seven to ten days to ensure drugs are not passed from one prisoner to another.
The people living in the neighbourhood of Thornton Hall will have certain concerns about a prison being built, but that would be the case wherever a prison was sited. The Minister has taken a brave step and the price is reasonable. If this sale does not proceed, or if planning permission is refused or the development fails for some other reason, any Government will find it impossible to acquire a site of that scale for a prison anywhere in the country.
Without condemning the work of RTE, the "Prime Time" programme was selective. It did not track the full negotiations or the independent advice given to the Minister and the selection committee since the question of buying a greenfield site for a prison was initiated. That type of selective broadcasting by our national broadcaster is regrettable because it gives a slanted view rather than the fair and balanced view to which the public is entitled.
This Minister is the first Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to realise that the conditions in Mountjoy Prison and other prisons cannot be allowed to continue. The cost of keeping a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison is in the region of €100,000 per annum. Despite that expenditure conditions there are deplorable. Someone said they are more akin to those prevailing in the 19th century than to the 21st century, a view with which I concur.
The Minister's decision to proceed with this project is welcome and brave. In a decade when the job is done and the prison is built, like other projects condemned in the past, it will be regarded as a wise move.
I join my colleagues in sympathising with the Green Party on the death of its General Secretary. As someone who survived a heart attack I am always upset to hear of young people dying in that way. I offer my sympathy to Mr. Hamilton's family.
I am glad that Dáil business has resumed after the summer break. Nothing has changed. I read in the newspapers and heard on television about the exciting events that would happen yesterday on the resumption of sittings. The blood of Fianna Fáil backbenchers was to have been on the carpet but I am still waiting to see this. Nothing seems to have happened.
The Deputy was not in the House.
I was here.
The Deputy was the only one present for the fray. The rest of the Fianna Fáil Party was missing.
I thought Deputy O'Connor wanted only Deputy Conor Lenihan's blood.
It is always better to run away and fight another day.
Nothing has changed.
Deputy O'Connor should return to Private Members' business about the proposed new prison site at Thornton Hall.
The Minister had no back-up.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for protecting me from the rantings of the Opposition.
I listened to the debate and the Minister's speech last night very carefully. The Minister has dealt well with the issues raised in that regard.
He dealt with everything except the issue.
I have concerns about the future of the Prison Service. I speak not only as a public representative for a major population centre but as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. My colleagues on the committee include Deputies Costello and Jim O'Keeffe to whose wisdom I am always happy to listen.
We are all concerned about the antiquated prisons. I recently visited Wheatfield Prison at the invitation of two families. Whatever one might say about the need to deal with criminal justice, people being punished should serve their time in a decent humane environment where it is possible to run proper programmes to cater for their educational, physical and psychological needs. I do not have as much experience of visiting prisons as some of my colleagues but I hope the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights will take the opportunity to visit more prisons. That is important, as we said yesterday.
Wheatfield is an example of facilities as they should be for those who must spend some time in prison. Members have referred to drugs in prison. When I visited Wheatfield and spoke to the two young men with whom I spent some time I was profoundly struck by their wish to be housed in what they regarded as a drug-free landing. There are difficulties in that regard and we need to ensure that those who do not wish to use drugs have an opportunity to stay away from them.
Deputy O'Donovan covered the difficulties that exist for any community in which a prison has been located. I sympathise with the community group making their point about this; that is their democratic right. Mountjoy Prison, however, has outlived its use and must be replaced. We must provide state-of-the art facilities for prisoners to ensure that they serve out their sentences in a humane environment. That includes making provision for them to have visits with their families and so on.
I wish to spend a few moments on the proposals regarding the Central Mental Hospital. I do so as a long-serving member of the former Eastern Health Board and its successor, having first joined in 1994. I had the opportunity of visiting the Central Mental Hospital several times. It is not too dramatic to say that those of us who visited it on those occasions were always greatly shocked by what we saw. If it is true that Mountjoy has outlived its usefulness, there can be no question regarding the Central Mental Hospital.
I hope those proposals are being dealt with and that the proper consultation will take place. The Government, when it decided in principle in December 2004 to locate the new Central Mental Hospital on a site adjacent to the new prison, said it would be subject to further study. I hope the Minister can confirm that the study is under way.
We must remind ourselves that the Central Mental Hospital is a health facility and must be dealt with as such. I am glad the Government made a commitment at the time that it would remain in the ownership and control of the Department of Health and Children and would be managed by the Health Service Executive. It is very important that it be in place so the separation of the two facilities is understood. I do not know whether the Minister is able to provide assurances in that regard today, but we need continual reassurance. I hope that, as the process develops, the Minister will find a regular opportunity to keep the Dáil and its Members fully up to date with developments regarding the prison facility.
It is good that we have had this debate. Other colleagues have referred to television programmes, media coverage and so on. I will not go into that, except to say that ultimately the public will accept that Mountjoy must be replaced and that this proposal is worthy of implementation.
Táim an-bhuíoch den Leas-Cheann Comhairle as ucht an seans a thabhairt dom labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo.
As a member of the Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, I am by now well known as a vehement promoter of restorative justice, whereby offenders, particularly first-time offenders, are given the chance to make amends to their local community. As a founding member of the Nenagh community reparation project, I am very much in favour of keeping people out of prison and giving community members every chance to make amends to those offended against and better their lives outside a prison environment. However, one lives in the real world and knows it is not always possible. Unfortunately, in a prison environment people are removed from society in order to protect it from them. Ever greater efforts are made to help people by rehabilitating them on the inside, training them, upgrading their skills, and sometimes helping them become literate or improve their literacy skills. In some way, they must be prepared for a return to society and have as fulfilled a life as possible.
It is unfortunate that the issue of the Thornton site has developed in this way, but I hope that it is short-lived. Those of us who have visited Mountjoy agree that conditions there are not acceptable and have not been for a long time. There must be few prisons in the world by this stage where the practice of "slopping out" continues. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is to be commended on his efforts to address this. It is easy to talk about it, but to grasp the nettle and do something about it is another matter. The Minister is to be highly commended on his work, not only in Dublin but in areas such as Cork, where improvements are being made. I would be among the first to say that current psychiatric services in prisons are anything but adequate. Space and a proper environment for the training of prisoners willing to participate must be provided.
I am always suspicious of groups engaging with children and bringing them into protest movements. Yesterday I saw the protest outside the gates of Leinster House. I wonder why people take children out of school to participate in protests. In a democracy, they are more than entitled to do so, but children have no part in protests of any kind. Why they should engage children in this kind of protest is beyond me. We accept that prisons are needed. If Portlaoise were told tomorrow that its prison would close, there would be another protest, since it supports the local economy and provides jobs. The new prison will also, most importantly, provide proper state-of-the-art facilities, and that is only right.
In many Departments, we have been playing "catch up" relative to other European countries, where proper facilities in schools, prisons and elsewhere are already in place. This is a very serious attempt by the Minister to consider this most suitable site. One would think the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, made this decision alone. However, we know the committee was involved. When the announcement was made, local residents were asked to meet the director general and refused. Subsequently, they met him, which was welcome. Let us remind people that the planning process will enable the needs of members of the public and local residents to be taken into account in the development of the prison, and rightly so.
I commend the Minister on this. We have heard people say before that money has been wasted. The Opposition has absolutely no case whatsoever. I am still trying to remember whether it made any attempts at all to expand or improve facilities at Mountjoy. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this, and I wish we had more time to debate it more thoroughly. I commend the Minister once more on his initiative in this regard and also on his justified criticism of RTE and the economical relationship with the truth shown by its broadcasters, at which we are all disappointed.
Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Ó Snodaigh, Joe Higgins, Gregory, Finian McGrath, Murphy agus Healy.
The Green Party supports what might be termed the "Mullingar motion" regarding the siting of a prison in north County Dublin. It must be far more closely investigated than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, might like. Having listened to him last night, I almost thought he was in the Four Courts rather than Dáil Éireann and that he imagined RTE was in the dock. That will not wash in north County Dublin, since this is not merely a financial stroke by the Government but something of a political one, given the redrawing of the boundaries of Dublin North means the community around Thornton Hall, which has traditionally been in the constituency and looked to representatives there, will become part of Dublin West.
In the meantime, the Minister hopes to drive a coach and four through a considerable amount of information not to his liking. For example, he must face the intense suspicion that there is a great amount of real estate speculation here. After the Jury's sale, the value of such sites as Mountjoy, the Crumlin Central Mental Hospital, Shanganagh, Shelton Abbey and so on makes them lucrative and desirable for the many apartment-builders raising cranes above this city. Having visited Mountjoy and seen the women's prison, I feel it is absolute vandalism to suggest demolishing a prison of that standard, which has many of the facilities of which the Minister spoke. Much can be done to extend Portlaoise Prison and renovate Mountjoy, as well as looking more carefully at new sites, instead of playing poker with taxpayers' money as the Minister has done.
The community of Thornton will not stand for it. The Minister has underestimated his opposition in this matter. The irony of moving what is called the Central Mental Hospital to rural farm land is not lost on people. We all understand that many prison inmates have psychiatric illnesses. However, to put a central mental hospital adjacent to or on the same campus as a prison means one is effectively equating illness with crime.
Hear, hear.
The stigma this involves is something that cannot be tolerated and must be resisted in the interests of basic common decency and justice.
We must focus on the procurement procedure in this matter. It has been a reckless example of spending in the dark, which is a habit of this Government. First, the Prisons Bill 2005 has not been passed so we do not have a coherent prisons policy. When one considers the poor access to the site and the other serious shortcomings, the cost will be far in excess of that estimated by the Government. Already, six times the market value has been paid for the site.
Following last night's meeting of Fingal County Council, the site now has an architectural conservation order. This means the Government faces a negative equity of €24 million, effectively wasting taxpayers' money without even bothering to be accountable. Instead of the Minister with his courtroom contortions trying to mask his game of poker with taxpayers' money, he might turn his attention not only to the Comptroller and Auditor General but also to the complaint made by Councillor Joe Corr and I on behalf of the Green Party to the EU Commissioner for Environment, Mr. Stavros Dimas. This complaint states clearly, and has been taken seriously by the Commission, that the site has not undergone an environmental impact assessment. Such an assessment should be undertaken if the relevant directive is to be properly transposed. Instead, the site was exempted from planning permission and is similar in this regard to the Corrib pipeline fiasco. The Government is trying to get away with an inadequate planning procedure but it will not succeed.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le Páirtí an Lucht Oibre agus Fine Gael as ucht an rún seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Is trua é nár lorg siad tacaíocht ón bhFreasúra ar fad. Is scannal iomlán é seo, agus ba chóir go mbeimis ar fad gafa leis. Tiocfaidh an vóta, áfach, agus tacóimid leis an rún.
As far back as last March, I wrote to Deputy Noonan, Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, recommending an investigation into the agreed purchase of Thornton Hall. In February of this year, I asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, the basis on which a decision was made to locate the new prison at Thornton. He responded to the effect that advertisements were placed in the national media requesting persons to come forward with proposals for potentially suitable sites and that a departmental sub-committee was assigned to consider the offers.
What the Minister failed to mention in his reply was that according to a letter from the landowner in question, a letter he sent to local residents, a representative of the Government approached him wishing to make an offer on his farm. He stated he had never at any time considered putting the property on the market and he did not engage in the tendering process as outlined by the Minister.
Having considered the numerous concerns raised by the local community and the Minister's answers to my questions, it is my opinion that the Comptroller and Auditor General should immediately conduct a thorough investigation into this matter and produce a written report for the Oireachtas before the Minister for Finance gives his final sanction to the purchase of Thornton Hall. The concerns on which my opinion on this matter are based focus on the fact that Thornton Hall does not meet the criteria set down by the expert group. It was posited months after the published closing date and should not have been accepted as it had not gone through the tendering process. The site was evaluated in isolation and processed with extreme haste. It was purchased for six times the market value and the decision to purchase was based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information. No environmental impact study was undertaken and the selection criteria used were not clear and objective.
The committee's adviser overstepped his remit and there are serious concerns in regard to a possible conflict of interest and perhaps collusion in respect of this adviser, who is related to a Senator. The latter, Senator O'Toole, has a close connection to the landowner in question. Was the Senator present at the initial negotiation regarding these lands? Is it not odd that this adviser, Mr. Webster, was a guest at this year's Fianna Fáil fundraising tent at the Galway Races?
An expert group spent a year in deliberations only to discard all the sites it had considered and overrule its own previous decisions in opting for a new site, all at one meeting six months after the start of the tendering process. I stand by my previous assertion in this House that the manner in which the site at Thornton Hall was purchased stinks to high Heaven. I would go further and suggest it may even have been a corrupt deal.
I support this motion which simply requests that the Comptroller and Auditor General report on the transaction to acquire the site at Thornton Hall. However, the Government's amendment makes no mention of this basic request. The question must be asked as to why the Government refuses to agree to this simple and transparent request. We can only assume it is because it has something to hide.
While I accept it is unlikely that any property owner would sell a site for anything like the agricultural rate when it was already in the public domain that it was to be developed as a State prison and was being acquired for that purpose, this does not in any way excuse the grossly exorbitant price that was paid for it. Why not clear the air and allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the deal? That critical issue simply has not been answered by the Government. Its amendment seems designed to divert attention away from this central issue of the apparent squandering of public money by suggesting all of this was motivated by a belated interest in the welfare of prisoners.
Mountjoy Prison is in my constituency and I have visited it on many occasions and been incarcerated there twice. I fully accept the time is long overdue to provide a new prison with in-cell sanitation and modern facilities. It is clearly time to close Mountjoy Prison but it should be transferred to a location accessible to the families of prisoners, many of whom regrettably still come from inner city Dublin. The real scandal of our prisons is that the vast bulk of prisoners still come from socially disadvantaged communities. They are a constant reminder of the unequal and divided society that the mentality of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats has fostered.
I support the principle of building a new prison to replace Mountjoy. While I also support the relocation and construction of a modern central mental hospital, it is totally inappropriate to accommodate both on the same campus. There are few communities that would lobby for the location of such facilities on their doorstep. That these facilities were not put through the normal planning process means the location selected must stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny. Good planning must always start by asking whether a particular site is the right place to build. Following that, consultation must take place in regard to the infrastructure needed. This location fails miserably on both counts.
We have seen some recent examples of a flawed process leading to a flawed result. Inadequate testing of electronic voting machines and the flawed processes engaged in bringing gas offshore from the Corrib field are obvious examples. The failure of the relevant Ministers to listen objectively to criticism has led to a charge of arrogance. Instead of accelerating the delivery of projects, there have been costly delays and extra expenditure.
The price tag of €30 million is merely a starting point. Has there been a costing for the miles of land that must be acquired for the pipeline for water, sewerage and drains? Will the local authority find itself in the unenviable position of having to divert scarce resources from other services to pay for the upgrade of local and regional roads or will a precedent be set whereby the Exchequer picks up the tab? If so, what will be the cost?
Will the narrow and unsuitable roads become a headache for the security services, which must ensure that the prisoners arrive at the prison in safety? Has the location ever been considered from the point of view of prisoners' families? The public purse belongs to the public. Those who are charged with its spending carry the responsibility to make good decisions. Not all those decisions will be universally supported. Difficult but correct decisions are the business of good governance. The decision to locate the prison at Thornton Hall is a mistake. It will not stand up to scrutiny and must be reversed.
I support the motion, which asks the Comptroller and Auditor General to review and report to the Oireachtas on the procedure concerning the purchase of the land in question. I listened to Deputy Hoctor commend the Minister for his work in the area of justice. I would remind her of the 2,000 gardaí we were to have under the programme for Government, the absence of community gardaí in many towns and villages and the lack of CCTV installations around the country. I had to smile at her suggestion that the advice of residents should be listened to in these matters in light of the Ministers' address of last April, when he said:
I intend to develop a campus in north county Dublin for the purpose and I intend not to be deflected by people who produce notions of fairy ring forts in north county Dublin or architectural details of interest in city centre Dublin. I will not be deflected by all this guff.
These are hardly the remarks of a man who will consult residents openly and fairly. Last night, the Minister rounded on RTE and everyone else within the firing line.
The issue is not whether there should be a new prison. Clearly there should because we cannot continue the current situation in Mountjoy Prison. However issues arise in terms of accessibility for prisoners and their families, lack of infrastructure, costs and the procedures that were followed. Thornton Hall was not on the first list of 31 bids. It came into play late in the day and was agreed by means of a short process. The matter requires scrutiny and the Comptroller and Auditor General must scrutinise it. It is in everybody's interest that the report be produced.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important national issue. I commend the Rolestown and St. Margaret's action group for its work. I reject the criticism of the group. For a voluntary organisation, it has acted professionally and I strongly support it.
I am opposed to this prison. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, Deputy Ardagh, had a brass neck to put forward his position when he knows the project is ill thought out, a waste of taxpayers' money and a scandal. I am horrified that he did so. I reject the idea that €30 million of taxpayers' money can be spent on a farm valued at €4 million. The existence of a €26 million gap is an important national issue. I am currently facing difficulties in seeking a couple of million euro for my own constituency to provide services to the most disadvantaged people.
I understand and support the residents' reactions to the impact this development will have on their community, environment and heritage. These are legitimate concerns. Thornton Hall is unsuitable for the proposed development. The site does not meet the criteria of the Minister's expert group on the matter. It was chosen based on incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information, following a questionable procurement procedure. The deal represents bad value for taxpayers' money. I strongly support this motion and urge all Deputies to reject the Government's proposal.
The Minister's bad tempered attack on last night's "Prime Time" programme, which dealt with the purchase of lands at Thornton for six times the normal value of agricultural land in the area, was nothing more than a blatant attempt to avoid answering the key questions posed by the process of this purchase. The "Prime Time" programme went straight to the heart of the matter. What is the Minister afraid of? We simply want the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the spending of nearly €30 million of taxpayers' money to determine whether, as we suspect, it was done improperly. What is wrong with that? If the Minister is vindicated by the Comptroller, he can come here and strut his stuff, as he is so good at doing.
Important questions must be answered. Close to Christmas Eve, an estate agent who received an exorbitant fee spoke to an auctioneer. Fewer than three weeks after the end of the Christmas and New Year break, he brought that site for the first time to the expert committee meeting, which on foot of a preliminary examination of the site agreed to lash out nearly €30 million in taxpayers' funds. The Minister made much of the Clifton Scannell Emerson consultants' investigation of that site during the three weeks preceding the decision to purchase it. He is trying to use the consultants as a smokescreen. It was a preliminary investigation, as the same consultancy said two months later to the Prison Service, and not the type of detailed examination that will now be needed before the project goes ahead. The estate agent told the landowner that no more than €200,000 per acre would be paid. That is like telling him that he could successfully seek €199,999.99 per acre. It is an incredible scenario involving six times the agricultural value of the land.
I reject the false counter-posing of the need to move from or refurbish Mountjoy Prison. I, with Deputy Gregory, know what Mountjoy Prison is like. I was a guest there for a period. This motion addresses the process of the purchase of this land. The procedure trampled on the democratic rights of the local community, just as the people of Rossport, County Mayo, were trampled on in terms of the shoving through without consent of a pressure pipeline. From the point of view of prisoners' families, the location is completely wrong. It is in the middle of rural north County Dublin and lacks a proper public transport infrastructure. It is ludicrous.
I wish to share time with Deputy Durkan. Last night, the Minister entered the House in his usual bullying manner. The targets were not only the unfortunate residents of the area in which he wants to locate his super prison complex but RTE and the role of investigative journalism. The Minister was annoyed because he received a telephone call from RTE concerning the programme just as he was pulling on his wellington boots to attend the ploughing championships. As a Member of this House, the Minister's hero, Dessie O'Malley, was to the forefront of those seeking an inquiry into the beef industry. In his report on that issue, Judge Hamilton noted that, if the questions had been answered in the Dáil, the kind of cost the taxpayer has had to endure in regard to that tribunal and inquiry and all the subsequent tribunals and inquiries would not have been necessary. Yet when polite inquiries are made of the Minister, Deputy McDowell, in regard to how the taxpayer will have to pay extraordinary amounts of money for his pet development we are told we are not entitled to ask questions. Those who ask questions or who seek to defend their local interest are impugned and investigative journalists are to be the subject of an official complaint to the RTE authority. I presume the same Minister will complain also about Eddie Hobbs to the RTE authority for having the temerity to ask about the public purse being ripped off over and again by an incompetent Government. The simple solution to the Minister's threat in regard to the RTE authority is to accede to the modest motion by Fine Gael and Labour to have the Comptroller and Auditor General, a competent authority and independent public servant protected by the Constitution, look at the murky goings on that led to the purchase of this site at approximately five times its estimated value.
Since the Progressive Democrats party became part of the current Government, it has had a policy of selling off State assets. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, is giving private hospital lands to consultants. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has already disposed of a number of prison sites and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, is apparently selling and buying land in 70 different locations throughout the country. The Progressive Democrats party is in the business of buying and selling property in a big way. The real problem is that it has lost the run of itself.
In his contribution I heard Deputy O'Connor say Wheatfield is a model modern prison. I do not know how many times he has visited that prison. It is a modern prison but is he aware that many of its prisoners would prefer to go back to Mountjoy because the level of drug abuse in Wheatfield is so great? Families whose young people are sentenced to jail there are more terrified than in regard to Mountjoy of the eventual outcome if they are not already drug abusers. Of course the male wing of Mountjoy needs to be replaced but the Wheatfield Prison complex, overseen by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform at vast cost to the State and for which the Minister is responsible, is a disgrace in any modern country in terms of drug abuse. All that expenditure has led to a prison that is overrun with drugs.
The decision to close the women's prison, which cost €30 million to build, is a retrograde step in terms of Irish penal policy. There was a lobby for many years that women prisoners, many of whom come from the city centre, should be able to maintain contact with their families and, particularly, their children. The same regime should apply to male prisoners but in the case of women it has been seen as particularly necessary that this should happen. The women's prison which has gained plaudits around Europe will be transferred to a prison farm located on the far side of the M50 which has one bus service per day from Garristown and another home in the evening. That is the public transport provision.
The Minister chose to scoff at the environmental and archaeological heritage of the Killsallaghan, Rolestown and St. Margaret's area. I commend the work done by the various residents' associations and, particularly, by Dr. Mark Clinton, who is a recognised national expert on archaeology. The Minister may choose to believe there are no significant archaeological remains in the area. As with much of what he talks about, the Minister does not know what he is talking about. I declare an interest here in that I am a member of Fingal Walkers. I have had the pleasure of walking this site on many occasions in recent years. The breadth of archaeological heritage which exists in the area is of an extraordinary richness and variety. The Minister considers that because of the exemption in our planning laws in the area of security and prison facilities in the interests of the State that he is above and beyond planning legislation. Down the road the European Union and the courts will have something to say on that issue.
I shall give another familiar scenario. The Minister chooses a site and does not listen to any advice about its appropriateness or unsuitability, the environmental regulations are ignored and yet the time will come when the EU or the Irish courts will tap the Minister or his successor on the shoulder and say it cannot be done. The Minister chooses to ignore that risk.
Having been a member of Fingal County Council and having represented the area I wish to speak on the Fingal development plan. Fingal has two major towns and Meath has another major town within a short distance of the site. There is the whole Dublin 15 Blanchardstown-Castleknock area on one side, Ashbourne in Meath four or five miles away and Swords to the east. In the Fingal development plan this area was to remain properly as an agricultural area and its position in the development plan, in view of its archaeology, was to be enhanced and protected by the various planning mechanisms open under the planning laws. If there are 90,000 people in Blanchardstown and a projected 50,000 to 70,000 in Swords and a rapidly growing population in Ashbourne, what happens in regard to planning where we are meant to have agricultural green spaces, places for golf clubs, and places for leisure between our new towns?
If the prison complex is developed it is inevitable the area will be developed intensively. If this development went to a town such as Carlow, it would be the equivalent of three sugar factories. Carlow recently lost hundreds of jobs following the closure of the sugar factory. At least Carlow is on the railway line and people who want to visit would have some access. However, that issue does not appear to have been considered by the Minister. In his arrogance the Minister has decided that planning in the north county and Fingal area and in Meath is a meaningless process that he can decide to ignore.
We want sustainable communities in north and west County Dublin. The Minister does not visit the northside or the westside of the city often. He cannot give us sufficient members of the Garda Síochána to patrol Blanchardstown and Swords. Instead he wants to dump on the area and destroy any kind of strategic planning framework for the development of towns in the area and ride roughshod over the legacy of architecture, archaeology and heritage that exists in the area. I hope the courts and the European Union will take a longer term view of what sustainable, balanced planning and development should be in the area.
I turn to the issue of value for money. This prison site has already cost an extraordinary amount of money. The process by which the request for the prison site was advertised was truly extraordinary. I cannot understand the late intervention by which the site was parachuted in over a very short period to become the selected site at an absolutely extortionate price. The Minister can bluster and threaten RTE and other journalists all he likes but he has questions to answer because he carries responsibility for this. This is the man who gets a free run on Pat Kenny's radio show at almost any time.
That is right.
He seems to have an open line to Pat Kenny's radio programme. Therefore, if the Minister wants to appear on RTE, I am quite sure that, as he has done so often before, Pat Kenny will give him another two, three or four hours in which to do so. He seems to have a regular slot on the show.
The Minister can threaten RTE all he likes but the fact remains that he has questions to answer. The project is ill conceived and ill thought out. We will throw away the €30 million we spent on developing the women's prison at Mountjoy as well as the many millions that were spent on improvements to the juvenile institution there.
Should this new prison be developed, the road infrastructure in the area is entirely inadequate. I represent a constituency where I deal with new developments monthly but the Government's rule on infrastructure is to build the item first, whether it be a house, factory or prison. If one marches and shouts long enough in protest a few facilities will be thrown in after ten years. Tell the people of Ashbourne about it because they have been waiting for their bypass for about 15 years. It has been promised every year for the past eight years of this Government.
Residents in the area earmarked for the new prison are right to feel concerned that their traditional homes in areas such as St. Margaret's, Kilsallaghan, Rolestown, Corrstown, and their entire way of life, will be changed forever. They will be left in the middle of a vast development site for which the infrastructure will take ten to 20 years to catch up. There is no evidence that the Minister considered any serious alternatives.
Does the Minister accept the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General who has the power to examine not just previous expenditure but the key question of value for money? The question facing us on Thornton Hall concerns the cost of what is to be forgone in Mountjoy, together with the costs that have been paid already for the site and the cost of developing the complex to the scale envisaged, including a prison hospital.
The Comptroller and Auditor General has a remit to examine value for money issues so he is an appropriate person to carry out such an examination. Two days ago a report was published by the Comptroller and Auditor General on Government overspending fiascoes. One small item in the report only merited a paragraph and concerned the €500,000 wasted on a new computer system for staff records in the prison service. In the scale of waste involved that sum did not merit much mention in the newspapers. We are now being asked to repeat that error by a possible factor of 100. I hope the Minister of State will accede to the motion.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in support of this motion which carries within its terms the basic parameters for public procurement. No Minister in any Government should be afraid to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine such proposals before the money is spent. This is particularly so to protect the Minister's integrity and that of his Department, as well as ensuring that there will be no repetition of the electronic voting fiasco. We should recall the sequence of events concerning the latter case. Both the Minister of the day and his successor were warned repeatedly about the consequences of introducing electronic voting. We now have a situation where taxpayers, unwittingly and through no fault of their own, must foot the bill for Government incompetence and lack of ministerial foresight and accountability. That is unlikely to change.
Yesterday in the House, we had the spectacle of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform being indignant that the "Prime Time" programme did not give the slant he felt it should have given. Who is he to judge? I notice he is missing from the Chamber now. Possibly, he is on the way down to Montrose——
Going on the Pat Kenny show.
——mounted on a white charger like Don Quixote, tilting his lance at one of the pylons. We know what happened to Don Quixote. I note, however, that the same Minister has not voiced any objection to the number of occasions on which Ministers are accommodated by soft interviews on RTE, as if it were their toy. It is the national broadcasting station which is there for everybody and is not the preserve of Government. RTE should not be at the Government's beck and call.
Like a number of others in this House, many years ago I had occasion to examine Mountjoy Prison from the inside, having been a customer there for a while. In fact, I even spent one night next door to the death cell, although I do not know whether that was indicative of things to come. I was certainly there, however.
Was it as a prisoner?
Absolutely.
More convicts in the House.
Mountjoy should have been replaced 40 years ago and it certainly needs to be replaced now. In doing so, the Government should take account of best practice. The Minister should recognise that he is not spending his money or that of the Government but the taxpayers' money. The Minister should also recognise that the procedures involved should be in accordance with current best practice. The basic requirement in this situation is the one incorporated in the motion whereby the Comptroller and Auditor General could examine all the procedures relating to the acquisition. If the Comptroller and Auditor General says it is fine then let us proceed, but he should have the opportunity of examining the details. Let us have a professional opinion on such matters following which it is to be hoped we will at least know what is in store.
In the course of the economic boom in recent years, there have been countless overruns and overspends which have all been bemoaned after the fact. This has occurred in almost every area, including electronic voting, the Luas, the M50, the Red Cow roundabout and the port tunnel. The latter project will not take the traffic it was intended to cope with, so people are now trying to figure out how lorries will access the tunnel to get to the port. We should examine the procedures concerning such projects beforehand to be happy that they represent value for money. The Houses of the Oireachtas should know where the Government stands before we go any further.
I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this matter. We have consistently heard criticism from Opposition Deputies of delays in implementing infrastructural projects. Social commentators are forever banging on at us about the lack of so-called joined-up Government. Despite this, when the Minister, Deputy McDowell, presses forward with a bold initiative to replace the 155 year old, outmoded and inefficient design that is Mountjoy with a modern, efficient prison complex, the chattering classes rush to condemn him.
When the Government moves decisively to ensure prisoners are kept in humane conditions and have access to facilities, including psychiatric facilities that will assist in their rehabilitation, we are berated for recklessness and undue haste. How many more years would the Opposition parties have us wait before we take action to alleviate the shameful conditions that have resulted in persistent calls to replace Mountjoy?
The independent Irish Prisons Board, chaired by businessman Brian McCarthy, strongly urged the Minister not to attempt a refit at Mountjoy Prison but to go the replacement route which we are now rolling out with the acquisition of Thornton Hall.
Redeveloping the existing 20-acre site at Mountjoy Prison is neither financially viable, at an estimated cost of in excess of €400 million, nor practical from an operational or developmental perspective. Trying to fix Mountjoy Prison now would be like re-wiring a house with the lights still on. However, we have had calls from Opposition Deputies to do just that. Where would we put the 1,000 or so prisoners we hold there in the interim? Would we keep them all living on a building site? Where is the value for money in that? The development of a greenfield site at the 150-acre site at Thornton means that we will have the room to develop new facilities, introduce single person cells with in-cell sanitation and end the medieval practice of slopping out every morning and after every lock up period through the day. Deputies will readily appreciate that the size of the Thornton site gives us considerable flexibility in developing new facilities as well as allowing us plan for the future.
Contrary to the assertion of the Deputies opposite that we are wasting taxpayers' money, the Prison Service estimates that by replacing the Mountjoy Prison complex with a new prison complex at Thornton we should achieve operational savings of €30 million to €40 million each year. This represents more than the total cost of the site in one year's savings. In addition, the proceeds from the disposal of the site at Mountjoy Prison, in the region of €60 million to €90 million, will offset to a considerable degree the cost of the new development at Thornton. The acquisition of the site also means that the Mountjoy site will be available for development of a variety of facilities. This would undoubtedly rejuvenate the whole area around Mountjoy, and would benefit the local community. Surely Deputies across the floor should welcome this. One Deputy who represents the area, Deputy Costello, should consult his constituents on their preferences in this respect.
Is the Minister of State referring to the Comptroller and Auditor General? I would love to see him involved.
In response to the Deputy's colleague's claims, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as he said in his speech, has no difficulty with the Comptroller and Auditor General carrying out a review, which he will do in due course.
He will only do so after the event.
In that case is the Minister of State supporting us?
In examining the accounts of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Comptroller and Auditor General is free to carry out such a review at any stage and it is not a matter for the Minister. The Minister stated that he has no difficulty about this happening at any time.
In that case will the Government agree to our motion?
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is to be congratulated. Time will prove this to be one of his best decisions as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
It will be a bit like the decision of the Minister of State on Mayo.
The Opposition has made outrageous claims in this debate. Deputy Ó Snodaigh asserted that the procedures followed "may even have been a corrupt deal". I utterly refute that suggestion. I ask the Deputy to withdraw his unfounded allegation.
I will not.
It is typical of the type of politics the Deputy represents.
It is not typical; it is fact. I have been proved right on other matters. Of all the corrupt practices in which Fianna Fáil-led governments have been involved over many years——
The Deputy should allow the Minister of State to speak without interruption.
The Minister of State addressed his remarks to me and I am responding.
The Deputy will have to sit and take it.
I do not have to sit and take anything.
The Deputy had his opportunity earlier.
It is typical of the type of politics the Deputy represents.
I am glad it is not the politics of the Minister of State which is to throw away natural resources.
On behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, I refute the suggestion that a corrupt deal was done in this case.
The Minister of State does not need to refute it. It is corrupt.
The Minister made it quite clear in his speech that he deliberately adopted an open process in seeking a site to replace Mountjoy.
It was breached from start to finish.
The minutes of the selection committee setting out the procedures followed were made public on the Department's website.
They proved me right.
If the Deputy had any sense of responsibility he would withdraw his allegation, which he should not have made in the first place.
I will not withdraw it. The Minister of State has just proved me right.
I have spent many hours over my years in this House seeking to explain why we have not been able to progress major projects to serve the public good. I find it ironic to be here today explaining why we are pressing ahead with a long overdue much needed capital project. However, Opposition Deputies want to put a stop to this very urgent and worthwhile project.
We want to stop it proceeding on this site.
I commend the amendment to the House.
In trying to justify his €30 million purchase of the Thornton Hall farm, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform treated the Dáil to a typical mixture of bluff, bluster and bravado. The high point of his speech — perhaps I should call it the low point — was his attack on RTE. In many ways this was a typical response of the Government in general and the Progressive Democrats in particular. When inconvenient facts are disclosed, the reaction is to shoot the messenger, which was the reaction of the Minister last night. The Government had the same reaction when Eddie Hobbs's television programme produced some inconvenient facts for the Government. Again it made an attack on RTE.
What about Fine Gael and the——
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is a master manipulator of the media. It is well and good if he can get away it. However, he should know that in a democratic society a line exists between manipulation and control. He has attempted to cross this line. The "Prime Time" programme has already given him his answers. It is now clear that the Minister refused to appear on RTE. He has been given the opportunity and he still has the opportunity. Incidentally he also refused to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to answer questions on the matter. On the other hand he had no problem appearing in the House and giving his speech last night.
He refused to appear on "Morning Ireland" this morning.
He has used the sub judice rule to excuse his non-appearance either before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights or on RTE to answer questions on the issue. There is a contradiction here. My interpretation of the rule is that if an issue before the courts is also being debated in this House, at a committee or elsewhere, one should deal with the issue in a restrained way and one is quite entitled to deal with the issue provided one uses careful language and a measured approach. I will leave objective observers to decide whether the speech of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform fitted within the category of being a measured reaction.
In his speech, the Minister admitted that RTE had done extensive research and had unearthed all the information. Is he now trying to suggest that only his version of events can be published or broadcast? He is using his attack on RTE and his attack on everybody else last night, including me — I do not take any notice of the rubbish coming from him — to deflect attention from his deficiencies and inadequacies in this transaction. He has essentially been caught in the corner. As he has awkward facts to explain, he just hits out at everybody including RTE. The default position of the Progressive Democrats on any issue is to shoot the messenger. After all the bluster and ranting is over, the Minister still must face the bare facts. It is rather like what Winston Churchill noted after the war: the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone were still there. He paid five times the market value for this farm. That fact remains. The Minister bought what I have called and will continue to call the dearest farm in Europe. We are not talking about any change with regard to Mountjoy but about the appalling waste of taxpayers' money in spending €30 million on a farm worth no more than €5 million or €6 million, and paying that for a prison site which turns out to be entirely unsuitable.
We will look at the question of cost, an issue which the Government has been trying to avoid. In terms of value for the taxpayer, this was a crazy transaction. Any property experts to whom I have spoken and who are involved in that area or adjoining areas said they were stunned by the amount of money paid by the Minister for the site. He was buying a farm — agricultural land. He did not have to get planning permission. The land did not need to have development potential of any kind. Zoning did not matter, nor did anything else. The Minister was supposed to get a suitable site at a reasonable cost. He got neither.
The Minister has attempted to use the process and explain through it that he did a great job. In the speeches delivered, much reference was made to the deficiencies in that process, and clearly such deficiencies existed. A farm was introduced at the end of the day, virtually at the last minute, dropped down from the clouds, so to speak, and within eight working days the sale was rushed through, accepted, put through Cabinet and contracted by the Minister.
The Minister cannot say that the process produced the result and that as a consequence he can justify this outrageous waste of public money. The process was irregular, but it was the Minister who set it up. If the process produced a bad result, he is also responsible. He will say he had to be open with everyone in the way he did business, that the matter had to be publicly advertised and so on. With whom was the Minister open? In the end, he was open only with the vendor, before whom he waved a crock of gold, and the vendor's advisers. At the same time, the Minister took great care to ensure that nobody else in the area or the community would have the slightest idea as to what he was about. If this project goes ahead it is those people and the coming generations who will suffer the consequences. They were not to be told what was happening. Where is the openness and transparency in that approach?
With regard to the process and the cost, the Minister is indicted on all fronts. He does not have an answer to the basic question why he paid five or six times the value of the farm. If any of us wished to buy a farm, would we do that? In my legal days I bought farms for many clients and I would not engage the Minister to do the job. There are many agents in the area involved. One would check the current market value with the agents in the area. One would check availability and take reasonable steps to ensure one was getting what one wanted. Nothing of that kind was done in this case. What happened took place with unseemly haste. It was rushed through at the last minute and there is no way of avoiding that. It was a disgracefully hurried decision in a situation where a preferred site was apparently back on the market, a site which was far superior and had been carefully examined by the committee.
The Minister talks about price per acre but the Coolquay site was clearly superior. It had access and development potential. Per acre it was a more expensive site, but I am not complaining about the price per acre because the site was suitable. The Minister has the duty — as has every member of Government — to get value for money and pay market value, no more or less. This did not happen in this case.
We have also ended up overpaying enormously for a site which clearly is unsuitable. That is becoming increasingly obvious. The suggestion has been made that the site was properly checked in advance, with the names of engineers and surveyors touted around by way of support. I have gone to the trouble of looking at the site search survey produced by these eminent people and everything I read in it confirms that going ahead with the purchase at the time was absolutely foolish.
The survey begins by telling us that the Thornton Hall site was 155 acres. No explanation has been given for purchasing just 150 acres. This reason is that the five acres zoned for rural cluster development were the only valuable part of that farm. No explanation has been given as to why the only valuable five acres out of 155 suddenly disappeared off the scene over a 24-hour period. The Minister did not even mention this.
The report goes on to say that a detailed survey of the site together with a geophysical and archaeological study would be required to finalise a decision on suitability. Why was this not done before the decision was made? This was a good report and everything it said about road access indicated enormous problems ahead. It noted there was no sewerage service for the land. It also looked at the issues of water, electricity and gas supplies and in all cases pointed out the difficulties and problems involved. The report ends by advising further investigation by means of bore holes and notes that such investigation could not be completed prior to the completion of the report.
Everything in the report tells us that this transaction should not have gone ahead in the manner it did. If one looks at the situation, coupled with the decision of Fingal County Council yesterday to designate the vicinity involved as an architectural conservation area, an ACA, one wonders what will ever happen in terms of a prison development on the site.
Regarding what has been referred to as the Mullingar motion, the Fine Gael-Labour motion, the bottom line is that major concerns have been raised about this site transaction and the public is entitled to have those concerns addressed. I fully accept that when Deputy Costello or I raise such concerns, people may legitimately say that we are in Opposition and that is our job. However, our motion is not intended as a means of utterly condemning the Minister, although at first sight of what has happened, it should be. We are restrained in what we are doing. Our motion is effectively neutral. We are simply calling for an independent examination of the transaction. Why does the Minister reject this approach? What has he to hide? That is the issue before the House and for the public.
The Minister said this is a bizarre proposal, complete nonsense with no basis in law or reality. I have no respect for the Minister's business sense but I have some for his legal knowledge. However, at this stage I am beginning to doubt that too, because the provision permitting the Oireachtas to request the Comptroller and Auditor General to conduct a report goes back to 1923, the foundation of the State. Those who founded the State had the foresight to include a provision in section 7 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act to allow this procedure to be followed. The Minister is therefore quite incorrect when he says this proposal has no basis in law or reality. It is based on the Comptroller and Auditor-General Act 1923, as amended.
That then gives rise to the central and major issue. What has the Government to hide? Why will the Minister not allow an independent audit of this transaction? He tries to defend the indefensible. He is not at this stage prepared to allow the Dáil ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the transaction. He wants to leave it for 12 months, when the deal will be done and dusted and nothing can be done to question it. The approach of the Government and the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is very simple. Effectively, he is asking the Dáil to endorse an approach which involved paying five times the value for this farm to acquire a site which it transpires is utterly unsuitable for the purpose for which it was purchased.
On that basis, I ask the House to accept the very reasonable Fine Gael-Labour Party motion and to reject the Government amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Power, Peter.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Power, Peter.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Neville and Stagg.
Question declared carried.